migratory birds in our hemisphere and for your leadership in this important piece of legislation before the committee today during the subcommittee hearing that we've held previously on this reauthorization i was very pleased by the overwhelming support expressed by the american partnerships that the act itself spawn throughout the western hemisphere to conserve these important migratory birds given their migratory nature than the old trout migratory birds face many challenges more than three hundred forty one species must confront a range of threats including development pressures and base of species climate change and avian diseases unfortunately many migratory bird species are on the decline more than one third of the six hundred fifty species that breed the united states are in long term decline at least twenty seven species of migratory birds have experienced population declines of forty five percent or greater since the one nine hundred sixty s some species such as the the warbler and the flycatcher have a client more than seventy percent clearly more must be done in order to reverse these trends before we add more species to the endangered species list bird habitat conservation in general the neo tropical migratory bird act in particular also support a vibrant sector of the united states economy i know throughout my congressional district which borders more shoreline along the mississippi river than any other district birdwatching has become a large part of our recreational economy in fact the upper mississippi river basin is north america's largest waterfall migration route roughly forty percent of all waterfall species pass through the basin during their annual migration birds are big business to put it bluntly here are the facts forty eight million american americans are bird watchers twenty million of whom take annual trips to watch birds forty million americans spend three point three billion dollars each year on bird food along sixteen million americans spend seven hundred ninety million dollars each year on bird houses nest boxes feeders and ba and in two thousand and six america's twenty million wildlife watchers spent twelve point eight billion dollars on trip related expenditures aside from protecting an economic assets grandson of this legislation awarded have a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and degradation grants of advanced innovative management and habitat restoration strategies for a broad range of neo tropical birds regrettably the demand for this program funding levels today too many grants for too long and gone unfunded it's vital that congress sustain and girls successful programs such as this and provide appropriate increases and authorized funding levels needed now to maximize the effectiveness of the public private bird conservation program which this  to try to address these concerns not the appropriate time as the chairman mentioned i'll be offering a in a moment the nature of the substitute which i think is a fairly reasonable compromise in regard to the funding authorization levels that we're offering here today so  e will likely have an amendment that we can love to have the question answered is the president wrong when he just requested less than what has been previously authorized the president requested four points seven five million dollars an actual reduction in this in this program and i would also note to the gentleman that our country can't be all things to all people we're going to have to say no to a few things along the way the reality is as of this morning we are eleven trillion nine hundred three billion six hundred eighty six million seven hundred sixty four thousand thirty one dollars and nine thirty nine cents in debt and i had hoped there would be a recognition and understanding that the people of the united states of america we have to be responsible to the to the debt of this country we're paying over five hundred million dollars a day just in interest payments and i find it difficult to add millions of dollars to anything especially two birds at a time of amazing debt and that's my general concern is it is it about the idea that we need to do what we can to protect the wildlife of course that's part of the role and responsibility that we have within this committee but at the same time i think i'm approaching this in a fiscally responsible way and would also encourage and hope that the gentleman who would do it would at least attempt to try to answer the question is is the president and the administration wrong when they also want to see a reduction in funding and with that i'll yield back to my time since it was first in the active back in two thousand and all of mr brown and i were unable to fully agree on the final numbers i believe that my m m it strikes the appropriate balance to meet with them and conservation needs allows for recognizing the current fiscal situation requires scaling back  the truth of the matter is we've got about one hundred ninety bird species right now on the brink of being listed as endangered that brings a whole set of more economic factors and spending into play we have an opportunity today to try to leverage the limited funds that are available out of this  and getting a four to one return which is one of the most productive acts that we have as far as private resources being leveraged per dollar of what we invest that would have a tremendous impact in trying to preserve these birds so that they aren't added to the endangered species list that brings in a whole nother list of factors that's going to drive up costs both public and private otherwise my man it would do two things first it would make minor technical clarifying corrections  recommended by the house office of legislative counsel secondly my memet would cut by thirty two million dollars the overall five year authorized funding levels dropping on from eighty six million to fifty four million which would help address the un meant demand for bird conservation project in the united states and throughout the western half hemisphere reauthorizing and expanding funding for the new migratory bird act will contribute to the health of our nation's environment economy and our general quality of life that's why this amendment is supported by numerous conservation y fish and wildlife agencies defenders of wildlife conservation fund wildlife society the nature conservancy national wildlife federation point raised observatory cornell laboratory trust for public land natural resources defense council bird conservation alliance pollinator partnership all of whom have endorsed this approach to the reauthorization of the act this amendment provides i think responsible funding levels to help guide the appropriations process for the perp for the program and i would just merely add this is an authorized amount i mean the real battle always comes down to the appropriations committee and what funds are available in any budget cycle as far