[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 96 (Thursday, June 14, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1292-E1293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM OPERATIONS 
                            ENHANCEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 14, 2007

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, ten years ago, the Congress 
enacted a landmark law known as the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act. This measure created for the first time an organic 
statute and a mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System. I was 
proud to have sponsored that legislation and pleased that President 
Bill Clinton signed into law October 9, 1997.
  National wildlife refuges are undeniably unique. They are the only 
Federal land system established explicitly to conserve wildlife and 
their habitat. They also provide protection for 260 endangered and 
threatened species.
  A great deal has happened to the refuge system during the past 
decade. For instance, the size of this unique system of Federal lands 
has increased from 93 million to 96 million acres and the number of 
individual refuge units has grown from 511 to 547. In fact, there is 
now a National Wildlife Refuge within all 50 States and the U.S. 
territories and they are within an hour's drive of most major cities.
  Four years ago, the National Wildlife Refuge System celebrated the 
100th anniversary of the establishment of the first refuge at Pelican 
Island, FL, by President Theodore R. Roosevelt. The fundamental purpose 
of that designation was to protect native wildlife and that goal has 
not changed for the past 104 years. The unambiguous mission of the 
system: ``Is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 
the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the 
fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United 
States for the benefit of present and future generations of 
Americans.''
  In preparation for the bicentennial, Congress appropriated an 
historic figure of nearly $300 million dollars in FY03 and FY04 for 
refuge operations. This was $50 million more than had ever been 
allocated for this essential function.
  Sadly, this level was not sustained and refuge operations funding was 
restored to pre-bicentennial figures soon after the birthday candles 
were extinguished and the commemorative banners were placed in storage. 
This appropriation level has remained stagnate for the past 4 years.
  While this year's budget contains added revenues for the National 
Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's request was grossly 
inadequate. By way of comparison, my colleagues should know that the 
National Park Service has 20,000 full-time employees, it manages 390 
park units and the system is comprised of 85 million acres of which 
52.9 million are located in my State of Alaska. By contrast, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service has 3,687 full-time refuge employees, it manages 
547 refuges and the system is comprised of 96 million acres. In FY08, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service requested $394.8 million for the Refuge 
System, while the Park Service requested nearly five times as much, or 
$1.9 billion.
  While funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System has remained 
flat, uncontrollable expenses including employee costs and benefits, 
GSA-rental office space, fuel and energy continue to rapidly grow. In 
fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that these costs are 
about $40 million each year. It, therefore, does not take a certified 
public accountant to understand that no entity can continue to operate 
year-after-year without at least offsetting cost-of-living expenses.

  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is no exception to this rule. As a 
result of these declining resources, the director of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service instructed each of the service's regional directors to 
implement cost savings or ``workforce plans.'' These plans have now 
been prepared, submitted, and approved. The net result is that unless 
an additional $15 million in new funding is provided each year, the 
service will lose 439 full-time refuge positions by September 30, 2008. 
While these reductions represent 20 percent of their total refuge 
workforce, these vacancies are not uniform throughout the system. For 
example, the service will lose 28 percent of its refuge staff in 
Washington State, 29 percent in Idaho and Kansas, 38 percent in Indiana 
and a staggering 56 percent in Wyoming.
  Without these human resources, the 40 million people who visit at 
least one refuge each year will find many refuges overgrown, rapidly 
spreading invasive species, unstaffed refuge headquarters, an absence 
of law enforcement personnel, abolished environmental education 
programs, and significantly less opportunities to enjoy wildlife 
dependent recreation which includes hunting, fishing, wildlife 
observation and photography.
  Those who visit a wildlife refuge enjoy the experience because they 
are a haven from our fast paced lives. These wildlands inspire us and 
keep us connected to the natural world. The American people deserve the 
finest refuge system in the world and not one that is being stretched 
beyond its capacity. In addition to not filling vacancies, the public 
will find that 88 refuges are closed and an increasing number of 188 
refuges throughout the country are unstaffed. In short, visitors will 
travel hundreds of miles to see a refuge and will find much to their 
frustration that the front gate is locked and no one is there to 
describe to them the wonders of each of unique place.
  Refuges are also important economic engines. According to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service in 2004, refuge visitors generated nearly 
$1.4 billion for regional economies, they support 24,000 private sector 
jobs and $454 million in employment income was generated.
  According to the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, CARE, 
``the National Wildlife Refuge System faces a crippling conservation 
deficit.'' The best illustration of this shortfall was described by the 
northeast regional director who noted that: ``In three years, 74 
percent of the national wildlife refuges would be operating either `in 
the red' or at crisis levels: In five years, 89 percent; and in seven 
years, 93 percent.''
  Within that region, you have the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge 
in northern Virginia. according to a recent article, ``A dwindling 
budget, staff cuts, invasive weeds and crime are bearing down on the 
refuge, leaving some advocates wondering how visitor services or the 
health of the land the species depend on will survive''. There is no 
question that the refuge system is in crisis and unless additional 
revenues are forthcoming this problem will be exacerbated in the near 
future.

