[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 160 (Monday, October 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11791-H11795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REFUGE ECOLOGY PROTECTION, ASSISTANCE, AND IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACT
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 767) to protect, conserve, and restore native fish,
wildlife, and their natural habitats at national wildlife refuges
through cooperative, incentive-based grants to control, mitigate, and
eradicate harmful nonnative species, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 767
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Refuge Ecology Protection,
Assistance, and Immediate Response Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The National Wildlife Refuge System is the premier land
conservation system in the world.
(2) Harmful nonnative species are the leading cause of
habitat destruction in national wildlife refuges.
(3) More than 675 known harmful nonnative species are found
in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
(4) Nearly 8 million acres of the National Wildlife Refuge
System contain harmful nonnative species.
(5) The cost of early identification and removal of harmful
nonnative species is dramatically lower than removing an
established invasive population.
(6) The cost of the backlog of harmful nonnative species
control projects that need to be carried out in the National
Wildlife Refuge System is over $361,000,000, and the failure
to carry out such projects threatens the ability of the
System to fulfill its basic mission.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to encourage
partnerships among the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, other Federal agencies, States, Indian tribes, and
other interests for the following objectives:
(1) To protect, enhance, restore, and manage a diversity of
habitats for native fish and wildlife resources within the
National Wildlife Refuge System through control of harmful
nonnative species.
(2) To promote the development of voluntary State
assessments to establish priorities for controlling harmful
nonnative species that threaten or negatively impact refuge
resources.
(3) To promote greater cooperation among Federal, State,
and local land and water managers, and owners of private
land, water rights, or other interests, to implement
ecologically based strategies to eradicate, mitigate, and
control harmful nonnative species that threaten or negatively
impact refuge resources through a voluntary and incentive-
based financial assistance grant program.
(4) To establish an immediate response capability to combat
incipient harmful nonnative species invasions.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee''
means the Invasive Species Advisory Committee established by
section 3 of Executive Order 13112, dated February 3, 1999.
(2) Appropriate committees.--The term ``appropriate
Committees'' means the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate.
(3) Control.--The term ``control'' means, as appropriate,
eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing harmful
nonnative species from areas where they are present; taking
steps to detect early infestations on at-risk native
habitats; and restoring native species and habitats to reduce
the effects of harmful nonnative species.
(4) Environmental soundness.--The term ``environmental
soundness'' means the extent of inclusion of methods,
efforts, actions,
[[Page H11792]]
or programs to prevent or control infestations of harmful
nonnative species, that--
(A) minimize adverse impacts to the structure and function
of an ecosystem and adverse effects on nontarget species and
ecosystems; and
(B) emphasize integrated management techniques.
(5) Harmful nonnative species.--The term ``harmful
nonnative species'' means, with respect to a particular
ecosystem in a particular region, any species, including its
seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of
propagating that species, that is not native to that
ecosystem and has a demonstrable or potentially demonstrable
negative environmental or economic impact in that region.
(6) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(7) National management plan.--The term ``National
Management Plan'' means the management plan referred to in
section 5 of Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999, and
entitled ``Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge''.
(8) Refuge resources.--The term ``refuge resources'' means
all lands and waters, including the fish and wildlife species
and the ecosystems and habitats therein, that are owned and
managed by the Federal Government through the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service and located within the National
Wildlife Refuge System administered under the National
Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
et seq.), including any waterfowl production area.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, any other territory or possession of the United
States, and any Indian tribe.
