106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 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 longterm 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.
2

(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 muchneeded 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 longterm 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;
3

(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.
4

(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
5

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-
6

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 this bill 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 senti-
7

ment 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:
8
9

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.
10

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 within budget 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 gov-
11

ernmental 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.
(12)

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 match-
13

ing 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.

Æ