[House Report 106-80]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-80
=======================================================================
NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT
April 12, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 39]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 39) to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish
a program to provide assistance in the conservation of
neotropical migratory birds, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Neotropical migratory bird populations in nations within
the range of neotropical migratory birds have continued to
decline to the point that the long-term survival of various
species in the wild is in jeopardy.
(2) 90 North American bird species are listed as endangered
species or threatened species under section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, and 124 species of migratory birds are
currently on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's List
of Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern.
(3) The United States, through 4 bilateral treaties, has
responsibility of maintaining healthy populations of 778
species of migratory nongame birds and 58 species of migratory
game birds that migrate between the Caribbean, Latin America,
and North America.
(4) The Government of Mexico presently lists approximately
390 bird species as endangered, threatened, vulnerable, or
rare.
(5) Healthy bird populations provide important economic
benefits, such as control of detrimental insects on
agricultural crops, thus preventing the loss of millions of
dollars each year to farming and timber interests.
(6) Neotropical migratory birds travel across many
international borders, therefore the conservation of these
species requires that safeguards be established at both the
beginning and end of the migration routes, as well as at
essential stopover areas along the way.
(7) Because the challenges facing the conservation of
neotropical migratory birds are so great, resources to date
have not been sufficient to cope with continued loss of habitat
and the consequent reduction of neotropical migratory bird
populations.
(8) To reduce, remove, or otherwise effectively address these
threats through the long-term viability of populations of
neotropical migratory birds in the wild will require the joint
commitment and efforts of nations within the range of
neotropical migratory birds and the private sector.
(9) A Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation fund would
provide much-needed support for projects aimed at protecting
critical habitat for declining migratory bird species, in an
innovative way that promotes conservation partnerships and cost
sharing through joint Federal and non-Federal support
mechanisms.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical
migratory birds.
(2) To assist in the conservation and protection of
neotropical migratory birds by supporting conservation
initiatives in Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
(3) To provide financial resources and to foster
international cooperation for those initiatives.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Account established by section
9(a).
(2) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use of
methods and procedures necessary to bring a species of
neotropical migratory bird to the point at which there are
sufficient populations in the wild to ensure the long-term
viability of the species, including--
(A) protection and management of neotropical
migratory bird populations;
(B) maintenance, management, protection, and
restoration of neotropical migratory bird habitat;
(C) research and monitoring;
(D) law enforcement; and
(E) community outreach and education.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
SEC. 5. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program to provide
financial assistance for projects outside of the United States to
promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
(b) Project Applicants.--A project proposal may be submitted by--
(1) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust,
association, or other private entity;
(2) an officer, employee, agent, department, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State,
municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any
foreign government;
(3) a State, municipality, or political subdivision of a
State;
(4) any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States or of any foreign country; and
(5) an international organization (as defined in section 1 of
the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C.
288)).
(c) Project Proposals.--To be considered for financial assistance for
a project under this Act, an applicant shall submit a project proposal
that--
(1) includes--
(A) the name of the individual responsible for the
project;
(B) a succinct statement of the purposes of the
organization that will conduct the project and of the
project;
(C) a description of the qualifications of
individuals conducting the project; and
(D) an estimate of the funds and time necessary to
complete the project, including sources and amounts of
matching funds;
(2) demonstrates that the project will enhance the
conservation of neotropical migratory bird species in Latin
America, the Caribbean, or the United States;
(3) includes mechanisms to ensure adequate local public
participation in project development and implementation;
(4) contains assurances that the project will be implemented
in consultation with relevant wildlife management authorities
and other appropriate government officials with jurisdiction
over the resources addressed by the project;
(5) demonstrates sensitivity to local historic and cultural
resources and complies with applicable laws;
(6) describes how the project will promote sustainable,
effective, long-term programs to conserve neotropical migratory
birds;
(7) provides any other information that the Secretary
considers to be necessary for evaluating the proposal; and
(8) provides assurances of the financial viability of the
applicant and the project by providing financial information to
prove the applicant's ability to complete the project.
(d) Project Reporting.--Each recipient of assistance for a project
under this Act shall submit to the Secretary such periodic reports as
the Secretary considers to be necessary. Each report shall include all
information required by the Secretary for evaluating the progress and
outcome of the project.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of each
project shall be not greater than 33 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) Source.--The non-Federal share required to be
paid for a project shall not be derived from any
Federal grant program.
(B) Form of payment.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of a project carried out with assistance under
this Act may be paid in cash or in kind.
(f) Purchase of Land Only From Willing Sellers.--Amounts of financial
assistance provided under this Act shall not be used to acquire any
land or interest in land except from a willing seller.
SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
In carrying out this Act, the Secretary shall--
(1) develop guidelines for the solicitation of proposals for
projects eligible for financial assistance under section 5;
(2) encourage submission of proposals for projects eligible
for financial assistance under section 5, particularly
proposals from relevant wildlife management authorities;
(3) select proposals for financial assistance that satisfy
the requirements of section 5, giving priority to proposals
that address conservation needs not adequately addressed by
existing efforts and that are supported by relevant wildlife
management authorities; and
(4) generally implement this Act in accordance with its
purposes.
SEC. 7. COOPERATION.
(a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary shall--
(1) support and coordinate existing efforts to conserve
neotropical migratory bird species, through--
(A) facilitating meetings among persons involved in
such efforts;
(B) promoting the exchange of information among such
persons;
(C) developing and entering into agreements with
other Federal agencies, foreign, State, and local
governmental agencies, and nongovernmental
organizations; and
(D) conducting such other activities as the Secretary
considers to be appropriate; and
(2) coordinate activities and projects under this Act with
existing efforts in order to enhance conservation of
neotropical migratory bird species.
(b) Advisory Group.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish an advisory
group in accordance with this subsection to advise the
Secretary regarding the implementation of this Act.
(2) Membership.--An advisory group established under this
subsection shall consist of individuals who represent public
and private organizations that are actively involved in the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
(3) Public participation.--
(A) Meetings.--An advisory group established under
this subsection shall--
(i) ensure that each meeting of the advisory
group is open to the public; and
(ii) provide, at each meeting of the advisory
group, an opportunity for interested persons to
present oral or written statements concerning
items on the agenda for the meeting.
(B) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide to the
public timely notice of each meeting of the advisory
group.
(C) Minutes.--The Secretary shall keep and make
available to the public minutes of each meeting of the
advisory group.
(4) Exemption.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App.
U.S.C.) shall not apply to the establishment and activities of
an advisory group in accordance with this subsection.
SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than October 1, 2002, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the results and effectiveness of the program
carried out under this Act, including recommendations concerning how
the Act might be improved and whether the program should be continued
in the future.
SEC. 9. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACCOUNT.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund of the Treasury a separate account to be known as the
``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account'', which shall
consist of amounts deposited into the Account by the Secretary of the
Treasury under subsection (b).
(b) Deposits Into the Account.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
deposit into the Account--
(1) all amounts received by the Secretary in the form of
donations under subsection (d); and
(2) other amounts appropriated to the Account.
(c) Use.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may
use amounts in the Account, without further Act of
appropriation, to carry out this Act.
(2) Administrative expenses.--Of amounts in the Account
available for each fiscal year, the Secretary may expend not
more than 6 percent to pay the administrative expenses
necessary to carry out this Act.
(d) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may accept and
use donations to carry out this Act. Amounts received by the Secretary
in the form of donations shall be transferred to the Secretary of the
Treasury for deposit into the Account.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Account to carry out
this Act $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. 11. PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Nothing in this Act shall place restrictions on commercial or private
use of private property in the United States, nor shall there be any
taking of private land in the United States under this Act.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 39 is to require the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a program to provide assistance in the
conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Neotropical migrants are birds that travel between the
United States, Mexico, Central America, much of the Caribbean,
and the northern part of South America. These birds include
blue birds, ducks, goldfinches, gulls, hummingbirds, orioles,
plovers, robins, vireos, warblers, and woodpeckers. They
migrate across international borders and depend upon thousands
of miles of suitable habitat. Each autumn some five billion
birds from 500 species migrate between their breeding grounds
in North America and their tropical habitats in the Caribbean
and Latin America. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, neotropical migratory birds typically spend five
months of the year at Caribbean/Latin American wintering sites,
four months in North American breeding areas, and three months
traveling to these sites during spring and autumn migrations.
In some parts of the United States and Canada, almost all of
the birds migrate to the tropics for the winter.
According to various experts, there are over 75 million
Americans who enjoy watching and feeding birds. In fact,
birdwatching is one of America's fastest growing forms of
outdoor recreation. These activities generate some $20 billion
in economic activity each year. This form of ecotourism is
growing. At the Chincoteogue National Wildlife Refuge in
Virginia, a study was conducted in 1994 focusing on birding
ecotourism. The study found that 95,970 bird watchers visited
Chincoteogue during that year, spending a total of $33.2
million. Furthermore, healthy bird populations are a valuable
asset for farmers and timber interests. These birds help to
pollinate and disperse seeds of many economically important
plant species. They also consume detrimental insects and
prevent the loss of millions of dollars to farmers each year.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has indicated that a
population of 3,000 Swainson's hawks in the western United
States eat more than one million rodents each summer.