as appropriate level of funding we can and i would encourage to have that discussion  when the appropriations committee starts making their priorities what programs i think is a reasonable compromise given the urgent unmet demand that exists out there the tremendous one leverage advantage that this program has produced time and time again this act we get a four dollar return with private entities investing in habitat and bird conservation projects you mentioned one of the primary ones but the state to pittman robertsons investing over six hundred million dollars every year in b habitat conservation projects doubling and partnering with the migratory bird act there's a tremendous public private partnership that's created under this and the leverage which is one of the best that we have of any program the federal activity chairman and in fact there may be an opportunity for us to work together you know if there are any out there advocating reauthorization especially at a higher level i think it is a fair question to ask what are you doing personally in order to match some of the funds that are made publicly  and i know as an active member of the congressional sportsman's caucus to this might be a great issue for that caucus to take up specifically i think it's a valid point not try to get the information that the gentleman is requesting who's participating in it what level well i just offer the thought that if after a decade of this program covered by this program are still in decline maybe that nature's way of telling us that the program isn't working  gentleman from wisconsin read a long list of groups that are receiving these funds organizations don't don't seem to be in decline in fact these organizations seem to be absolutely thriving it's a gentle deals on that point quickly responded the list of those supporting reauthorization of this legislation most of them don't receive funds directly although many of them do participate in conservation programs especially bird habitat  preservation programs i don't want anyone in the committee here to be thinking that those advocating endorsing the legislation the direct recipients of the funds that would be appropriate appropriated under the legislation but the fact that we have  declined does not negate the fact that demand is far exceeded the funding levels with this legislation and it tells me that more needs to be done in order to avert greater disaster with bird species and again i would  reiterate that if we if we are on this and more get included under the endangered species act that brings a whole nother set of complications and funding and expenses in both the public and private that i think it's better for focus on those birds that are in most peril our national treasure is limited but the focus of what is happening within the program new to it i would question whether or not they're funded as you said and perhaps maybe that'll be the goal but it doesn't seem this is the urgent need that the time that that we have to suddenly have this dramatic increase in the authorization levels we have other similar types of programs none of them have  any sort of increase along the way and i think the president's effort at least in this case reflects a bit more of reality and i see no compelling reason to try dramatically increase the they authorize funding levels in fact i think what the administration is trying to tell us is that a much more realistic approach to this is to decrease the authorization levels as opposed to increase the authorization levels least that's larry that because in their own budget they're only they're saying look realistically four point seven five million dollars is more realistic and i still find the president's overall budget is way out of control in terms of the overall spending level but that all yelled back and i had any further members wish   tropical migratory bird conservation act while the kind amendment is a step in the right direction it will still more than double the amount of money available for these grants and is still indefensible at a time when our national debt is rapidly approaching twelve trillion dollars in fact our debt is spiraling out of control with increases over three point nine billion dollars each and every day in one thousand nine hundred eighty the congress established the first conservation grant program to assist highly imperiled african elephants since that time five additional funds have been created on the fundamental promise that a small amount of u s taxpayer dollars would be spent to try to save some of the keystone species on our planet there are a number of people who believe that these funds have been successful in helping to save these animals from extinction as a result the congress has extended the ability of the secretary of interior to assist af in an asian elephant rhinoceroses tigers great apes and marine turned turtle and we have done so eleven times and each instance however congress has never never increased the original authorization level for the species in two thousand in the year two thousand the congress created a new fund to assist three hundred forty one species of neo tropical migratory birds that travel extensively between north america central america birds are not all listed on the endangered species act nor are they afforded international protection in fact according the u s fish and wildlife service only nine birds are listed on as either threatened or endangered in short the vast overwhelming majority nearly ninety percent of those eligible species are not in jeopardy of disappearing in addition unlike the five the other five funds that congress has already just three years ago increased the authorization level for neo tropical birds it's the kind of them  has adopted this legislation would dramatically increase the authorization from six point five million dollars to fifteen million dollars a year in defense of this increase proponents argue that a four dollars or four dollars raise to match every one dollar of taxpayer money spent on conservation project to assist assist the new tropical birds these figures are correct however what this says to me is that non governmental organizations that apparently care deeply about these birds have far more money than the federal government noticed the federal government is broke we have no money we have we do not we do have a staggering national debt as i have mentioned of nearly twelve trillion dollars well i understand there are all these are authorisation numbers we certainly can do better with more than fifteen million unemployed americans and millions of others desperately hoping for a better future are we really going to vote to double the amount of money for birds that are either threatened or that live in a majority that lives the majority of those outside the united  through the association of agencies strongly supports increased funding levels number three that is why the thirty five countries