[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3225-H3232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 1420) 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, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1420

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997''.
       (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.).

      SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The National Wildlife Refuge System is comprised of 
     over 92,000,000 acres of Federal lands that have been 
     incorporated within 509 individual units located in all 50 
     States and the territories of the United States.
       (2) The System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, and 
     plants and their habitats and this conservation mission has 
     been facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to 
     participate in compatible 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 serves a pivotal role in the conservation of 
     migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, 
     marine mammals, endangered and threatened species, and the 
     habitats on which these species depend.
       (4) The System assists in the fulfillment of important 
     international treaty obligations of the United States with 
     regard to fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
       (5) The System includes lands purchased not only through 
     the use of tax dollars but also through the proceeds from 
     sales of Duck Stamps and national wildlife refuge entrance 
     fees. It is a System that is financially supported by those 
     benefiting from and utilizing it.
       (6) When managed in accordance with principles of sound 
     fish and wildlife management and administration, fishing, 
     hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education in 
     national wildlife refuges have been and are expected to 
     continue to be generally compatible uses.
       (7) On March 25, 1996, the President issued Executive Order 
     12996, which recognized ``compatible wildlife-dependent 
     recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 
     observation and photography, and environmental education and 
     interpretation as priority public uses of the Refuge 
     System''.
       (8) Executive Order 12996 is a positive step and serves as 
     the foundation for the permanent statutory changes made by 
     this Act.

      SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 (16 U.S.C. 668ee) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this Act:
       ``(1) The term `compatible use' means a use of a refuge 
     that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, 
     will not materially interfere with or detract from the 
     fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of 
     the refuge.
       ``(2) The terms `wildlife-dependent recreation' and 
     `wildlife-dependent recreational use' mean a use of a refuge 
     involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
     photography, or environmental education and interpretation.
       ``(3) The term `sound professional judgment' means a 
     finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with 
     principles of sound fish and wildlife management and 
     administration, available science and resources, and 
     adherence to the requirements of this Act and other 
     applicable laws.
       ``(4) The terms `conserving', `conservation', `manage', 
     `managing', and `management', mean to sustain and, where 
     appropriate, restore and enhance, healthy populations of 
     fish, wildlife, and plants utilizing, in accordance with 
     applicable Federal and State laws, methods and procedures 
     associated with modern scientific resource programs. Such 
     methods and procedures include, consistent with the 
     provisions of this Act, protection, research, census, law 
     enforcement, habitat management, propagation, live trapping 
     and transplantation, and regulated taking.
       ``(5) The term `Coordination Area' means a wildlife 
     management area that is made available to a State--
       ``(A) by cooperative agreement between the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service and a State agency having control 
     over wildlife resources pursuant to section 4 of the Fish and 
     Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 664); or
       ``(B) by long-term leases or agreements pursuant to title 
     III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525; 7 
     U.S.C. 1010 et seq.).
       ``(6) The term `Director' means the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service or a designee of that 
     Director.
       ``(7) The terms `fish', `wildlife', and `fish and wildlife' 
     mean any wild member of the animal kingdom whether alive or 
     dead, and regardless of whether the member was bred, hatched, 
     or born in captivity, including a part, product, egg, or 
     offspring of the member.
       ``(8) The term `person' means any individual, partnership, 
     corporation, or association.
       ``(9) The term `plant' means any member of the plant 
     kingdom in a wild, unconfined state, including any plant 
     community, seed, root, or other part of a plant.
       ``(10) The terms `purposes of the refuge' and `purposes of 
     each refuge' mean the purposes specified in or derived from 
     the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public 
     land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum 
     establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge 
     unit, or refuge subunit.
       ``(11) The term `refuge' means a designated area of land, 
     water, or an interest in land or water within the System, but 
     does not include Coordination Areas.
       ``(12) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       ``(13) The terms `State' and `United States' mean the 
     several States of the United States, Puerto Rico, American 
     Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the territories and 
     possessions of the United States.
       ``(14) The term `System' means the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System designated under section 4(a)(1).
       ``(15) The terms `take', `taking', and `taken' mean to 
     pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, or to attempt 
     to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill.''.
       (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 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 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) The mission of the System is to administer a national 
     network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 
     and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 
     plant resources and their habitats within the United States 
     for the benefit of present and future generations of 
     Americans.''.

      SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM.

       (a) Administration Generally.--Section 4(a) (16 U.S.C. 
     668dd(a)), as amended by section 4 of this Act, is further 
     amended by inserting after new paragraph (2) the following 
     new paragraphs:

[[Page H3226]]

       ``(3) With respect to the System, it is the policy of the 
     United States that--
       ``(A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission 
     of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which 
     that refuge was established;
       ``(B) compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a 
     legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System, 
     directly related to the mission of the System and the 
     purposes of many refuges, and which generally fosters refuge 
     management and through which the American public can develop 
     an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
       ``(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are 
     the priority general public uses of the System and shall 
     receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 
     management; and
       ``(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed 
     wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use 
     within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject 
     to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, 
     reasonable, and appropriate.
       ``(4) In administering the System, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and 
     plants, and their habitats within the System;
       ``(B) ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 
     environmental health of the System are maintained for the 
     benefit of present and future generations of Americans;
       ``(C) 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, to complement efforts of 
     States and other Federal agencies to conserve fish and 
     wildlife and their habitats, and to increase support for the 
     System and participation from conservation partners and the 
     public;
       ``(D) ensure that the mission of the System described in 
     paragraph (2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried 
     out, except that if a conflict exists between the purposes of 
     a refuge and the mission 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 mission of the System;
       ``(E) 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;
       ``(F) assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity 
     and water quality to fulfill the mission of the System and 
     the purposes of each refuge;
       ``(G) acquire, under State law, water rights that are 
     needed for refuge purposes;
       ``(H) recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational 
     uses as the priority general public uses of the System 
     through which the American public can develop an appreciation 
     for fish and wildlife;
       ``(I) ensure that opportunities are provided within the 
     System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses;
       ``(J) ensure that priority general public uses of the 
     System receive enhanced consideration over other general 
     public uses in planning and management within the System;
       ``(K) provide increased opportunities for families to 
     experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, 
     particularly opportunities for parents and their children to 
     safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as 
     fishing and hunting;
       ``(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; and
       ``(M) ensure timely and effective cooperation and 
     collaboration with Federal agencies and State fish and 
     wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing 
     refuges.''.
       (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 paragraphs:
       ``(4) Subject to standards established by and the overall 
     management oversight of the Director, and consistent with 
     standards established by this Act, to enter into cooperative 
     agreements with State fish and wildlife agencies for the 
     management of programs on a refuge.
       ``(5) Issue regulations to carry out this Act.''.

     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 paragraphs:
       ``(3)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (iv), 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 and that the use is not inconsistent with 
     public safety. The Secretary may make the determinations 
     referred to in this paragraph for a refuge concurrently with 
     development of a conservation plan under subsection (e).
       ``(ii) On lands added to the System after March 25, 1996, 
     the Secretary shall identify, prior to acquisition, 
     withdrawal, transfer, reclassification, or donation of any 
     such lands, existing compatible wildlife-dependent 
     recreational uses that the Secretary determines shall be 
     permitted to continue on an interim basis pending completion 
     of the comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge.
       ``(iii) Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be 
     authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not 
     inconsistent with public safety. Except for consideration of 
     consistency with State laws and regulations as provided for 
     in subsection (m), no other determinations or findings are 
     required to be made by the refuge official under this Act or 
     the Refuge Recreation Act for wildlife-dependent recreation 
     to occur.
       ``(iv) Compatibility determinations in existence on the 
     date of enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
     Improvement Act of 1997 shall remain in effect until and 
     unless modified.
       ``(B) Not later than 24 months after the date of the 
     enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
     Act of 1997, the Secretary shall issue final regulations 
     establishing the process for determining under subparagraph 
     (A) whether a use of a refuge is a compatible use. These 
     regulations shall--
       ``(i) designate the refuge official 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;
       ``(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 mission of the System;
       ``(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), if conditions under which the use 
     is permitted change significantly or if 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 compatible wildlife-dependent 
     recreational use when conditions under which the use is 
     permitted change significantly or if 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, whichever is earlier; and
       ``(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 wildlife-dependent 
     recreational 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 a 
     refuge or a portion of a 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.''.

     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.

[[Page H3227]]

       ``(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 System Improvement Act of 1997.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall manage each refuge or planning 
     unit under plans in effect on the date of enactment of the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 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;
       ``(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) opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent 
     recreational uses.
       ``(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 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, owners of adjacent or potentially 
     affected land, local governments, and any other affected 
     persons, and 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; 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 if the Secretary 
     determines it is necessary to protect the health and safety 
     of the public or any fish or wildlife population.
       ``(l) 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 that are not 
     within the System.
       ``(m) 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, and management plans.
       ``(n)(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 System Improvement 
     Act of 1997; or
       ``(C) affect any Federal or State law in existence on the 
     date of the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
     Improvement Act of 1997 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).
       ``(o) 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 (5 U.S.C. App.).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4(c) (16 U.S.C. 
     668dd(c)) is amended by striking the last sentence.

      SEC. 9. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WITH RESPECT TO ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--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 Alaska in the Federal courts; and
       (3) the manner in which section 810 of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act is implemented in national 
     wildlife refuges in Alaska.
       (b) Conflicts of Laws.--If any conflict arises between any 
     provision of this Act and any provision of the Alaska 
     National Interest Lands Conservation Act, then the provision 
     in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act shall 
     prevail.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, as the chief sponsor of this 
legislation, I am pleased that the House is now considering H.R. 1420, 
a bill that will modernize the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966.
  When I began this effort over 2 years ago, my goal was to enact an 
organic law that would ensure a bright future for our Nation's 92 
million-acre refuge system. Our objectives also included creation of a 
statutory shield to ensure that hunting and fishing and other forms of 
wildlife dependent recreation could continue within the system and to 
facilitate those traditional activities, where compatible, with 
conservation. In my judgment, this legislation will accomplish these 
goals.
  H.R. 1420 is the product of many long hours of thoughtful 
negotiations between the Department of the Interior, and I want to 
stress that, between the Department of the Interior, the original 
cosponsor of the bill, the staff of the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Miller, and those representing the hunting, conservation, and 
environmental communities. In particular, I want to compliment 
Secretary Bruce Babbitt for his personal commitment to this effort and 
for hosting these discussions. This process could well serve as a model 
to resolve other legislative differences.
  I would also like to thank my good friend, I just noticed he was on 
the floor, I do not know where he went, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell], who was the father of the refuges. He worked very hard 
with me over the years developing these refuges and the refuge system 
itself. Without his leadership, I doubt if this could have taken place. 
And again I want to thank the staff for participating because they 
worked very hard.
  But H.R. 1420 is not a perfect bill. It is not everything I wanted. I 
want to stress it is a compromise that has been endorsed by the Clinton 
administration and with such diverse groups as the Izaak Walton League, 
the National Rifle Association, the International Association of Fish 
and Wildlife Agencies, Safari Club International, Wildlife Legislative 
Fund of America, and the Wildlife Management Institute. I want to 
stress that these people support this legislation.
  The major components of this new bill are that it statutorily defines 
the term ``compatible use.'' While the refuge manager will retain the 
power to determine what is compatible, this language should provide the 
necessary guidance to make the proper decision.

                              {time}  1445

  It defines the term ``wildlife dependent recreation'' to mean 
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or 
environmental education and interpretation and expressly recognizes 
these as priority uses of the system. This bill neither mandates nor 
prohibits such nonwildlife-dependent activities such as grazing, jet 
skiing, or oil and gas development.
  The bill will establish for the first time a mission for our Nation's 
509

[[Page H3228]]

wildlife refuges. This statement stipulates that the mission of the 
system is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 
conservation, management and, where appropriate, the restoration of 
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit 
of present and future generations of Americans.
  When administering the system, it is the policy of the United States 
that compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and 
appropriate general public use of the system and will be given priority 
consideration in refuge planning and management. In addition, the 
Secretary is directed to ensure that opportunities are provided for 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities within the refuge 
system.
  Finally, Congress finds that these activities, including hunting and 
fishing, have been and are expected to be generally compatible with the 
mission of the system and purposes of the refuges.
  The legislation contains an important requirement that the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service make a determination, prior to land acquisition, 
whether existing wildlife-dependent uses may continue during the 
implementation of a management plan. By so doing, the citizens will 
know up front whether their favorite fishing and hunting spots will 
remain open and, if they are unhappy with the decision, they can lobby 
their congressman prior to the acquisition of the proposed refuge land.
  H.R. 1420 requires the completion of a conservation plan for each of 
the 509 refuges within 15 years of the date of enactment. We should 
know what kind of natural or wildlife resources exist on these refuges.
  Finally, this bill contains language that ensures that the act will 
not affect Federal, State, or local water rights and will not affect 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The key 
fundamental change between this legislation and H.R. 511 is the 
deletion of the six systemwide purposes. Under this compromise measure, 
the hierarchical structure will be the conservation mission of the 
system, the purposes of each individual refuge unit, compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses, and then nonwildlife-dependent 
activities.
  While States will retain primacy over the management of fish and 
wildlife, the mission of the refuge system will be satisfied and 
individuals will have an opportunity to enjoy compatible wildlife-
dependent recreation. After all, it is the American people who have 
helped to pay for the acquisition of the 92 million acres of Federal 
refuge lands with their hard-earned tax dollars.
  In the final analysis, this is a sound piece of conservation 
legislation that is true to the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt and 
reaffirms the vision of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1420, and again I want to thank all my 
colleagues that were involved directly in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1420. This 
compromise clearly establishes the conservation mission of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System while ensuring the compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreation continues to have a place within the system as well. It 
requires that all uses of the system meet the same objective tests of 
compatibility.
  If and when hunting, bird watching, or other forms of wildlife-
dependent recreation are found compatible with wildlife conservation, 
they are given priority treatment over nonwildlife-dependent uses of 
the system. This is a sound policy that ensures conservation is 
paramount, while providing maximum opportunities for compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreation for the public. Our job here is to 
provide a good blueprint for managing the refuge system and let the 
wildlife management professional take it from there. This bill does 
that. We should pass it and let the professional get back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1420 is a good example of bipartisanship, perhaps 
more appropriately, nonpartisanship. I want to commend Secretary 
Babbitt, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the 
ranking member, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who is 
here, as mentioned by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the 
various interest groups for all their hard work in crafting legislation 
that satisfies a diversity of needs while preserving a fundamental 
mission of the system.
  Mr. Speaker, I might say that that lineup of people that I just 
enumerated is a living example of diversity of needs while preserving 
the fundamental mission of the House of Representatives.
  Perhaps we can apply the same approach to address the backlog of 
management needs plaguing our wildlife refuges. If the refuge system 
had adequate resources, the various user groups might not be fighting 
each other so much over access and management decisions. The House's 
adoption of this legislation today is a significant step forward in 
recognizing the importance of wildlife refuges and addressing their 
problems.
  I urge, as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] did, all of our 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1420, the bill known as the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Mr. Speaker, as my 
colleagues may know, when I held the first hearing on the first version 
of the bill before the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 
Subcommittee, it sparked a lively debate and was quite contentious. 
Nevertheless, all witnesses agreed that the problems of the refuge 
system needed to be addressed.
  When I suggested that the differing parties should work together to 
find a common solution, I would not have guessed that these discussions 
would culminate in legislation supported by such a diverse group of 
environmental and hunting organizations as we have found support this 
bill today.
  Today we have before us a bill that is supported by Secretary of the 
Interior, Bruce Babbitt, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], 
chairman of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], the ranking member, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie], the ranking member of the Fish, Conservation, Wildlife 
and Oceans Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], 
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Members of both 
sides of the aisle, and the administration.
  In my view, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of process that we 
ought to have in the House to solve problems that are unique and of 
importance to the American people and the habitat in which wildlife 
survives. This compromise legislation, which the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] has so eloquently described, contains a provision that I 
believe is the linchpin to continuing public support for the refuge 
system.
  As the law currently stands, as soon as refuge lands are acquired, 
the door to public use is immediately slammed shut. The many hunters, 
fishers, birders, and environmental groups that have been using the 
land for recreation and education have worked hard to preserve the land 
and then are prevented from further use. No sound conservation reason 
can explain this and prevent them from using it.
  I have urged for years that this action erodes public support and 
creates unnecessary ill feelings toward the refuge system and its 
managers. The bill eliminates this unnecessary situation. It will 
require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a determination 
prior to land acquisition whether existing wildlife-dependent uses may 
continue during the implementation of a management plan. In other 
words, the door does not slam shut.
  By so doing, citizens will know up front whether their favorite 
fishing or hunting spots will remain open. And if they are unhappy with 
that decision or that proposal, they can lobby their congressional 
Representative prior to the acquisition of refuge lands. I believe that 
retaining some modicum of

[[Page H3229]]

control will keep the public support of refuges high and decrease hard 
feelings between users and land managers.
  Mr. Speaker, during his opening statement, the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] made reference to a number of groups that support this 
bill. I would like to add to that list the National Wildlife 
Federation, who say in the letter drafted and dated May 29, ``The 
negotiations by your staff,'' referring to the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young], ``with the Clinton administration and Members of Congress 
have resulted in a carefully crafted proposal with broad support. We 
support H.R. 1420.'' That is the National Wildlife Federation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an all-encompassing bill. It is probably not 
perfect. Few things, if any, that we do here are. There are undoubtedly 
future changes that will be made to the management of the refuge 
system. This, however, is a huge step in the right direction.
  I again want to thank all the Members and staff, specifically Sharon 
McKean, Harry Burroughs, Chris Mann, Don Beattie, Dan Ashe and others, 
who worked so hard to bring this compromise legislation before the 
House. And I, of course, urge all Members to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:

                                 National Wildlife Federation,

                                         Vienna, VA, May 29, 1997.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, House Resources Committee, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: I am writing to thank you for your 
     recent efforts on H.R. 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge 
     Administration Act of 1997. The National Wildlife Refuge 
     System and its proper management have long been of special 
     interest to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). Your 
     willingness to address many of the concerns we had with the 
     original version of the bill, H.R. 511, is greatly 
     appreciated.
       The negotiations by your staff with the Clinton 
     Administration and Members of Congress have resulted in a 
     carefully crafted proposal with broad support. We support 
     H.R. 1420 provided that no weakening amendments are made to 
     the bill as it moves through the legislative process. We 
     appreciate and support your vigorous opposition to any such 
     weakening amendments, as indicated by your staff (Harry 
     Burroughs, conversation with Doug Inkley, May 29, 1997). We 
     look forward to House approval of H.R. 1420 next week.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mark Van Putten,
                                                        President.

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie], my good friend, for yielding me the time, and I want to 
commend him and thank him for his work on behalf of this piece of 
legislation. He is a valuable Member of this body and I am indeed 
grateful to him.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation. It is a fine piece of legislation. It is a strong 
piece of legislation. It will protect one of the Nation's most precious 
resources, our national wildlife refuge system, hundreds of areas, and 
millions of acres, and they will be protected for the future, but they 
will be under wise use.
  My colleagues might perhaps wonder why I rise here today. My first 
reason is to commend my colleagues who have participated in this, the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], my dear friend of long standing, the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], 
my good friend, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking minority member of 
the committee, and the very fine staffs of all of us, including Dan 
Beattie from my staff, who participated in the work that made this 
possible.
  I also want to rise to commend the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. 
Babbitt, who worked so hard and so well on this battle. And it is 
probably with some surprise that all of us who participated in these 
discussions find that we have accomplished the remarkable task of 
bringing this legislation to the floor. It is indeed remarkable because 
there were great differences that existed as we went through the 
business.
  The legislation is good. It is a successor piece of legislation to 
the Refuge Administration Act, which years ago, when I was chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the old 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, on which my good friend, the 
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources served at that time. I 
want to say that we were very proud of the good work that we did in 
those great days, as we are proud of the work that we do today.
  The legislation protects hunting, it protects wise use, it sees to it 
that the refuges both insofar as their habitat and their area are 
protected. It also sees to it that the wildlife species, which are so 
precious and so important and which are the reason for the existence of 
the refuge system, achieve the full and necessary protection which they 
must have.
  The bill expands the National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 by 
providing a strong mission statement for the system and by ensuring 
that each refuge is managed in a way that fulfills the mission of the 
system and the purpose for which the refuge was created. It provides in 
this strong statement the following language: ``To administer national 
networks of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where 
appropriate the restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 
their habitats with the United States for the benefit of the present 
and future generations of Americans.'' It directs the service to 
implement conservation plans and to determine the compatibility of 
activities on the refuge and gives protection to compatible wildlife-
dependent activities, like hunting.
  And I would remind all my colleagues and everybody in and outside 
this body that it was the hunters who set up and who maintained and who 
preserved, protected, and funded the wildlife refuge system, and it is 
the hunter with his small contribution of one duck stamp each hunting 
season that makes possible the continued acquisition of land for the 
precious purpose of protecting this system.
  I hope that my colleagues will recognize that this is good, sound, 
necessary legislation, and I hope that they will recognize that many of 
the important wildlife and hunting organizations support this: the 
Wildlife Legislative Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the 
National Rifle Association, the Safari Club International, and by my 
colleagues who work here constantly on behalf of conservation, my 
colleagues and friends in the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.
  I do want to say one particular word about the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young], my good friend. I know he had strong differences with the 
Secretary early on, and I know the Secretary had strong differences 
with my colleague. The two came together in a fashion which does credit 
not only to them but to this institution and to their respective 
responsibilities.
  I am proud to have had a little bit to do with the adoption of this 
legislation. I want to urge my colleagues to support the legislation, 
which brings viability and health to 92 million acres of the refuge 
system, which is one of the greatest national treasures in the 
possession of this country.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], and I ask unanimous 
consent that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention the person who worked very 
closely with me over the past couple of years in preparing for today, 
and that, of course, is Sharon McKenna, one of the staffers on the 
Resources Committee who is here with me today. I just wanted to thank 
her so very much for all the hard work that she has done in preparation 
for today as well.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3230]]

