[House Report 108-520]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-520
======================================================================
EXCLUSION OF NONNATIVE SPECIES FROM MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT;
CONSERVATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS
_______
June 3, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4114]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 4114) to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to exclude
non-native migratory bird species from the application of that
Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
TITLE I--EXCLUSION OF NONNATIVE SPECIES FROM MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of
2004''.
SEC. 102. EXCLUSION OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES FROM APPLICATION OF CERTAIN
PROHIBITIONS UNDER MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT.
Section 2 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``That unless and
except as permitted'' and inserting the following: ``(a) In
General.--Unless and except as permitted''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Limitation on Application to Introduced Species.--
``(1) In general.--This section applies only to migratory
bird species that are native to the United States and whose
occurrence in the United States is entirely the result of
natural biological or ecological conditions.
``(2) Treatment of introduced species.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)--
``(A) a bird species shall not be treated as native
to the United States if it occurs in the United States
solely as a result of intentional or unintentional
human-assisted introduction; and
``(B) a migratory bird species shall be treated as
native to the United States if--
``(i) it was native to the United States and
extant in 1918;
``(ii) it was extirpated after 1918
throughout its range in the United States; and
``(iii) after such extirpation, it was
reintroduced in the United States as a part of
a program carried out by a Federal agency.''.
SEC. 103. PUBLICATION OF LIST.
The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register
within 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act a list of all
non-native, human introduced bird species to which the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act does not apply that belong to biological families of
migratory birds covered under any of the migratory bird conventions
with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Russia, or Japan. The
Secretary shall provide adequate time for public comment. Nothing in
this section concerning the publication of the list shall delay
implementation of other provisions of this Act that exclude non-native,
human introduced bird species from the application of the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act.
TITLE II--CONSERVATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Improvement Act of 2004''.
SEC. 202. AMENDMENTS TO NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT.
(a) Findings.--Section 2(1) of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6101(1)) is amended by inserting ``but
breed in Canada and the United States'' after ``the Caribbean''.
(b) Purposes.--Section 3(2) of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6102(2)) is amended by inserting
``Canada,'' after ``United States,''.
(c) Definition of Caribbean.--Section 4 of the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Act is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and
(3) in order or paragraphs (3) and (4), and by inserting paragraph (1)
the following:
``(2) Caribbean.--The term `Caribbean' includes Puerto Rico
and the United States Virgin Islands.''.
(d) Cost Sharing.--Section 5(e) of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6104(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``25 percent'' and inserting
``50 percent''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as
follows:
``(B) Form of payment.--
``(i) Projects in the united states and
canada.--The non-Federal share required to be
paid for a project carried out in the United
States or Canada shall be paid in cash.
``(ii) Projects in latin america and the
caribbean.--The non-Federal share required to
be paid for a project carried out in Latin
America or the Caribbean may be paid in cash or
in kind.''.
(e) Report.--Section 8 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 6107) is amended--
(1) by striking ``October 1, 2002,'' and inserting ``12
months after the date of the enactment of the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Improvement Act of 2004,''; and
(2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and a
description of the activities of the advisory committee
convened under section 7(b)''.
(f) Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.--
(1) In general.-- Section 9 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6108) is amended by striking so
much as precedes subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 9. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION FUND.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury a separate
account, which shall be known as the `Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund'. The Fund shall consist of amounts deposited into
the Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (b).
``(b) Deposits Into the Fund.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
deposit into the Fund--
``(1) all amounts received by the Secretary in the form of
donations under subsection (d); and
``(2) other amounts appropriated to the Fund.''.
(2) Administrative expenses.--Section 9(c)(2) of the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.
6108(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``$80,000'' and inserting
``$150,000''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--The Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act is amended as follows:
(A) In section 4 (16 U.S.C. 6103), by striking
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Fund.--The term `Fund' means the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund established by section 9(a).''.
(B) In section 9(d) (16 U.S.C. 6108(d)), by striking
``Account'' and inserting ``Fund''.
(4) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer to
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts that
were in the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account
immediately before the enactment of this Act.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10 of the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund
to carry out this Act the following amounts:
``(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
``(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
``(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
``(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
``(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under this section may
remain available until expended.
``(c) Allocation.--Of amounts appropriated under this section for
each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be expended for
projects carried out outside the United States.
``(d) Limitation on Expenditures for Projects in Canada.--Amounts
appropriated under this section for a fiscal year may not be used for
any project in Canada unless the amount available to carry out this Act
for that fiscal year is greater than $10,000,000.''.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 4114 is to amend the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act to exclude non-native migratory bird species from
the application of that Act, and for other purposes.