SEC. 4. REFUGE ECOLOGY PROTECTION, ASSISTANCE, AND IMMEDIATE
RESPONSE (REPAIR) GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide--
(1) a grant to any eligible applicant to carry out a
qualified control project in accordance with this section;
and
(2) a grant to any State to carry out an assessment project
consistent with relevant State plans that have been developed
in whole or in part for the conservation of native fish,
wildlife, and their habitats, and in accordance with this
section, to--
(A) identify harmful nonnative species that occur in the
State that threaten or negatively impact refuge resources;
(B) assess the needs to restore, manage, or enhance native
fish and wildlife and their natural habitats and processes in
the State to compliment activities to control, mitigate, or
eradicate harmful nonnative species negatively impacting
refuge resources;
(C) identify priorities for actions to address such needs;
(D) identify mechanisms to increase capacity building in a
State or across State lines to conserve and protect native
fish and wildlife and their habitats and to detect and
control harmful nonnative species that might threaten or
negatively impact refuge resources within the State; and
(E) incorporate, where applicable, the guidelines of the
National Management Plan.
The grant program under this section shall be known as the
``Refuge Ecology Protection, Assistance, and Immediate
Response Grant Program'' or the ``REPAIR Program''.
(b) Functions of the Secretary.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) publish guidelines for and solicit applications for
grants under this section not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act;
(B) receive, review, evaluate, and approve applications for
grants under this section;
(C) consult with the Advisory Committee on the projects
proposed for grants under this section, including regarding
the scientific merit, technical merit, feasibility, and
priority of proposed projects for such grants; and
(D) consult with the Advisory Committee regarding the
development of the database required under subsection (j).
(2) Delegation of authority.--The Secretary may delegate to
another Federal instrumentality the authority of the
Secretary under this section, other than the authority to
approve applications for grants and make grants.
(c) Functions of the Advisory Committee.--The Advisory
Committee shall--
(1) consult with the Secretary to create criteria and
guidelines for grants under this section;
(2) consult with the Secretary regarding whether proposed
control projects are qualified control projects; and
(3) carry out functions relating to monitoring control
projects under subsection (j).
(d) Eligible Applicant.--To be an eligible applicant for
purposes of subsection (a)(1), an applicant shall--
(1) be a State, local government, interstate or regional
agency, university, or private person;
(2) have adequate personnel, funding, and authority to
carry out and monitor or maintain a control project; and
(3) have entered into an agreement with the Secretary or a
designee of the Secretary, for a national wildlife refuge or
refuge complex.
(e) Qualified Control Project.--
(1) In general.--To be a qualified control project under
this section, a project shall--
(A) control harmful nonnative species on the lands or
waters on which it is conducted;
(B) include a plan for monitoring the project area and
maintaining effective control of harmful nonnative species
after the completion of the project, that is consistent with
standards for monitoring developed under subsection (j);
(C) be conducted in partnership with a national wildlife
refuge or refuge complex;
(D) be conducted on lands or waters, other than national
wildlife refuge lands or waters, that, for purposes of
carrying out the project, are under the control of the
eligible applicant applying for the grant under this section
and on adjacent national wildlife refuge lands or waters
administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
referred to in subparagraph (C), that are--
(i) administered for the long-term conservation of such
lands and waters and the native fish and wildlife dependent
thereon; and
(ii) managed to prevent the future reintroduction or
dispersal of harmful nonnative species from the lands and
waters on which the project is carried out; and
(E) encourage public notice and outreach on control project
activities in the affected community.
(2) Other factors for selection of projects.--In ranking
qualified control projects, the Director may consider the
following:
(A) The extent to which a project would address the
operational and maintenance backlog attributed to harmful
nonnative species on refuge resources.
(B) Whether a project will encourage increased coordination
and cooperation among one or more Federal agencies and State
or local government agencies or nongovernmental or other
private entities to control harmful nonnative species
threatening or negatively impacting refuge resources.
(C) Whether a project fosters public-private partnerships
and uses Federal resources to encourage increased private
sector involvement, including consideration of the amount of
private funds or in-kind contributions to control harmful
nonnative species or national wildlife refuge lands or non-
Federal lands in proximity to refuge resources.
(D) The extent to which a project would aid the
conservation of species that are listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(E) Whether a project includes pilot testing or a
demonstration of an innovative technology having the
potential for improved cost-effectiveness in controlling
harmful nonnative species.