in the one hundred thirty international conservation organization participate under the reasonable compromise on authorization levels will still be the appropriation discussion which would be entirely appropriate at the appropriate time but i think it's a reasonable compromise nine encourage my colleagues to support t but let me let me just talk about the bill itself in this political environment that we're in where we're taxpayer dollars are being spent on on and there's a lot of concern around the country because of taxpayer funds have been used to acquire land in paraguay canada colombia nicaragua guatemala now i have to say even though it's a very very small amount i think the american people will probably wonder why we are allocating dollars to acquire land in foreign countries even though the idea may be good as it relates to migratory birds may be a small thing but i think it's i think it's rather significant really when you look into the big picture and i'll just make one other observation while the law requires a grant dollars if you increase the authorization  taxpayers money to finance every potential conservation grant application we have we have all been here long enough to know that if there is federal money available there will be no shortage of those lining up to receive the urge to adopt this reasonable member which will adequately fund hundreds of new conservation projects i would hope that the sponsor of this bill who has been a consistent champion for conservation would be willing to accept this amendment we can always come back and view these officers in levels in two or three years particularly unique rugged and isolated area in the oregon coast range because of unstable slopes the forest service stopped timber harvesting in the area in the in the mid to late seventies they confirmed that again after further studies in the early eighty's and senator mark hatfield at the time supported that moratorium on on timber harvesting since that time there has been no  consideration of re initiating timber harvesting in this area because of the extraordinarily steep and unstable slopes and the fact that it can't be readily reforested so there is and there is now and has not been any consideration of timber harvest most area but it does have unique wilderness characteristics so we of the the initiative to make this into a wilderness was first begun in roads i'm just concerned about how you would prevent forest fires as there is one existing rather rough road which the forest service has recommended south in oregon you're talking about areas that are very much in the treatment further south from this area which had been previously harvested which are very dense with the second growth and  will be considered as read printed record again was recognized as chairman this makes a minor in technical changes in particular the map there were concerns raised during the hearing about the map the map has been modified to accommodate  boundary changes proposed by the land management agencies it does include language regarding the existing primitive road which would become an equestrian and hikers trail in the area and there's thirty miles of roads that fund maintained not hundreds of miles of road in question and the forest service has no intention of maintaining that road and has recommended that it be converted to  that was reaffirmed during the reagan administration and by the courts and by republican senator mark hatfield that this area is unsuitable for timber harvest because the steep and unstable of the steep or now the two rivers and the surrounding land first of all you have an impact lateral damage of this particular bill that goes far and above boundaries of this particular area but more specifically in section nine  previously and nothing the geography of this area has not changed in the last thirty two years that was created on the go the forest service and the b l m took this land out of har categories because of steep slopes and unsuitable soils thirty two years ago and all of the succeeding administrations republican and democrat have none have proposed to change that because the hasn't changed there will be no revenue opis yes we do share in a one c revenues and which is a unique category of land and forest service revenues and revenues go to general fund purposes they can be spent on anything for service revenues go to schools and roads and i'm a strong advocate for that and in fact we had guarantees for my counties which we put in place under the clinton as ration which actually expired under the bush administration of republican rule and we're only restored by the democrats with some guarantees because the low level of the harvest on these lands so i appreciate the newfound interest the gentleman from utah i just lift a finger when the bush administration was here in charge and the republicans were in charge of everything and our guarantees expired and our counties were decimated by that and it had to be restored by the democrats after we took power and it's very unfortunate but this land would never yield revenues under any scenario because it's not harvestable  new gentleman from oregon where we state thirty two years ago this was harvestable territory it was harvested back then it can be harvested today the bottom line is still this land was set aside for harvesting whether you want by geology from utah has time thank you there's a bottom line you could make money out of you could help those schools yes it's true that if there was harvesting done that helps those school situations and some places especially california that does not do equalization formula becomes extremely significant which probably is why the o and c counties association wanted to find some sort of offset so they don't have to lose permanently what they once had and it's true they once had it we made it off limits by administrative decision simply say it there are areas which the forest service and the b l m not only this have deemed unsuitable for timber harvest if you go in there and harvest and i can take the gentleman on tour sometimes like to see it in the coast range with up to one hundred inches of rain what you find is you lose the entire slope and all the soil and until we develop trees they can grow on bedrock they can't be reforested that is why this area was withdrawn from harvest and sense the geography but the pa graffiti and the soil types have not changed in the last thirty two years there is no prospect and again this was confirmed  by the reagan administration it was not overturned by the bush administration and no one deals that you could go into that area and harvest the harvesting that was done caused slope loss and they were not able to  reforest oil off that's why they stopped harvesting in the area there are other areas of the coast range which are off limits there are others that are harvestable but that's the forest service in the b l m job is to determine where