  In an effort to provide those additional revenues, I joined with some 
of my colleagues in urging the House Appropriations Committee to 
allocate $451.5 million for refuge operations and maintenance. While 
this is a step in the right direction, it will not solve the service's 
long-term funding shortfalls.
  We must enact legislation that addressed these funding needs and that 
is the fundamental goal of the measure I am proposing today. The 
National Wildlife Refuge System Operations Enhancement Act of 2007 has 
three major components. The first revenue enhancing measure is to 
gradually increase the price of a Federal duck stamp from its current 
rate of $15 to $25.
  On March 16, 1934, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act was enacted. 
Under this law, every hunter over the age of 16 is required to purchase 
a duck stamp each year if they intend to hunt migratory waterfowl. The 
price of this stamp has been increased by Congress on seven specific 
occasions over the past 73 years from an initial cost of $1 in 1934 to 
its current level of $15 in 1991. In fact, this is now the longest 
period in the history of the program without an increase.

[[Page E1293]]

  Since the inception of the Duck Stamp Program, the Department of the 
Interior has collected nearly $750 million from the sale of duck 
stamps. These monies are deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation 
Fund and they have been used to purchase or lease over 5 million acres 
of land that has been incorporated within the National Wildlife Refuge 
System. While the number of duck stamp receipts have varied over the 
years, the actual number sold has declined from 2.5 million in 1971-
1972 to 1.6 million in the 2003-2004 hunting season. For the past 3 
years, about $24 million annually has been deposited into the Migratory 
Bird Conservation Fund.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increase in the 
price of a duck stamp from $15 to $20 would raise about $8 million in 
new revenues each year and up to $14 million in new receipts with a 
price tag of $25. In short, this provision could provide the Fish and 
Wildlife Service with a long term revenue source. Under my legislation, 
however, the money obtained from these increases would not be 
designated for land acquisition but would be specifically targeted 
toward refuge operations. The ongoing monies raised from the $15 would 
continue to be allocated and spent by the Migratory Bird Commission.
  It is my firm belief that instead of acquiring millions of additional 
acres of Federal lands that we don't have the money to maintain, we 
would be better served by properly managing those we already own. 
During the previous congress, there was an effort to raise the price of 
a Federal duck stamp and this increase was overwhelmingly supported by 
the hunting and conservation community.
  The second provision of this bill would direct the U.S. Postal 
Service to issue a series of first-class postage stamps depicting 
various units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These stamps, 
known as semipostals, would be available to the general public for up 
to 3 years, the postal service would be permitted to recover any 
reasonable costs attributable to the printing, sale and distribution of 
the stamps and there is a sense of Congress that the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service not suffer any offsetting reductions in its operations 
account.
  This provision is modeled after Congressional efforts to raise money 
for extremely worthwhile causes like the Stamp Out Breast Cancer, the 
Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence. These semipostal stamps have 
raised in excess of $65 million. While it is difficult to project what 
a National Wildlife Refuge System semipostal stamp would generate, I 
would hope that these stamps would be readily available to all 
Americans including the 40 million people who visit a refuge.
  The final provision would establish a national wildlife refuge system 
checkoff act. This would allow all Americans to checkoff a box on their 
Federal tax form indicating their desire to contribute $1 or more of 
their refund or $1 or more in additional payment to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. This new checkoff program would not create any new 
Federal programs and would be implemented without cost to our 
taxpayers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would pay all reasonable 
administrative costs involved in changing the tax form, establishing 
the trust fund, and transferring the voluntary private contributions to 
the service.
  There are currently 36 States that allow their taxpayers to check off 
private donations for various State or local wildlife conservation 
programs. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a unique network of 
lands that is the only Federal entity designed specifically for 
wildlife conservation. It is appropriate that U.S. taxpayers have an 
opportunity to voluntarily contribute to its effective operation in the 
future.
  I am pleased to introduce this legislation 10 years after the 
anniversary of the signing of the historic Refuge Organic Act and I 
want to thank my distinguished colleague Mike Thompson of California 
for joining with me in this effort. It is my hope that this measure 
will stimulate debate on the funding crisis facing the refuge system 
and that members of the 21 national conservation, hunting, and 
scientific organizations that comprise the Care Group including the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Audubon Society, the National 
Rifle Association, and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance will endorse this 
approach.
  The options are simple: we can find new long-term funding sources or 
we can allow the operation of the refuge system to continue to 
deteriorate to the detriment of both wildlife and the 40 million people 
who utilize these lands. It is my hope that this Congress will move 
forward to correct this serious and growing problem.
  I urge the adoption of the National Wildlife Refuge System Operations 
Enhancement Act of 2007.

                          ____________________