(F) The extent to which a project considers the potential
for unintended consequences of control methods on ecosystems
and includes contingency measures.
(f) Distribution of Control Grant Awards.--In making grants
for control projects under this section the Secretary shall,
to the greatest extent practicable, ensure--
(1) a balance of smaller and larger projects conducted with
grants under this section; and
(2) an equitable geographic distribution of projects
carried out with grants under this section, among all regions
and States within which such projects are proposed to be
conducted.
(g) Grant Duration.--
(1) In general.--Each grant under this section shall be to
provide funding for the Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out with the grant for up to 2 fiscal years.
(2) Renewal.--(A) If the Secretary, after reviewing the
reports under subsection (h) regarding a control project,
finds that the project is making satisfactory progress, the
Secretary may renew a grant under this section for the
project for an additional 3 fiscal years.
(B) The Secretary may renew a grant under this section to
implement the monitoring and maintenance plan required for a
control project under subsection (e)(1)(B) for up to 5 fiscal
years after the project is otherwise completed.
(h) Reporting by Grantee.--
(1) In general.--(A) A grantee carrying out a control
project with a grant under this section shall report to the
Secretary every 24 months or at the expiration of the grant,
whichever is of shorter duration.
(B) A State carrying out an assessment project with a grant
under this section shall submit the assessment pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) to the Secretary no later than 24 months
after the date on which the grant is awarded.
(2) Report contents.--Each report under this subsection
shall include the following information with respect to each
project covered by the report:
(A) In the case of a control project--
(i) the information described in subparagraphs (B), (D),
and (F) of subsection (k)(2);
(ii) specific information on the methods and techniques
used to control harmful nonnative species in the project
area; and
(iii) specific information on the methods and techniques
used to restore native fish, wildlife, or their habitats in
the project area.
(B) A detailed report of the funding for the grant and the
expenditures made.
[[Page H11793]]
(3) Interim update.--Each grantee under subsection
(h)(1)(A) of this section shall also submit annually a brief
synopsis to the Secretary, either electronically or in
writing, that includes--
(A) a chronological list of project progress; and
(B) use of awarded funds.
(i) Cost Sharing for Projects.--
(1) Federal share.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2)
and (3), the Federal share of the cost of a project carried
out with a grant under this section shall not exceed 75
percent of such cost.
(2) Innovative technology costs.--The Federal share of the
incremental additional cost of including in a control project
any pilot testing or a demonstration of an innovative
technology described in subsection (e)(2)(E) shall be 85
percent.
(3) Projects on refuge lands or waters.--The Federal share
of the cost of the portion of a control project funded with a
grant under this section that is carried out on national
wildlife refuge lands or waters, including the cost of
acquisition by the Federal Government of lands or waters for
use for such a project, shall be 100 percent.
(4) Application of in-kind contributions.--The Secretary
may apply to the non-Federal share of costs of a control
project carried out with a grant under this section the fair
market value of services or any other form of in-kind
contribution to the project made by non-Federal interests
that the Secretary determines to be an appropriate
contribution equivalent to the monetary amount required for
the non-Federal share of the activity.
(5) Derivation of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share
of the cost of a control project carried out with a grant
under this section may not be derived from a Federal grant
program or other Federal funds.
(j) Monitoring and Maintenance of Control Grant Projects.--
(1) Requirements.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Committee, shall develop requirements for the
monitoring and maintenance of a control project to ensure
that the requirements under subsections (e)(1)(A) and (B) are
achieved.
(2) Database of grant project information.--The Secretary
shall develop and maintain an appropriate database of
information concerning control projects carried out with
grants under this subsection, including information on
project techniques, project completion, monitoring data, and
other relevant information.
(3) Use of existing programs.--The Secretary shall use
existing programs within the Department of the Interior to
create and maintain the database required under this
subsection.
(4) Public availability.--The Secretary shall make the
information collected and maintained under this subsection
available to the public.
