8 



lishes the intention of Congress and the intention of Congress 

 which provides a foundation for a long term, perhaps and hopefully 

 even perpetual easements on projects to be approved by the Coun- 

 cil and Commission. 



Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Mr. Saxton, and I want 

 to thank Mr. Weldon, especially my friend Mr. Fields, Mr. 

 Gilchrest, you and others for your kind comments and the good 

 work which you do here. 



I just got back from Europe with Mr. Taylor for D-Day com- 

 memorations, and that was an inspirational thing, but I would ob- 

 serve it is no more inspirational than seeing a good, well-run ref- 

 uge and seeing what it does in terms of providing a renewal each 

 year of the wonderful values we see when migratory birds go north 

 and when they go south. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



[The statement of Mr. Dingell follows:] 



Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative from the State of 

 Michigan 



Mr. Chairman, this room brings fond memories of working with many of my col- 

 leagues on some of the most important conservation legislation on the books todav. 

 It is my view that the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has largely 

 worked in a bipartisan manner. With great bipartisan cooperation, we wrote the En- 

 dangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Wildlife 

 Refuge Administration Act, and many other conservation laws that have been the 

 foundation protecting our wildlife and natural resources. I want to commend you, 

 Mr. Chairman, and the other members of your Subcommittee for your ongoing work 

 to protect these laws and to continue the tradition in writing very sound conserva- 

 tion legislation— including the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. 



One of the highlights of my career has been serving as a member of the Migratory 

 Bird Conservation Commission for 25 years. A distinct pleasure during my tenure 

 on the Commission has been to be involved in taking action to protect millions of 

 acres of our national resource heritage, including approving North American Con- 

 servation Act projects. It has been satisfying to have been associated with a con- 

 servation program that provides benefits not only to migratory birds, but also to the 

 citizens of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. 



Mr. Chairman, I request that the Subcommittee support H.R. 4308, legislation I 

 introduced with Chairman Gerry Studds, Mr. Weldon, and Mr. Fields to reauthorize 

 the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The legislation requests authoriza- 

 tion levels of $15 million for fiscal year 1994, $20 million for each of fiscal years 

 1995 and 1996, $30 million for each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and $40 million 

 for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. 



Since the enactment of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act in 1989, 

 the Migratory Bird Commission has approved 275 projects under this program. This 

 represents $105 million in grant funds and $202 million in "partner" funds provided 

 by State governments, and non-governmental organizations such as Ducks Unlim- 

 ited and the Nature Conservancy. On the average, one Federal grant dollar 

 leverages two partner dollars. 



The Quill Lakes Restoration and Enhancement Project, once a dry, agricultural 

 area in Saskatchewan, now annually supports 500,000 shorebirds in addition to nu- 

 merous waterfowl species. Quill Lakes, a flagship project of the North American Wa- 

 terfowl Management Plan and partially funded through Act partnerships, was re- 

 cently dedicated as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site. 



The grants under this program range in size from $3 million as part of the Llano 

 Seco Rancho acquisition project in the Central Valley of California to $600 in sup- 

 port of the restoration of a 3-acre wetland in Illinois, the result of a Boy Scout's 

 initiative in working toward his Eagle rank. 



The ingenuity of this program is that it encourages the cooperation of States and 

 private conservation organizations with the Federal Government in projects that 

 would not otherwise receive funding or recognition. The number of partners in a 

 project ranges from as few as one to as many as 15, with most projects averaging 

 4 partners. In the United States alone, 225 partners have supported Act projects. 



