Sorry, this is long and a bit difficult to read, but it contains a lot of
interesting information.

>Date: Fri, 04 Oct 96 09:35:00 EST
>From: "Todd TUCCI" <ttucci at audubon.org>
>Subject: 104th Congress Wrap-Up
>To: audubon-nbs at igc.apc.org
>Sender: owner-audubon-nbs at igc.apc.org
>
>*AUDUBON ADVISORY* *AUDUBON ADVISORY* *AUDUBON ADVISORY* *AUDUBON ADVISOR=
>Y*=20
>
>October 3, 1996
>
>National Audubon Society Legislative Wrap Up
>The Advisory will be published a few additional times this year until the=
> 105th
>Congress convenes. Look for special editions over the next few months. I=
>t will
>resume a weekly schedule in January. While not an exhaustive account of a=
>ll the
>shenanigans of this Congress, we hope it covers the high points. For mor=
>e
>details, see the "How to Reach Us" section.
>
>ENDANGERED SPECIES We began the 104th Congress with fears that anti-
>environmental Members of Congress would succeed in gutting the Endangered
>Species Act. We end the session with the ESA largely intact, thanks in p=
>art to
>the hard work of Audubon staff and activists:=20
>
>=F9 Auduboners were instrumental in stopping ESA reauthorization bills
>introduced by Congressmen Young (R-AK) and Pombo (R-CA) and by Senator
>Kempthorne (R-ID) that would have drastically weakened the Act. This yea=
>r, we
>worked to slow the progress of a number of proposals that would have weak=
>ened
>the Act in less obvious ways. We will spend the next months working to l=
>ay the
>groundwork for the introduction of a bill that strengthens the Act in the=
> next
>Congress.
>
>* ESA opponents also targeted the Act through the appropriations process=
>. We
>began the 104th Congress with a moratorium on new species listings attach=
>ed to a
>funding bill and with severe cuts in ESA funding. This spring, with the
>encouragement of Audubon and the environmental community, the President's=
> veto
>threat forced Congress to lift the listing moratorium. Funding levels fo=
>r the
>1997 fiscal year are on the upswing, as detailed in the section on
>appropriations.
>
>* A key vote during the House debate on the 1997 Interior appropriations=
> bill
>in June showed encouraging change in Congressional attitudes towards enda=
>ngered
>species protection. With help from Audubon staff and activists, a coalit=
>ion of
>Democrats and Republican moderates successfully stripped the bill of a ri=
>der
>that would have exempted thousands of acres of ancient Redwood forest in
>northern California from designation as critical habitat for the Marbled
>Murrelet.
>
>* In the final weeks of this Congress, we won a significant victory, and
>suffered a major defeat. Although we successfully fought an amendment to=
> the
>Defense appropriations bill that would have waived the ESA for certain
>activities, we were unsuccessful in our fight to remove a similar waiver =
>from
>the Immigration bill. This waiver, discussed in recent editions of the
>Advisory, will exempt Immigration and Naturalization Service construction
>activities along the Mexican and Canadian borders from consultation requi=
>rements
>under the ESA and from assessment requirements under the National Environ=
>mental
>Policy Act. =20
>
>MAGNUSON FISHERIES CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT ACT Victory on the Magnuson=
> Act!!=20
>In a classic legislative cliffhanger, the House finally accepted S 39, th=
>e
>Senate's reauthorization bill for the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation &
>Management Act, and sent the bill to the President for his signature. Th=
>is
>action culminates nearly four years of grassroots effort, in which Audubo=
>n
>played a major role, to reform and strengthen this important conservation=
> law.
>New provisions in this reauthorization include a prohibition on overfishi=
>ng and
>a mandate to rebuild depleted fish populations, a national standard to re=
>duce
>bycatch of nontarget species, and protection for essential fish habitats.
>Although not perfect, the bill goes a long way toward putting our oceans,=
> and
>the wildlife they support, on the road to recovery.
>
>APPROPRIATIONS
>Interior Congress and the Clinton Administration reached consensus on FY=
>97
>spending levels for the Department of Interior and other agencies. Both =
>the
>House and Senate have passed the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act,=
> and
>Clinton signed the bill late Tuesday night (October 1). As predicted, so=
>me of
>Audubon's chief concerns were overlooked as the Administration and Congre=
>ss
>negotiated appropriations for several federal agencies. The bill contains
>provisions protecting watersheds near Portland, OR, including Opal Creek =
>and
>Bull Run. Unfortunately, it also provides for the transfer of 5,400 acre=
>s of
>forests to the Coquille Tribe in southwest Oregon, and calls for the logg=
>ing of
>an additional and equal amount of trees by local counties. =20
>
>The Department of Interior received funding of $6.2 billion dollars -- a =
>slight
>cut from last year. However, both the National Park Service and the U.S.=
> Fish
>and Wildlife Service (FWS) enjoyed increases in their operating budgets.=20
>Although the funding levels do not reflect Audubon funding hopes, these l=
>evels
>represent a clear victory over the Congressional leadership intent on
>dramatically scaling back environmental programs.