(k) Reporting by the Secretary.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of this Act and
biennially thereafter in the report under section 8, report
to the appropriate Committees on the implementation of this
section.
(2) Report contents.--A report under paragraph (1) shall
include an assessment of--
(A) trends in the population size and distribution of
harmful nonnative species in the project area for each
control project carried out with a grant under this section,
and in the adjacent areas as defined by the Secretary;
(B) data on the number of acres of refuge resources and
native fish and wildlife habitat restored, protected, or
enhanced under this section, including descriptions of, and
partners involved with, control projects selected, in
progress, and completed under this section;
(C) trends in the population size and distribution in the
project areas of native species targeted for restoration, and
in areas in proximity to refuge resources as defined by the
Secretary;
(D) an estimate of the long-term success of varying
conservation techniques used in carrying out control projects
with grants under this section;
(E) an assessment of the status of control projects carried
out with grants under this section, including an accounting
of expenditures by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, State, regional, and local government agencies, and
other entities to carry out such projects;
(F) a review of the environmental soundness of the control
projects carried out with grants under this section;
(G) a review of efforts made to maintain an appropriate
database of grants under this section; and
(H) a review of the geographical distribution of Federal
money, matching funds, and in-kind contributions for control
projects carried out with grants under this section.
(l) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interests.--The Secretary
may not make a grant under this section for a control project
on national wildlife refuge lands or lands in proximity to
refuge resources before a non-Federal interest has entered
into a written agreement with a national wildlife refuge or
refuge complex under which the non-Federal interest agrees
to--
(1) monitor and maintain the control project in accordance
with the plan required under subsection (e)(1)(B); and
(2) provide any other items of cooperation the Secretary
considers necessary to carry out the project.
SEC. 5. CREATION OF AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE CAPABILITY TO
HARMFUL NONNATIVE SPECIES.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may provide financial
assistance for a period of one fiscal year to enable an
immediate response to outbreaks of harmful nonnative species
that threaten or may negatively impact refuge resources that
are at a stage at which rapid eradication or control is
possible, and ensure eradication or immediate control of the
harmful nonnative species.
(b) Requirements for Assistance.--The Secretary shall
provide assistance under this section, with the concurrence
of the Governor of a State, to local and State agencies,
universities, or nongovernmental entities for the eradication
of an immediate harmful nonnative species threat only if--
(1) there is a demonstrated need for the assistance;
(2) the harmful nonnative species is considered to be an
immediate threat to refuge resources, as determined by the
Secretary; and
(3) the proposed response to such threat--
(A) is technically feasible; and
(B) minimizes adverse impacts to the structure and function
of national wildlife refuge ecosystems and adverse effects on
nontarget species.
(c) Amount of Financial Assistance.--The Secretary shall
determine the amount of financial assistance to be provided
under this section with respect to an outbreak of a harmful
nonnative species, subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(d) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activity carried out with assistance under this section may
be up to 100 percent.
(e) Monitoring and Reporting.--The Secretary shall require
that persons receiving assistance under this section monitor
and report on activities carried out with assistance under
this section in accordance with the requirements that apply
with respect to control projects carried out with assistance
under section 4.
SEC. 6. COOPERATIVE VOLUNTEER HARMFUL NON-NATIVE SPECIES
MONITORING AND CONTROL PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Consistent with the National Wildlife
Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-242), the Secretary shall
establish a cooperative volunteer harmful non-native species
monitoring and control program to administer and coordinate
projects implemented by partner organizations concerned with
national wildlife refuges to address harmful non-native
species that threaten national wildlife refuges or adjacent
lands.
(b) Eligible Activities.--Each project administered and
coordinated under this section shall include one of the
following activities:
(1) Habitat surveys.
(2) Detection and identification of new introductions or
infestations of harmful nonnative species.
(3) Harmful non-native species control projects.
