THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The purpose of the provision being challenged here tonight is to first, protect the lives of literally thousands of both commercial and recreational fishermen who live and work in the Outer Banks, and second, to protect the livelihoods of those fishermen, their boats
[Page: S7365] GPO's PDF
So let's be clear about what's at stake in this debate. We're talking about saving lives and saving a way of life for many of thousands of fine decent people trying to make a living providing fine, fresh seafood.
Wayne Gray, a Coast Guard officer stationed at the base there told me, ``Oregon Inlet is a nightmare. In my 32 years in the Coast Guard, it's the most dangerous place I've ever seen.''
The Coast Guard station there receives on average a distress call every other day. In this fiscal year alone, the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard has responded to nearly 100 call for help by distressed seamen. There will be many more this summer, I'll promise you: There always are.
Over the years, more than 20 lives have been lost because of the deadly situation in the Inlet. In fact, I recently received a letter from a man named Robbie Maharaj who recounted an incident which happened about 4 years ago.
In November of 1996 a friend and I were fishing on the northern side of the ocean bar at Oregon Inlet. It was a fairly rough day at the bar.
We had caught out limit of striped bass and were pulling in our lines when I heard on the radio that some of my friends had gone down. I immediately finished pulling up my lines and went to help.
As I pulled up to the boat, I was able to get one man aboard. We laid him on the deck. He was so cold from being in the water that he looked pale, and almost dead. As we got him on deck, water began to break over the stern of my boat. I had to leave the scene to avoid going down myself.
All in all, four of the five men in the water made it. I was able to get two in my boat. Other fishermen pulled out the two other survivors. the Coast Guard got the one man that didn't make it.
People ask me all the time whether I would do it again. There's no question that I would try and pull men out of the water if I were faced with the same situation again. It's sort of a buddy system out there. You hear cries for help and you can't leave them there. You've got to try to help. This is especially true when the people yelling for help are friends. Who knows, the next time it could be me yelling to be saved.
Thanks to the events of 1996, I know just how dangerous Oregon Inlet can be. Senator, thank you for trying to get the stabilization effort moving. We really need it.
The provision in question merely transfers the land relevant to the project from the Department of the Interior to the Army Corps of Engineers, so that the wheels of the inlet stabilization project can finally begin. This project is sound. Almost one hundred separate studies have been made on the project; therefore, we can reasonably say that just about every possible issue relevant to the project has been thoroughly considered and resolved.
On an economic scale, the project has a cost/benefit ratio of 1.0/1.6, meaning for every $1 spent on the project, $1.60 in benefits are returned.
As for the environmental concerns that have been raised, the Corps has made numerous compromises and alterations to the jetties in order to alleviate every single negative impact upon the local habitat and wildlife.
How many more lives will be lost before Congress makes good on the commitment made 30 years ago. That time has finally come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce to all Senators we are only 2 or 3 minutes away from getting a managers' package of amendments to wrap up the final consideration of this bill. We also have some colloquies and statements that Senators have presented to us during the final stages of the consideration of the bill we are now reviewing and processing. I expect to be able to present for unanimous consent agreement, for inclusion in the RECORD, these statements and colloquies.
We know of no other amendments that are to be offered.
May I ask the Chair, what is the pending business?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, can we have a vote on the amendment, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Montana has not yet been disposed of.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3981) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we have been awaiting word from the minority staff of the subcommittee to clear the managers' package. We have cleared the managers' package on this side of the aisle. We have statements and colloquies relating to the managers' package, and I will momentarily send up all of the amendments and the statements and colloquies related thereto.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if we can have a voice vote on final passage.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to passing the bill on a voice vote.
