It is clear, therefore, from the above analysis that every county, wherein lands have been acquired as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System would share more equitably under our proposal in the total net receipts from the system, whether the refuge lands are revenue-producing or not. Thus, our proposal would accomplish the needed equitable adjustment and revision of the revenue sharing provisions of the 1935 act. Accordingly, we again strongly recommend the enactment of this legislation in the form of the enclosed draft bill. Any increase in payments to counties and repeal of the previously mentioned permanent indefinite appropriation item in the act of September 6, 1950 (64 Stat. 693-694), will, of course, reduce the amount of money available under such item to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of this Department for refuge management and law-enforcement purposes. This situation will need to be considered in connection with our annual appropriation estimates. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, JOHN A. CARVER, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Interior. A BILL To increase the participation by counties in revenues from the National Wildlife Refuge System by amending the Act of June 15, 1935, relating to such participation, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935, as amended (49 Stat. 378, 383; 16 U.S.C. 715s), relating to the participation by the counties in revenues from wildlife refuges, is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 401. (a) Beginning with the next full fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, all revenues received by the Secretary of the Interior from the sale or other disposition of animals, timber, hay, grass, or other products of the soil, minerals, shells, sand, or gravel, and from other privileges, including leases for public accommodations or facilities incidental to but not in conflict with the basic purposes for which those areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System were established, during each fiscal year in connection with the operation and management of those areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System that are solely or primarily administered by him, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be covered into the United States Treasury and be reserved in a separate fund for disposition as hereafter prescribed. Amounts in the fund shall remain available until expended, and may be expended by the Secretary without further appropriation in the manner hereafter prescribed. The National Wildlife Refuge System (hereafter referred to as the "System") includes those lands and waters administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas established under any law, proclamation, Executive order or public land order. "(b) The Secretary may pay from the fund any necessary expenses incurred by him in connection with the revenue-producing measures set forth in subsection (a). "(c) The Secretary at the end of each fiscal year, shall pay, out of the net receipts in the fund (after payment of necessary expenses) for such fiscal year, which funds shall be expended solely for the benefit of the public schools and roads, as follows: "(1) to each county in which reserved public lands in an area of the System are situated, an amount equal to 25 per cent of the net receipts collected by the Secretary from such reserved public lands in that particular area of the System: Provided, That when any such area is situated in more than one county the distributive share to each county from the aforesaid receipts shall be proportional to its acreage of such public lands therein; and "(2) to each county in which areas in the System are situated that have been acquired in fee by the United States, three-fourths of 1 percent of the cost of the areas, exclusive of any improvements to such areas made subsequent to Federal acquisition, such cost to be adjusted to represent current values as determined by the Secretary for the first full fiscal year after enactment of this Act and as redetermined by him at five-year intervals thereafter. The determinations by the Secretary under this subsection shall be accomplished in such manner as he shall consider to be equitable and in the public interest, and his determinations hereunder shall be final and conclusive. "(d) The payments under subsection (c) of this section to the counties in the United States for any one fiscal year shall not exceed the amount of net receipts in the fund for that fiscal year and, in case the net receipts are insufficient for a particular fiscal year to pay the aggregate amount of the payments for that fiscal year to the counties, the payment to each county shall be reduced proportionately. "(e) Any moneys remaining in the fund after all payments are made for any fiscal year may be used by the Secretary thereafter for management of the System including but not limited to the construction, improvement, repair, and alteration of buildings, roads, and other facilities, and for enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 703–711). "(f) The disposition or sale of surplus animals, minerals, and other products, the granting of privileges, and the carrying out of any other activities that result in the collection of revenues within any areas of the System may be accomplished upon such terms, conditions, or regulations, including sale in the open market, as the Secretary shall determine to be in the best interest of the United States. Further, the Secretary may dispose of such surplus animals by exchange of the same or other kinds, gift or loan to public institutions for exhibition or propagation purposes and for the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of information relating to the conservation of wildlife in accordance with such regulations as he may prescribe. "(g) Beginning with the first day of the next full fiscal year hereafter, the provisions of this Act shall supersede and repeal the provisions of the paragraph entitled 'Management of National Wildlife Refuges' in the Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1951, approved September 6, 1950 (64 Stat. 595, 693–694).” Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. BONNER: During the recent hearings on H.R. 2393, a bill to increase the participation by counties in revenues from the National Wildlife Refuge System by amending the act of June 15, 1935, relating to such participation, and for other purposes, and related bills, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of your committee requested our views and recommendations on H.R. 11008, a bill to increase the participation by counties in revenues from the National Wildlife Refuge System by amending the act of June 15, 1965, relating to such participation, and for other purposes. While the Department does not object to the enactment of H.R. 11008 if the Congress deems it appropriate, in our report of June 7, 1963, on H.R. 2393 and similar bills we recommended a substitute proposal which we believed "would accomplish the needed equitable adjustment and revision of the revenue-sharing provisions of the 1935 act." H.R. 11008 differs from our recommended substitute proposal in only one respect. This is in relation to the payment formula for counties in which acquired lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are located. Our proposal, which was included in our earlier report to your committee, provides that three-fourths of 1 percent of the cost of areas acquired in fee by the United States, exclusive of improvements made since such acquisition, adjusted by the Secretary to represent current values, shall be paid out of the fund established by subsection (a) of our proposal to the counties where such areas of the System are located. These revenues to the counties shall be solely available to the counties for the benefit of the public schools and roads located therein. H.R. 11008, on the other hand, provides for the payment to the counties wherein lands acquired as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System are located of either three-fourths of 1 percent of the adjusted cost of such lands, or, in the alternative, 25 percent of the net receipts from the particular lands located within each county, whichever amount is greater. Under this bill the Secretary of the Interior will have to determine each year whether a county would receive a greater amount of revenue by accepting three-fourths of 1 percent of the adjusted cost of the areas within the System, or by accepting 25 percent of the net receipts derived from revenue-producing activities on the acquired lands of the System that are located in the county. 33-441-64- 2 The effect of this option provision is that each county will receive at least as much revenue under this bill as it will receive under present law. It also carries out the basic purpose of our proposal, which is to provide a more equitable formula for distributing to the counties the revenues collected by the Department through the operation and management of all the areas within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Under present law a number of counties receive little, if any, revenues because the refuges located there in have little or no revenueproducing activities. There is a need for a more equitable distribution of these revenues without seriously diminishing the amount of revenues that some counties are now receiving from areas within the System that have greater revenueproducing activities. We estimate that the total payment to the counties under this bill would have been about $1,077,000 in 1963. The total revenues presently collected from various revenue-producing activities within the System are approximately $2.3 million annually. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, FRANK P. BRIGGS, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Mr. THOMPSON. In 1961 Congress passed the Wetlands Acquisition Act which authorized the appropriation of $105 million to be used in procuring much-needed habitat over a 7-year period. To date only a small portion of that amount has been expended, resulting in our falling short of our goal. It is hoped that as a result of the hearings today and tomorrow that the committee will be able to agree upon a formula satisfactory to the counties in our various States so that we can fulfill the goal set to be achieved in 1961. The first witness this morning-we have several Members of Congress here is the Honorable Mark Andrews of North Dakota, who is the author of H.R. 9030, and, Congressman, if you care to come to the witness stand? The Chair might say that the subcommittee appreciates the Secretary of the Interior, a former colleague, Secretary Udall, being here this morning with his staff. We are going to try to make these hearings as brief as possible. I think this subcommittee is thoroughly aware of the problem that exists and we are confident that something can be worked out that will be mutually agreeable among the several States to accomplish the preservation of this resource that is being attempted by Secretary Udall and the Congress. Please proceed, Congressman, we are happy to have you with us. STATEMENT OF HON. MARK ANDREWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Mr. ANDREWS. It is nice to be here, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee on this bill that is very important to our State. I would like also, permission to include a statement by Roy Holand of LaMoure, N. Dak., who is chairman of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District in the record. Mr. THOMPSON. Without objection, it will appear at the end of your statement. Mr. ANDREWS. My bill, 9030, of course, is similar to other bills introduced in the Congress for this problem. The main thing I would like to bring out this morning, is that we have a unique feature in our bill that is not in the Department's request-the payment of bonded indebtedness for lands to be acquired in the future. North Dakota, fortunately, or unfortunately, happens to be the duck breeding ground of most of the central flyway. We have a unique opportunity, by enhancing our wet