[House Report 116-468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session } { 116-468
======================================================================
PROTECT OUR REFUGES ACT OF 2019
_______
August 7, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2854]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2854) to amend the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of
neonicotinoids in a National Wildlife Refuge, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 2854 is to amend the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of
neonicotinoids in National Wildlife Refuges.
Background and Need for Legislation
Neonicotinoids are effective neuro-active insecticides that
impair normal nerve impulses.\1\ As insecticides, they are
especially toxic to insects (including non-target pollinators),
but also have potentially adverse human health impacts.\2\ Use
of neonicotinoid insecticides has continuously increased since
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See, e.g., Anne Secord & Kathleen Patnode, U.S. FWS, Pilot Study
to Evaluate Neonicotinoid Pesticides in New York and Pennsylvania
Streams 4 (2018), https://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/ec/files/
Neonicotinoid%20StudyFinal%20Nov5-2018.pdf.
\2\Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Adverse Health Outcomes, U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., Nat'l Toxicology Program, https://
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/hat/selected/neonicotinoid/index.html (last
updated Apr. 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some national wildlife refuges in which farming
occurs. In 2014, the Obama administration banned the use of
neonicotinoid insecticides within the National Wildlife Refuge
System except for conservation purposes, citing the impact of
neonicotinoids on ``non-target species.''\3\ In 2018, the Trump
administration reversed this ban in a Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) memo.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Memorandum from James W. Kurth, Chief, Nat'l Wildlife Refuge
Sys., to Regional Refuge Chiefs, Regions 1-8 (July 17, 2014), available
at https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/
agricultural-practices-in-wildlife-management_20849.pdf.
\4\Memorandum from Gregory J. Sheehan, Principal Deputy Dir., FWS,
to Service Directorate (Aug. 2, 2018), available at https://
www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/2018-8-
2-FWS-memo-GMO-Neonics-on-wildlife-refuges.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Protect our Refuges Act amends the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act to overturn the Trump
administration's action and fully prohibit the use of
neonicotinoids in national wildlife refuges.
Committee Action
H.R. 2854 was introduced on May 20, 2019, by Representative
Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY). The bill was referred solely to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. On September 24,
2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On November
20, 2019, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the
bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No
amendments were offered, and the bill was adopted and ordered
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll
call vote of 17 yeas and 13 nays,\5\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA), an original cosponsor of H.R. 2854,
requested, after the closing of the vote, that the record reflect that
had he been present he would have voted in favor of ordering the bill
favorably reported.
Hearings
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or
consider H.R. 2854: legislative hearing by the Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife held on September 24, 2019.
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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII and
Congressional Budget Act
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 19, 2020.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2854, the Protect
Our Refuges Act of 2019.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani
Shankaran.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2854 would prohibit the use of neonicotinoids--a type
of insecticide used in agriculture--within the National
Wildlife Refuge System, which is managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS).
USFWS allows private farming on certain refuge lands under
cooperative agreements. Under those agreements, farmers are
generally responsible for all costs associated with producing
crops, including the costs for insecticides. CBO expects that
implementing H.R. 2854 could result in a small increase in the
administrative workload of USFWS to manage those agreements;
however, we estimate that any additional costs incurred by the
agency would not be significant. Any spending would be subject
to the availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani
Shankaran. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and
objectives of this bill are to amend the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of
neonicotinoids in National Wildlife Refuges.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Existing Programs
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
program.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
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 italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1966
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5 NEONICOTINOID.
No person may use a neonicotinoid in the System.
SEC. [5.] 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``compatible use'' means a wildlife-
dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge
that, in the sound professional judgment of the
Director, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or
the purposes of the refuge.
(2) The terms ``wildlife-dependent recreation'' and
``wildlife-dependent recreational use'' mean a use of a
refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, or environmental education and
interpretation.
(3) The term ``sound professional judgment'' means a
finding, determination, or decision that is consistent
with
principles of sound fish and wildlife management and
administration, available science and resources, and
adherence to the requirements of this Act and other
applicable laws.