AMENDMENTS NOS. 3982 THROUGH 4014, EN BLOC
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now have an indication that the managers' package has been cleared. I send the managers' package of amendments to the desk and ask that they be reported en bloc and considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. COCHRAN], for himself and Mr. KOHL, proposes amendments numbered 3982 through 4014, en bloc.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 3982
On page 20, line 8, strike the ``.'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``: Provided further, That not less than $1 million of the funds available under this heading made available for wildlife services methods development, the Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct pilot projects in no less than four states representative of wildlife predation of livestock in connection with farming operations for direct assistance in the application of non-lethal predation control me thods: Provided further, That the General Accounting Office shall report to the Committee on Appropriations by November 30, 2001, on the Department's compliance with this provision and on the effectiveness of the non-lethal measures.''.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Smith-Boxer amendment on Wildlife Services was accepted to the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Our amendment will create a pilot study in four States that will examine the effectiveness of nonlethal predation control me thods under Wildlife Services. Our amendment is reasonable and fair.
Let me briefly talk about the lethal predator co ntrol pr ogram administered under the Wildlife Service program.
With our scarce tax dollars, Wildlife Services personnel kill more than 80,000 mammalian predators a year, mainly coyotes, but also black bears, mountain lions, foxes, and bobcats.
They conduct this killing by engaging in aerial gunning, poisoning, and trapping.
Since 1993, there have been 18 aerial gunning crashes. In addition, the aerial gunning program has caused the deaths of seven individuals, both Federal and contract employees.
Banned in 89 nations because it is so inhumane, leghold traps catch any animal unlucky enough to trigger the device. Animals caught in traps languish and suffer for days, sometimes resorting to twisting off or chewing off a leg to escape its vice grip.
I am not standing before you today saying that every program that Wildlife Services executes is harmful or a waste of taxpayer money.
[Page: S7366] GPO's PDF
There are some valuable programs dealing with property protection, human health and safety, crop protection, natural resources, forest and range protection, and aquiculture which are not affected by this amendment.
However, Wildlife Services spends more than $10 million a year on lethal predator co ntrol pr ograms.
But does the lethal predator co ntrol pr ogram really work? It does not seem to be controlling the coyote population, it has tripled in number and increased in range because
the surviving coyotes will breed more often and produce larger litters.
In fact, according to a recent article in the Washington Times, coyotes have now spread to Virginia and Maryland.
In addition, this program has been under scrutiny for decades. Several presidential commissions, including commissions in the Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter administrations have criticized the program's needless reliance on lethal predator co ntrol. < p> In 1995, the General Accounting Office came to the same conclusion, stating the Animal Damage Control ha d failed to opt for non-lethal programs.
I am well aware that ranchers need to protect their livestock, their investment. During the last 2 decades, there have been a variety of practical and effective nonlethal husbandry techniques developed and put into practical use: The use of guard animals, such as dogs, donkeys, or llamas; the use of electronic sound and light devices; predator ex clusion fencing; shed lambing; and night penning, et cetera.
By deploying these techniques, ranchers can minimize the need for lethal responses to predators, which are indiscriminant and cruel to animals.
In closing I would like to read you a quote from the Tulsa World newspaper, which says it all:
Despite steady increases in the Wildlife Services annual budget, and an 8 percent increase in the coyote kill in the past decade, livestock losses to predators have not declined. The statistics show that in every state where predator co ntrol wa s practiced, the agency spent more money on control th an the value of livestock lost. It would be cheaper simply to compensate ranchers for their losses.
I will repeat that last sentence: ``It would be cheaper simply to compensate ranchers for their losses.''
In short, the lethal predator co ntrol pr ogram doesn't work, it is dangerous for humans, cruel to animals, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I thank the managers of the bill for including this pilot study of nonlethal predator co ntrol me thods in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their assistance in adding an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services Research Center to design and implement on-the-ground demonstration projects to test the application of non-lethal mammalian predator co ntrol te chniques.
The purpose of this amendment is to generate data that can be used in determining the effectiveness of non-lethal methods for protecting livestock from predators. These nonlethal methods include: the use of guard animals such as dogs, donkeys, and llamas; the use of predator-pr oof electric fencing; special light and sound deterrents; and promotion of sound animal husbandry techniques such as carcass removal, night penning, and shed lambing to protect pregnant animals and their newborns when they are most vulnerable.
