[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3757-H3776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 410 and rule
XXIII, the Chair Declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1675.
{time} 1431
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
1675) to amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966 to improve the management of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as the author of H.R. 1675, I am
pleased that the House is considering this important legislation, which
would be the first comprehensive reform of our refuge law since the
enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966.
I am also grateful that the author of that historic law, Congressman
John Dingell, and a number of other distinguished Members including the
cochairman of the House Sportsmen's Caucus, Pete Geren, and the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Jim
Saxton, have joined with me in this bipartisan effort. Their
contributions and input into this legislation have been invaluable.
Our Nation's Wildlife Refuge System, which was created by President
Theodore Roosevelt more than 90 years ago, provides both essential
habitat for hundreds of species and recreational opportunities for
millions of Americans. At present, the system is comprised of 508
refuges, which are located in all 50 States and the 5 U.S. Territories.
These units, which cover some 91 million acres of Federal lands, range
in size from the smallest of less than 1 acre to the largest, the 19.3-
million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Regrettably, in recent years the public's confidence in our refuge
system has been shaken by arbitrary decisions made by refuge managers;
the diversion of funds to other higher profile issues; the elimination
of all existing uses on newly acquired lands; lawsuits designed to
prohibit certain secondary uses on a refuge; and the lack of either a
vision or a comprehensive plan on how our refuge system will be managed
in the future.
H.R. 1675 is the product of several years of hard work, countless
meetings with various interest groups, and extended negotiations with
the Departments of Interior and Defense. The bill was the subject of an
extensive public hearing and was favorably reported by voice vote by
both the subcommittee and the full Resources Committee, with only 5
Members filing dissenting views.
This legislation is a modest, proactive conservation measure that has
been carefully refined to address most of the concerns raised by the
Clinton administration.
While I will later discuss the substitute proposal in detail, it is
time we had a statutory list of purposes; a definition of what is a
compatible use; allow existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses to
continue on new refuge lands unless they are found to be incompatible;
a conservation plan for each refuge; and clarification that fishing and
hunting should be permitted unless a finding is made that these
activities are inconsistent with sound fish and wildlife management,
the purpose of the refuge, or public safety.
Furthermore, it will strengthen the management of the refuge system
and it implements a better, more uniform system-wide planning and
compatibility review process. This had been a goal of the environmental
community for some time.
While H.R. 1675 does not attempt to solve all of the problems facing
our refuges, it will ensure that the system is effectively managed,
that essential habitats are protected, and that the American people
have an opportunity to fully utilize those Federal lands that are paid
for with their tax dollars, their entrance fees, and from purchases of
duck stamps.
This is a sound piece of legislation. It is supported by many groups,
including the American Sportfishing Association, the California
Waterfowl Association, the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the New Jersey
Federation of Sportsmen, the National Rifle Association, and the
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. This bill will ensure that our
refuge system has the support of the American people into the 21st
century.
Finally, a word of caution. I know there are Members who would like
to see H.R. 1675 become a vehicle to solve a whole range of problems in
individual
[[Page H3758]]
units, including mosquito abatement, public health, and additions or
deletions of land from existing refuges. While these changes may have
merit, I would hope they would not be offered to this measure but
instead the sponsors would allow the Resources Committee to fully
review them.
Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I intend to engage in a
colloquy with the co-author of this bill, John Dingell, on the issues
of open until closed refuge lands and water rights. I am confident that
this clarification and the substitute will remove most, if not all, of
the confusion about the scope of this measure.
It will also restore the fundamental goals of H.R. 1675, which are to
conserve, manage, and recover wildlife and to ensure that Americans
have an opportunity to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation.
I urge the adoption of H.R. 1675.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly support
improvement of the National Wildlife Refuge System if it really needed
it, but it does not.
Much of the momentum behind this bill has been generated by sporting
groups that seek to elevate the role of hunting and fishing off our
National Wildlife Refuges. Now, the plain truth is that hunting and
fishing are already allowed on more than half of the 508 wildlife
refuges and on more than 94 percent of the 92 million acres of the
System. I respectfully submit that is a lot of hunting and fishing.
Moreover, President Clinton, far from closing refuges to hunting and
fishing, on March 25 issued an Executive order reaffirming the
administration's commitment to a diversity of recreation of refuge
lands so long as it is compatible with the longstanding primary purpose
of the Refuge System--fish and wildlife conservation.
Some were fearful that the administration's settlement of a lawsuit
regarding the compatibility of secondary uses of the refuges would
result in restrictions on sporting activities. After reviewing more
than 1,000 activities throughout the System, not one wildlife refuge
was closed to hunting.
In fact, the Clinton administration has opened more refuges to
hunting and fishing in its first 2 years than did the Bush
administration during its last 2 years.
So, this legislation attempts to fix a problem that does not exist.
And along the way, it actually undermines the ability of the wildlife
management professionals of the Fish and Wildlife Service, with whom
the job is properly left, to manage the many competing public uses of
the National Wildlife Refuge System. This bill is not an improvement.
It is bad for the wildlife, and that is ultimately bad for the
sportsmen and sportswomen whose activities depend on abundant wildlife
populations.
In addition, the bill contains provisions which will create overly
broad exemptions for military activities on wildlife refuges, and strip
refuges of reserved water rights.
The substitute before the House fortunately drops a provision
included by the Resources Committee to allow harmful pesticides to be
used on refuges lands leased by farmers. That is a positive step,
although the same provisions were contained in the long-term CR
recently passed by the House and Senate. There were some other changes
made that were mostly cosmetic and do not address the fundamental
problems with the bill.
I am also aware that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] will
offer en block amendments to the bill. While I applaud the gentleman's
efforts to improve the bill, these amendments do not do the trick
either.
No, the problems with this bill are much more fundamental. As
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said to Chairman Young in an
April 23 letter concerning this bill: ``This bill is not the right way
to celebrate Earth Week or the environment.''
The President has addressed the legitimate concerns about hunting and
fishing in our refuges. There is an appropriate balance between
wildlife conservation and public recreation. That balance already
exists in our National Wildlife Refuge System. This bill will upset
that delicate balance. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1675.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the statement of
administration policy on H.R. 1675.
Staement of Administration Policy
(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the
concerned agencies.)
h.r. 1675--National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (Rep. Young (R) AK
and 27 cosponsors)
If H.R. 1675, as reported by the Rules Committee (the Young
substitute amendment), is presented to the President in its
current form, the Secretary of the Interior will recommend
that he veto the bill.
H.R. 1675, as reported by Rules Committee (the Young
substitute amendment), would greatly weaken the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's ability to protect the National Wildlife
Refuge System from harmful activities. The Young substitute
amendment does not address many of the bill's fundamental
problem and creates significant new problems by:
Eliminating consideration of the ``public interest'' in
opening wildlife refuges to recreational interests.
Establishing an unneeded exemption process to facilitate
expanded military use of refuge lands, despite no showing
that military needs are not currently being accommodated.
Calling into question the validity of existing reserved
water rights of individual refuges and thus undermining the
ability of the Service to provide suitable habitat for the
species on such refuges.
Allowing some present and future refuges to be transferred
to the States as ``coordination areas'' to be managed free
from the provisions of refuge law.
Restricting the needed expansion of the System by imposing
new limits on the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
monies for refuge acquisition.
Elevating certain public uses of refuges, including hunting
and trapping, into purposes of the System.
Compromising the process for determining whether certain
recreational uses are compatible with refuge purposes and
should be allowed at any given refuge.
Waiving refuge law to allow the dumping of chemicals into
aquatic habitats on refuges in order to kill certain nuisance
species.
{time} 1445
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
(Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, some opponents of this bill would like everyone to
believe that its only purpose is to permit fishing and hunting in our
National Wildlife Refuge System. This is simply not true. This is a
comprehensive bill that will improve and enhance wildlife management of
the national wildlife refuges throughout our entire country.
This bill addresses a broad range of concerns expressed in a variety
of Government reports going back 25 years about the need for better,
more uniform system-wide management of refuges. For the first time,
this bill establishes a system-wide mission statement. Those purposes
include not only compatible fish and wildlife oriented recreation,
including fishing and hunting, it also includes wildlife observation
and environmental education and also conservation management,
restoration of fish and wildlife, the preservation of endangered
species and the implementation of the international treaty obligations
regarding fish and wildlife.
Those are a broad-ranging set of objectives that this reform bill has
inherent within it. The bill also gives the Secretary of the Interior
comprehensive direction on the administration of the system and
establishes a management planning process that will be uniform
throughout the system, something that has been sorely needed in my
opinion for many years.
It assures public involvement in the planning process and requires
that those plans be reviewed at least every 15 years. One aspect of the
bill that I believe is critically important is the requirement that
refuges remain open until closed. Let me explain why I believe this
section of the law is critically important.
Under the system which currently exists, as refuges expand or as new
refuges are created, the minute the Fish and Wildlife Service or the
Federal
[[Page H3759]]
Government takes title to land, it is closed to all wildlife-related
public uses. I do not believe that it is anyone's intent that that
happen.
We changed the provisions so that, when the Fish and Wildlife Service
assumes title and assumes, therefore, the management of new lands, that
these historic wildlife-related uses continue to occur until a
management plan is adopted. This is a very important change because in
some areas of the country, the refuge system, which at one time enjoyed
almost unanimous public support, today the system does not enjoy and
the plans do not enjoy unanimous public support because the minute
someone, the minute the refuge system acquires additional land, it is
closed to hunting and fishing and bird watching and any other use that
is related to wildlife pursuits. So this bill, I believe, is important
for that reason and it should be considered, I think, one of the very
important provisions.
This bill also codifies the existing regulatory definition of
``compatible use'' that the Fish and Wildlife Service has obviously
used for many years. The committee expects that there will be some
wildlife refuges, particularly in urban areas, that will not be
appropriate settings for all forms of wildlife-dependent recreation.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this measure will greatly
change the current management system.
Finally, this bill establishes a broad goal of wildlife protection
for our refuge system, establishes purposes that reflect the current
goals of the system, institutes a long overdue systemwide comprehensive
planning process, and assures that taxpayers who purchase the refuge
lands can utilize them in many legitimate ways.
This bill merits your support, and I obviously think that everyone
should vote for it. I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by mentioning
that there are a broad, a large number, a broad array of organizations
that support this bill. For example, let me just read some of them, the
American Sportfishing Association, the California Waterfowl
Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Foundation for North
American Wild Sheep, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, the Mzuri Wildlife Foundation, the National Wild Turkey
Federation, the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen, the North American
Waterfowl Federation, Quail Unlimited, the Ruffed Grouse Society,
Safari Club International, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife
Legislative Fund of America.
Mr. Chairman, I think that these organizations know that this is a
good bill. I believe it is a good bill. I incidentally think it will
even be enhanced by the Boehlert amendment when it is offered. I urge
everyone to support the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman from California mentioned the fact that there was a
statement from the administration opposing my bill. I am amazed. I
cannot believe that, because four of the things that they are opposing
my bill on, two of them were their language.
One was on establishing an unneeded exemption process to facilitate
expanded military use of refuge lands, despite no showing that military
needs are not currently being accommodated. That is their language.
The other one is calling into question the validity of existing
reserved water rights. We did not even talk about water rights. Then we
have two of them that they are objecting to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert] is going to solve in his amendment, and we agreed to
accept that amendment. Of course, the one thing that bothers me the
most is that they are opposed to hunting. They are also opposed to
fishing. By Executive order the President says, no, I am all for this,
but it is by Executive order. What we are trying to do is revive and
establish what refuges were set up for and by whom and who supports
them.
All the refuges that I have served under in 24 years were created
with the full support of the fishermen and the hunters and the
recreation users. Now we are having managers say, no, you cannot fish
in Arkansas, because we believe that the way you fish is wrong so
fishing is closed. This is by a manager. I talked to Mollie Beattie.
She says I cannot override the manager's position.
Then we have a case in Oklahoma where a manager, this refuge was
created for migratory waterfowl and they managed it for migratory
waterfowl by planting crops that would be something for the geese and
the ducks as they flew down the byway to eat. The manager said, no,
this is not natural. We will not plant this food so they can eat. And
around the refuge the farmers were still farming so all the ducks and
geese went to the farms outside the refuge so there is no longer any
birds in the refuge. This is all documented.
But now the same manager says, oh, by the way, fishing is prohibited
on this refuge because it might interfere with the waterfowl. Wait a
minute. Where are the waterfowl? Off the refuge because they stopped
growing feed. So the fishermen are terribly upset. The hunters are
upset. The birds are upset. And the refuge has no support. And when the
people stop supporting refuges, there will be no more refuges, nor the
existence will not be funded.
I am asking for passage of this legislation so that the sportsmen of
America, the little child that has a cane pole, the person in the
wheelchair that goes out on the dock and tries to catch a fish has an
opportunity to do so and not letting one person arbitrarily say, no,
you cannot do it because I do not think it is compatible.
All this bill does is set a criteria and allows uses, as long as they
are compatible, to take place. And it takes away the discretion of a
manager to arbitrarily impose his philosophy upon a refuge that was
created for other reasons.