>
>Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) -- The LWCF received an increase =
>of 8
>percent over FY96 levels -- $149.4 million. Due in part to Audubon advoc=
>acy, 20
>of our LWCF priorities were earmarked for funding for FY97, including the
>following National Wildlife Refuges: Back Bay, VA; Block Island, RI; Cana=
>an
>Valley, WV; Cypress Creek, IL; Hakalau, HI; Lake Wales, FL; Lake Woodruff=
>, FL;
>Lower Rio Grande, TX; Mashapee, MA; Oregon Coastal, OR; Patoka River, IN;=
> Petit
>Manon, ME; San Diego, CA; San Joaquin, CA; Stewart McKinnney, CT; Tualat=
>in, OR
>and Everglades Ecosystem, FL; San Bernardino National Forest, CA; San Ped=
>ro
>National Conservation Area, AZ; Sterling Forest, NY/NJ.
>
>Endangered Species -- Funding for endangered species activities within th=
>e Fish
>and Wildlife Service received an increase of $7.25 million dollars over c=
>urrent
>budget levels for a total of $67.55 million; this funding level reflects =
>a cut
>of almost 20 percent from the President's budget request.=20
>
>Biological Resources Division (BRD) (formerly National Biological Service=
>) --
>The Biological Resources Division received a nominal increase, $137.5 mil=
>lion,
>over last year's anemic funding levels. This amount represents an increa=
>se of
>$500,000 over FY96 levels. =20
>
>Unfortunately, the appropriations bill retained the provision undermining=
> the
>1992 Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act -- an important
>environmental settlement to restore Elwha river salmon. The bill also co=
>ntained
>a provision requiring Congressional approval of any regulations on RS 247=
>7
>Rights of Way, a law which loosely defines historic rights-of-way on publ=
>ic
>lands to include even small trails. The Bureau of Land Management was
>considering regulations to prevent the conversion of these trails into ro=
>ads,
>which sometimes occurs under RS 2477.
>
>Agriculture Conservation programs were provided funding by appropriator=
>s
>without mischief. A cap was put on the Wetlands Reserve Program at 130,00=
>0
>acres, with permanent easements allowed after 43,000 acres are enrolled i=
>n 30-
>year easements. Nonprofits and states may add funds to increase the acres=
>, which
>may be enrolled at any time during the year starting October 1. People wh=
>o know
>of farmed or prior converted wetlands that have been cropped in two of th=
>e last
>five years, or were pasture, and which would benefit birds and wildlife b=
>y being
>restored to wetlands, should contact their local NRCS official or Maureen
>Hinkle.
>
>Population Congress and the Administration were finally able to reach a=
>n
>agreement on the issues surrounding international population assistance w=
>ithin
>the FY97 omnibus spending bill.
>
>The funding level for FY97 bilateral population assistance is capped at $=
>385
>million with no new funds available until March 1, when a metering progra=
>m will
>begin. The metering formula will be set at 8 percent, to be spent over 12=
> 1/2
>months. By February 1, the President must present a finding that will in=
>dicate
>whether the metering program will hinder the population planning program =
>from
>functioning properly. The Senate and House will then vote to decide if th=
>e money
>will be released in March or if they will withhold it until July, in whic=
>h case
>the same metering program will apply. In addition, UNFPA will receive up =
>to $25
>million.
>
>FY96 population funds carried over into FY97 will not be affected by this=
> new
>metering formula and will continue to be available until either March 199=
>7 or
>July 1997 (based on the decision made by Congress in February) and will c=
>ontinue
>for 12 1/2 months.
>
>OMNIBUS PARKS BILL Congressional leaders did not attach the Omnibus Parks=
> bill,
>HR 1296, to the appropriations bill. The Senate was still working on the=
> bill
>at press time; it has passed the House.=20
>
>TAKINGS The 104th Congress started on an ominous note as the House of
>Representatives easily passed, as part of the "Contract with America," HR=
> 925, a
>takings bill which specifically targeted the Endangered Species Act and w=
>etlands
>protections. The outlook was not good as S 605, a more extreme takings b=
>ill,
>was introduced in the Senate. =20
>
>Ultimately, however, the push for takings legislation was derailed. Afte=
>r S 605
>was passed out of committee, a broad coalition of opposition, a promised
>presidential veto, and a threatened bipartisan-led filibuster were succes=
>sful in
>stopping the bill from reaching the Senate floor. =20
>
>At around the same time, takings legislation was being pulled from the Se=
>nate
>calendar, a "reverse takings" bill was introduced which restored healthy =
>balance
>to the property rights debate. S 2070, the "Homeowners Protection and
>Empowerment Act," introduced by Senators Wyden (D-WA) and Warner (R-VA), =
>seeks
>to protect homeowners by providing notice of, and an opportunity to comme=
>nt on,
>neighboring development. The bill also would require developers to compe=
>nsate
>homeowners who's homes are devalued by adjacent development.