Background and Need for Legislation
In 1916, the United States and Great Britain (for Canada)
signed a treaty known as the Convention for the Protection of
Migratory Birds. The United States is now party to separate
bilateral conventions for the conservation and protection of
migratory birds with Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia. The
fundamental goal of all these agreements was to establish an
international framework for the protection and conservation of
migratory birds that seasonally migrate among the member
nations. The Conventions with Japan and Russia clearly list
individual species of birds that are protected. By contrast,
the Conventions with Canada and Mexico introduce some confusion
by merely listing protected families of birds; these
Conventions do not expressly state whether they apply to all
species within the designated families or just to those species
that are native to the territory of the parties.
Under the Canadian and Mexico Conventions, the term
``migratory bird'' includes a number of bird families such as
Anatidae, Gruidae, Rallidae, Limicolae and Columbidae.
Specifically, covered native species include brants, coots,
cormorants, crows, gallinules, geese, gulls, mourning doves,
rails, robins, snipes, swans, white-winged doves, whooping
cranes, wild pigeons, wild species of ducks, and woodcocks.
This is, however, not a complete list of protected bird
species.
In 1918, Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703-712) to implement the first Convention for
the Protection of Migratory Birds. This landmark statute became
the domestic law implementing all the international Conventions
and it committed the United States to the protection and
management of migratory birds. In addition, the MBTA gave the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) authority to develop
conservation plans and issue regulations on the harvest or
``take'' of migratory game birds and other migratory bird
species causing economic damage or human health problems. In
the 86 years since the enactment of the MBTA, the USFWS has
promulgated regulations on the circumstances under which
protected species may be taken and how these native species and
their habitat will be protected.
Some bird species are biologically hard-wired to migrate,
including neotropical migrant species like hummingbirds,
warblers, shorebirds, and certain waterfowl species. Other
birds may seasonally migrate shorter distances such as robins
and crows. The MBTA does not define ``migratory'' and both
obligant and nonobligant migratory species are included. The
provisions of the MBTA have not included native, non-migratory
game birds, like quail and turkey. Also the MBTA does not
differentiate between native and exotic species. Species
considered ``exotic'' include those intentionally introduced or
accidentally released from captivity. Currently, the USFWS
recognizes 832 species of native, non-introduced migratory
birds in the U.S., 58 of them hunted game species.
Neither the international Conventions nor Congress in
crafting the MBTA anticipated the presence of non-native bird
species in the wild. In fact, until 2001, official federal
policy treated non-native bird species as outside the MBTA and
under the jurisdiction of the States. However, in 2001 a
federal appeals court held for the first time that a non-native
human- introduced species (in this case the mute swan) was
covered by the MBTA. In Hill v. Norton,\1\ the court reasoned
that because the MBTA included taxonomic families of birds
represented by species native to the United States, the MBTA's
protection extended to all members of those families. This
ruling had the effect of making the USFWS responsible for the
conservation of all members of the family Anatidae (ducks,
swans, and geese), including the non-native mute swan. The
ruling also removed State authority to manage mute swans
without federal permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 275 F.3d 98 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mute swans are among the Nation's largest bird species and
are entirely non-migratory. Growing populations of mute swans
in the Great Lakes and mid-Atlantic regions have conflicted
with both the conservation of native avian species and habitats
and with human use of shorelines. Mute swans can consume up to
eight pounds per day of submerged aquatic vegetation critical
to both avian and fish species. State fish and wildlife
agencies have been working to control mute swans for over 20
years amid growing controversy. The State of Maryland, after an
extensive public participation process, developed a five-year
management plan for the species which included lethal removal
of adult birds. Although this practice was occurring regularly
and unchallenged in neighboring States,\2\ a national
controversy was generated over the Maryland management plan by
animal welfare interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In 2002, USFWS issued 66 permits for the take of 1,758 mute
swans. In 2003, the agency had issued 66 permits for the take of 3,605
mute swans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Maryland applied to the USFWS for a permit to
implement the plan. After preparing an Environmental Assessment
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which
covered mute swan management in the Atlantic flyway, the USFWS
issued to Maryland a permit to lethally remove up to 525 mute
swans. Consequently, USFWS' permit decision was challenged in
federal court, and on September 9, 2003, the District of
Columbia District Court issued an injunction, halting Maryland
from implementing its permit and concluding that the USFWS must
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA before
issuing any additional mute swan permits.\3\ Incredibly, this
multi-year and multi-million dollar process would, under the
MBTA, be undertaken with the goal of conservation of healthy
mute swan populations in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fund for Animals v. Norton, Civil Action No. ECF 03-1710;
Kathryn Burton v. Norton, Civil Action No. ECF 03-1102 (D. D.C.