lands, to enable many more ducks to be produced for the enjoyment of the hunter all over the central part of the country. We anticipate that there will be, of course, additional lands taken into this habitat program. When these lands are taken in, if you have a school district, for instance, that has 100 sections of land, and you pick up 10 sections that are particularly well fitted to the production of waterfowl, you take one-tenth of the earning power away from this school district. This is taken care of in our 1 percent of value in lieu of taxes; however, at the same time that you are taking future tax revenue you also sometimes take a share of a school district against which there is a bonded indebtedness. Now, if you have had a $100,000 bond issue to construct new school facilities, the bond issue was gone into with the idea that there would be a number of acres of land to pay off this bonded indebtedness, and we think it is only fair that the people remaining in the school district not have to pay additional bonds over and above the original commitment they made. My bill would take into account the fact that on land to be acquired in the future payment would be made for the pro rata share of bonded indebtedness that might be against these particular acres. This is the feature of our bill that is different from the Department's request that I would particularly like to stress this morning. Mr. THOMPSON. Could you tell me, Congressman, whether or not your State legislature, your Governor, or your department of fish and wildlife, or your department or revenue has collaborated with you in this arrangement? Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, they have. Mr. THOMPSON. They would be satisfied with such an arrangement as you propose? Mr. ANDREWS. They woud be satisfied with such an arrangement. The two features that we would like to get in, of course, is the 1-percent value in lieu of taxes. I understand this is modified in some bills as three-quarters of 1 percent. The other one that is on page 5 of my bill states the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make provision for the full lump-sum payment of the pro rata share of the total obligation chargeable against such land at the time of acquisition. This is for land to be purchased in the future and we think it is only fair in those areas where there are school buildings that have been constructed by bonding to take care of the pro rata share, otherwise the resentment in the area may well preclude land acquisition without condemnation which no one wants to see. Mr. THOMPSON. Could you state for the record, please, the number of acres that are involved in this consideration in your State? Mr. ANDREWs. We do not know the exact number of acres. Mr. McBroom could probably give a more accurate reply to that, but we have a potential of picking up 25,000 to 100,000 acres of land, I would imagine, in this type of waterfowl habitat program. Mr. THOMPSON. And in order that the record might show it, can indicate the percentage of that land that probably will be acquired if the program is pursued, that is, not nonproductive and really wet you lands, naturally, and further, the number of acres in addition to that or the percentage of lands that might be productive had it not been taken in the program? Mr. ANDREWS. The type of land that is to be acquired in North Dakota is land which has casual potholes on it, or land which can be used for feeding areas around slough areas that the Government alreeady has. You see, in order to produce waterfowl you need two things: You need first the water and then you need the feed in the area around, and the feed in the area around is good farmland, probably as good as exists in North Dakota, it is being farmed at the present time, it is contributing to the community, but in order to have a sensible wildlife refuge system you have to include this good farmland in with the sloughs and the ponds. So I would say the bulk of the land to be acquired is good farmland. Mr. THOMPSON. I wanted to bring that out particularly because I think that the general opinion is that in the acquisition of wet land, no productive land, or percentagewise at least, would be involved, but there is a great value attached to these other lands where feed must be grown for the productivity to remain. Mr. ANDREWS. Those ducks would go awfully hungry, Mr. Chairman, if we did not have some good farmland alongside to produce some food for them. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Dingell? Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome our colleague here to the committee this morning and tell him we are grateful for his presence. I note the section in H.R. 9030 to which you refer is on page 5, line 1, following down through line 11; am I correct? Mr. ANDREWS. That is right. Mr. DINGELL. I would like to ask you a few brief questions about that if I may. Mr. ANDREWs. Certainly. Mr. DINGELL. Dealing particularly with what this does. Now, I note that it authorizes lump-sum payment of the pro rata share of the total obligation chargeable against such land at the time of the acquisition by the United States whether by purchase or condemnation in payment in full of such proportional share of the entire obligation. I was reading from the bill. Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Mr. DINGELL. I have a little trouble with this for this reason. Your bill provides for payment to the counties of 1 percent Mr. ANDREWS. That is right. Mr. DINGELL (continuing). Of the value of the land, which would be approximately equal to the amount of taxation on the area, I assume. Mr. ANDREWS. That is right. Mr. DINGELL. As I understand municipal and county financing, this would provide for a level of compensation to the county which would be sufficient to carry on the cost of the county government, including the furnishing of necessary services, such as schools and public instruction for the children, am I correct? Mr. ANDREWS. To this extent: of necessary and ordinary services. In our State and perhaps in yours, too, in a school district, we have |