you can practically harvest and of times that those of us that have federal lands in the western part of united states are concerned with others trying to impose their will and they don't live in the western part of united states case in point is legislation approach and i intend to vote against this bill was when i was on the floor for the reasons of my philosophical problem with with wilderness areas and wilderness of the designations but those should be i think determine on a case by case basis with respect to people that are representing their district i just wish that over time that consideration would be given to a lot of people when they have concerns about issues in their district m very very animated when he defends the right to do things in his district i certainly respect that i just wish that respect for those of us other party united states to have federal lands would be respected also but we don't see  as mr chairman i have no intentions of asking for roll call on the amendment in the nature of substitute but since i would like a vote on the question that was placed before us i will ask for final passage you could vote on the nature of the manages the river and would cause changes in b l m current administration of the area h r twenty seven eighty one designates two segments of the river fifteen point one miles on the main stem and six point two miles on the table rock for the block amendments to h r twenty seven eighty one they make technical changes to the bill including specifying the two segments of the river will be managed as a recreational river and believing the language that is redundant  hundred twenty acres of timber management acres or matrix land that would be impacted while this represents a relatively small amount of impacted timber lands i am sensitive to the reduction therefore as the committee moves forward i would ask the chairman and ranking member to work with me and my staff to ensure that there will be no net loss of acres available kimber management as a result of the legislation for reasons unknown to the majority committee this language was not the same concept again as we had before lock up something you need to provide something for the locals to be able to fund themselves and simply locking them up on the federal level does not do that and i appreciate the gentleman from arizona is point of  i respect members trying to do something that they think is best for for their district even though i may not like the program so here we have a situation where a member came to this committee  i sometimes don't understand the members does not have an opportunity to satisfy what he thinks is right for his district and i just might add this happened in the same state i daresay that the miles difference between mr de fazio is probably less than one hundred miles i could be wrong i did look exactly what we are getting two conflicting signals on one hand we want to to check with b l m and be urged the agency tells us and the sponsor was aware of that there are no current sales in the river quarter and no timber sales are planned for that for that area in the foreseeable future and have an observation that you can't for whatever reason be elam in this case but i just find it interesting he wanted to satisfy what he thought was right for his constituency and there is a way to do it and it  wasn't done so i i just find that perplexing i guess mr chairman was that all you back orange county for mean included in the california coastal national monument the california coastal national monument was created by president clinton in two thousand as part of the national landscape conservation system the monument spans an entire eleven hundred miles of the california coast between mexico and oregon and compass is more than twenty thousand small islands rocks exposed reefs and pinnacles however doesn't need the monument only included undeserved and unappropriate rocks and islands and under the one nine hundred thirty s act naturally cultural sides were reserved h r eighty six would strike the reservation language in one act another act to provide that these areas finally be administered fairly not no i appreciate i appreciate the explanation the gentleman from arizona we have no objections to dun dun dun dun get too comfortable with that it won't happen on all right all members of the committee and to apply to all bills being considered by the committee today the last item for considerations h r one one eight to modify the boundary the morristown national historical park sponsored by the gentleman from new jersey mr rodney le war said our nation's first national historic park and it commemorates new jersey's rich history at the crossroads the american revolution is truly a treasure not just for residents of new jersey but for the whole country occasionally country but i must say morristown is a place that gets lots of visitors particularly schoolchildren and it is well managed what we're talking about here is land that would be willingly i do know in trying to and i'm not in the habit of defending the national park service but i do know the national park service has rejected willing willing sellers and donors in this particular area because they did not think that land  civilian significant military obviously with the redcoats firmly in control of new york city this was a way of combining new england as well as the south where a military court or there was also a civilian element that is significant because to win over the local population george washington insisted that his troops respect the property rights of the people there including tory sympathizers in fact in sharp contrast to what the british did by living off the land he authorized  militia to be the ones who are there to protect the the rights of the farmers from king george's army so it is with that high standard that was set by president washington that i submit this amendment very simple one which simply adds the language that it i willing seller provisions of the bill which i still think should be part of all of our legislation sponsoring his testimony so this will be supported supported this concept of only taking land from willing sellers the park service said it was their estimate to do it i think it would be important for us to no the as appear to have it here the as have it in the bill is favorably reported to the house of representatives and without objection the amendment to the motion to reconsider is laid on the table under the chairs prior announcement it is now in order to vote on those matters which were postponed the question is now on the m m it offered by the a g m or from utah to h r twenty two thirteen and a clerk will call the ro ada mr abercrombie costa mr the family both times are starving mr sarban the members on both sides of the hour for their participation in this day as for their work on the legislation today and there's no further business which is not the committee stands a