September 9, 2003) (memorandum opinion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision in Hill has far-reaching consequences beyond
mute swans. Under the rationale expressed by the court, any
non-native, human-introduced bird species within a taxonomic
family represented by native U.S. bird species could now be
protected by the MBTA.The introduction of non-native birds is a
growing problem, with additional species being detected annually.
Although most introduced species never become established
in the wild, 19 non-native bird species that belong to MBTA-
protected families are known to have established self-
sustaining populations in the U.S. While most of these species
have rather restricted ranges, the mute swan, pigeon, and
European starling are most broadly distributed across the
continental United States. These non-native birds, like other
alien species, compete with native birds, damage other natural
resources, and impose economic costs. For example, rock doves
or pigeons are long-lived birds, native to Europe and Asia,
introduced into the U.S. by American colonists as early as
1621. Although there are no firm population figures for pigeons
in the U.S., they are the single-most destructive bird in the
United States. It has been estimated that they account for up
to $1.1 billion in damages annually to private and public
property. Their droppings deface and accelerate the
deterioration of buildings and significantly increase
maintenance costs. Furthermore, invasive pigeons are reservoirs
and vectors for over 50 human and livestock diseases.
H.R. 4114 would amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to
clarify that the provisions of that Act apply only to species
native to the United States, Canada, and Mexico (the species
covered by the Conventions with Japan and Russia are all native
to the United States). There is no historical indication that
the United States, Canada, and Mexico ever intended for the
Conventions to apply to human-introduced species not native to
the party countries. The proposed change is also consistent
with Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species), which directs
the federal government to ``prevent the introduction of
invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize
the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that
invasive species cause.'' The fundamental goals of the bill are
to restore a nearly century-old policy that reserves the
application of the MBTA to native avian species that have not
been introduced by humans, to allow the States to retain
primacy over wildlife management, and to allow federal, State
and local governments and private individuals to concentrate on
the conservation of true native bird species. H.R. 4114 also
ensures that any native species extant in the U.S. in 1918 when
the MBTA was enacted, and then extirpated from the U.S. and
reintroduced as part of a federal restoration effort, would be
covered by the MBTA.
Committee Action
H.R. 4114 was introduced by Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest
(R-MD) on April 1, 2004. The bill was referred to the Committee
on Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On April 22, 2004,
the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were
offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the Full
Committee by voice vote. On May 5, 2004, the Full Resources
Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman Ron Kind (D-WI)
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that
established a new Title II of the bill reauthorizing and
modifying certain provisions of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 2000. This law allowed the Secretary of the
Interior to make grants for the conservation of migratory birds
primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was then ordered
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice
vote.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII 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 this bill.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
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 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act to exclude non-native migratory bird species from the
application of that Act, and for other purposes.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 27, 2004.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
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. 4114, the
Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Robinson
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin).
Enclosure.
H.R. 4114--Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004
Summary: H.R. 4114 would amend the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act to clarify that only species that are native to the United
States are protected under that act, which governs the
conservation of migratory birds. Title II of the bill would
reauthorize funding for projects carried out under the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act through fiscal year
2008. (The current authorization to fund this program expires
after fiscal year 2005.) The Secretary of the Interior uses
this funding primarily to help finance research and
conservation programs in North and South America.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing title II would cost $30 million
over the 2006-2009 period. We estimate that enacting title I
would have no significant effect on the federal budget.
Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or
receipts. H.R. 4114 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
government.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 4114 is shown in the following table.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the entire amounts
authorized by the bill will be appropriated for each fiscal
year. Outlay estimates are based on recent spending patterns
for conservation programs. The cost of this legislation falls
within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars-
-----------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending under current law for
neotropical bird conservation
programs:
Authorization level \1\... 4 5 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays......... 4 5 1 0 0 0
Proposed changes:
Authorization level....... 0 0 5 10 15 0
Estimated outlays......... 0 0 4 7 10 9
Spending under H.R. 4114 for
neotropical bird conservation
programs:
Authorization level \1\... 4 5 5 10 15 0
Estimated outlays......... 4 5 5 7 10 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2004 level is the amount appropriated for that year for
neotropical migratory bird conservation. The 2005 level is the amount
authorized under current law.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4114
contains no intergovnermental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deboarh Reis. Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Majorie Miller. Impact
on the Private Sector: Selena Caldera.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 2 OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
Sec. 2. [That unless and except as permitted] (a) In
General.--Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as
hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any
means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill,
attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale,
sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase,
deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be
shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation,
transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be
carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or
export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such
bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which
consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or
any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the
conventions between the United States and Great Britain for the
protection of migratory birds concluded August 16, 1916, the
United States and the United Mexican States for the protection
of migratory birds and game mammals concluded February 7, 1936,
the United States and the Government of Japan for the
protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of
extinction, and their environment concluded March 4, 1972 and
the convention between the United States and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory
birds and their environments concluded November 19, 1976.
