On the recordJune 16, 2011
This amendment really ought to be a no- brainer. It cuts $11 million from the USDA Wildlife Services' livestock protection program. Let me give you four reasons why this should be a no-brainer. First of all, it saves $11 million. Not the end of the world, but it's a start. We all know we have to save a lot of money. We all know we have to spend less money, and this is a start for doing it. Now why does it do that? Why do we cut $11 million from this? This program is taxpayer money used to kill potential predators that supposedly are threatening livestock. But this killing of predators is very indiscriminate. We're killing all kinds of wildlife out there, both predators and nonpredators, both threatening and nonthreatening. Third, less than 1 percent of livestock in America is killed by predators every year. So we're spending this money for a tiny, tiny portion of the livestock that is out there. And fourth--and this is almost the biggest reason--why are taxpayers paying this? Why is this a taxpayer responsibility? If ranchers want to protect their livestock, why don't they do it? Why don't they pay for it? Madam Chair, there are so many ways to protect these livestock--with pens and with fencing, with lighting, with all kinds of things--without indiscriminately killing wildlife and without using taxpayer money to do it. Madam Chair, this is $11 million we can save, should save, and will save if this amendment is approved. I yield back the balance of my time.