>
>It remains to be seen in what form the takings debate will resume in the =
>next
>Congress. Despite our great success in thwarting takings legislation in =
>this
>Congress, it no doubt will be back.
>
>FORESTS Vice President Gore recently called the Logging Rider the Clinto=
>n
>Administration's "biggest mistake" and the Administration encouraged Cong=
>ress to
>include repeal in their spending bills, but the rider was not repealed.=20
>
>The Omnibus Parks bill, which provides for the protection of Sterling for=
>est
>outside of New York, is being held up by Senator Murkowski (R-AK) because=
> he
>wants it to ensure subsidized logging quotas on the Tongass National Fore=
>st in
>Alaska.
>
>The Clinton Administration reached a tentative agreement with Pacific Lum=
>ber,
>owner of Headwaters Forest in northern California, to protect 7,500 acres=
> of the
>privately-owned forest. Headwaters is the largest unprotected grove of o=
>ld
>growth redwoods in the United States, providing habitat for trees up to 2=
>,000
>years old as well as habitat for endangered and threatened species.=20
>Approximately 3,500 acres of redwoods and some surrounding forest providi=
>ng a
>buffer will be acquired by the federal government for $350 million and
>unspecified public land transfers.=20
>
>AGRICULTURE The 1996 farm act, called the Federal Agriculture Improvemen=
>t and
>Reform Act (FAIRA), reauthorized conservation programs with unprecedented
>mandatory funding. The farm bill gave the Conservation Reserve Program (C=
>RP) a
>rolling cap of 36.4 million acres (the size of the entire state of Iowa),
>975,000 acres for the Wetland Reserve Program, and $200 million each year=
> for
>seven years for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). The =
>EQIP
>incorporated former conservation programs and was expanded to include inc=
>entives
>to livestock producers to protect water quality. Wildlife habitat is a pr=
>iority
>for all conservation programs. In addition, $50 million was authorized f=
>or a
>discretionary Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) to provide cost-s=
>hare
>payments to landowners to develop upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, thre=
>atened
>and endangered species, fish, and other types of wildlife habitat.=20
>
>WETLANDS=20
>Clean Water Act The 104th Congress began with a major assault on wetland=
>s
>protection. First, both the House and Senate aimed directly for the Clea=
>n Water
>Act, our nation's major wetlands protection law. These proposals would h=
>ave
>changed the definition of wetlands so dramatically that between 60 and 75
>percent of the nation's wetlands would have been removed from Federal
>protection. =20
>
>Despite Audubon's best efforts to prevent these bills from going forward,=
> the
>House passed its version. Fortunately, Audubon and other groups worked h=
>ard to
>publicize this bill for what it was -- a major threat to our nation's wet=
>land
>and water protection policies. The Senate did not debate the full Clean =
>Water
>Act, but did examine the wetlands provisions closely. =20
>
>The appropriations process also threatened wetlands protection. A legisl=
>ative
>rider on the spending bill for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) =
>would
>have removed the EPA's ability to stop bad wetlands permits issued by the=
> Army
>Corps of Engineers. Audubon fought hard to remove this rider, as did the
>President and EPA's Administrator, Carol Browner. The rider was removed,
>marking a major victory for wetlands protection. =20
>=20
>Agricultural Wetlands The major wetland protection rule has been propose=
>d by
>the Department of Agriculture. Chapters or members wishing to submit comm=
>ent on
>this vitally important rule should contact Maureen Hinkle.v
>
>How to Reach Us
>National Audubon Society
>1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,=20
>Washington, DC 20006
>(202) 861-2242 (unless otherwise noted)
>
>Policy Division
>Eric Draper, Senior Vice President
>904-222-2473 edraper at audubon.org=20
>
>Human Population and Habitat
>Lindsay Aun 303-499-5155; laun at audubon.org
>
>Refuges
>Lora Wondolowski lwondolowski at audubon.org
>
>Takings
>Enrico Nardone enardone at audubon.org
>
>Wetlands
>John Echeverria jecheverria at audubon.org
>Mac Blewer mblewer at audubon.org=20
>
>Interior Appropriations
>Todd Tucci ttucci at audubon.org
>
>ESA
>Mary Minette mminette at audubon.org
>
>Agriculture
>Maureen Hinkle mhinkle at audubon.org
>
>Forests
>Mike Leahy mleahy at audubon.org

Dennis Paulson, Director phone 206-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 206-756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416