While there is no debate on the importance of these birds,
what is seriously lacking is a strategic plan for bird
conservation, money for on-the-ground projects, public
awareness, and any real coordination among the various nations
where neotropical migratory birds live. There have been efforts
to protect these species and their habitats. However, they have
generally focused on specific categories of migratory birds or
specific regions in the Americas. There is a general consensus
among conservation groups, government agencies, and researchers
that a comprehensive international program is needed to
conserve viable populations of neotropical migratory birds. Due
to the migratory nature of these species, it does little good
to conserve suitable and sufficient habitat in only a portion
of their range.
Through bilateral treaties, the United States is
responsible for assisting in the maintenance of populations of
over 800 game and nongame species of migratory birds.
Regrettably, there are 90 North American bird species that are
listed as either threatened or endangered under our Endangered
Species Act and an additional 124 bird species that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has identified on its list of
Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern.
In North America, an estimated 70 percent of prairie birds
are declining. The Mexican Government has identified some 390
bird species as being endangered, threatened, vulnerable or
rare. Many of these species are neotropical migratory birds.
There are many reasons for the decline in the population of
these species including nest predation, competition among
species, general hazards along their migration routes, and the
widespread use of pesticides. However, the greatest threat to
their long-term survival is the con-
tinuing loss of essential habitat in the Caribbean and Latin
America, both in staging and wintering areas of these species.
Without some financial assistance, many neotropical
migratory bird species will face extinction in the future. The
fundamental goal of this legislation is to reverse their
population decline. This would be accomplished by establishing
a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account; authorize an
appropriation of up to $8 million per year until September 30,
2002; give the Secretary of the Interior the responsibility to
select meritorious conservation projects; stipulate that not
more than six percent of appropriated funds may be used for
administrative costs and direct the Secretary of the Interior
to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the
program.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 39 was introduced on January 6, 1999, by Congressmen
Don Young (R-AK), Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and George Miller (D-CA).
The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and within
the Committee to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans. On February 11, 1999, the Subcommittee
held a hearing on the bill. Testimony was heard from Mr. John
Rogers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Mr. Robert McDowell,
New Jersey Department of Environment Protection and Energy; Dr.
Daniel P. Beard, National Audubon Society; Dr. Peter Stangel,
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Mr. Christopher
Williams, World Wildlife Fund; Mr. Ken Reininger, North
Carolina Zoological Park; and Mr. Gerald Winegrad, American
Bird Conservancy. Each witness testified in support of the
legislation. On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee met to mark
up the bill. Mr. Saxton offered an amendment that expanded the
purposes section to assist in the ``conservation and protection
of the neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Canada
. . . and the Caribbean.'' It was adopted by voice vote.
Congressman Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS) offered an amendment that
allowed the Secretary to convene an advisory group of those
organizations involved in bird conservation. It was adopted by
voice vote. Mr. Faleomavaega then offered a second amendment
that expanded the coverage to include the ``Insular
Territories'' of the United States. The amendment was also
adopted by voice vote. The bill was then ordered favorably
reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On March 17,
1999, the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 39. Mr.
Saxton offered an amendment that stipulated that any grant
money provided under H.R. 39 must be spent on neotropical
migratory bird conservation projects outside the United States.
While this language will not prevent any U.S. citizen or
organization from applying for a grant, it will target those
limited funds to those countries, within the range of these
species, that demonstrate the greatest conservation needs. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Richard Pombo
(R-CA) then offered an en block amendment that required that
any land purchased under thisbill must be from willing sellers
and that grantees demonstrate the financial ability to complete a
conservation project, and reduced the authorization period to three
years. This amendment was approved by voice vote. Mr. Pombo then
offered a second amendment that expresses the sentiment that there
shall be no restrictions on commercial or private property or the
taking of private land in the United States under H.R. 39. The
amendment was in no way meant to limit voluntary agreements that
constrains land use or practices agreed to by landowners. This
amendment was approved by voice vote. Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-
ID) offered an amendment that required a project applicant to enter
into a written agreement with each landowner, to establish the terms of
the project and to allow the property owner to terminate the agreement
if the terms are not met. The amendment failed 14 to 20, as follows:
Mrs. Chenoweth also offered and withdrew an amendment which
protected air space. The bill, as amended, was then reported
favorably to the Full House of Representatives by voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation.--Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act.--As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of H.R.
39 would affect offsetting receipts (a credit against direct
spending) and governmental receipts as the bill authorizes the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accept and spend donations,
which would be ``insignificant and largely offsetting.''
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings.--Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.--Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 25, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 39, the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state
and local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson,
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 39--Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
Summary: H.R. 39 would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) to create a new grant program for projects to
conserve neotropical migratory birds in the United States and
Caribbean and Latin American countries. The program would
provide financial assistance to eligible government agencies,
international or foreign organizations, and private entities.
