[Senate Report 105-222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 432
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-222
_______________________________________________________________________


 
           AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION

                                _______
                                

                 June 25, 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 627]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 627), to reauthorize the African Elephant 
Conservation Act, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

                           General Statement

                               BACKGROUND

    The African elephant (Loxdonta africana)--along with its 
Asian counterpart (Elephas maximus), the largest land animal on 
the planet--once inhabited most of the continent. However, the 
population has declined over the centuries as a result of ivory 
trade, habitat loss, human population expansion, and 
desertification. By about 1600, the elephant was extirpated 
from northern Africa, and since then, population decline and 
habitat loss has continued throughout sub-Saharan Africa. 
However, it wasn't until the 1970's and 1980's that elephant 
populations declined precipitously, due primarily to poaching 
for their ivory tusks. The numbers are stark: between 1979 and 
1987, the population of African elephants plummeted from 
approximately 1.3 million to less than 700,000. Since then, the 
population has continued to decline, to approximately 540,000 
elephants in 1996.
    Responding to this decline, Congress enacted the African 
Elephant Conservation Act (P.L. 100-478, 16 U.S.C. 4201 et 
seq.) on October 7, 1988. This law provided a framework and 
authority for the President to institute a moratorium on the 
importation of ivory into the United States, and it established 
a fund to provide financial assistance for projects for 
research, conservation, management and protection of African 
elephants.
    Shortly after enactment of the law, on June 6, 1989, 
President Bush prohibited the import of all ivory into the 
United States. This action served, in large part, as the 
impetus for the decision by the Parties to the Convention on 
the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora (CITES) to place the African elephant on Appendix I, 
which triggered a prohibition on all commercial trade in 
products derived from the species. This international ban took 
effect in January 1990. Almost immediately, the price of ivory, 
trade in ivory, and poaching of elephants all decreased.
    The African Elephant Conservation Act has provided funding 
for 60 projects in 19 countries across Africa since its 
enactment. In total, $6.8 million in Federal funds have been 
obligated for these projects, matched by approximately $15.8 
million in non-Federal funds. With more than 300 project 
proposals totaling more than $240 million received by the 
Secretary since enactment, demand far exceeds current funding. 
Although the law provides that the Secretary may use three 
percent of the Federal funds appropriated for administrative 
costs, actual administrative costs are less than one percent. 
These figures underscore the effectiveness, efficiency and 
overall success of the law.
    A primary reason for the law's success stems from its 
emphasis on small grants that: can be awarded quickly; focus on 
diverse, field-level conservation projects; emphasize 
cooperation with the governments of range nations; and utilize 
matching funds. The results in some areas have been dramatic. 
For example, funding in 1990 for a project by the Central 
African Republic and the World Wildlife Fund provided resources 
to support the establishment of a reserve in that country. At 
that time, in one area of the reserve, only carcasses were 
evident; today, more than 2,000 elephants use the same area. 
Funding for an anti-poaching program in Senegal has allowed a 
genetically valuable population of elephants to increase after 
years of decline. The financial assistance program has served 
as a model for conservation of imperiled species overseas, 
including the recently enacted Asian Elephant Conservation Act 
of 1997 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994.
    The moratorium on ivory imports into the United States 
imposed under the Act, and the conservation projects funded by 
the Act have taken on added importance in light of recent 
actions by the Parties to CITES. Over U.S. opposition, the 
Parties voted in June 1997 to downlist from Appendix I to 
Appendix II elephant populations in Botswana, Namibia and 
Zimbabwe, and to allow limited trade in certain products 
derived from elephant populations in those countries. The 
United States opposed the decision, believing that the 
resumption of commercial trade in ivory would pose unacceptable 
risks to elephant populations elewhere in the continent from 
poaching and illegal trade.

               Objectives and Summary of the Legislation

    The bill reauthorizes the African Elephant Conservation Act 
through 2002. Section 1 amends section 2306 of the African 
Elephant Conservation Act by authorizing appropriations through 
fiscal year 2002. The authorized level of appropriations 
remains unchanged at $5 million each year.

                                Hearings

    The Committee held a hearing on S. 627 on November 4, 1997. 
Testimony was given by: Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont; 
Congressman Jim Saxton of the third district of New Jersey; 
Marshall P. Jones, Assistant Director for International 
Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service; Ginette Hemley, Director 
for International Wildlife Policy, World Wildlife Fund; Dr. 
John W. Grandy, Senior Vice President, The Humane Society of 
the United States; and Dr. Stuart A. Marks, Director for 
Research and Community Development, Safari Club International.

                           Regulatory Impact

    In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes an evaluation 
of the regulatory impact of the reported bill. The reported 
bill will have no regulatory impact. This bill will not have 
any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee finds that this bill would 
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, 
local, or tribal governments. All of its governmental 
directives are imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not 
directly impose any private sector mandates.

                          Legislative History

    S. 627 was introduced by Senator Jeffords and referred to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 22, 
1997. H.R. 39, the African Elephant Conservation 
Reauthorization Act of 1997, was received from the House of 
Representatives and referred to the Committee on April 24, 
1997. On May 21, 1998, the Committee held a business meeting to 
consider both bills. Both S. 627 and H.R. 39 were favorably 
reported out of the Committee by voice vote.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of a reported 
bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included 
in the report. That statement follows:
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 29, 1998.

Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 627, the African 
Elephant Conservation Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis, 
who can be reached at 226-2860.

            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill,
                                                          Director.
                                ------                                


               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    S. 627, A bill to reauthorize the African Elephant 
Conservation Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works on May 21, 1998.
Summary
    S. 627 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 1997, the fund has spent a total of nearly $8 million 
in appropriated and donated funds.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing S. 627 would result in additional 
discretionary spending of $20 million over the 1999-2003 
period. The legislation would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 
S. 627 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 
as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
    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 S. 627 will be appropriated for each of 
fiscal years 1999 through 2002. Outlay estimates are based on 
historical spending patterns for this program. The estimated 
budgetary impact is shown in the following table. The costs of 
this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural 
resources and environment).

                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                                                               
Spending Under Current Law:                                                                                     
    Budget Authority\1\.........................................       1       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       1       0       0       0       0       0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization Level.........................................       0       5       5       5       5       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0       3       4       5       5       3
Spending Under S. 627:                                                                                          
    Authorization Level\1\......................................       1       5       5       5       5       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       1       3       4       5       5       3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1998 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                     

    Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: S. 627 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of State, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Previous CBO Estimate: On April 17, 1997, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for H.R. 39, the African Elephant Authorization 
Act of 1997, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 
Resources on April 16, 1997. The estimated costs of the two 
bills are identical.
    Estimate Prepared by: Deborah Reis (226-2860).
    Estimate Approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: existing law as proposed to 
be omitted is enclosed in [bold brackets]; new matter proposed 
to be added to existing law is printed in italic; and existing 
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

               United States Code--Title 16--Conservation

               Chapter 62--African Elephant Conservation

Subchapter III--Miscellaneous

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 4245. 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 chapter, to remain available until expended.


                         