(4) The terms ``conserving'', ``conservation'',
``manage'', ``managing'', and ``management'', mean to
sustain and, where
appropriate, restore and enhance, healthy populations
of fish, wildlife, and plants utilizing, in accordance
with applicable Federal and State laws, methods and
procedures associated with modern scientific resource
programs. Such methods and procedures include,
consistent with the provisions of this Act, protection,
research, census, law enforcement, habitat management,
propagation, live trapping and transplantation, and
regulated taking.
(5) The term ``Coordination Area'' means a wildlife
management area that is made available to a State--
(A) by cooperative agreement between the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and a
State agency having control over wildlife
resources pursuant to section 4 of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664); or
(B) by long-term leases or agreements
pursuant to title III of the Bankhead-Jones
Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010 et
seq.).
(6) The term ``Director'' means the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service or a designee
of that Director.
(7) The terms ``fish'', ``wildlife'', and ``fish and
wildlife'' mean any wild member of the animal kingdom
whether alive or dead, and regardless of whether the
member was bred, hatched, or born in captivity,
including a part, product, egg, or offspring of the
member.
(8) The term ``person'' means any individual,
partnership, corporation, or association.
(9) The term ``plant'' means any member of the plant
kingdom in a wild, unconfined state, including any
plant community, seed, root, or other part of a plant.
(10) The terms ``purposes of the refuge'' and
``purposes of each refuge'' mean the purposes specified
in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive
order, agreement, public land order, donation document,
or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing,
or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
(11) The term ``refuge'' means a designated area of
land, water, or an interest in land or water within the
System, but does not include Coordination Areas.
(12) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(13) The terms ``State'' and ``United States'' mean
the several States of the United States, Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the
territories and possessions of the United States.
(14) The term ``System'' means the National Wildlife
Refuge System designated under section 4(a)(1).
(15) The terms ``take'', ``taking'', and ``taken''
mean to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill,
or to attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect,
or kill.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
Neonicotinoids (neonics) are critical to agriculture,
protecting over 100 different crops around the world, including
tomatoes, berries, citrus, tree nuts and leafy greens, from an
unlimited range of destructive insects. In addition to
combatting insect damage to crops, neonics also protect
forests, wildlife habitat and other areas. Neonics have been
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and have
been safely and extensively used over the past twenty plus
years in the United States. In fact, EPA has repeatedly and
consistently found the class of insecticides banned by H.R.
2854 to be safe to human health and the environment (including
wildlife) when used in accordance with the label. For example,
Imidacloprid has such a favorable safety profile for mammals
that it is used in flea and tick control products that are
applied directly to dogs and cats.
Supporting the elimination of the use of neonics in
National Wildlife Refuges sends mixed messages. If a pesticide
applicator is using a product within EPA's label parameters,
then exposure to non-target organisms will be kept at
acceptable levels regardless of whether these organisms are
located on private, federal, State, or tribal lands. To ban
neonics only on federal lands, such as National Wildlife
Refuges, is not only arbitrary but it undermines the integrity
and legitimacy of EPA's pesticide risk assessment process,
which is widely recognized as the best in the world. The public
would question the government's decision to ``protect'' certain
federal properties, but not others.
It should be noted that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
could be impacted as well where its lands overlap or abut
National Wildlife Refuges. USFS has a large stake in proper
pest management, as it faces major forest insect infestations
that must be properly managed to avoid catastrophic tree losses
and possibly wildfires. Regarding specific pest threats in
forests and trees, neonics are used to combat the emerald ash
borer, which has killed millions of ash trees across the United
States; the Asian longhorn beetle, a threat to hardwood forests
in the northern U.S. (especially in the northeast), which kills
ash, birch, elm, sycamore, maple, poplar, willow and other tree
species; the spotted lanternfly (expected to expand in the
northeast), which is an invasive pest that attacks many species
of trees, fruit crops and vines; the hemlock woolly adelgid;
and citrus psyllids, which are responsible for spreading deadly
citrus greening disease in Florida and California.
For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2854.
Rob Bishop.
Louie Gohmert.
Jody B. Hice.