(4) Public education and outreach to increase awareness
concerning harmful non-native species and their threat to the
refuge system.
SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AUTHORITIES.
(a) Authorities, etc. of Secretary.--Nothing in this Act
affects authorities, responsibilities, obligations, or powers
of the Secretary under any other statute.
(b) State Authority.--Nothing in this Act preempts any
provision or enforcement of State statute or regulation
relating to the management of fish and wildlife resources
within such State.
SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT.
The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Congress by
not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act and biennially thereafter--
(1) a comprehensive report summarizing all grant activities
relating to invasive species initiated under this Act
including--
(A) State assessment projects;
(B) qualified control projects;
(C) immediate response activities; and
(D) projects identified in the Refuge Operations Needs
database or the Service Asset and Maintenance Management
System database of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
(2) a list of grant priorities, ranked in high, medium, and
low categories, for future grant activities in the areas of--
(A) early detection and rapid response;
(B) control, management, and restoration;
(C) research and monitoring;
(D) information management; and
(E) public outreach and partnership efforts; and
(3) information required to be included under section 4(k).
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act such sums as may be necessary.
(b) Allowance for Immediate Response.--Of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this Act no more than 25 percent
shall be available in any fiscal year for financial
assistance under section 5.
(c) Continuing Availability.--Amounts appropriated under
this Act may remain available until expended.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--Of amounts available each
fiscal year to carry out this Act, the Secretary may expend
not more than 3 percent or up to $100,000, whichever is
greater, to pay the administrative expenses necessary to
carry out this Act.
[[Page H11794]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.
General Leave
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Guam?
There was no objection.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 767, as amended, would give the Secretary of the Interior
additional tools to combat harmful nonnative species that are hurting
native wildlife and plants on our national wildlife refuges. I commend
the author of this bill, Representative Ron Kind, for his leadership
and on other matters affecting the National Wildlife Refuge System.
H.R. 767, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
issue grants to States to assess the extent of invasive species
affecting refuges. The Secretary may also provide matching grants to
entities for the control, mitigation, and eradication of invasive
species on refuges and adjoining non-Federal lands.
The bill, as amended, includes a provision authorizing the Secretary
to give States financial assistance to address invasive species
outbreaks in emergency situations.
H.R. 767, as amended, will encourage the development of partnerships
to address the threat of invasive species on a cooperative landscape
basis. I urge adoption of the bill, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 767, the REPAIR
Act, as it is called, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to also congratulate and thank my dear friend from Guam.
She gives hope to this country and encouragement by showing that there
is class and there is graciousness in this body, and it exists in the
delegate from Guam. She also carries that out as chairman of the
subcommittee.
Now, the effectiveness of the REPAIR Act will be in direct proportion
to the amount of money Congress allocates. We simply cannot afford to
let our wildlife refuges be systematically destroyed by invasive
species, and that is happening. This legislation is a positive step
because it offers hope in the fight against invasives in the future.
One such species is the giant silvinia, a plant that has made its way
across many lakes as it has entered Texas. It is a small harmless-
looking little aquatic plant that finds itself on boat trailers leaving
a lake. When the boat trailer is lowered into another lake, the
nightmare floating plant finds itself in a new lake, and it can take
over. It doubles its size in less than a week, and in no time covers
acres, shutting off sunlight, killing off plants underneath, which
results in aquatic life dying. It must be fought and eradicated without
doing damage to the lake during the fight. Such a battle takes many
good minds and hard workers coming together to prevent this creeping
menace from being the last thing left in a lake alive.
In Louisiana, there are cities like Shreveport whose sources of
drinking water are being put in jeopardy by this freak of nature. Just
recently I toured Caddo Lake, the largest freshwater natural lake at
one time and a true treasure for America with its cypress trees,
Spanish moss, and unusual fish. We had a joint task force of biologists
and brilliant environmental problem-solvers from Federal, State,
private groups, who all had the same goal: eradicate the invasion of
this foreign species without doing damage to the lake.
