[House Report 105-276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-276
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                 NEW WILDLIFE REFUGE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 29, 1997.--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. 512]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 512) to prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund for the creation of new National 
Wildlife Refuges without specific authorization from Congress 
pursuant to a recommendation from the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service to create the refuge, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the bill do pass.

                          purpose of the bill

    The purpose of H.R. 512 is to prohibit the expenditure of 
funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the 
creation of new National Wildlife Refuges without specific 
authorization from Congress.

                  background and need for legislation

    Today, the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) System is 
comprised of 509 individual refuges, which are located in all 
50 states and the five territories. The System affects about 92 
million acres of Federal lands. It provides habitat for 
thousands of species of fish and wildlife, and it is 
particularly important to migratory bird conservation, as many 
refuges are concentrated along the major North American 
flyways.
    To date, 67 refuge units have been legislatively created by 
Congress (Arctic NWR, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR, and 
the Edwin B. Forsythe NWR), 121 refuge units were acquired with 
money from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, 104 units are 
comprised of Federal lands transferred to the Department of the 
Interior, 94 were established from lands donated to the Refuge 
System, and 78 units were financed by the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
    In the last decade, over 70 new refuges and approximately 
three million acres have been added to the System. The vast 
majority of the Refuge System, 81 million acres out of 92 
million acres, was reserved from the public domain. Roughly 
four million acres have been purchased by the Federal 
Government, and other lands have been obtained by transfer to 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by donations from 
private citizens. The primary sources of funding for refuge 
acquisitions are: (1) the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, 
which is financed by the purchase of annual duck stamps, import 
duties on firearms and ammunition, and refuge entrance fees; 
and (2) annual appropriations from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
    For instance, under normal conditions, money is allocated 
from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund in the following 
manner: a Governor of a State or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, after consulting with local citizens and officials, 
recommends that a new refuge be created or that additional land 
be added to the System. This recommendation is then considered 
and must be approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation 
Commission. At this time, the membership of that Commission 
includes: the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the 
Interior; the Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator, 
Environmental Protection Agency; the Honorable Thad Cochran (R-
MS); the Honorable John D. Dingell (D-MI); the Honorable Daniel 
R. Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable Curt 
Weldon (R-PA); the Honorable John B. Breaux (D-LA); and Mr. 
Jeffrey M. Donahoe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Secretary 
of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission). The Commission 
normally meets about three times a year in Washington, D.C., to 
review the acquisition recommendations.
    By contrast, these checks and balances do not exist on the 
expenditure of money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF). Under the terms of Public Law 88-579, Congress 
established the LWCF as a separate account in the U.S. 
Treasury, effective January 1, 1965. This Fund is to be used 
to: (1) authorize Federal assistance to the states in planning, 
acquisition and development of needed land and water areas and 
facilities; and (2) provide funding for the Federal acquisition 
and development of certain lands and other areas.
    In the past 32 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
has obtained over $1 billion in funding from the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees to purchase private property 
for inclusion in existing or entirely new wildlife refuge 
units. In fact, in the past 10 years, 47 new refuges have been 
created with money from the LWCF. During this period, the Fund 
was responsible for the acquisition of 498,775 acres of land. 
The authorizing committees had almost no meaningful role in 
this acquisition process.
    Under the terms of this legislation, no funds could be 
expended from the LWCF to create a new refuge without a 
Congressional authorization.
    H.R. 512 is a narrowly crafted bill that does not affect 
additions to the existing 509 wildlife refuges, private 
donations of property, transfers of land from one Federal 
agency to another, or those refuges created with money from the 
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.
    This authorization requirement is consistent with the legal 
stipulation that Congress must authorize all new flood control 
projects, highways, scenic rivers, and weapons systems. 
Furthermore, the House Resources Committee routinely reviews 
and must approve even the most minor additions, deletions, and 
boundary changes to units of our National Park System.
    By requiring a Congressional authorization of a new refuge 
unit, the House Resources Committee and the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee will have a meaningful role in the 
expenditure of millions of tax dollars. This oversight is 
particularly important at this time with the Refuge System 
experiencing a maintenance backlog of more than $505 million. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service priorities must be carefully 
reviewed.