H.R. 39 would authorize the USFWS to create a 7-member advisory
group in order to assist the agency in carrying out these
activities. In order to provide financing for the new program,
the bill would establish a neotropical migratory bird
conservation account in the U.S. Treasury, into which the
Secretary of the Treasury would deposit amounts donated to the
government for this program as well as amounts appropriated by
the Congress.
For the purposes of developing and administering the
program and making grants, H.R. 39 would authorize the
appropriation of $8 million annually for fiscal years 2000
through 2002. Because the bill would authorize the USFWS to
accept and spend donations without further appropriation, pay-
as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates, however, that
any new revenues and resulting direct spending would be
insignificant and largely offsetting. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). State and local
governments might incur some costs as a result of the bill's
enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 39 would cost the federal government $24
million through 2004. For purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that the bill will be enacted by the beginning of
fiscal year 2000 and that the entire amount authorized will be
appropriated for each year. Outlay estimates are based on
spending patterns for similar programs. The costs of this
legislation fall withinbudget function 300 (natural resources
and environment). The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 39 is shown in
the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Subject to Appropriation
Authorization level................................................ 8 8 8 0 0
Estimated outlays.................................................. 3 6 8 5 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. H.R. 39
would affect both offsetting receipts (a credit against direct
spending) and governmental receipts. CBO estimates, however,
that any such effects would be insignificant and offsetting
over the next five years.
Estimated impact on State, local and tribal governments:
H.R. 390 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments. State and local governments would be among the
entities eligible to receive the financial assistance
authorized by this bill. In order to receive assistance for a
project, these governments would be required to submit a
proposal meeting certain criteria and to pay at least 67
percent of the project costs. Any such costs incurred by state
or local governments would be voluntary.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On March 19, 1999, CBO prepared a
cost estimate for S. 148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works on March 17, 1999. S. 148 would
authorize appropriations for one more year (fiscal year 2003)
than H.R. 39. The estimate for H.R. 39 reflects the different
authorization period.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis, Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
compliance with public law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
changes in existing law
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
As introduced, H.R. 39 was a bipartisan bill--sponsored by
Chairman Don Young, Fisheries Subcommittee Chairman Jim Saxton
and Ranking Democrat George Miller--to help protect and
conserve migratory bird populations from threats throughout
their range which extends from Alaska to Central and South
America. A similar measure was reported by the Committee last
year without amendments or controversy. The companion bill
passed by the Senate last year has again been reported in this
Congress without amendment (S. 148). The Administration
strongly supports the legislation as introduced, as do numerous
conservation organizations.
The major strengths of this legislation, when introduced,
were that: (1) it was pro-active, seeking to halt declines in
bird populations before they become endangered and threatened;
(2) it leveraged funds from outside sources to accomplish its
goals, with federal funds accounting for a one-third share; and
(3) it adopted a model for neotropical bird conservation from
smaller-scale, successful programs. Efforts to develop
cooperative, voluntary partnerships among landowners, industry,
and local communities have had tangible results and the bill is
intended to expand upon those successes.
Unfortunately, the amendments adopted during the Committee
markup weaken the bill substantially by adding unnecessary and
confusing language, and by limiting the geographical scope of
the legislation. An amendment offered by Rep. Saxton requires
that only projects outside of the United States benefit from
federal funding. While the intent of the Saxton amendment was
to ward off other, more destructive amendments, it
significantly undermines H.R. 39 by excluding critical
conservation efforts in the United States to protect migratory
birds throughout their range.
Despite Rep. Saxton's effort at compromise, the Majority
also adopted vague and unnecessary language supposedly to
protect property rights even though the bill, as amended, no
longer applies to the United States and notwithstanding the
reality that nothing in the bill as introduced--which seeks to
promote voluntary partnerships--poses any remote threat to
property rights. This amendment is a solution in search of a
problem that simply does not exist.
Another ill-advised amendment prevents funds authorized by
this Act from being used to purchase land unless sellers agree,
requires organizations seeking funding to provide a financial
viability statement, and shortens the authorization period by
two years. The first of these two are unnecessary at best.
First, this bill does not authorize land acquisition; it seeks
to encourage changes in land use practices on a voluntary
basis. Second, it is unclear how this amendment affects the
provisions of the bill allowing projects outside of the United
States to provide in-kind contributions as matching funds.
Finally, by cutting short the authorization period, the
amendment does not allow sufficient time for the program to
establish concrete results.
In its amended form, this bill should not be adopted by the
House. The Committee has done a disservice to the Congress by
taking a popular and positive conservation bill and clouding it
with destructive, ideologically-driven amendments which do
nothing to help achieve the important goals of protecting and
conserving migratory birds. These destructive amendments should
be rejected by the House and it should promptly send the
President a clean bill to be signed into law.
George Miller.
Eni Faleomavaega.