I just want to read a list of the types of people that are willing to
come together when we deal with something that is such a grave threat
to our water supplies.
We had Dan Turner, representing Congressman Jim McCrery of Louisiana;
Ken Shaw, chairman, Cypress Valley Navigation District; Robert Speight,
President, Greater Caddo Lake Association; Jack Canson, community
response coordinator; Mark Williams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Caddo Lake
National Wildlife Refuge manager; Al Tasker, USDA/Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service; Dustin Grant, USDA/Plant Protection and Quarantine,
State operations support officer; Dr. Earl Chilton, Texas Parks &
Wildlife, and a member of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee for
the National Invasive Species Council, Department of the Interior; Paul
Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Interior/NISC; also
Dr. Michael Grodowitz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, biocontrol expert;
Dr. Randy Westbrooks, U.S. Geological Survey, invasive plant
coordinator; Judge Richard Anderson, Harrison County judge; Jerry
Lomax, Harrison County Precinct 1 commissioner; C.E. Bourne, Marion
County Precinct 3 commissioner for Judge Parker; Sam Canup, mayor of
the City of Uncertain, and that is a real city, Uncertain, Texas; Jay
Webb, Caddo Lake Chamber of Commerce; Bill Abney, Red River Compact;
Walt Sears, manager, Northeast Texas Municipal Water District; Dwight
Shellman, Caddo Lake Institute; Todd Dickenson, manager, Caddo Lake
State Park; Alan Grantham, Dallas Caddo Club; Connie Ware, Marshall
Chamber of Commerce; Dr. Jim Harris, Marshall Chamber of Commerce,
Water Committee Chair; and Sam Moseley of Marshall.
It just points up how important what this bill addresses is. These
are invasive species that come into lakes and to parks and take over
and destroy the native habitat that we are trying to preserve. I have
to say, when we had this meeting that went on for a number of hours, I
don't recall one time during the entire meeting where anybody ever
asked what party anybody ever supported politically. It was all about
trying to protect what God had graced this country with, and it is
wonderful to see that kind of support.
But what is very clear is that we cannot fight off these nonnative
invasive species unless we work together in a bipartisan, in a
cumulative fashion with all these different scientists, biologists,
governmental groups coming together, because it affects so many
different areas. It's one of the reasons I am so grateful to my friend
from Guam and for all of those that have worked to help make this
possible. We have got to preserve what we have got, and this is one of
the ways to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend across the
aisle, Mr. Gohmert, the gentleman from Texas, for his very kind words.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman, my colleague from American
Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for 1 minute.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do want to commend the distinguished gentlelady
who serves as Chair of our Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee
in the Natural Resources Committee, and I want to associate myself with
the comments made earlier by our colleague from the other side of the
aisle, the gentleman from Texas. This is not a Republican or Democratic
issue. This is something that really is important that serves the best
interests of our Nation.
I know my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, would have been
here on the floor, but I am sure he probably had some transportation
problems coming here today. I want to commend him especially for his
leadership and for the tremendous service that he has rendered in
promoting the interests of wildlife and refuge conservation measures,
also as a distinguished member of the subcommittee; but I also want to
note that I know he would have spoken, and not only in support of a
bill that he has sponsored, but certainly for his knowledge and his
commitment in dealing with the issues and conservation and wildlife
refuges.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, once again, some people advocate mechanical
removal of an invasive species; others advocate using natural means,
whether it's an insect or a fish or something to help control an
invasive species. Some offer that there are chemical means for dealing
with those.
But unless we come together on a bill like this, bringing all the
different entities with all the difference weapons
[[Page H11795]]
at their command, we are not going to be able to control some of these
species. Some of them, like the giant silvinia, are so resistant to so
much, and they hide among other plants until they take over and just
spread so rapidly, that we must come together.