                            committee action

    H.R. 512 was introduced on February 4, 1997, by the 
Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Congressman Don 
Young (R-AK), and Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) and referred 
to the Committee on Resources. Within the Committee, the bill 
was referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, 
Wildlife and Oceans. Congressman George Radanovich (R-CA) has 
cosponsored the bill.
    On March 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Fisheries 
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans conducted a hearing on H.R. 
512. Testimony was heard from the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, 
Secretary, Department of the Interior; the Honorable Bernie 
Richter, Assemblyman, California Legislature; Dr. Daniel Beard, 
Vice President, National Audubon Society; Mr. Roger 
Schlickeisen, President, Defenders of Wildlife; Mr. John P. 
Baranek, President, Herzog Company; and Mr. Jeff Craven of 
Cloverdale, Oregon. In his testimony, Mr. Craven stated, ``With 
the Congressional oversight provided in H.R. 512, I believe 
that creative solutions are more likely to be found.''
    On July 31, 1997, the Subcommittee on Fisheries 
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans considered H.R. 512 in a 
markup session and ordered it reported favorably, without 
amendment, to the full Committee on Resources by voice vote.
    On September 17, 1997, the full Committee on Resources met 
to consider H.R. 512. No amendments were offered and the bill 
was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives 
by a roll call vote of 25 to 9 as follows:


            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X 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 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact H.R. 512.

                        COST OF THE LEGISLATION

    Clause 7(a) 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 
H.R. 512. However, clause 7(d) 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 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
512 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI 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 and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 512.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI 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 H.R. 512 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 25, 1997.
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. 512, the New 
Wildlife Refuge Authorization Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 512--New Wildlife Refuge Authorization Act

    H.R. 512 would prohibit the spending of any amounts 
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the 
purpose of creating any new wildlife refuge unless the refuge 
has been specifically authorized by the Congress. CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 512 would have no direct impact on the 
federal budget because the bill would not affect any existing 
authorizations to acquire land for refugees.
    H.R. 512 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
and would have no impact on the budgets of state, local, or 
tribal governments. The bill would not affect federal receipts 
or direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. 
The estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    H.R. 512 contains no unfunded mandates.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, H.R. 512 would make no changes in existing law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    This legislation is a blatant attack on the National 
Wildlife Refuge System, and it is completely counter to the 
spirit of H.R. 1420, comprehensive legislation to improve the 
management of our wildlife refuges, which has received 
overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.
    The proponents of this legislation have argued that it is 
merely intended to enhance Congressional oversight of the 
creation of wildlife refuges. Yet Congress already has full 
oversight over land acquisition from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund (LWCF) through the annual appropriations 
process. H.R. 512 throws up unnecessary roadblocks to the 
protection of wildlife habitat, the preservation of open space, 
and the availability of outdoor recreational opportunities at a 
time when the public is calling for more spending, not less, 
for land acquisition from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    Congress has given the Secretary of the Interior authority 
to create and expand wildlife refuges, provided funds are 
available from the LWCF or other sources. Through its policy of 
acquiring land for fair market value from willing sellers, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service has established 90 refuges using 
LWCF, while respecting private property rights. Moreover, in a 
misdirected attempt to protect property rights, which are fully 
protected under the Fish and Wildlife Service's land 
acquisition policy, H.R. 512 actually usurps the property 
rights of those who would like to sell their land to the Fish 
and Wildlife Service.
    The authority to establish refuges is especially important 
for the protection of endangered species: More than half of the 
refuges established administratively using LWCF funds have been 
for the protection of endangered species habitat. Once 
established, these refuges not only benefit endangered species 
but also provide outdoor recreational opportunities for the 
public and protect valuable habitat for other species. Further, 
increasing the amount of endangered species habitat under 
public ownership decreases the potential for the designation of 
critical habitat, with its concomitant use restrictions, on 
private land.
    H.R. 512 is contrary to the interests of outdoorsmen and 
women of all stripes, and to the interests of the general 
public. The Secretary of the Interior has stated that he will 
recommend a veto of the bill if it is presented to the 
President. Our time would be much better spent doing what the 
American public really wants: protecting more of our precious 
open space using the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

                                   George Miller.
                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Peter A. DeFazio.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Sam Farr.
                                   Lloyd Doggett.
                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.
                                   Ron Kind.
                                   Bruce F. Vento.

                                
