[House Report 105-59]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-59
_______________________________________________________________________
AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997
_______
April 21, 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
[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 reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 39 is to reauthorize the African
Elephant Conservation Act.
Background and Need for legislation
In the late 1980s, the population of African elephants
declined by almost half. In 1979, the total elephant population
in Africa was approximately 1.3 million animals. In 1987, fewer
than 700,000 African elephants were alive.
While drought, disease, and competition for land use
arising from human population growth were threats to elephant
populations, the poaching of elephants for their ivory tusks
reached epidemic proportions in the 1980s and far overshadowed
the other factors.
To most Americans, elephants have always been majestic
creatures loved and admired at zoos throughout this country. To
many African villagers, however, they are a dangerous nuisance
that tramples their crops, drinks their water, and terrorizes
their children. Regrettably, in the 1980s, they also offered an
opportunity for villagers to feed their families by killing an
elephant for its ivory and obtaining what was equivalent to a
year's income.
Furthermore, the destruction of this flagship species was
not confined to just a few countries, but was widespread
throughout the African continent. In fact, there were really
only four southern African nations--Botswana, Namibia, South
Africa, and Zimbabwe--that had stable elephant populations and
effective conservation programs. The rest of the continent was
fighting a losing battle against poachers who were selling
illegally-obtained elephant ivory at hugely inflated prices.
As a nation, the United States consumed about 30 percent of
the world's carved ivory production. Since most experts
believed that nearly 80 percent of all ivory was poached,
consumer purchases in the United States accounted for the death
of some 27,000 elephants. With the population of African
elephants declining by nearly nine percent a year, unless this
slaughter was stopped, the African elephant would have been
annihilated as a viable population throughout much of its range
by the end of this century.
In response to this growing international crisis, Congress
enacted the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 (P.L.
100-478). The major provisions of this landmark law required
the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate on a country-by-
country basis the effectiveness of the elephant conservation
program of each ivory-producing nation; prohibited ivory
imports from African countries unable to adequately protect
their elephants from poaching; required intermediary countries
to stop selling illegally-obtained ivory; established the
African Elephant Conservation Fund and authorized $5 million
per year to assist African nations; and required the Secretary
of the Interior to examine, within three years, the
effectiveness of Public Law 100-478 in halting the importation
of illegal ivory into the United States.
Following the enactment of this law, President George Bush,
using the authority given to him by the African Elephant
Conservation Act, banned the importation of all carved elephant
ivory into the United States on June 6, 1989. In addition, on
October 11, 1989, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora voted overwhelmingly
to place the African elephant on its Appendix I list. By so
doing, all commercial trade in elephant products was banned
beginning on January 18, 1990. Finally, in 1992, Congress
renewed the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to spend
money from the African Elephant Conservation Fund until
September 30, 1998. By so doing, Congress is able to
appropriate up to $5 million a year to the African Elephant
Conservation Fund to provide grant money for various
conservation projects to assist this species. The African
Elephant Conservation Fund has been the only continuous source
of new money for elephant conservation efforts for the past
nine years.
Since the Fund's creation, Congress has appropriated more
than $7 million to the African Elephant Conservation Fund. This
money, which has generated an additional $8.6 million in
private matching funds, was allocated by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for some 50 conservation projects in 17 range
states throughout Africa. These projects have been sponsored by
a diverse group of conservation organizations including: the
African Elephant Conservation Coordinating Group, African
Safari Club of Washington, D.C., the Center for Wildlife
Conservation, International Union for the Conservation of
Nature, Safari Club International, Southern Africa Wildlife
Trust, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife
Fund.
Money allocated from the African Elephant Conservation Fund
has been used to purchase anti-hunting equipment for wildlife
rangers, to create a comprehensive reference library on the
African elephant, to undertake elephant population surveys in
various African countries, to develop and implement elephant
conservation plans and to move elephants from certain drought
regions. In fact, the relocation project in Zimbabwe was the
first time in history that such a large number of elephants
were successfully moved to new habitats.
Finally, there are many conservationists who feel that
without the African Elephant Conservation Fund, the African
elephant will once again decline and may disappear from much of
its historic range.
H.R. 39 will extend the authorization of appropriations for
the African Elephant Conservation Fund until September 30,
2002. This will allow Congress to appropriate money to conserve
African elephants into the next century and to fund additional
conservation projects.