(b) Limitation on Application to Introduced Species.--
(1) In general.--This section applies only to
migratory bird species that are native to the United
States and whose occurrence in the United States is
entirely the result of natural biological or ecological
conditions.
(2) Treatment of introduced species.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)--
(A) a bird species shall not be treated as
native to the United States if it occurs in the
United States solely as a result of intentional
or unintentional human-assisted introduction;
and
(B) a migratory bird species shall be treated
as native to the United States if--
(i) it was native to the United
States and extant in 1918;
(ii) it was extirpated after 1918
throughout its range in the United
States; and
(iii) after such extirpation, it was
reintroduced in the United States as a
part of a program carried out by a
Federal agency.
----------
NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) of the nearly 800 bird species known to occur in
the United States, approximately 500 migrate among
countries, and the large majority of those species, the
neotropical migrants, winter in Latin America and the
Caribbean but breed in Canada and the United States;
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) * * *
(2) to assist in the conservation of neotropical
migratory birds by supporting conservation initiatives
in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the
Caribbean; and
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
[(1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account
established by section 9(a).]
(1) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund established by section
9(a).
(2) Caribbean.--The term ``Caribbean'' includes
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands.
[(2)] (3) Conservation.--The term ``conservation''
means the use of methods and procedures necessary to
bring a species of neotropical migratory bird to the
point at which there are sufficient populations in the
wild to ensure the long-term viability of the species,
including--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3)] (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means
the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 5. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
each project shall be not greater than [25] 50 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) * * *
[(B) Form of payment.--
[(i) Projects in the united states.--
The non-Federal share required to be
paid for a project carried out in the
United States shall be paid in cash.
[(ii) Projects in foreign
countries.--The non-Federal share
required to be paid for a project
carried out in a foreign country may be
paid in cash or in kind.]
(B) Form of payment.--
(i) Projects in the united states and
canada.--The non-Federal share required
to be paid for a project carried out in
the United States or Canada shall be
paid in cash.
(ii) Projects in latin america and
the caribbean.--The non-Federal share
required to be paid for a project
carried out in Latin America or the
Caribbean may be paid in cash or in
kind.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than [October 1, 2002,] 12 months after the date of
the enactment of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Improvement Act of 2004, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the results and effectiveness of the program
carried out under this Act, including recommendations
concerning how the Act might be improved and whether the
program should be continued, and a description of the
activities of the advisory committee convened under section
7(b).
[SEC. 9. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACCOUNT.
[(a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund of the Treasury a
separate account to be known as the ``Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Account'', which shall consist of amounts
deposited into the Account by the Secretary of the Treasury
under subsection (b).
[(b) Deposits Into the Account.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall deposit into the Account--
[(1) all amounts received by the Secretary in the
form of donations under subsection (d); and
[(2) other amounts appropriated to the Account.]
SEC. 9. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury a
separate account, which shall be known as the ``Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund''. The Fund shall consist of
amounts deposited into the Fund by the Secretary of the
Treasury under subsection (b).
(b) Deposits Into the Fund.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall deposit into the Fund--
(1) all amounts received by the Secretary in the form
of donations under subsection (d); and
(2) other amounts appropriated to the Fund.
(c) Use.--
(1) * * *
(2) Administrative expenses.--Of amounts in the
Account available for each fiscal year, the Secretary
may expend not more than 3 percent or up to [$80,000]
$150,000, whichever is greater, to pay the
administrative expenses necessary to carry out this
Act.
(d) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may
accept and use donations to carry out this Act. Amounts
received by the Secretary in the form of donations shall be
transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into
the [Account] Fund.
[SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
[There is authorized to be appropriated to the Account to
carry out this Act $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001
through 2005, to remain available until expended, of which not
less than 75 percent of the amounts made available for each
fiscal year shall be expended for projects carried out outside
the United States.]
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Fund to carry out this Act the following amounts:
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under this section
may remain available until expended.
(c) Allocation.--Of amounts appropriated under this section
for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be
expended for projects carried out outside the United States.
(d) Limitation on Expenditures for Projects in Canada.--
Amounts appropriated under this section for a fiscal year may
not be used for any project in Canada unless the amount
available to carry out this Act for that fiscal year is greater
than $10,000,000.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
The Committee approved a substitute amendment to H.R. 4114
that included as Title II a reauthorization of the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA). Because over one-
quarter of U.S. native bird species are either listed as
threatened or endangered by extinction or expected to attain
that status, the committee agreed that it was appropriate to
re-authorize this important bird conservation statute before it
expired in Fiscal Year 2005.
