[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5358-H5359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce 
today, along with a number of our colleagues, the National Wildlife 
Refuge Improvement Act of 1995.
  This legislation, which is the product of many months of careful 
deliberation, would be the first comprehensive refuge reform bill since 
the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
of 1966. While that landmark statute, which was authored by the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, nearly 30 years 
ago has served our Nation well, it is time that we update that law and, 
by so doing, improve the management of our Nation's wildlife refuge 
system.
  At present, the system is comprised of 504 refuges, which are located 
in all 50 States and the 5 U.S. Territories, totaling about 91.7 
million acres. These units range in size from the smallest, the 1-acre 
Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, to the largest, the 
19.3-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the last decade, 
81 refuges and approximately 3.6 million acres have been added to the 
system.
  While millions of Americans engage in various recreational activities 
each year on public lands within the system, there have been several 
recent developments that have caused great concern.
  For instance, in October of 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
settled a lawsuit filed by the National Audubon Society by agreeing to 
undertake a comprehensive system-wide ``compatibility'' study, to 
expeditiously terminate certain secondary uses, and to redirect their 
funds away from recreational and wildlife-dependent activities.
  In addition, the Clinton administration has recommended that refuge 
funding be sharply reduced by deferring maintenance projects and upkeep 
of public use facilities, including trails, observation towers, and 
information kiosks. This recommendation is worrisome because without 
proper maintenance, the service may prohibit certain uses on our refuge 
lands.
  While it is appropriate to periodically review the compatibility of 
certain activities, there is no statutory list of purposes for the 
national wildlife refuge system and no statutory definition of what 
constitutes a compatible use of a refuge. Without this guidance, 
individual wildlife managers have broad discretion to prevent or 
disallow recreational activities which do not materially affect the 
purposes of the refuge or the refuge system.
  In fact, earlier this week my committee held a hearing on a bill to 
transfer the management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge to 
the State of Oklahoma. The
 overriding reason for H.R. 1112 was a decision by the local refuge 
manager to prohibit boating, camping, fishing, and picnicking in 
portions of the 
[[Page H5359]] Tishomingo Refuge. These restrictions will prevent many 
people from enjoying activities that have occurred since the refuge was 
created nearly 50 years ago. It is time to manage the refuge system on 
a nationwide basis and to make compatibility determinations based on 
clear statutory language and not emotion or individual bias.
  Another issue that has caused great concern for many Americans 
involves the Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge land acquisition 
policy. When a new refuge is created or additional acreage is added to 
an existing unit, all traditional activities, including fishing and 
hunting, are prohibited until a management plan is completed. This can 
take several years and, in the meantime, millions of Americans are 
denied the opportunity to enjoy the natural resources that exist on 
these lands.
  Finally, while the number of refuges continues to increase, there is 
no requirement to complete a conservation plan for each refuge. In my 
judgment, these plans are essential because they would identify the 
purposes of the refuge; the fish, wildlife, and plant populations; 
their habitats; any archaeological values; opportunities for fish- and 
wildlife-dependent recreation; potential sites for administrative or 
visitors facilities; and ways to correct or mitigate any problems. The 
general public would be strongly encouraged to participate in the 
writing of these plans.
  Our Nation's wildlife refuge system must be managed more effectively 
in the future. This system, which was first envisioned by President 
Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, needs to have a statutory list of purposes, 
uniform guidelines to determine what activities are permissible, 
comprehensive conservation plans, and the enthusiastic support of the 
American people who finance this system not only with the payment of 
their tax dollars, but also by purchasing duck stamps and paying excise 
taxes on fishing and hunting equipment.
  These are the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act 
of 1995. This legislation will build upon and improve current law by: 
making wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, a 
purpose of the refuge system; defining the term ``compatible use''; 
allowing historical uses to continue on newly acquired lands unless 
those uses are determined to be incompatible; requiring conservation 
plans for each refuge within 15 years; providing that fishing and 
hunting are permitted unless a finding is made that these activities 
are inconsistent with either the purpose of the refuge or public 
safety; and emphasizing a cooperative relationship with the States who 
have primacy on the management of fish and wildlife.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will restore the wildlife refuge system 
to the goals and intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966. It will ensure that this system is alive 
and well for all our constituents in the 21st century.
  This measure has been endorsed by the California Waterfowl 
Association, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National 
Rifle Association, Safari Club International, and the Wildlife 
Legislative Fund of America. Furthermore, the views of the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the 
Wildlife Management Institute have been sought and incorporated into 
this process.
  I would urge my colleagues to join with me, John Dingell, Jim Hansen, 
Bill Brewster, John Doolittle, Billy Tauzin, Pete Geren, Solomon Ortiz, 
Elton Gallegly, Jimmy Hayes, Ken Calvert, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, J.D. 
Hayworth, Frank Cremeans, Barbara Cubin, Wes Cooley, John Shadegg, and 
J.C. Watts in this important effort by cosponsoring the National 
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995.


                          ____________________