If he decides to try to do that, he has to justify and prove that it
is not compatible. If it endangers the public, yes; if it endangers a
species, yes; if it in fact does some harm, he has that latitude. But
if there is not a reason, then he cannot disallow it.
So this is what this bill is all about. It is unfortunate that this
administration for some reason is against the American sportsmen. They
do not support the American sportsmen and do not let anyone say they do
just because the President goes on to an area to shoot 1 duck, and by
the way he missed 42. He might be called a conservationist. Do not let
the American sportsmen be fooled by this position.
What they want is to eliminate what the original refuges were set up
for, the purposes of them. And in fact, they do not recognize the
danger of not having the support by those people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1675. I
want to congratulate Chairman Young and Mr. Dingell for putting
together a bipartisan piece of legislation. Additionally, I am
encouraged that this is a clean bill and one that recognizes all the
traditional recreational uses of our refuges as purposes.
The original principal behind the establishment of our wildlife
refuges was to ensure the viability and health of wildlife populations.
H.R. 1675 recognizes this principal by adopting five purposes: First,
conserve and manage fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats; second,
preserve, restore and recover endangered or threatened species; third,
fulfill international treaty obligations; fourth, conserve and manage
migratory birds, anadromous fish, and mammals; and fifth, provide
opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education.
Each refuge may adopt all the stated purposes or select just a few,
depending on the compatibility of the purpose to the refuge. Under the
bill, each purpose must be compatible with the underlying principal of
protecting the health of wildlife populations in order to be a purpose
at a specific refuge. Under this legislation, the underlying principal
will not be compromised.
Some of my colleagues may have concerns because hunting is listed as
a purpose of wildlife refuges. First of all, hunting is recognized by
the general wildlife science community as a valid wildlife management
tool if done in a proper manner. Second, if the refuge manager or the
Secretary finds that
[[Page H3760]]
hunting is not compatible with a certain refuge, hunting will not be
allowed. The reason we have put this language into this bill is to
avoid the situation we were faced with a few years ago where hunters
were put on notice that they may lose their hunting rights on lands
they have always hunted on. Hunters are avid users of refuges--billions
of their dollars have gone to wildlife and habitat conservation through
excise taxes, licenses, and stamps. It has been estimated that over
three-fourths of the lands acquired for the refuge system were
purchased through migratory bird conservation dollars through the sale
of duck stamps.
As an example, in the 1st District of Arkansas, land was acquired to
enlarge the Cache River Refuge. These lands were used for hunting for
decades before they were added to the refuge system. It is the ultimate
slap in the face to these hunters that they may lose the opportunity to
hunt on land they have hunted on for generations and that the land was
purchased with their dollars.
Many changes have been made to this bill to address the
administration's concerns and I believe that the final bill is a good
product. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1675.
{time} 1500
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support, as the
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], and I know the gentlewoman is
set with twins and that she would be participating in the Sportsmen
Caucus, Republican versus Democrat, shootoff on May 6, but I do not
think her doctor would let her do that.
Mrs. LINCOLN. That is right; the gentleman is lucky I am not.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But she would be there, I understand, and I speak as
one of the new cochairmen for the Sportsmen Caucus along with the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], and the Sportsmen Caucus is
founded to support the rights of fishermen and families that are
interested not only in conservation, in the environment as far as
fishing and hunting and a national treasure that we have enjoyed over a
lifetime.
This is a pro-environment bill, although there will be some that say
it is not, and I think what we need in this body is more of a middle-
of-the road kind of direction instead of those that want to pave over
the world, like those groups like Earth First, Earth Island, in which
the Unabomber's manifesto was drafted and the extremist groups and
special-interest groups on both sides, and I think that this bill tries
to come somewhat in the middle.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that there is a very good
Jewish proverb that was born out of the movie called ``Jazz Singer,''
and I am old enough, like the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the
chairman, to remember a guy named Al Jolson, and later Neil Diamond
played in a movie, and it is about a father who has lost his son, not
to a death but because of an argument, and the Jewish proverb goes like
this:
The father says, ``Son come home. We have argued too long.''
And the son replies, ``Father, I cannot. There has been too much
between us.''
And the father's reply to his son is, ``Son, come as far as you can,
and I will come the rest of the way.''
I think this bill comes the rest of the way and meets somewhere in
the middle, and we would ask our colleagues from both sides of the
aisle to make that distance in between because that is the intent.
We are trying to protect a long history of the ability of people to
use recreational areas, to hunt to fish, to look at birds, to preserve
the environment and conserve. And if you take a look at those groups
like Sportsmen Caucus, those are the groups that have provided, for
example, the duck and the wetlands up in Canada. The species would be
almost totally eliminated if they had not purchased the land that will
allow the nesting of our migratory birds. And all of those efforts have
come about from the Sportsmen Caucus-type groups and have actually
enhanced our environment.
The environmental groups opposing this will claim that unlimited
hunting and fishing will occur on all refuges. This is not true. This
is not the case. The bill provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
with the option to disallow hunting on refuges if it is decided that
these activities pose a treat to public safety or conservation purposes
of the refuge.
What it does do: It eliminates an individual with a certain agenda at
the head of each of these refuges from making an arbitrary decision to
just cut off recreational use, and we think that this is wrong. I
believe that that is median policy and, I think, can be supported, and
I think will be supported, just like the gentlewoman from Arkansas and
my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. It establishes
conservation plans for each of the 504 refuges within 15 years.
Mr. Chairman, the bill is the first significant refuge reform bill
considered by Congress since 1966. I would ask my colleagues to support
it.
I look back when I grew up. I lost my dad about a year and a half
ago, but I can still remember as a youngster going to Swan Lake in
Missouri and hunting with my dad and fishing. I can remember just
recently going over with my dad to the Imperial Valley at Wooster and
doing the same thing, and I got some duck mud between the toes of both
of my daughters, and I would like to be able to continue that because I
think that communication between father and son and father and daughter
and grandfather, which also takes some hunting, is very important to
the tradition of this country.
I thank the chairman for sponsoring the bill and supporting it, and I
ask an ``aye'' vote on it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I came down mostly because I wanted to be
able to say for the only time in the 9 years I have been in Congress
that I think that the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] are right in their joint effort
in legislation, and I intend to support them. I will probably never
have an opportunity to utter that sentence again, the reason being the
context here and one that has been overlooked in the course of the
previous discussion, which has been more of a discussion than a debate
because of the wide range of support behind this legislation.
But the fact that since 1966 we have had no review of the means by
which we make conservation and comprehensive planning is in and of
itself somewhat disgraceful.
Imagine if our foreign policy were conducted by diplomats who were
basing their 1996 on their 1966 views. Imagine if we had economists who
were sitting there projecting the manner in which they have projected
30 years ago. The answer is through everything from propagation
programs that have been able to save some endangered species. In my own
State of Louisiana, believe me, what was the endangered alligator
species is now a fulfillment of what was a common expression that ``you
are up to your you know what in alligators.'' That is now both
literally and figuratively true because of efforts made in wildlife
refuges and accomplished in Camden and Vermillion Parish.
The second thing is, as my colleagues know, nature does not adhere to
legislation even, regulations. That would probably astonish some
bureaucrats to believe there is a force higher than they are, but
nature itself sometimes does things like hurricanes, reroutes canals,
uproots trees, moves levees. If we do not have comprehensive planning
that also is revisited and adjusted, then we are going to do great
untold harm to neighboring communities, to fish, to wildlife, and all
the public.
So for that reason I think you see such a wide array of those of us
who serve in the House and who may disagree on how to get to some end
results supporting the same vehicle here today, and it is truly
unfortunate that the Secretary of the Interior does not reflect that
same wide range and broad-based support.
I would hope that he would read the bill. I would hope that he would
indeed urge the President to sign the bill rather than urge him to veto
it. For that reason he would do untold good to not only those who are
here today voting but to the future generations of all Americans.
[[Page H3761]]
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] for his kindness in yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] for his kindness in granting me this time.
I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], my
good friend, the chairman of the committee, with whom I have worked
very hard on this legislation.
I would like the House to know that this is good legislation, and I
would like to tell them a little bit as to why.
In my young days between about 1966 and about 1974, I was chairman of
a little subcommittee called the subcommittee on fisheries and wildlife
conservation. It was one of the components of the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries. It had jurisdiction overall of the national
refuge system. And during that time we wrote the National Wildlife
Refuge System Act of 1966.
Since that time I have also served for 26 years as a Democratic
Representative of the House to the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission, which is in charge of buying land for the migratory bird
refuge system, and in that time the Nation has acquired over 600,000
acres of habitat for the protection of migratory birds and other
wildlife. This is a great treasure and one of my principal purposes has
been to protect it to assure that it would not be destroyed or
dissipated. Indeed one of the early things which we confronted was an
attempt by the then-Secretary of the Interior McKay to dissipate the
entirety of the refuge system. That was brought to a halt, and, as a
result of that, the Refuge Administration Act was put together. This
legislation has been called the best piece of public land management
legislation ever.
Some 30 years now after that was done, I am proud to see the
accomplishments which have taken place as a result of that bill. The
system is now providing well-managed habitat for the protection of
resident and migratory species. It is also helping to recover
threatened and endangered species. It is contributing to the diversity
of refuge areas, and it is serving for all of the people much more
traditional and wildlife-related purposes, such as hunting, fishing,
and wildlife observation.
It is a system which, I would remind my colleagues, is funded in the
largest part by the contributions of the hunters of this Nation who, by
their purchase of duck stamps, make it possible for this Nation to
acquire the lands which are set aside forever as a part of the refuge
system. It is important to recognize then the inequal part that our
Nation's hunters and fishermen pay--play in providing constant support
for the expansion and the maintenance of our refuge system.
America's sportsmen and sports women provide this help not only with
their votes but also through the purchase of duck stamps, a substantial
portion of the public dollars then which are expended in support of the
refuge system.
A few weeks ago the President expressed his support of the sportsmen
community by issue of executive order. It recognizes supporting uses as
a priority use of the system, and this is one of the reasons that we
are able to sustain that system and to encourage patriotic sportsmen,
hunters, outdoors men and women for contributing to the system.
Now, I have hunted with the President, and I know of his strong
interest in our refuge systems, and I am pleased that he took the
initiative with this executive order. It is my hope that he will see
the merits of the legislation here which codifies much of that order.
H.R. 1675 is the result of some long-sought legislative improvements
in the refuge system. For many years, environmentalists and sportsmen
and women have called for an organic act which lays out clear purposes
of the system and requires the completion of the conservation
management plans for each refuge. A number of studies by the General
Accounting Office and the Fish and Wildlife Service have found many
problems in our refuges. These problems range from overuse to toxic
contamination to a lack of proper funding and proper management. H.R.
1675 is the result of thorough examination of these problems and an
attempt to make improvements of the management of the system which will
require better planning, compatible uses, and a clear identification of
the purposes of the system.
Chairman Young last year talked to me about cosponsoring this
legislation. I agreed to do so so that this body could give the Fish
and Wildlife Service the tools that it needs to do the job.
{time} 1515
In fact, I decided to cosponsor this bill only after consulting with
the Fish and Wildlife Service and being convinced that the bill is in
the best interest of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the
wildlife that it protects.
I want to commend again the distinguished gentleman from Alaska for
his leadership in this. This is a good bill. It is one which will make
progress in terms of protecting the refuge system and one which will
make real progress in terms of protecting the wildlife that are
dependent upon it, and in assuring that we can continue the public
support which has made possible the success of one of the greatest
systems of public lands and the greatest systems of public land
management for an important national purpose, and that is the
protection of wildlife.
There is no doubt that this bill has, I would observe, some
reservations. I have worked for several months with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Interior Department, the Council on Environmental
Quality, and other organizations to address problems that they have
brought to my attention. I would observe that in each instance my good
friend from Alaska has been most helpful in addressing those concerns.
Now, one major source of concern is the question of hunting and
wildlife-dependent recreation on the system. Well, first of all, under
this legislation no hunting and no refuge use can take place which is
inconsistent with the purposes for which this system is set up.
Remember, this system is set up and paid for in good part by the
hunters of America who contribute to this. I would observe that the
critics of this bill have probably in toto contributed nothing to the
purchase of refuge system lands over the years. I think that tells us a
great deal, that people who love it enough to put their money where
their mouth is are the hunters and the sportsmen. They will use this,
and they will use it in a fashion which is consistent with the purpose
of the refuge and in a fashion which is consistent with the best
interests of not only the habitat but also the wildlife.
I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to understand
that basic good sense and basic hunting, not only as a purpose of the
refuge but also as a device for the management of the wildlife there,
makes the best of good sense. This is a good piece of legislation. I
urge my colleagues to support it. I tell the Members, both as a hunter
and a conservationist and as one who has authored much of the
legislation that relates not only to the refuge system but protection
of the environment, that this is good legislation. I urge my colleagues
strongly to support it. It is in the public interest, it is in the
interest of the refuge system, it is in the interest of the wildlife,
and future generations will thank us for passing this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 9 minutes,
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 15 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I think that whenever the U.S. Congress passes
legislation, they should keep several important things in mind which I
am going to describe. I think those things that enhance legislation in
this House, which enhance laws, are present in this legislation.