Lethal predator co ntrol me asures, such as shooting, poisoning, or trapping, should not be employed in these projects. In order to produce useful outcomes, the pilot projects should involve ranchers whose circumstances are representative of the types of livestock/predator co nflicts that other ranchers experience around the country.
The General Accounting Office has been tasked with reporting on these pilot projects and providing an assessment of the effectiveness of these non-lethal mammalian predator co ntrol me asures. I look forward to working with the Department, along with Senator SMITH and my other colleagues, to ensure that this program gets underway quickly and smoothly to begin demonstrating the value of these non-lethal predator co ntrol me thods.
AMENDMENT NO. 3983
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``SEC. . Section 2111(a)(3) of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 651(a)(3)) is amended by adding after sulfites, `except in the production of wine,'.''.
--
AMENDMENT NO. 3984
On page 75, after line 16 insert the following:
``SEC. . None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to require an office of the Farm Service Agency that is using FINPACK on May 17, 1999, for financial planning and credit analysis, to discontinue use of FINPACK for six months from the date of enactment of this Act.''
--
AMENDMENT NO. 3985
On page 93 of division B, as modified, after line 21, insert the following:
``SEC. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sea Island Health Clinic located on Johns Island, South Carolina, shall remain eligible for assistance and funding from the Rural Development community facilities programs administered by the Department of Agriculture until such time new population data is available from the 2000 Census.''.
--
AMENDMENT NO. 3986
On page 34, line 23, before the period at the end, insert the following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made available for watershed and flood prevention activities, $500,000 shall be available for a study to be conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the town of Johnston, Rhode Island, on floodplain management for the Pocasset River, Rhode Island''.
--
AMENDMENT NO. 3987
On page 36, lines 20 through 25, Strike ``including grants for drinking and waste disposal systems pursuant to Section 306C of such Act: Provided further, That the Federally Recognized Native American Tribes are not eligible for any other rural utilities program set aside under the Rural Community Advancement Program:'' and insert ``of which (1) $1,000,000 shall be available for rural business opportunity grants under section 306(a)(11) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)), (2) $5,000,000 shall be available for community facilities grants for tribal college improvements under section 306(a)(19) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)19)), (3) $15,000,000 shall be available for grants for drinking water and waste disposal systems under section 306C of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1926c) to federally recognized Native American Tribes that are not eligible to receive funds under any other rural utilities program set-aside under the rural community advancement program, and (4) $3,000,000 shall be available for rural business enterprise grants under section 310B(c) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)):''.
--
AMENDMENT NO. 3988
On page 84, line 23, after ``section'', insert the following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made available by this section, up to $40,000,000 may be used to carry out the Pasture Recovery Program: Provided further, That the payments to a producer made available through the Pasture Recovery Program shall be no less than 65 percent of the average cost of reseeding''.
--
AMENDMENT NO. 3989
On page 95, after line 22, add the following new section:
SEC. . None of the funds made available in this Act or in any other Act may be used to recover part or all of any payment erroneously made to any oyster fisherman in the State of Connecticut for oyster losses under the program established under section 1102(b) of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(a) of Division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)), and the regulations issued pursuant to such section 1102(b).
[Page: S7367] GPO's PDF
--
AMENDMENT NO. 3990
On page 17, line 1 strike ``; and'' and insert ``; and for the Oregon State University Agriculture Extension Service, $176,000 for the Food Electronically and Effectively Distributed (FEED) website demonstration project; and''; line 8, strike ``$12,107,000'' and insert ``$12,283,000'' and strike ``$426,505,000'' and insert ``$426,680,000''; on line 19, strike ``$43,541,000'' and insert ``$43,365,000''; on line 25, strike ``6,000,000'' and insert ``$5,824,000''.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents