[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.

                          ____________________