First of all, I think with the amendments by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert], this legislation will improve existing law.
No. 2, this legislation provides a structure which will enhance local
[[Page H3762]]
managers' ability to work much more closely with the State government,
with the local government, with private landowners, with environmental
groups, with anybody that has any kind of an interest in America's
wildlife refuges.
No. 3, this particular legislation continues to give local managers
the flexibility they need to provide what they feel is necessary to
manage wildlife in any way that they think is conducive for their
conservation.
I want to make a comment to an earlier statement by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. Cunningham described the story where a father and son had a
falling out, and the father called the son and said, ``Let's get
together.'' The son said, ``I can't, there is too much between us''.
Then Mr. Cunningham said the father told the son, ``Just come as far as
you can go, and I will go the rest of the way''.
If we want to legislate good laws for this country, then this
particular piece of legislation, I might add to the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young], this particular piece of legislation brings
opposing forces together. Each side has come just as far as they can go
and there has been a compromise.
If we are going to be successful in managing the Nation's resources,
then this type of discussion, this type of debate, this type of
legislation is the kind of example that we need to show to our
constituents and we need to show to our Nation. So I would urge the
Members that this is a good bill. We should vote for this bill.
I want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Resources for
his work.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1675, the
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. This bill clarifies the
original intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966.
That intention being: wildlife based recreation, including hunting
and fishing, being a primary purpose of the system.
As many of you know I am an avid and responsible sportsman. This
legislation erases 30 years of over zealous regulation by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. It is high time we give back the refuge system to the
people--not to the Government.
It is becoming harder and harder for individuals to enjoy the sports
of hunting and fishing. Most people don't have the ability to own
private land for these activities.
H.R. 1675 brings wildlife-dependent recreation back as one of the
primary goals of the refuge system.
Our refuge system is in dire need of reform, and this is the vehicle
in which it can be accomplished.
H.R. 1675 has bipartisan support including wildlife conservation
groups, and State fish and wildlife agencies.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1675.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry. Just for the sake of a clarification so I know whether I can
yield back or not, can the Chair advise me with respect to the Nadler
amendment? Must that be offered prior to?
The CHAIRMAN. the Nadler amendment was printed in the Record. Prior
to what?
Mr. MILLER of California. The question is, is that impacted by the
Boehlert amendment? I do not know if the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] is going to offer his amendment now.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] will be offering his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the amendment of the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert] was not printed in the Record. The amendment of the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, was printed in the Record, and
under the rule, Mr. Nadler could have priority of recognition.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman from Alaska
sing for 5 minutes? We are looking for the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Nadler]. I think I need to protect his rights to offer his amendment.
Maybe the gentlewoman from Arkansas can offer her amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman from California will yield back
the balance of his time.
Mr. MILLER of California. That is what I am trying to determine.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time. I will have
the gentlewoman's amendment made in order right off the bat.
Mr. MILLER of California. Then we will do the Nadler amendment and
the Boehlert amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Whatever is right. I will do hers.
Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the Chair for indulging our
concerns. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is here.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to stand together
with my colleagues in commemoration of the Armenian genocide of 1915-
23. Eighty-one years ago, while Europe was embroiled in war and the
Ottoman Empire was crumbling, a concerted campaign to eradicate the
Armenian people began. In the course of 8 brutal years, at least 1.5
million Armenian men, women, and children were massacred.
What was the reason behind this deliberate and calculated effort to
destroy any Armenian presence in Turkey? We will probably never know.
The official Turkish Government position is that, during World War I, a
series of internal conflicts contributed to the unfortunate deaths of
many Armenians. In my opinion, that symbolizes a categorical denial of
what really happened. It is the denial of an event that has been
documented by scholars the world over. That denial is disrespectful to
the memories of those that perished, those that survived, and to the
civilized world. Quite simply, it is reprehensible. As a Jewish Member
of Congress, and a human being, I cannot stand idly by while this
denial continues to be perpetrated.
It has been said that when Adolf Hitler was planning the Final
Solution to the Jewish problem, he recalled the international reaction
to the Armenian genocide: ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' he offered.
In the same vein, who then would stand up for the Jews and remember
them? Well, we do remember that Holocaust, as well as the innocent
victims of the Armenian genocide, and we will continue doing so, that
it may never happen again.
The Armenian genocide was the first of the 20th century, but because
the world did not learn its lesson, we were forced to endure the
horrors of the Jewish Holocaust. Therefore, we have pledged, and stand
together, as Jews, as Armenians, as people, that we will never allow
this kind of tragedy to befall us again.
I thank my colleagues, Congressmen John Porter and Frank Pallone, for
leading this effort in the House of Representatives, and am proud to be
a member of the Armenian Issues Caucus in order to work on this issue
of concern to all human beings.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the
amendment offered by my colleague from New York, Mr. Nadler. I strongly
agree that we must eliminate the provisions of this legislation that
would require specific congressional authorization for the creation of
new national wildlife refuges.
It is clearly the case that Congress ought to be involved in
decisions about the creation of wildlife refuges. In fact, we are
already intimately involved in this process. Federal purchase of lands
for any wildlife refuge--whether the refuge is new or already in
existence--cannot occur unless the Interior appropriations bill
specifically allocates funding from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for this purpose.
However, this bill goes too far in requiring that authorizing
legislation be approved before a wildlife refuge can be created. Such a
requirement would sharply limit the creation of wildlife refuges--
taking away from the Federal Government a key tool in protecting
critically important lands and wildlife in a manner that imposes very
limited regulatory burdens.
If this bill had been in effect in 1992, it could potentially have
prevented the creation of the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in
southern Sacramento County. Stone Lakes is a fine example of the
opportunities that the National Wildlife Refuge System presents for
cooperative, voluntary environmental protection. Since the creation of
the refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service has acquired approximately
800 acres from willing sellers and is in the process of arranging the
donation of an additional 1,400 acres for the refuge. The agency is
also working to develop cooperative land management agreements with
other governmental bodies that own some 5,500 acres within the refuge
boundaries.
Through these arrangements, the Federal Government is maximizing
environmental benefits while minimizing its costs as well as impacts on
private property owners. The benefits are tremendous. The site is a key
link for the
[[Page H3763]]
migratory birds that inhabit California's Central Valley. In addition,
Stone Lakes is already a part of nonregulatory solutions to the
challenge of species and resource protection--serving as a mitigation
site for wetlands and endangered species preservation. Finally, the
proximity of this rich resource to the urbanized Sacramento area
provides an invaluable opportunity for area residents to enjoy the
refuge's benefits.
Stone Lakes exemplifies the possibilities of the National Refuge
System. This bill makes a grave mistake in creating major obstacles for
the creation of similar sites elsewhere in the country. I strongly
oppose these provisions and urge their removal from the bill.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, earlier this month, I held eight townhall
meetings throughout my district to celebrate Earth Day and listen to
what people think about how this Congress is handling the environment.
Time and time again, I heard people say that they strongly favor
measures to preserve our natural heritage and oppose efforts by
Republican leaders to gut important conservation laws, like the
National Wildlife Refuge Act that we're now considering.
This bill will open up national wilderness areas to hunting and
fishing, as well as make it more difficult to establish new refuges.
This underscores why other environmental legislation we passed
earlier this week was a mere figleaf to hide what the majority in the
House do not want the American people to see--its unrelenting assault
on our clean air, clean water, clean drinking water, and wilderness
areas.
No wonder Bob Herbert wrote in last Friday's New York Times that when
you free associate about Republican leaders on the environment, ``life-
affirming'' is the last term that comes to mind.
Mr. Speaker, this week, while people in my district and throughout
the Nation are stressing the importance of protecting the environment,
Republican leaders are once again rejecting the American value of
conservation. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the National Wildlife
Refugee Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
Congressional Record on April 16, 1996, and numbered 1 shall be
considered by sections as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment. Pursuant to the rule, each section is considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1996''.
(b) References.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or
repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be
considered to be made to a section or provision of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
(16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The National Wildlife Refuge System is comprised of over 91,000,000
acres of Federal lands that have been incorporated within 508
individual units located in all 50 States and our territories.
(2) The System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, and
other habitats and this conservation mission has been
facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to
participate in wildlife-dependent recreation, including
fishing and hunting, on System lands and to better appreciate
the value of and need for fish and wildlife conservation.
(3) The System is comprised of lands purchased not only
through the use of tax dollars but also through the sale of
Duck Stamps and refuge entrance fees. it is a System paid for
by those utilizing it.
(4) On March 25, 1996, the President issued Executive Order
12996 which recognized ``wildlife-dependent recreational
activities involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation as priority general public uses of the Refuge
System''.
(5) Executive Order 12996 is a positive step in the right
direction and will serve as the foundation for the permanent
statutory changes made by this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
If not, the clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 5 (16 U.S.C. 668ee)--
(1) is redesignated as section 4; and
(2) as so redesignated is amended to read as follows:
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, instead of going through all the
sections, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the amendment
in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alaska?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:
``SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this Act:
``(1) The term `compatible use' means a use that will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of
the purposes of a refuge or the purposes of the System
specified in section 4(a)(3), as determined by sound resource
management, and based on reliable scientific information.
``(2) The terms `conserving', `conservation', `manage',
`managing', and `management', when used with respect to fish
and wildlife, mean to use, in accordance with applicable
Federal and State laws, methods and procedures associated
with modern scientific resource programs including
protection, research, census, law enforcement, habitat
management, propagation, live trapping and transplantation,
and regulated taking.
``(3) The term `Coordination Area' means a wildlife
management area that is acquired by the Federal Government
and subsequently made available to a State--
``(A) by cooperative agreement between the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and game agency
pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
661-666c); or
``(B) by long-term leases or agreements pursuant to the
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 U.S.C. 1010
et seq.).
``(4) The term `Director' means the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.
``(5) 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.
``(6) The term `hunt' and `hunting' do not include any
taking of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
or its eggs.
``(7) The term `person' means any individual, partnership,
corporation or association.
``(8) 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.
``(9) 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.
``(10) The term `refuge' means a designated area of land,
water, or an interest in land or water within the System, but
does not include navigational servitudes, or Coordination
Areas.
``(11) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
``(12) The terms `State' and `United States' mean the
several States of the United States, Puerto Rico, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the insular possessions
of the United States.
``(13) The term `System' means the National Wildlife Refuge
System designated under section 4(a)(1).
``(14) The terms `take', `taking', or `taken' mean to
pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, or to attempt
to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is
amended by striking ``Secretary of the Interior'' each place
it appears and inserting ``Secretary''.
SEC. 4. MISSION AND PURPOSES OF THE SYSTEM.
Section 4(a) (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively;
(2) in clause (i) of paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by
striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (5)'';
and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) The overall mission of the System is to conserve and
manage fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within
the System for the benefit of present and future generations
of the people of the United States.
``(3) The purposes of the System are--
[[Page H3764]]
``(A) to provide a national network of lands and waters
designed to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and plants
and their habitats;
``(B) to conserve, manage, and where appropriate restore
fish and wildlife populations, plant communities, and refuge
habitats within the System;
``(C) to conserve and manage migratory birds, anadromous or
interjurisdictional fish species, and marine mammals within
the System;
``(D) to provide opportunities for compatible uses of
refuges consisting of fish- and wildlife-dependent
recreation, including fishing and hunting, wildlife
observation, and environmental education;
``(E) to preserve, restore, and recover fish, wildlife, and
plants within the System that are listed or are candidates
for threatened species or endangered species under section 4
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) and
the habitats on which these species depend; and
``(F) to fulfill as appropriate international treaty
obligations of the United States with respect to fish,
wildlife, and plants, and their habitats.''.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM.
(a) Administration, Generally.--Section 4(a) (16 U.S.C.
668dd(a)) (as amended by section 3 of this Act) is further
amended by inserting after new paragraph (3) the following
new paragraph:
``(4) In administering the System, the Secretary shall--
``(A) ensure that the mission and purposes of the System
described in paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, and the
purposes of each refuge are carried out, except that if a
conflict exists between the purposes of a refuge and any
purpose of the System, the conflict shall be resolved in a
manner that first protects the purposes of the refuge, and,
to the extent practicable, that also achieves the purposes of
the System;
``(B) provide for conservation of fish and wildlife and
their habitats within the System;
``(C) ensure effective coordination, interaction, and
cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the
fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of
the System are located;
``(D) assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity
and water quality to fulfill the purposes of the System and
the purposes of each refuge;
``(E) acquire under State law through purchase, exchange,
or donation water rights that are needed for refuge purposes;
``(F) plan, propose, and direct appropriate expansion of
the System in the manner that is best designed to accomplish
the purposes of the System and the purposes of each refuge
and to complement efforts of States and other Federal
agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats;
``(G) recognize compatible uses of refuges consisting of
wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation as priority
general public uses of the System through which the American
public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
``(H) provide expanded opportunities for these priority
public uses within the System when they are compatible and
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife
management;
``(I) ensure that such priority public uses receive
enhanced attention in planning and management within the
System;
``(J) provide increased opportunities for families to
experience wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly
opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage
in traditional outdoor activities, such as fishing and
hunting;
``(K) ensure that the biological integrity and
environmental health of the System is maintained for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans;
``(L) continue, consistent with existing laws and
interagency agreements, authorized or permitted uses of units
of the System by other Federal agencies, including those
necessary to facilitate military preparedness;
``(M) plan and direct the continued growth of the System in
a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission of
the System, to contribute to the conservation of the
ecosystems of the United States, and to increase support for
the System and participation from conservation partners and
the public;
``(N) ensure timely and effective cooperation and
collaboration with Federal agencies and State fish and
wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges;
``(O) ensure appropriate public involvement opportunities
will be provided in conjunction with refuge planning and
management activities; and
``(P) identify, prior to acquisition, existing wildlife-
dependent compatible uses of new refuge lands that shall be
permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion
of comprehensive planning.''.
(b) Powers.--Section 4(b) (16 U.S.C. 668dd(b)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``authorized--'' and inserting ``authorized to take the
following actions:'';
(2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``to enter'' and inserting
``Enter'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``to accept'' and inserting ``Accept''; and
(B) by striking ``, and'' and inserting a period;
(4) in paragraph (3) by striking ``to acquire'' and
inserting ``Acquire''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Subject to standards established by and the overall
management oversight of the Director, and consistent with
standards established by this Act, enter into cooperative
agreements with State fish and wildlife agencies and other
entities for the management of programs on, or parts of, a
refuge.''.
SEC. 6. COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.
Section 4(d) (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), on and after
the date that is 3 years after the date of the enactment of
the National Wildlife Refuge Preservation Act of 1996, the
Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge
or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge,
unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a
compatible use.
``(ii) On lands added to the System after the date of the
enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge Preservation Act of
1996, any existing fish or wildlife-dependent use of a
refuge, including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and
environmental education, shall be permitted to continue on an
interim basis unless the Secretary determines that the use is
not a compatible use.
``(iii) The Secretary shall permit fishing and hunting on a
refuge if the Secretary determines that the activities are
consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife
management, are compatible uses, and are consistent with
public safety. No other determinations or findings, except
the determination of consistency with State laws and
regulations provided for in subsection (m), are required to
be made for fishing and hunting to occur. The Secretary may
make the determination referred to in this paragraph for a
refuge concurrently with the development of a conservation
plan for the refuge under subsection (e).
``(B) Not later than 24 months after the date of the
enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge Preservation Act of
1996, the Secretary shall issue final regulations
establishing the process for determining under subparagraph
(A) whether a use is a compatible use, that--
``(i) designate the refuge officer responsible for making
initial compatibility determinations;
``(ii) require an estimate of the timeframe, location,
manner, and purpose of each use;
``(iii) identify the effects of each use on refuge
resources and purposes of each refuge;
``(iv) require that compatibility determinations be made in
writing and consider the best professional judgment of the
refuge officer designated under clause (i);
``(v) provide for the expedited consideration of uses that
will likely have no detrimental effect on the fulfillment of
the purposes of a refuge or the purposes of the System
specified in subsection (a)(3);
``(vi) provide for the elimination or modification of any
use as expeditiously as practicable after a determination is
made that the use is not a compatible use;
``(vii) require, after an opportunity for public comment,
reevaluation of each existing use, other than those uses
specified in clause (viii), when conditions under which the
use is permitted change significantly or when there is
significant new information regarding the effects of the use,
but not less frequently than once every 10 years, to ensure
that the use remains a compatible use;
``(viii) require after an opportunity for public comment
reevaluation of each fish and wildlife-dependent recreational
use when conditions under which the use is permitted change
significantly or when there is significant new information
regarding the effects of the use, but not less frequently
than in conjunction with each preparation or revision of a
conservation plan under subsection (e) or at least every 15
years;
``(ix) provide an opportunity for public review and comment
on each evaluation of a use, unless an opportunity for public
review and comment on the evaluation of the use has already
been provided during the development or revision of a
conservation plan for the refuge under subsection (e) or has
otherwise been provided during routine, periodic
determinations of compatibility for fish- and wildlife-
dependent recreational uses; and
``(x) provide that when managed in accordance with
principles of sound fish and wildlife management, fishing,
hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education in
a refuge are generally compatible uses.
``(4) The provisions of this Act relating to determinations
of the compatibility of a use shall not apply to--
``(A) overflights above a refuge; and
``(B) activities authorized, funded, or conducted by a
Federal agency (other than the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service) which has primary jurisdiction over the
refuge or a portion of the refuge, if the management of those
activities is in accordance with a memorandum of
understanding between the Secretary or the Director and the
head of the Federal agency with primary jurisdiction over the
refuge governing the use of the refuge.
``(5) Overflights above a refuge may be governed by any
memorandum of understanding entered into by the Secretary
that applies to the refuge.''.
[[Page H3765]]
SEC. 7. REFUGE CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e) through (i) as
subsections (f) through (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e)(1)(A) Except with respect to refuge lands in Alaska
(which shall be governed by the refuge planning provisions of
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.)), the Secretary shall--
``(i) propose a comprehensive conservation plan for each
refuge or related complex of refuges (referred to in this
subsection as a `planning unit') in the System;
``(ii) publish a notice of opportunity for public comment
in the Federal Register on each proposed conservation plan;
``(iii) issue a final conservation plan for each planning
unit consistent with the provisions of this Act and, to the
extent practicable, consistent with fish and wildlife
conservation plans of the State in which the refuge is
located; and
``(iv) not less frequently than 15 years after the date of
issuance of a conservation plan under clause (iii) and every
15 years thereafter, revise the conservation plan as may be
necessary.
``(B) The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive
conservation plan under this subsection for each refuge
within 15 years after the date of enactment of the National
Wildlife Refuge Preservation Act of 1996.
``(C) The Secretary shall manage each refuge or planning
unit under plans in effect on the date of enactment of the
National Wildlife Refuge Preservation Act of 1996, to the
extent such plans are consistent with this Act, until such
plans are revised or superseded by new comprehensive
conservation plans issued under this subsection.
``(D) Uses or activities consistent with this Act may occur
on any refuge or planning unit before existing plans are
revised or new comprehensive conservation plans are issued
under this subsection.
``(E) Upon completion of a comprehensive conservation plan
under this subsection for a refuge or planning unit, the
Secretary shall manage the refuge or planning unit in a
manner consistent with the plan and shall revise the plan at
any time if the Secretary determines that conditions that
affect the refuge or planning unit have changed
significantly.
``(2) In developing each comprehensive conservation plan
under this subsection for a planning unit, the Secretary,
acting through the Director, shall identify and describe--
``(A) the purposes of each refuge comprising the planning
unit and the purposes of the System applicable to those
refuges;
``(B) the distribution, migration patterns, and abundance
of fish, wildlife, and plant populations and related habitats
within the planning unit;
``(C) the archaeological and cultural values of the
planning unit;
``(D) such areas within the planning unit that are suitable
for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities;
``(E) significant problems that may adversely affect the
populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants within
the planning unit and the actions necessary to correct or
mitigate such problems; and
``(F) the opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent
recreation, including fishing and hunting, wildlife
observation, environmental education, interpretation of the
resources and values of the planning unit, and other uses
that may contribute to refuge management.
``(3) In preparing each comprehensive conservation plan
under this subsection, and any revision to such a plan, the
Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, to the maximum
extent practicable and consistent with this Act--
``(A) consult with adjoining Federal, State, local, and
private landowners and affected State conservation agencies;
and
``(B) coordinate the development of the conservation plan
or revision of the plan with relevant State conservation
plans for fish and wildlife and their habitats.
``(4)(A) In accordance with subparagraph (B), the Secretary
shall develop and implement a process to ensure an
opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation
and revision of comprehensive conservation plans under this
subsection. At a minimum, the Secretary shall require that
publication of any final plan shall include a summary of the
comments made by States, adjacent or potentially affected
landowners, local governments, and any other affected
parties, together with a statement of the disposition of
concerns expressed in those comments.
``(B) Prior to the adoption of each comprehensive
conservation plan under this subsection, the Secretary shall
issue public notice of the draft proposed plan, make copies
of the plan available at the affected field and regional
offices of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
provide opportunity for public comment.''.
SEC. 8. EMERGENCY POWER; PRESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION; STATE
AUTHORITY; WATER RIGHTS; COORDINATION.
(a) In General.--Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act the
Secretary may temporarily suspend, allow, or initiate any
activity in a refuge in the System in the event of any
emergency that constitutes an imminent danger to the health
and safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population,
including any activity to control or eradicate sea lampreys,
zebra mussels, or any other aquatic nuisance species (as that
term is defined in section 1003 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
4702)).
``(l)(1) The President may exempt from any provision of
this Act any activity conducted by the Department of Defense
on a refuge within the System if the President finds that--
``(A) the activity is in the paramount interest of the
United States for reasons of national security; and
``(B) there is no feasible and prudent alternative location
on public lands for the activity.
``(2) After the President authorizes an exemption under
paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall undertake, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, appropriate
steps to mitigate the effect of the exempted activity on the
refuge.
``(m) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize
the Secretary to control or regulate hunting or fishing of
fish and resident wildlife on lands or waters not within the
System.
``(n) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting
the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several
States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident
wildlife under State law or regulations in any area within
the System. Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish
and resident wildlife within the System shall be, to the
extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife
laws, regulations, or management plans.
``(o)(1) Nothing in this Act shall--
``(A) create a reserved water right, express or implied, in
the United States for any purpose;
``(B) affect any water right in existence on the date of
enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge Preservation Act of
1996; or
``(C) affect any Federal or State law in existence on the
date of the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge
Preservation Act of 1996 regarding water quality or water
quantity.
``(2) Nothing in this Act shall diminish or affect the
ability to join the United States in the adjudication of
rights to the use of water pursuant to the McCarran Act (43
U.S.C. 666).
``(p) Coordination with State fish and wildlife agency
personnel or with personnel of other affected State agencies
pursuant to this Act shall not be subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4(c) (16 U.S.C.
668dd(c)) is amended by striking the last sentence.
SEC. 9. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act is intended to affect--
(1) the provisions for subsistence uses in Alaska set forth
in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(Public Law 96-487), including those in titles III and VIII
of that Act;
(2) the provisions of section 102 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act, the jurisdiction over
subsistence uses in Alaska, or any assertion of subsistence
uses in the Federal courts; and
(3) the manner in which section 810 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act is implemented in refuges in
Alaska, and the determination of compatible use as it relates
to subsistence uses in these refuges.
SEC. 10. NEW REFUGES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be
expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
established by Public Law 88-578, for the creation of a new
refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge System without
specific authorization from Congress pursuant to
recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, to create that new refuge.
SEC. 11. REORGANIZATIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Reorganizational Amendments.--The Act of October 15,
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) is amended--
(1) by adding before section 4 the following new section:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
``This Act may be cited as the `National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966'.'';
(2) by striking sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; and
(3) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), as in effect
immediately before the enactment of this Act--
(A) by redesignating that section as section 2;
(B) by striking ``Sec. 4.''; and
(C) by inserting before and immediately above the text of
the section the following new heading:
``SEC. 4. NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 12(f) of the Act of
December 5, 1969 (83 Stat. 283) is repealed.
(c) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, or
other document of the United States to section 4 of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 is
deemed to refer to section 2 of that Act, as redesignated by
subsection (a)(4) of this section.
amendment offered by mr. nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H3766]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Strike section 10 (page
23, lines 3 through 10).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
protect both the environment and property owners from further
government micromanagement.
My amendment seeks to strike from the bill section 10, the provision
calling for specific congressional authorization for the purchase of
every single new wildlife refuge that uses money from the land and
water conservation fund. The current system, which my amendment would
retain, allows the use of funds from the land and water conservation
fund to establish a wildlife refuge either by a specific act of
Congress or by administrative act of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Historically, when a refuge is being sought through the
administration process, the Fish and Wildlife Service submits a list of
proposed purchases to the Congress for our approval through the
Interior appropriations bill. Whether a refuge is being purchased due
to a specific legislation initiative or administratively, land is
purchased at fair market value as determined by approved appraisal
procedures according to Federal law.
The land is purchased, Mr. Chairman, only from willing sellers. While
the Fish and Wildlife Service does have condemnation authority, it has
not acquired land from condemnation for many years and does not have
any plans to do so in the future. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife
Service states:
Condemnation has been used sparingly throughout the
service's land acquisition history. The service recognizes
the possible social and economic impacts of acquiring private
property by exercising the right of eminent domain and does
its utmost to avoid using this approach.
Mr. Chairman, the era of big government is supposed to be behind us.
Creating the need for Congress to authorize no specific legislation
every single refuge is unnecessary and burdensome. The current process
of using land and water conservation funds is working for landowners
and for the environment. The landowners, who again are willing sellers,
receive fair compensation quickly. In turn, the habitats and animals
that are in need of protection receive it in a timely manner.
{time} 1530
Adding another layer of bureaucracy, the entire congressional
authorization process, to this process, will do nothing but create a
backlog of pending purchases of land for refuges. Then while Congress
muddles through authorizing each single potential purchase, landowners,
willing sellers, would be left waiting for Congress to act to collect
the funds to which they are entitled.
While the debate rates on about how to best protect property owners
and the environment at the same time, we have in this amendment an
opportunity to protect both property owners and the environment by
providing a way for the landowner to be fairly compensated and the
environment to be protected. I urge my colleagues to protect the
property owners who want to sell the land and environment, which needs
the land at the same time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, purchases made with money from the land and water
conservation fund operate differently from virtually every other type
of Federal land acquisition. Now, there is a legitimate reason for
that. The land and water conservation fund needs to be available for
emergencies. I will offer a substitute amendment to address any
conceivable emergency situation.
The Nadler amendment goes a step further to extract the Congress from
legitimate policy making. I think that goes too far.
The section the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is amending is
already very narrow. The bill would not change the procedures for
expanding any existing refuge and, with my amendment, it would not
change the procedures for any emergency acquisitions of new refuges. So
we are talking about very few cases where the new restriction in
section 10 would apply. In those cases, it is perfectly legitimate to
exercise congressional oversight. That is what the people send us here
for.
I would also add that this discussion is quite hypothetical. Given
the budget crunch, the Interior Department is not going to be able to
manage much new land in the near future. The administration has
projected in its budget that no new refuge land will be acquired in
fiscal year 1997.
In short, my amendment takes care of the problem with section 10 of
the original bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the Nadler
amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. When the gentleman talked about ``your'' language, he is
talking about his language in the en bloc amendments that he is going
to offer, is that correct?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is essentially the
same language, the 500.
Mr. MILLER of California. What I do not understand, I am looking at
two different languages. One deals with the issue of expansion.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The staff will bring that over.
Mr. MILLER of California. The language originally, correct me if I am
wrong, it was my understanding that the language in the en bloc
amendment that the gentleman was going to offer went with the creation
of the refuge in excess of 500 acres. This language that the gentleman
is now discussing goes both to the creation and to the expansion.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is the same language as in my en bloc amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. The same language in the original. So is
the gentleman going to offer his en bloc language to Nadler?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Because of the way this is flowing, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Nadler] is first up, his amendment was printed in the
Record, so it is timely for me to address his specific amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman would in that event require
the Congress' specific authorization for the expansion of an existing
refuge?
Mr. BOEHLERT. No, for new refuges in excess of 500 acres, and the
expansion of any of those refuges.
Mr. MILLER of California. If one looks at the second to the last
line, it says ``create or expand that new refuge.''
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct. We are just talking about new refuges
over 500 and if you expand those.
Mr. MILLER of California. You are grandfathering all of the existing
refuges in?
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is right.
Mr. MILLER of California. They can be expanded without direct
authorization. The new refuge, from today forward, if you expand that
new refuge, would you require specific authorization?
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct.
Mr. MILLER of California. So if there was an inholding of 501 acres,
we would have to get a direct authorization from Congress?
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct, to expand it.
Mr. MILLER of California. OK. If there is an inholding of 501 acres
in an existing refuge, they can do that under the Secretary's
discretion in the land and water conservation?
Half the heads are going up and down and half sideways.
Mr. BOEHLERT. None of this applies to existing refuges. What I am
suggesting is as we go forward and we develop new refuges, we should
have the authority to go and acquire refuges of less than 500 acres
just like that, because they are time sensitive. We all know the
reasons why. If we go into a massive refuge, in excess of 500 acres, I
think then the Congress should have authorizing responsibility and
fulfill that responsibility.
The gentleman and I, as so often on these issues, are on the same
wavelength.
Mr. MILLER of California. If the new refuge needed to be expanded, it
would take a direct authorization?
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct.
Mr. MILLER of California. If an existing refuge in existence today
needs to be expanded beyond 500 acres, that would not take a direct
authorization?
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct.
amendment offered by mr. boehlert as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. nadler
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
[[Page H3767]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Strike the text of the
amendment and insert instead:
``Strike section 10 and insert instead:
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may
be expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
established by Public Law 88-578, for the creation of a new
refuge having a total area greater than 500 acres or the
expansion of a new refuge of any acreage within the National
Wildlife Refuge System without specific authorization of
Congress pursuant to a recommendation of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, to create or expand that new
refuge. For purposes of this section, a new refuge is a
refuge created after the date of enactment of the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act.' ''.
Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment be
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I will not take up more time, because we have already
had the argument for the rationale for the amendment in my exchange
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not in order.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has a motion to strike. The
gentleman from New York may have a substitute.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is what I asked for. I said I had a substitute
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot have a substitute to the Nadler
amendment. What the gentleman could do is have a substitute to section
10, and what Mr. Nadler's motion is is an amendment to strike section
10.
perfecting amendment offered by mr. boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert: ``Strike
section 10 (page 23, lines 3 through 10) and insert instead:
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may
be expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
established by Public Law 88-578, for the creation of a new
refuge having a total area greater than 500 acres or the
expansion of a new refuge of any acreage within the National
Wildlife Refuge System without specific authorization of
Congress pursuant to a recommendation of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, to create or expand that new
refuge. For purposes of this section, a new refuge is a
refuge created after the date of enactment of the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act.' ''.
Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the perfecting amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was not objection.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, once again, the same holds true. I think
we have had the discussion, the colloquy I had with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], and I have made the case for the perfecting
amendment. I ask that it be considered.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert], and correct me if I am wrong, please, but as I read his
whatever kind of amendment it is, if I read the perfecting amendment
correctly, if I read the language, it says ``The creation of a new
refuge having a total area greater than 500 acres of the expansion of a
new refuge of an acreage needs specific Congressional authorization,''
and then it says ``for the purpose of this section, new refuges are
refuges created after the date of enactment.''
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me stress, the
new refuge in excess of 500 acres, that is what I want Congress to have
a say on. I want emergency situations taken care of, obviously, with
the authority to proceed with 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 acres. Very often
they are very time-sensitive. You need to grab the deal when you can
get it. We are talking about a sizeable number of acres, 500 or more,
where I think the elected body of the people's House should have its
say.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that
may be his intent, but as I read the amendment, I think what it says,
and the gentleman may not intend for it to say that, is if next year,
without congressional authorization, the Fish and Wildlife Service were
to establish a 200-acre refuge, which the gentleman thinks should not
need congressional authorization, and 3 years later they decide they
want another 20 acres, that is an expansion of a new refuge and they
would need authority.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman
is performing a very valuable public service by this colloquy, because
we are enlightening future generations with this exchange.
My clear intent is to deal with new refuges of more than 500 acres,
and then if you expand them. But the illustration the gentleman just
gave us, 200 acres, which they have the authority to acquire
immediately right now, if next year in their wisdom they decide to
acquire 20 more acres, no problem, you do not have to come up to the
people's House to ask our permission to do so. We do not have to have
any hearings. We just proceed.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
appreciate his explanation, and this is legislative history. But I
think Mr. Scalia and the Supreme Court and several others have scant
regard for legislative history. I would submit that the plain language
of the amendment says very clearly that a new refuge is a refuge
created after a given date, and the expansion of a new refuge of any
acreage needs congressional authorization. So ``new refuge'' is one of
any acreage, 200 acres. If you want to expand it later by 20 more, you
need congressional authorization.
That may not have been the gentleman's intent, but that is what it
says. This colloquy, as enlightening a it is, I do not think will be
regarded by the courts.
I would urge the gentleman, I do not agree with the amendment in any
event, but I would urge him, sir, even to effectuate what he wants to
do, that he ought to change the wording of the perfecting amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we have had a
good, healthy exchange. Everyone has had the opportunity to listen to
our respective points of view.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert
amendment and compliment the gentleman in his effort.
Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment of the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler] for two basic reasons. You talk about a willing
seller-willing buyer. A willing buyer, yes, but not always the seller.
There have been cases where Fish and Wildlife has gone into an area and
drawn a refuge around different landholders in long, spidery ways,
surrounding them, and then declaring the area around these private
landholders as a refuge, and they are inside the refuge, being then an
inholder.
Then what happens, the land value decreases dramatically from anybody
else, because they are under certain restrictions because it is called
a buffer zone. So what would occur under the gentleman's thoughts here
would be in reality an agency willing to go in and get 499 acres around
an area, and the willing seller would only have one buyer. Any time you
have one buyer, and that buyer being the U.S. Government, and one owner
being put in that kind of spot, it has a devastating effect on that one
owner. We have seen that occur not just with this administration, but
other administrations also. So this is not partisan.
We are trying to avoid that. We are allowing them to get a certain
amount of acreage in an emergency case. But every other time they have
got to come back to this Congress to authorize, for us to say it is the
right thing to do, and not be put into the position of making the
landowners subvergent to the Federal Government.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to underline the importance of
[[Page H3768]]
the gentleman's remarks and agree with them fully, and tell the body
that in my own case in the 6th District of Wisconsin years ago, Fish
and Wildlife Service was acquiring land without Congressional
authorization, and sending letters to landowners, farmers principally,
which they thought meant they were subject to eminent domain and were
being forced to sell. There were outrages and protests. Finally we
heard they did not have any legal authority for doing what they did and
managed to get it stopped.
I would not let this completely out of the box. I would keep some
type of opportunity to review and make them justify to neutral,
informed observers what they are actually doing, so we do not see
Government get a little too heavyhanded.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am
suggesting with the Boehlert amendment we have solved the problems of
the emergency. But we have also put a cap on the administration or the
agency itself of misusing its power as it has done in the past.
The gentleman from New York may not be aware of this, but this has
occurred. All we are saying is we have a responsibility as Congressmen,
and the Member of that district has the responsibility if a refuge is
in fact proposed that is beyond 500 acres, then in reality they ought
to come back here and talk to the chairman of the subcommittee and the
Members, and especially the Member of that district. So I support the
Boehlert amendment, and I definitely oppose the Nadler amendment.
{time} 1545
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his valuable
support. This is a significant improvement to the bill because it
allows emergency purchases of environmentally sensitive lands and that
is exactly what we want to do. Keep in mind the overwhelming majority
of refuges around the country are less than 500 acres.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am told that the statement that was
made a moment ago is not correct--408 of the 503 refuges in the country
are over 500 acres. That is the first point.
The second point is that I understand the remarks of the gentleman
from Alaska, but the normal procedure admittedly not followed this past
year because Congress did not pass any appropriations bills, or the
relevant appropriations bills, but the normal procedure is when a
refuge is sought, the Fish and Wildlife Service submits a list of
proposed purchases to the Congress and the Congress approves it through
the committee report on the Subcommittee on the Interior appropriations
bill. And that that has been invariably followed, that the report
language of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on
Appropriations lists which refuges should be bought with the LWCF
appropriation and that the committee is only appropriated enough money
to cover the cost of purchasing the refuges that it lists.
Now, it is true this is not binding, but all parties have abided by
this list except this past year when there was no appropriations bill
and, therefore, no appropriations language.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit that rather than requiring authorizing
legislation, which we know can take a long time and add whole layers of
proceedings before we get a refuge, that the process we have now, where
essentially Congress signs off on it through the report of the
Subcommittee on the Interior, is a better way to go. And, therefore, I
would oppose the gentleman's perfecting amendment.
I think that as long as we have that control through the Subcommittee
on the Interior language, and maybe we ought to codify that, but the
fact is that is the way we have been doing it, Congress has the
control.
The second point I would make is simply again, with all due
deference, the fact is the language of the perfecting amendment says
very clearly that you need congressional authorizing legislation for
the creation of a new refuge having a total greater than 500 acres or
the expansion of a new refuge of any acreage, period; a new refuge
being defined as anything created after this date.
So what that clearly means, whatever the intent of the author of the
amendment and what the courts will clearly read into it, it is not
interpretation, just read the clear language, it says that if a new
refuge is created of less than 500 acres you do not need congressional
approval for that, but for the expansion of such a new refuge a year or
two later, also less than 500 acres, totaling less than 500 acres, you
would need congressional authorizing approval for that.
It is clearly not what the gentleman intends but it is what the
language suggests. So even if you agree with the gentleman, it should
be changed before we vote on it.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I want to say that I think that he is correct and that I
concur on the plain reading of the amendment and I have some concerns
with it. And that is that when we originally discussed this, I believe
the original Pombo amendment was to go to the creation of a new refuge,
that Congress ought to be involved in that decision and that ought to
take a direct authorization.
I think there was sort of general agreement about that, but what we
have here is not only the creation but the expansion of that new
refuge. And I think what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is
reading is in fact correct on its face; and that is that any expansion,
be it 20 acres or 200 acres, would require a direct authorization. I
think that would be even true in the case where you have a willing
seller and a willing buyer. So you would have to come back to Congress
and wait around for that.
There has been the discussion of an emergency situation, but there is
no reference or I do not understand the reference to an emergency
situation of 20 or 30 acres, because it says quite specifically,
pursuant to recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service to create
or expand a new refuge, that it cannot be done without specific
authorization of Congress. And that goes to the expansion, and there is
no acreage limitation on the issue of expansion.
Very often we have willing sellers and willing buyers, either that
are inholdings or on the boundary, that seek to have the purchase of
their lands made. And I think in that particular case we ought not to
require that to come to Congress.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope prior to either the acceptance of this
amendment, or if it would be voted on or what have you, I do not know
if it would be prevailed on or not; but I think that language should be
corrected because I think it is going to be an obstacle. And if we are
concerned, and I think in our committee we had some legitimate concerns
raised----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. NADLER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, where we had the notion of
creating a new refuge, and some of that may or may not have been
speculative in nature, and landholders did not know what was going to
happen or not happen, and that the authorization was a way to tell
people what their situation was with respect to the creation of that.
It is not a speculation that could go on year after year after year
after year and inhibit people's ability to possibly use or sell their
land.
But I think this amendment goes way beyond that. I think this
amendment does not do what the author wants it to do and it ought to be
reconfigured certainly with respect to the problems regarding
expansion.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out
simply that the language of this amendment says the expansion of a new
refuge of any acreage. That clearly means a new refuge that is less
than 500 acres. If we want to expand it by 32
[[Page H3769]]
acres or 60 acres, it requires the authorization of Congress. And if
the gentleman did not intend that, I would hope the gentleman would
change by unanimous consent his own amendment to make clear what he
does intend because the language is very clear.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] knows,
when this bill originally came up before the committee and my amendment
was offered to restrict the creation of a new wildlife refuge without
the direct authorization of Congress, it met very little resistance in
the committee and, in fact, passed on a voice vote in the committee;
because it only made common sense that if we are obligating funds,
taxpayer money, if we are obligating Federal funds from a Federal
account, that Congress and the authorizing committee, of which the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is the ranking member, and the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] is the chairman, ought to have the
ability to ask questions about what the priorities are.
There are limited amounts of money that can be expended every year.
So it is extremely important that we prioritize where those dollars are
going to be spent, what scientific basis there is for creating that
refuge, where they want to create it, and that Congress does take that
authorization stance.
Now, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] brought up that
Congress does appropriate the money and it does come through the
Subcommittee on Interior appropriations, which is correct. That does
happen. But the reason that it happens that way is because Fish and
Wildlife goes out, creates a new refuge somewhere, with no
congressional oversight whatsoever, obligates the U.S. taxpayer to
millions of dollars to purchase that refuge, plus additional operating
expenses to continue to maintain that refuge on an annual basis, and
our property owners come to us and say, look, we have just been put in
the middle of a wildlife refuge. I am now a willing seller because I
cannot use my property anymore; or I live under restrictions of the
Fish and Wildlife Service now and the only person that will purchase my
property now is the Federal Government because they have just
designated me a wildlife refuge. So we have to go to the Committee on
Appropriations and say, please buy these people's land that we have
already taken.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with congressional oversight. There
is nothing wrong with the U.S. Congress doing the job that they are
supposed to be doing, and that is watching over the people's money.
I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, how anybody could come down here
and seriously say that we should create wildlife refuges, for example,
according to Fish and Wildlife Service they purchased a little over
1,200 acres in California last year for a wildlife refuge at the cost
of $10.5 million. Now, that is a lot of money. They did that without
any congressional oversight whatsoever, without us determining whether
or not this was a priority site. And it may have been a priority site,
but Congress ought to take an affirmative step, step in and say whether
or not it is a priority, whether or not the science backs it up or
whether or not there may be someplace else that is a higher priority.
To have someone seriously say that Congress should not, and should
abdicate its responsibilities and let the unelected bureaucrats, the
unelected faceless, nameless bureaucracy take control of money that
should be under the direct control of Congress, I do not understand.
This is a very important issue. This is not just something that someone
came up with at night.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I
have disagreed on a lot of things. He came in with concerns about this
and we sat down and we worked out an agreement, and we said anything
over 500 acres, or if they want to expand that new refuge so that in 1
year they do not come in and say we are going to buy 490 acres and the
next year we are going to expand it with 10,000 acres. We felt this was
a reasonable compromise. We felt it was something everyone should
support and it should be totally noncontroversial.
Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I
are on the same side of something, it should be noncontroversial. It is
a good amendment that should pass, and I believe that Congress should
not abdicate its responsibilities and we should have full oversight
authority over these refuges.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this is
consistent with the existing policy that the Secretary of the Interior
is already familiar with as it pertains to national parks. If there is
going to be an addition to the national parks, the Secretary of the
Interior is used to coming to Capitol Hill to get the authorization.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is absolutely
correct. If we want to add to a national park, which may be very
important and it may be a priority, Congress must approve that in order
to do it. If we want to add to the Forest Service lands, they have to
come to Congress to do it. But in this one instance we do not have to
do that, and we are trying to correct an oversight.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I want to know if the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], regardless of the merits of the
entire question, would at least agree to a unanimous-consent request to
amend Mr. Boehlert's amendment to make it do what he says it would do;
so to say it would then read, withstanding any other provision of law,
no funds would be expended, et cetera, et cetera, for the creation of a
new refuge for a total area greater than 500, or the expansions of any
refuge of any acreage that would result in the new refuge than being
500 or more acres.
If the gentleman put in that language, it would at least make clear
it would do what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] says he
intends to do and do what the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]
seem to want to do.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the chairman,
the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my problem is the gentleman from
New York spoke so fast and said et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. When I
see a few et ceteras, I get a little concerned.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words and I yield to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Nadler].
{time} 1600
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, what I am proposing is that the gentleman
would amend the amendment to read as follows: Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no funds may be expended from the land and water
conservation fund established by Public Law 88-578 for the creation of
a new refuge having a total area greater than 500 acres or the
expansion of a new refuge of any acreage that would result in the new
refuge having a total land area greater than 500 acres within the
national wildlife refuge system, and so forth.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will accept that. In the spirit of
comity, two New Yorkers working something out, that is very positive
and very constructive.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out that if there is to be a
modification by unanimous consent, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] may request unanimous consent to modify his amendment. That
amendment modification must be submitted in writing.
[[Page H3770]]
modification of perfecting amendment offered by mr. boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
perfecting amendment be modified as proposed by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler] and that the modification be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification of perfecting amendment offered by Mr.
BOEHLERT:
In lieu of the matter proposed insert ``Strike section 10
and insert instead:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may
be expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
established by Public Law 88-578, for the creation of a new
refuge having a total area greater than 500 acres or the
expansion of a new refuge of any acreage that would result in
the new refuge have an acreage of more than 500 acres within
the National Wildlife Refuge System without specific
authorization of Congress pursuant to a recommendation of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to create or expand
that new refuge. For purposes of this section, a new refuge
is a refuge created after the date of enactment of this act.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The perfecting amendment is modified.
The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Boehlert], as modified.
The perfecting, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Amendment offered by Mr. BOEHLERT
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
Coordination areas
In section 6, in the matter proposed as section 4(d)(3)(A)
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, add at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) A new use of a Coordination Area first made
available to a State after the date of enactment of the
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1996 may not be
initiated or permitted unless the Secretary determines that
the use is a compatible use.
In section 6, in the matter proposed as section 4(d)(3)(B)
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, after ``a use'' the first place it appears insert ``of
a refuge''.
compatibility of fishing and hunting
In section 3(a)(2), in the matter amended to read as
section 4(1) of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, strike ``the purposes of the
System specified in section 4(a)(3)'' and insert ``the
overall mission and purposes of the System specified in
sections 4(a)(2) and (3), respectively,''.
In section 6, in the matter proposed as section
4(d)(3)(A)(iii) of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, after ``uses'' insert
``(consistent with the purposes of the System under
subsection (a)(3))''.
In section 8(a), strike the close quotation marks and the
second period at the end, and add the following new
subsection:
``(q) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring
or prohibiting fishing or hunting on any particular refuge
except pursuant to a determination by the Secretary in
accordance with this Act.''.
Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to
eliminate some legitimate concerns that have been raised about this
bill. We want to ensure that this bill strengthens the refuge system
and it is built to carry out its vital conservation mission. I think
this package of amendments will accomplish that objective.
The amendment addresses three problems with the bill as reported out
of the Committee on Rules. That bill, by the way, was a significant
improvement over the version that was reported out of the Committee on
Resources originally.
The first problem concerns coordination areas. These are Federal
lands that are managed by the States. Now, neither we nor anyone else I
know of has any problem with the concept of cooperative management. But
we want to ensure that no one can ever use coordination areas as a back
door way to allow damaging activities on refuges. The refuge system is
Federal, and Federal standards are essential.
The first amendment in this package makes it clear that coordination
areas have to be managed using the same standards as refuges. As a
practical matter, what that means is that if some use, say jogging, was
not permitted in a refuge because it would damage the wildlife and a
piece of that refuge became a coordination area, jogging would still be
forbidden.
I should add that this applies only to coordination areas created by
the transfer of land after the bill is signed into law. We are not
interfering with any existing agreements between the Federal Government
and any State.
The second problem addressed by this package is the key issue of when
wildlife dependent recreation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
and so forth, when that recreation is permitted at the refuge. Over the
years the Fish and Wildlife Service has struck a delicate balance
between protection of species and human enjoyment of the refuge. By and
large, no one I have spoken to has a problem with that balance, not
sportsmen, not environmentalists. Everyone wants to protect the
balance. But the language in this bill could be interpreted as throwing
aside that balance and replacing it with a new one that could be
damaging to wildlife protection.
That would be intolerable. My amendment is designed to ensure that no
one will ever interpret the bill in that matter. The amendments, there
are three of them, make clear that recreational activities can be
permitted only when the secretary determines that they would not
detract form the overall mission of the refuge system. That is
conservation.
The amendment makes clear that we are still requiring a balancing act
here, that recreational activities can occur only when they would cause
no harm. Let me repeat that: Recreational activities can occur only
when they would cause no harm.
I would like to engage the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] in a
colloquy on this essential point.
I appreciate the willingness of the Committee on Resources to work
with us on this amendment, but I would like to clarify some issues. As
I understand it, this bill is not intended to require that wildlife
dependent recreation be allowed on every refuge; is that correct?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The bill
is intended to make it clear that wildlife dependent recreation must be
allowed when it would not detract from the other purposes of the refuge
system. It does not require that recreational activities always be
allowed.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
What we all are looking for is a balancing act here between
protecting species and allowing the public to enjoy the species that
have been protected. Just to reemphasize that point, I would ask the
chairman this question: Does the elevation of compatible wildlife
dependent recreation to a purpose mean that hunting and fishing and
wildlife observation and other recreational activities must always be
permitted in the refuge?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, once again, it does not.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my distinguished chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I also
would like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the
cosponsor of this amendment, who is much more intimately familiar with
the details of some of these issues than I am. He has lived with this
for a long time. Mr. Goss and his staff have provided invaluable
guidance on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, let me give particular credit to my own staff. This may
be viewed as a self-serving declaration, but I happen to think I have
got one of the best staffs anyplace on Capitol Hill. Two of those
valued members, three of them are sitting right here with me: David
Goldston, my legislative director; Jeff More, who is my professional
staff member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment; and Dr. Natalie
D'Nicola,
[[Page H3771]]
who is a science fellow. We have science-based decisionmaking in our
office.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult issue in which the
future survival of species and the availability of open land for the
American people are at stake. This amendment, I believe, restores a
sense of balance that was lacking in the original bill. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment and the bill as amended.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will clarify for the record, the adoption of
the previous Boehlert amendment had the effect of causing the Nadler
amendment, which was an amendment to strike, to fall and, therefore,
that amendment would not be voted on because of the passage of the
first Boehlert amendment, and the question is now on the pending
Boehlert amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair restate that? I could not
follow what the Chair was saying.
The CHAIRMAN. As stated on page 233 of the House Rules and Manual,
when a motion to strike out a section is pending and the section is
perfected by an amendment striking and inserting to rewrite the entire
section, the pending motion to strike out must fall, since it would not
be in order to strike out exactly what had been inserted. Therefore, by
adoption of the Boehlert amendment as modified, the Nadler amendment
fell and, therefore, the Committee did not vote on the Nadler amendment
to strike.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, bottom line, the language that we all
agreed to is now in the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I simply have an inquiry of
the gentleman from New York. I assume that the language in the
gentleman's en bloc amendment that dealt with the same subject that we
dealt with a moment ago is no longer in your amendment?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in an effort to finetune the bill before us, we are
offering our amendment to address three specific concerns raised about
H.R. 1675. Frankly, these are concerns raised by some who may oppose
the bill altogether. However, it has been our approach to sit down with
the interested parties, roll up our sleeves and attempt to solve the
problems with the legislation in a reasonable and workable manner. Many
Members and their staff have spent hours working out the details of
this amendment, and we are grateful for the cooperation shown by
Chairman Young and Saxton in getting to this point.
