Charles W. Stenholm: “Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my two colleagues had the opportunity to correct their amendment from yesterday that would…”

“Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my two colleagues had the opportunity to correct their amendment from yesterday that would have cut $21 million or 53 percent of this program. We are now going to be discussing and revoting in the full House, the $10 million cut, which is 25 percent of the budget, of Wildlife Services. In spite of the assurances of the gentleman from New Hampshire, each of my colleagues now have a letter from Secretary Glickman who is responsible for administering this program all over the United States, stating that it makes no difference whether it is $10 million, a 25 percent cut, or $21 million, a 53 percent cut, it will have a very devastating effect on other than nonlethal predator control. It is much more than that. This is another example when Members attempt to do some very logical and, from their perspective, needed corrections to an agricultural appropriation bill. If you do not fully have knowledge of what is actually happening out in your various States, you will have unintended consequences. Wildlife Services is a cooperative program where local entities partner with USDA and APHIS to jointly pay for wildlife management. Cooperating groups at the local level expend over, in some cases, more than 50 percent of the cost of these programs. Slashing funding for Wildlife Services by 25 percent will result in across-the-board elimination of many important programs that protect human health.”