ELEPHANT POPULATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country 1987 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zaire......................................... 145,000 65,000
Tanzania...................................... 100,000 74,000
Gabon......................................... 76,000 62,000
Congo......................................... 61,000 32,500
Botswana...................................... 51,000 81,000
Zimbabwe...................................... 43,000 67,000
Zambia........................................ 41,000 20,000
Sudan......................................... 40,000 44,500
Kenya......................................... 35,000 20,000
Cameroon...................................... 21,000 22,000
Central African Republic...................... 19,000 23,000
Mozambique.................................... -- 14,900
Namibia....................................... -- 7,000
South Africa.................................. -- 9,990
-------------------------
Total................................... 632,000 542,890
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: African Elephant Specialist Group
AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION FUND
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration
Fiscal year Authorization request Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989...................................................... $5 M 0 0
1990...................................................... 5 M 0 $350,000
1991...................................................... 5 M $770,000 765,999
1992...................................................... 5 M 1,201,000 957,000
1993...................................................... 5 M 1,201,000 1,159,000
1994...................................................... 5 M 1,169,000 1,137,000
1995...................................................... 5 M 1,169,000 1,166,767
1996...................................................... 5 M 1,169,000 600,000
1997...................................................... 5 M 601,000 1,000,000
1998...................................................... 5 M 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Action
H.R. 39 was introduced by the Chairman of the Resources
Committee, Congressman Don Young (R-AK) and Congressman Randy
(Duke) Cunningham (R-CA) on January 7, 1997, and referred to
the Committee on Resources. Within the Committee, the bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans. On February 4, 1997, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA),
cosponsored the bill.
On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans conducted a hearing on H.R.
39. Testimony was heard from Congressman Cunningham; Mr.
Marshall Jones, Assistant Director for International Affairs,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; Dr.
Terry Maple, Director, Zoo Atlanta; the Honorable Ron Marlenee,
Director of Legislative Affairs, Safari Club International; Ms.
Gina DeFerrari, Director of Traffic, World Wildlife Fund; Dr.
Teresa Telecky, Director of Wildlife Trade Program, Humane
Society of the United States; and Dr. Brian Child, Luangwa
Integrated Rural Development Programme, Zambia. There was
unanimous support for the enactment of H.R. 39. In his
statement, the representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service indicated that the African Elephant Conservation Fund
``provided a critical incentive for governments of the world,
non-governmental organizations, and the private sector to work
together for a common conservation goal. This is not a hand
out, but a helping hand.''
On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans considered H.R. 39 in a mark-
up session and ordered it reported favorably, without
amendment, to the Full Committee on Resources by voice vote.
On April 16, 1997, the Full Committee on Resources met to
consider H.R. 39. There were no amendments and the Committee
ordered the bill favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by voice vote.
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 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 39.
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. 39. 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. 39
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 requirements 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. 39.
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. 39
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 17, 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. 39, the African
Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 39--African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997
SUMMARY
H.R. 39 would reauthorize, through fiscal year 2002, annual
appropriations to the African Elephant Conservation Fund at the
existing authorization level of up to $5 million. The current
authorization expires on September 30, 1998. The Secretary of
the Interior uses this fund primarily to help finance research
and conservation programs overseas. From its inception in 1991
through 1996, the fund has spent a total of $7 million in
appropriated and donated funds.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 39 would result in additional
discretionary spending of $17 million over the 1999-2002
period. The legislation would not affect direct spending or
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 39 does not contain any 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.
ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 39 is shown in the
table on the following page. The authorization level specified
by the bill is the same as the current authorization but about
$4 million higher than annual appropriations have been since
this program's inception.
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the entire
amounts authorized by H.R. 39 would be appropriated for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2002. Outlay estimates are based on
historical spending patterns for this program.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending under current law:
Authorization level \1\......................... 1 5 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays............................... 2 4 2 1 0 0
Proposed changes:
Authorization level............................. 0 0 5 5 5 5
Estimated outlays............................... 0 0 3 4 5 5
Spending under H.R. 39:
Authorization level \1\......................... 1 5 5 5 5 5
Estimated outlays............................... 2 4 5 5 5 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for that year. The 1998 level is the amount authorized under
current law.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function
300 (natural resources and environment).
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
intergovernmental and private-sector impact
H.R. 39 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.
Estimate prepared by: Deborah Reis.
Estimates approved by: Robert S. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R. 39 contains no unfunded mandates.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 2306 OF THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT
SEC. 2306. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund and to
the Secretary a total of not to exceed $5,000,000 for each of
[fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998]
fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry
out this title, to remain available until expended.