NMBCA was enacted by Congress and signed into law by the
President on July 20, 2000 as Public Law 106-247. Congress
found that most of the avian species in the U.S. migrate among
countries, and the large majority--the neotropical migratory
birds--winter in Latin America and the Caribbean. Many of these
birds provide invaluable environmental, economic, recreational,
and aesthetic benefits; but their populations are in decline
and their long-term survival is in doubt without conservation
assistance. Therefore, the Act established a matching grant
program to fund projects that promote the conservation of
migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the
Caribbean. Eligible projects for this grant include activities
to benefit bird populations and their habitats, research and
monitoring, law enforcement, and outreach and education. All
grant requests must be matched by non-U.S. Federal funds by at
least a 3:1 ratio. Eligible proposals are reviewed by a diverse
panel of experts from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), who then make recommendations for project funding to
the Service's Director. The Director then approves projects on
behalf of the Secretary of the Interior.
Interest in the program has been significant from its
inception. Grant requests received for the periods between
Fiscal Years 2002-2004 represented 579 projects totaling more
than $225 million in proposed conservation projects. In Fiscal
Year (FY) 2002, the Service received 280 proposals requesting a
total of $24 million. Of those, the Director selected 32
projects for grants totaling $2.9 million. In FY 2003, 150
proposals were submitted, requesting a total of $12 million.
The Director selected 37 projects for a total of $2.9 million
in grant funds. In both years, many more qualifying proposals
were received than could be funded. Projects are located in 19
countries, including the United States, and eight are multi-
national in scope. Congress appropriated $4 million for this
program in FY2004. Following a January 16, 2004 deadline, the
Service received 139 proposals (30 from the US) having project
activities in 28 countries (including a number of multi-country
proposals), requesting about $12 million in grants. These
requested funds were matched by $39.06 million, almost a 4 to 1
match ratio.
Despite this record of achievement there remains a
desperate need for the funding and infrastructure to assure the
implementation of projects to promote comprehensive habitat
conservation management and protection. In addition,
coordination among the federal, state, and local governments
and the private sector, comprehensive monitoring programs, and
integration of sound science into management decisions need
support. Because of a lack of funding, in FY '03 alone, 113
projects were turned down for $8.7 million, leaving over $20.2
million in matching funds on the table.
The money that Congress has appropriated for the NMBCA has
been more than quadrupled by matching funds for such critical
projects, including those that protect, restore, and manage
habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Bird
conservation investments in the U.S. will not be effective
without making investments to conserve these migratory species
throughout their hemispheric range.
The re-authorization of the NMBCA in Title II will assist
in addressing persistent threats to neotropical migratory birds
during their breeding and migration in North America as well as
during their migration and over-wintering in South America and
the Caribbean. The purposes of NMBCA would remain the same: to
perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical migratory birds
by supporting, through financial assistance, conservation
initiatives in the United States, Latin America, and the
Caribbean. Title II would continue to provide grants for the
conservation of migratory birds in range states, as well as
within the U.S. Authorizations for grant-funding would be
raised from the current level of $5 million to $10 million in
FY 2007 and to $15 million in FY 2008. Matching requirements
would be lowered from 3:1 to 1:1 to allow greater
participation. The existing requirement that at least 75% must
go for projects in Latin America and the Caribbean would remain
unchanged. Also, projects in Canada would now be eligible in
any fiscal year where amounts appropriated for the program
exceed $10 million. A slight increase would also be allowed for
the Service to administer the program.
Ironically, the population declines of many migratory bird
species come at a time when bird-related recreation in the U.S.
is hitting an all-time high in popularity. The National Survey
on Recreation and the Environment tallies 71 million Americans
participating in some form of bird-related activities in 2001.
According to the 2001 U.S. FWS report, Birding in the U.S.: A
Demographic and Economic Analysis, bird-related expenditures
added $85 billion in overall economic impacts, generated $13
billion in state and federal income taxes, and created 863,406
jobs. Hunting migratory birds contributed $1.4 billion in
direct expenditures. Clearly, birding is big business, and the
health and protection of birds, an important issue in many
parts of our country.
The passage, full-funding, and implementation of the NMBCA
amendments contained in Title II of H.R. 4114 could help
prevent further declines in many avian species. The Committee
believed it was important to re-authorize this important bird
conservation measure in this Congress and I commend them for
supporting this effort.
Ron Kind.