It is gratifying to see such bipartisan effort in trying to hold on
to the land we love.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 767,
the Refuge Ecology Protection, Assistance, and Immediate Response Act,
which I authored. Passage of this legislation today will bring us one
step closer to giving our National Wildlife Refuge System a vital tool
in the war being waged against invasive species.
For too long, our National Wildlife Refuges have been overlooked and
neglected. The Refuge System has forged on as a System under siege from
a number of fronts. Paramount among these has been the steady march of
invasive plants and animals that have come from other places and
literally taken over, crowding out the very wildlife and habitat the
refuges are charged with protecting. Experts and refuge managers at the
Fish and Wildlife Service have identified invasives as the number one
threat to the biological integrity of our National Wildlife Refuges.
Nevertheless, without the resources to maintain even the most basic
functions and infrastructure--indeed, many refuge units do not have any
dedicated staff at all--refuges have been able to do little to respond
to invasive species.
This House has affirmed its commitment to our wildlife refuges by
approving the largest-ever budget increase for the Refuge System in the
FY08 Interior Appropriations bill. This money will begin to bring the
System's budget to a level where it can stop cutting employees and
shuttering refuges and begin to address its pressing maintenance and
management needs. This is a good start. But with all the challenges
that face our refuges, there is still a great need to focus resources
on preventing the spread of invasive species. That is why we must pass
the REPAIR Act here today.
H.R. 767 authorizes new grants that will bring the Fish and Wildlife
Service together with State agencies, community groups, and private
citizens to form a united front against invasives. The bill confronts
the challenge of invasive species through a two-pronged approach.
First, it authorizes immediate response grants when a harmful non-
native species has been identified as an immediate threat to a refuge
at a stage at which rapid eradication is possible. This way we will be
able to prevent new invasive species from taking hold and wreaking
havoc on refuge ecosystems.
The second line of defense in the bill are REPAIR grants, which
contribute to a more long-term strategy for combating existing
invasives. These grants would go to States, local governments,
community groups, or individuals to remove harmful non-native species
and promote native species and their habitat on lands and waters in and
adjacent to National Wildlife Refuges. Additionally, the grants could
be used to complete assessment projects consistent with existing State
wildlife conservation plans to identify invasive species, assess the
needs on the ground, and target resources to address the problem
adequately and efficiently.
All grants would be awarded on a competitive basis and include
monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure proper oversight
ability by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Federal grants would
cover 100 percent of the cost for projects within refuges and for
immediate response projects, but a non-Federal cost share of at least
25 percent would be required for REPAIR grants on adjacent lands.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the REPAIR Act brings together the public and
private sectors to ensure the future of our Wildlife Refuge System.
These are special places unlike any other in the world. They are the
only Federal land system devoted primarily to the preservation of our
unique wildlife resources. I know from my countless hours spent taking
in the grandeur of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge, admiring the special beauty of Trempealeau NWR, or proudly
watching the whooping cranes take off from Necedah NWR behind their
ultralight guide, that these places are an integral part of the
American experience that deserve special protection.
I would like to thank my fellow co-chairs of the Congressional
National Wildlife Refuge Caucus, Jim Saxton, Mike Thompson, and Mike
Castle for helping promote our Refuge System here in the House, and for
their support of H.R. 767. I also extend my great thanks to Natural
Resources Committee Chairman Rahall and Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Subcommittee Chairwoman Bordallo for their support and for helping this
bill get through the committee process and to the floor today. Finally,
I thank Dave Jansen and the rest of the committee staff for their
expertise and tireless work on behalf of our Nation's tremendous
natural endowment.
H.R. 767 makes good policy by fostering cooperation between
government and private entities in pursuit of a common goal in the
national interest. I urge my colleagues to support its passage today so
we can begin to protect America's National Wildlife Refuges from
further attack and degradation. We owe it to future generations of
hunters, anglers, wildlife enthusiasts, and nature lovers of all types
to preserve creatures and habitats that are distinctly American.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his very
supportive words on this particular measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 767, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________