Mr. Chairman, the heart of our amendment addresses three issues:
First, what is the role of the hunting, fishing, and wildlife
observation in the refuge system?
Second, how much freedom should the Fish and Wildlife Service have in
establishing--and expanding--refuges without congressional approval?
And third, what safeguards exist to ensure that the management
standards of existing refuges are maintained if the management
authority is put in the hands of an individual State?
In my remarks during the rule, I mentioned the legacy of J.N.
``Ding'' Darling--a hunter who was a steadfast conservationist. He
understood that given the proper balance, hunting and conservation were
compatible. The clarifications in the Boehlert-Goss amendment aim to
achieve that balance, and indeed, clarify that hunting, fishing, and
wildlife observation are legitimate options in some of our refuges, as
long as they are compatible with the overall higher mission of
conservation and preservation of wildlife.
The second issue involves the authority of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to use the land and water conservation fund to establish new
refuges. It is the case that unlike all other uses of the LWCF, Fish
and Wildlife is not required to seek any specific authorization to
establish a new refuge. I agree that Congress has the responsibility to
exercise better oversight over these funds, but the broad nature of the
bill language in this area has caused some concern. Our amendment would
still give Fish and Wildlife the flexibility to purchase areas of 500
acres or less, while ensuring that major expenditures of taxpayer
dollars are subjected to the normal, established budget process.
Finally, the last concern takes care of a consistency issue, and
would ensure that land set aside for wildlife purposes today--under the
wildlife refuge system--continues to be managed in a responsible manner
should authority for that refuge be given to a State agency.
Again, these are not dramatic changes, but they are significant
clarifications--and I would hope that my colleagues would support them.
{time} 1615
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the cooperation on this bill I
think proves once again that the environment does not know partisanship
and the environment should not know extremism. There are sensible,
well-balanced answers to these matters, and we are offering them in
this amendment.
I thank the gentleman who have taken the opportunity to get us this
far. I admire them for their persistence and patience.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute under
consideration, as modified by the Boehlert amendment, because I think
the Boehlert amendment and the substitute improve existing law. I am
going to support the bill, as amended.
The bill represents a significant effort to factor environmental
interests into the balance, and I compliment the gentleman from Alaska
[Mr. Young], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], for their
effort.
First, the problematic section of the State management of
coordination areas is resolved by the amendment requiring that
management of those areas meet the compatibility standard. We just went
through an interesting debate about whether or not 500 acres should
come before this House to be authorized, and I think that was clarified
and that was debated and more clearly understood.
Finally, my greatest concern is that we remember the reason we have
refuges in the first place. First and foremost is for conservation of
wildlife and plants. Whether the purpose for that conservation is to
provide hunting and fishing opportunities, to preserve endangered
species or to save wild spaces so our children in this world can know
that there is something more than cars, pavements and sidewalks, this
bill, the mission of this bill, is for conservation. The Boehlert
amendment insures that compatibility means compatibility with the
conservation mission.
Mr. Chairman, the last two Congresses have seen a stalemate on
environmental issues which has benefited neither landowners, nor
industry, nor environment, nor conservation. We have seen both sides
occasionally trip over their hyperbole, and the mistrust that has grown
has made consensus impossible.
This admittedly imperfect bill at least contains a tremendous attempt
at consensus, and for that reason I believe it deserves our support.
It should come as no surprise that generally, I believe, good science
is critical for environmental legislation. I also recognize that good
environmental legislation has always been developed by consensus.
The bill before us will do no practical harm to the refuge system,
and if it can become the first step toward building a consensus on
conservation issues, then it does a tremendous amount of
[[Page H3772]]
good, and I urge support for the amendment and I urge support for the
adoption of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
amendment offered by mrs. lincoln
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. LINCOLN: At the end of the bill
add the following new section:
SEC. --. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCEPT
STATE DONATIONS OF STATE EMPLOYEE SERVICES
DURING GOVERNMENT BUDGETARY SHUTDOWN.
After section 2 of the Act, as redesignated by section
11(a)(3) of this Act add the following new section:
``SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCEPT
STATE DONATIONS OF STATE EMPLOYEE SERVICES
DURING GOVERNMENT BUDGETARY SHUTDOWN.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from any
qualified State donations of services of State employees to
perform in a refuge, in a period of Government budgetary
shutdown, fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation management
functions otherwise authorized to be performed by Department
of Interior personnel.
``(b) Limitations.--An employee of a State may perform
functions under this section only--
``(1) within areas of a refuge that are located in the
State; and
``(2) in accordance with an agreement entered into by the
Secretary and the Governor of the State under subsection (c).
``(c) Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
Secretary may enter into an agreement in accordance with this
subsection with the Governor of any State in which is located
any part of a refuge.
``(2) Terms conditions.--An agreement under this subsection
shall--
``(A) contain provisions to ensure resource and visitor
protection acceptable under the standards of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service;
``(B) require that each individual performing functions
under the agreement shall have--
``(i) adequate safety training;
``(ii) knowledge of the terrain in which the individual
will perform those functions; and
``(iii) knowledge of and adherence to Federal regulations
relating to those functions; and
``(C) specify other terms and conditions under which a
State employee may perform such functions.
``(d) Exclusion From Treatment as Federal Employees.--A
State employee who performs functions under this section
shall not be treated as a Federal employee for purposes of
any Federal law relating to pay or benefits for Federal
employees.
``(e) anti-Deficiency Act Not Applicable.--Section 1341(a)
of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply with respect
to the acceptance of services of, and the performance of
functions by, State employees under this section.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `Government budgetary shutdown' means a
period during which there are no amounts available for the
operation of the System, because of-
``(A) a failure to enact an annual appropriations bill for
the period for the Department of the Interior; and
``(B) a failure to enact a bill (or joint resolution)
continuing the availability of appropriations for the
Department of the Interior for a temporary period pending the
enactment of such an annual appropriations bill; and
``(2) the term `qualified State' means a State that has
entered into an agreement with the Secretary in accordance
with subsection (c).''
Mrs. LINCOLN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1675 would alleviate
the burdens faced by our constituents during Federal governmental
shutdowns.
This Congress has seen two shutdowns that have adversely affected
individuals wishing to use our wildlife refuges. In Arkansas, the first
shutdown occurred during a 4-day deer hunt and the second occurred
right in the middle of duck hunting season. Hunters had scheduled
family vacations and purchased hunting permits, only to be turned away
from the gates.
This did not need to happen. Officials at the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission volunteered their services when a shutdown was imminent, and
had actually signed an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service in
Atlanta. However, right before the shutdown, Interior Department
attorneys determined that this agreement was not allowed under current
law.
My amendment fixes this problem. If this language is adopted, States
will be able to step in for the Federal Government for all fish- and
wildlife-dependent recreational management activities only during
governmental shutdowns if they have a prior agreement with the
Department of the Interior. This amendment would not allow the States
to conduct commercial management functions such as timbering, haying,
or grazing. Such agreement would ensure both the protection of the land
and the people using the refuge by demanding proper safety training,
knowledge of the local terrain and knowledge of the Federal regulations
by State employees before they take over Fish and Wildlife Service's
duties.
This amendment has the support of the Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, B.A.S.S., Ducks
Unlimited, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies.
We should never encourage the closure of our Federal Government.
However, these shutdowns periodically arise and there should be a plan
in place to address such occurrences.
Additionally, because the Federal budget and appropriations process
concludes at the end of September, if the Government closes, it
oftentimes occur during the time where the demand for access to these
lands for hunting and other recreational activities is quite high. I
know that the constituents in the First District of Arkansas look
forward to using the refuges during the fall and early winter and many
have planned family vacations around the hunting seasons.
Lack of funding for the refuges and reduced access due to Government
closures may also jeopardize public support for the Refuge System.
Hunters who have invested a lot of money in the purchase and management
of these refuges may look elsewhere for their needs if their access to
the lands is diminished or becomes unpredictable.
As my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], stated, I am
a strong conservationist and a hunter, and I certainly urge my
colleagues to support this simple, commonsense amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment and to say that we have looked at this amendment and we do
not object to the acceptance of this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Arkansas
[Mrs. Lincoln] on this amendment. It is long overdue. The
administration supports this amendment. It is something we should have
in the tools to make sure that what happened last October, November,
December should not occur again because the agency said it could not be
done legally. This amendment takes care of that problem.
I strongly support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have carefully reviewed the amendment offered by our
distinguished colleague from Arkansas [Blanche Lambert Lincoln].
I intend to support this amendment and I compliment our colleague for
the many months of hard work she has spent perfecting this language.
Under the terms of this amendment, a State would be able to enter
into an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of
allowing State employees to operate units of our Federal Wildlife
Refuge System should, in the unlikely event, a Government budgetary
shutdown occur in the future.
These employees will have to receive adequate safety training, be
knowledgeable about the terrain of the particular refuge unit, and
adhere to all appropriate Federal regulations.
While it is unclear whether these agreements will ever be necessary,
it is an innovative approach and it provides the kind of legislative
fail-safe that the Secretary should have administratively used last
winter to save our States thousands of dollars of lost hunting
revenues.
Finally, I am pleased that this language has been expanded to include
not only hunting but also fishing, wildlife observation, and
environmental education. There are millions of Americans who regularly
enjoy these forms of wildlife-dependent recreation, and this amendment
will help to ensure that our Nation's refuge doors remain open in the
years ahead.
[[Page H3773]]
It is my understanding that the administration has no objection to
this System-wide solution and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Lincoln
amendment.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, last year, I stood in this well on several
occasions regarding dubious actions taken by the Department of the
Interior.
On the first occasion, I was addressing a comment made by Secretary
Babbitt in which he mistakenly referred to my party affiliation. While
the Secretary was wrong when he made his statement, as we will know,
his prophecy has come to pass.
The second instance during the debate on H.R. 450, the Regulatory
Transition Act, dealt with threats by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service [USFWS] to potentially delay the opening of migratory
bird hunting seasons. During the Government shutdowns this winter, the
Department of the Interior was at it again--holding hunters and
fishermen hostage during the Government shutdown even though many
States, like my home State of Louisiana, agreed to keep the Federal
wildlife refuges open.
In fact, a satellite office of the USFWS solicited Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries assistance in maintaining smooth
operation of Federal refuges in preparation for the first Government
shutdown. But, Department of the Interior lawyers in Washington told
the State they could not proceed. Clearly, the best interests of the
wildlife and recreation on the refuges were being seriously overlooked.
The USFWS also specifically requested that these same State officials
promulgate special regulations to extend deer season 2 additional days
over the weekend of January 6 and 7 due to the first shutdown. After
the State did so at its own expense, those additional days and the
importance of hunting to Louisiana's economy were again threatened
during the second shutdown by the same Department of Interior lawyers.
This amendment today would clarify the States' authority to rectify
the underlying problem leading to these situations.
The Lincoln amendment would require the Secretary of the Interior to
accept voluntary services of state employees in the operations of
National Wildlife Refuge units during any period of Federal budgetary
shutdown for the management of hunting, fishing, and other recreational
activities authorized on each refuge. States and the Department of the
Interior would have to have an agreement in place prior to any
shutdown.
The 17 Federal refuges in Louisiana are an integral part of the over
$630 million in annual direct and indirect revenue that hunting brings
into our State's economy. In fact, as much as one-third of the
economies of several of the coastal parishes I represent are dependent
on tourism related to hunting activities. Without the continued
management of these refuges, the very lives and livelihoods of the
people in these Parishes are at risk. While I do not advocate the
general principle of shutting down the Federal Government, I refuse to
allow Secretary Babbitt to jeopardize my constituents and their
interests.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the Lincoln amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with my
dear friend, the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my good friend from Alaska to
engage in a colloquy with me with regard to the existing reserve water
rights on the national refuge system under H.R. 1675.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that a statement of the committee report
on H.R. 1675 would be interpreted by some to mean that this bill
eliminates, waives, or concedes existing Federal water rights which
currently attach to lands which were previously withdrawn from the
public domain from old military bases or from other lands owned by the
Federal Government for use as refuges.
The statement I am referring to is on page 11 of the committee report
and defines the term refuge under section 3(a) of H.R. 1675.
In particular, this section of the Report states that ``* * * Federal
reserved water rights do not constitute `interests' within the meaning
of the term `refuge'.'' This statement appears to be contrary to the
language in Section 7(a) of H.R. 1675 which addresses the status of
various water rights under the original 1966 Refuge Administration Act
and H.R. 1675. I would like to ask the gentleman from Alaska a series
of questions to clarify the intent of the Committee with regard to
these matters.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer the
question and provide clarification of this issue to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, section 8(a) of H.R. 1675 would establish
a new subsection 4(n)(1) in the Refuge System Administration Act to
address the general question of water rights within the refuge system.
This subsection appears to contain two important statements affecting
reserved water rights in particular.
First, the subsection contains a disclaimer stating that nothing in
H.R. 1675 should be interpreted as creating any new reserved water
rights within the refuge system.
