The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CONSERVATION AND GRAZING” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S4639-S4640 on May 2, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CONSERVATION AND GRAZING
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to President Clinton's actions to open our conservation reserve lands to cattle grazing. As someone who is concerned about the environment, I am disappointed by his decision.
The conservation program pays ranchers to take ecologically fragile land out of grazing.
It has been a very successful program and has put away some 36 million acres away as a nature preserve. By removing these acres of land from cattle grazing and creating areas of undisturbed vegetative cover, the program has created habitat for many types of wildlife across the Great Plains and the Midwest, including waterfowl, pheasants, prairie grouse, raptors, and migratory songbirds. These species need undisturbed cover to nest and raise young successfully.
But good green grass is hard to come by. The price of feed is up and the price of cattle is down. For some, the solution to higher beef prices may be to open up restricted land to grazing.
But as Richard Cohen quickly pointed out in today's Washington Post,
``First the oil reserves, then the conservation reserves and next--
maybe--the Federal Reserve.''
In the name of environmental protection, this Congress fought off any attempts to allow grazing on ecologically sensitive land.
In fact, in last month's farm bill we provided significant funding for the Conservation Reserve Program and made sure that wildlife habitat was a primary objective of the reserve program.
By opening all 36 million CRP acres nationwide to grazing and haying with few constraints and little apparent consideration for the scope of the emergency, the Clinton administration has eliminated much of the wildlife value of the Conservation Program.
In the Great Plains, it is now nesting season, and if cattle are allowed on the land, ducks and grassland songbirds are going to get trampled.
Grass is growing where it has not grown in years and species that were once threatened are making a comeback. Unfortunately, President Clinton's action probably has negated all that progress this year.
I am also disappointed that the Clinton administration made this decision without consulting the environmental and sportsmen communities. The conservation community, the Agriculture Department, even the environmentalist were surprised, and, frankly, I am surprised.
I keep asking myself how can someone who calls himself an environmentalist justify opening up some of our most fragile and protected areas to cattle grazing?
I believe that President Clinton's actions directly contradicts the belief that the Clinton administration truly cares about the environment.
This situation demonstrates that, once again, the interests of sportsmen, conservationists, and the public still rank far below those of subsidized commodity agriculture.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article to which I earlier referred.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Politics, Prices
(By Richard Cohen)
What's the most dangerous place in the world? Bosnia? Liberia? Chechnya? Anywhere in Montana? No. The answer is any place between Bill Clinton and reelection. It is a no-man's land where principle is sacrificed to politics and consistency is given scant regard. That explains why the administration moved this week to sell federal oil reserves and open restricted lands to cattle grazing. It wants to lower the price of gas and raise the price of beef.
The average voter, which is to say me, is confused. If I drive a little less but eat more meat, will that balance out? If I drive a lot less and eat more steak, will that be better for the country? If I drive down to see Alan Greenspan, will I get even richer? After all, I sense a pattern: First the oil reserves, then the conservation reserves and next--maybe--the Federal Reserve. Will Uncle Sam be giving away money?
Silly me, it already has. The federal government paid an average of $27 a barrel for the 587 million barrels of oil now in storage. Since Alaskan crude, the oil that most approximates what Uncle Sam has in the cellar, is now selling at about $20 a barrel, you don't have to be a regular Laura D'Andrea Tyson to figure out that you would be taking a $7 loss on each barrel. Since the government plans to sell 12 million barrels, that amounts to an anti-profit (I thought I'd coin yet another stupid economic term) of $84 million. I'd say offhand that the per-capita cost to the average American is anyone's guess.
But it is not anyone's guess that Clinton is pursuing a political, not economic, agenda. The price of gas became a problem only when the networks started reporting on the story and Bob Dole recommended repealing a 4.3-cent gas tax increase that Clinton pushed through Congress in 1993. With that, the White House rolled out its Big Bertha fax machines and bombarded Washington with press releases noting that Dole, in his reckless youth, had at one time supported a gas tax increase. Next, the president announced he would sell federal oil to drive down the price at the pump. But check the pump. Nothing's happened.
And nothing much will. Despite some Capitol Hill sound bites to the contrary, the price of gas has increased for sound economic reasons. The conspiracy to which some politicians allude happens to include consumers who are driving faster in heavier cars, a brutal winter and a miscalculation on the availability of Iraqi oil. Prices will go down eventually--but not, probably, before they go up some more.
In a sense, Clinton's response to Dole has been truly impressive. As an exercise in cynical politics, it's a masterpiece--a regular Mona Lisa or, if you will, a Jackie Kennedy bauble. Opening up restricted grazing land is a different story altogether. This is an appalling tale in which, for a few votes, a conservation program has been endangered without much thought at all.
The program in question pays ranchers to take ecologically fragile land out of grazing. In this way, some 36 million acres (about the size of Iowa) has become a sort of nature preserve. But the Great Plains are parched, and good grazing land is hard to come by. As a result, the price of feed is up and the price of cattle is down. (Ranchers have been selling off their herds.) Understandably, ranchers have been eyeing the acres in the Conservation Reserve Program. The grass there is tall--yummy for cattle.
But that land is also good for birds, and ducks. Now is the nesting season, and if cattle are allowed on the land, a lot of eggs and ducklings are going to get trampled. The program is hardly perfect--too much acreage in some areas, not enough in others--nor is it cheap. (Over a 10-year period, the average payment has been a total of $52,800 for 97 acres.) But grass is now growing where it has not grown in years.
Maybe, after due deliberation, opening the land was the best way to go. But there was no deliberation, due or otherwise. The conservation community, even Department of Agriculture officials, was taken by surprise at how fast this decision was made. Clinton would barbecue Smokey the Bear to win reelection.
The administration is at odds with itself. If everything works as planned, you could drive to McDonald's for less--and pay more for a burger when you get there. The one consistency is the fervid White House desire to put politics above everything else. In that area, it has shown true leadership.
Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Chair recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
____________________