Is that an accurate interpretation of the legislation before us?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, this provision of the bill you are
referring to is intended to clarify that no new reserved water rights
are created for wildlife refuges as a result of the passage of this
bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Second, this subsection contains another disclaimer
stating that nothing in the bill should be interpreted as affecting any
refuge water right in existence on the date of enactment of H.R. 1675.
I interpret this provision to mean that nothing in H.R. 1675, including
the definition of ``refuge'' in section 3(a), is intended to override,
cede, or extinguish any refuge reserved water right which may have been
previously created by a past land withdrawal for wildlife refuge
purposes.
Is that the gentleman's intent and interpretation of this provision
as well?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, the gentleman from Michigan is correct.
This provision is intended to maintain the status quo with regard to
existing reserved water rights in the system, and to clarify that
reserved water rights previously created at the time of withdrawal of
these lands for refuge purposes will not be expanded nor restricted,
diminished, or eliminated due to the passage of H.R. 1675. As a result,
refuge reserved water rights will remain exactly in the same position
as they are today if H.R. 1675 becomes law.
Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank my good friend, and I have further
questions: Therefore, it was the intention of my good friend that the
exclusion of reserved water rights in the definition of the word
``refuge'' in section 3(a) of the substitute bill was designed to limit
the geographic boundaries of a given refuge rather than to cede or
extinguish any reserved water rights which might otherwise be asserted
within the system?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, the gentleman from Michigan is absolutely
correct. The exclusion of reserved water rights in the definition
section of H.R. 1675 is intended to impose a limitation on the
geographic boundaries of individual refuges and is not intended to
override the disclaimer protecting existing water rights in section
8(a) of this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Finally, I am concerned that section 5 could be
interpreted in a way which may limit or prohibit future Federal action
to protect the system by its call for acquisitions under State law.
Could the gentleman inform me how this provision would affect the
current balance of Federal and State interests in the refuge system?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This provision in section 5, like the rest of
H.R. 1675, is intended to recognize long-established Federal-State
relationships. States have traditional primacy regarding the allocation
of water resources, and this merely directs the Secretary to use
appropriate State forums in those cases where water is to be acquired
for refuge units. This section should not be construed to otherwise
alter or diminish the interests of the Federal Government as it
pertains to ownership of or management authority for the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
[[Page H3774]]
Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young],
my dear friend.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have some further questions of the
gentleman from Alaska, and they relate to the question of open until
closed.
Mr. Chairman, since the Resources Committee finished consideration of
the legislation before us, considerable confusion has arisen over
section 6 of the substitute. Specifically, I am referring to paragraph
(3)(a)(2), which specifies that existing and compatible wildlife-
dependent uses of a refuge are allowed to continue, on an interim
basis, on lands added to the System once the legislation before us is
enacted into law.
Would the gentleman please explain to us the intention of this
paragraph in section 6?
{time} 1630
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, this provision is intended to address a longstanding concern
about a policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service where new refuge lands
are ``closed until opened.'' Accordingly, all preexisting uses are
terminated when land is acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This
has created conflict at many refuges where sportsmen accustomed to
using these lands suddenly find them closed for an unpredictable amount
of time.
The purpose of this paragraph, which inserts new language in section
4(d)(3)(b)(x) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act, is to create the presumption that when the Fish and Wildlife
Service brings new lands into the System, compatible wildlife
recreation activities ought to be allowed to continue unless the
Secretary makes a determination before the acquisition that such
activities are not compatible with the purposes of the System.
Mr. DINGELL. There has been much discussion from interested parties
about the fact that any recreational use would be allowed to continue
on new refuge lands. Is this a correct reading of the bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No, it is not. This provision applies only to
wildlife-dependent use of a refuge. This includes fishing, hunting,
wildlife observation and environmental education.
Mr. DINGELL. In that case, other activities such as the use of all-
terrain vehicles, jet skis, and other uses are not covered under this
provision?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DINGELL. Is it correct to read this ``open-until-closed''
provision as applying only to lands brought into the National Wildlife
Refuge System after this legislation is enacted?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, the bill states very clearly that only
wildlife-dependent uses are permitted to continue only on lands added
after the date of enactment of this bill. Wildlife-dependent recreation
is expected to occur on existing refuge lands if the Secretary
determines that the activities meet three requirements: first, they are
consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management;
second, they are compatible with the purposes of the System; and third,
they are consistent with public safety.
Mr. DINGELL. I am concerned and I want this clear on the Record. It
is correct that the Secretary will retain significant discretion
regarding the authorization of such activities on existing refuge
lands?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Once again, the gentleman is correct. Refuge
lands may be closed for any one of three reasons specified in the bill
thereby providing the Secretary with appreciable discretion. In
essence, we are creating a rebuttable presumption that wildlife-
dependent recreation is compatible unless it is contrary to one of
these principles. This approach is conceptually the same as articulated
by Secretary Babbitt to the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus in
September 1994.
Mr. DINGELL. I would like to direct the gentleman's attention to the
term compatible use. Under section 3 of the bill, concerns have been
raised that the definition of ``compatible use'' will alter the intent
and administration of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. Will the
gentleman please enlighten the House as to his intent with regard to
the definition of ``compatible use?''
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. First, I want to make clear that no provision of
H.R. 1675 should be read or interpreted as altering in any way the
purposes or administration of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962.
Second, the term ``compatible use'' is defined in a way that codifies
an existing definition used by the Fish and Wildlife Service for many
years, using reliable scientific information for reaching compatibility
decisions.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska who has
helped me greatly with the concerns that I have had on this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just in closing would like to thank the gentleman
from Michigan. He was the father of the Refuge Act as far as this
Congress goes and what occurred in the past. He has been very
supportive. His staff has been extremely supportive.
But more than that, John Dingell has been a true sportsman all
through the career I have known him. He has gone to Alaska. He has
participated in Alaska sporting activities. He has seen what can be
done and what should be done, and it is truly a conservation award that
he should be receiving with this legislation.
What we have done here today is trying to improve the Act to make
sure that we gain that support for a bill that has worked very well in
the past, a position that can be worked well in the future. This
working together can work for the conservation and for the sportsmen of
America.
Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a substitute for H.R. 1675,
the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1996. This substitute
is the result of many months of hard work and negotiations with the
Department of Defense and Interior, interested Members, and many
outside groups, and it goes a long way towards resolving concerns the
administration had about earlier versions of the bill.
The National Wildlife Refuge System contains 508 wildlife refuges
located throughout the United States, and comprises 91.7 million acres
of Federal lands. These refuges are multiuse lands that offer
recreational opportunities to millions of Americans each year. In fact,
fishing and hunting occurs on over half of the refuges, more than 90
percent of the acreage in the System. Nearly 30 million people visit
refuges each year to observe wildlife and over 50,000 students enjoy
environmental education activities.
Over the last 30 years since the last major refuge reform legislation
was enacted, a series of government reports and congressional hearings
have found that the System needs a more standardized, centralized
management regime. This bill addresses these findings. Under current
law--the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the National Wildlife Refuge
Administration Act of 1966: there is no statutory list of purposes for
the National Wildlife Refuge System; there is no statutory definition
of what constitutes a ``compatible use'' of a refuge. As a result,
individual refuge managers have broad discretion to prevent certain
recreational activities and they are subject to tremendous pressure
from various interest groups; refuges are not managed as a national
system because of the lack of centralized guidelines from the Fish and
Wildlife Service; secondary uses, such as fishing and hunting, are
prohibited on new refuge lands until boundary studies, environmental
assessments, and management plans are completed. This can take years;
when a compatibility determination is made by a refuge manager, the
public is denied any opportunity to comment on proposed changes or
restrictions; and there is no requirement to complete comprehensive
conservation plans for any of the 508 refuges. In fact, the Fish and
Wildlife Service admits that it has completed such plans for only a
fraction of all refuges.
The Young-Dingell substitute solves these problems. It establishes a
nationwide set of purposes for the refuge system. These purposes are:
(1) to provide a network of lands and waters to conserve fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats; (2) to conserve, manage, and
restore fish and wildlife populations, plant communities, and refuge
habitats; (3) to conserve and manage migratory birds,
interjurisdictional fish species, and marine mammals; (4) to provide
opportunities for compatible fish- and wildlife-dependent recreational
uses of refuges, including fishing and hunting, wildlife observation,
and environmental education; (5) to preserve, restore, and recover
threatened or endangered species; and (6) to fulfill international
treaty obligations with respect to fish, wildlife, and plants.
The substitute statutorily defines ``compatible use'' by using the
exact language the U.S.
[[Page H3775]]
Fish and Wildlife Service has used for many years and is currently
found in their operating regulations. While a refuge manager will
retain the power to determine what is a ``compatible use'', this
definition should provide the guidance needed to make the proper
decision.
The bill allows traditional wildlife-dependent recreation--that is,
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education--to
continue during the interim period after the acquisition but before the
implementation of a management plan.
The author of this ``open until closed'' provision is the gentleman
from New Jersey, Jim Saxton. It is an essential change because there
are a growing number of Americans who are angry and frustrated over the
Service's land acquisition process. These Americans have worked hard to
protect certain lands, they have contributed millions of dollars to the
purchase of refuge lands, and they have found, much to their dismay,
that for no rational reason their favorite fishing spot is now off
limits during an open-ended period of governmental studies.
This is a wrong-headed policy and I compliment Jim Saxton for his
contribution to restoring confidence to the System.
This bill requires conservation plans for each refuge within 15 years
of enactment. It is important that we know what kind of archaeological,
natural, or wildlife resources exist on these refuges. This inventory
has been a goal of the environmental community for many years.
This substitute bill incorporates the President's March 25, 1996
Wildlife Refuge Executive Order, and his ``Directives to the
Secretary'' are codified in section 5, the Administration of the
System.
The substitute stipulates that no funds may be spent from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund for the creation of a new wildlife refuge
without a specific congressional authorization.
In the past, more than $1 billion in taxpayer money has been
appropriated from this fund to acquire refuge lands. This money has
been spent with little oversight from congressional authorizing
committees and without the checks and balances of the Migratory Bird
Commission. Congress must have a role in this process, and we should
authorize new wildlife refuge units just as we authorize new parks,
flood control projects, and weapons systems. In this way, private
property owners and their tax dollars are well protected.
Finally, this substitute contains a number of other provisions
negotiated with the Clinton administration. These include: overflights
above a refuge, the eradication of aquatic nuisance species, and
language allowing the President to exempt certain activities on
military refuge lands because of national security reasons.
Much of the rhetoric surrounding this bill has been at best
misleading. So I also want to make clear what this substitute does not
do. It does not: permit or require hunting and fishing to occur on
every wildlife refuge. These activities must be found ``compatible''
and must meet the three part of being based on sound fish and wildlife
management practices, being fully consistent with the fundamental
reasons the refuge was created, and not endangering public safety;
affect Federal, State, or local water rights. This bill does not limit
the ability of the Federal Government to secure water for a refuge;
facilitate nonwildlife-dependent uses such as grazing, farming, mining,
oil and gas development, jet skiing, et cetera. As under current law,
nonwildlife-dependent uses may continue to occur when compatible, and
when the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks legal authority or sufficient
ownership interest in the property to prevent them. But this bill does
not mandate, enhance, or protect such uses; increase or decrease the
size of any of the 508 refuge units; permit the pesticides not approved
by the Fish and Wildlife Service to be used by row farmers or anyone
else in the Refuge System; permit the commercialization of our Refuge
System. To repeat, it is limited to wildlife-dependent uses. They are
clearly defined as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and
environmental education; and limit the Fish and Wildlife Service's
ability to acquire lands at existing refuges. In fiscal year 1997, the
Service proposes to spend $19.2 million to acquire new acreage for our
Refuge System. This provision will not delay, stop, or otherwise affect
those acquisitions.
This legislation is the product of many months of hearings,
discussions, and revisions. This measure was reported by voice vote by
both the subcommittee and the full committee.
This legislation is supported by the American Archery Council, the
American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S., Inc., the California
Waterfowl Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Foundation
for North American Wild Sheep, International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, International Bowhunters Organization, Masters of
Foxhounds Association of America, Mzuri Wildlife Foundation, National
Rifle Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, New Jersey
Federation of Sportsmen, North American Waterfowl Federation, Quail
Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Wildlife
Forever, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. It has also been
endorsed by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, which has a
membership of 204 Members of this body.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1675 is a sound piece of conservation legislation
that reaffirms the legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt and the
vision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966.
Finally, I want to express my sincere appreciation to the highly
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell. Without his
dedication, tireless commitment, and leadership, this effort would not
have been achievable.
I urge an ``Aye'' vote on H.R. 1675.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 1675) to
amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to
improve the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 410, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 287,
nays 138, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No 131]
YEAS--287
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
[[Page H3776]]
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NAYS--138
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--7
Ackerman
Foglietta
Hansen
McDade
Parker
Schroeder
Wilson
{time} 1656
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. McDade for, with Mr. Ackerman against.
Messrs. FRELINGHUYSEN, DAVIS, CLAY, THOMPSON, MOAKLEY, and LAZIO of
New York, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas
changed their vote from ``yea'' to nay''
Mr. KLINK and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________