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time to rise in support of this very important 
legislation. I thank him for his stewardship of this very important 
issue and, of course, our ranking member of the committee, in fact, the 
entire committee and the professional staff, for making possible this 
very important legislation.
  H.R. 1420 will finally, after 40 years, give the National Wildlife 
Refuge System a mission, a central mission for the Nation's 509 
wildlife refuges. It will make wildlife conservation the primary 
purpose of all refuges, and finally give the Fish and Wildlife Service 
a directive in how to best manage this precious resource.
  It also allows important secondary uses, very important, such as 
hunting and fishing, to continue on refuges as long as they are 
compatible with the primary purpose of the refuge, wildlife 
conservation. My good friend from Michigan just a moment ago noted that 
it was sportsmen conservationists, original conservationists that made 
possible this setting aside of precious lands.
  I thank the committee, and particularly the chairman and the ranking 
member, for their leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 
brought some questions to my attention which I would like to discuss 
with the chairman of the committee at this time.
  I have a few questions I would like to address to the chairman about 
the potential effects of the bill on the utility and other rights-of-
way and related facilities within the Nation's wildlife refuges. 
Current law expressly allows such rights-of-way when they are 
determined to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was 
established. In many cases electricity and other rights-of-way and 
related facilities provide additional valuable habitat for our Nation's 
wildlife.
  Current Fish and Wildlife Service regulations specify a 50-year 
permit term for rights-of-way for electrical transmission lines, 
recognizing that the siting process for such lines is lengthy, complex, 
and costly. H.R. 1420 requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
review the compatibility for all uses at least every 10 years. Does the 
gentleman envision this requirement as adversely impacting either 
existing rights-of-way or the Service's ability to grant future rights-
of-way across the refuge?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, the enactment of 
H.R. 1420 should not impact these rights-of-way. As the gentleman has 
noted, rights-of-way on refuges are granted by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service under provisions of the existing National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act, provisions which are not amended by this 
bill. That act requires the Service to first determine that the 
proposed right-of-way is compatible with the purposes for which the 
refuge was established.
  This bill utilizes the same definitions of compatibility that the 
Service has used administratively for many years. Its enactment will 
create no higher standard for rights-of-way than exist at present. We 
are changing the process by which decisions are made, not the standard 
which is used to make them.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service accompanies rights-of-way permits with 
terms and conditions necessary to ensure that the right-of-way remains 
compatible. What would be examined under the 10-year review required by 
this bill is the compliance with the terms and conditions of the 
permit, not the existence of the right-of-way. The Fish and Wildlife 
Service does this now. The only change would be in the process by which 
the review is conducted. There would be no adverse impacts on 
electrical or other rights-of-way through this review.
  Mr. SAXTON. I understand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was 
consulted on this issue and agrees with the gentleman's assessment. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
  Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Alaska, the chief 
sponsor of this legislation, for his leadership and certainly for his 
patience in getting the bipartisanship support of this important piece 
of legislation. I thank also the gentleman from New Jersey, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for bringing this legislation to the 
floor for consideration.
  I have no further speakers at this time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in my opening statement I forgot to mention that the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and myself have worked many, many 
years on refuge legislation. We watched the support for refuges grow in 
this country because we wanted to leave a legacy of hunting and 
fishing, the heritage of this country, to our young people. We were 
able to do that through our actions in the past and this is just an 
attempt to make sure that continues. I urge a strong aye vote on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Tanner].
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to talk 
about H.R. 1420. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.
  Today's vote on the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 
is a simple one as we mark National Fishing Week. The road we have 
taken to establish this common sense compromise for the future 
management of our Nation's valuable National Wildlife Refuge System is 
one that should be followed more often.
  The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], our committee chairman, 
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller] should all be commended for their energy 
and resolve in reaching this consensus agreement. Equally important are 
the nongovernmental organizations, including the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Safari Club 
International, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Izaak Walton 
League, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, the National Wildlife 
Federation, and the National Rifle Association. All have made 
significant contributions to the process that brings us here today.
  I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from American 
Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], 
Secretary Babbitt and all the other citizens who have put into this 
process a positive way to achieve a consensus on the future care of our 
important natural resources.
  Given that, I would urge the other body to move legislation similar 
if not identical to H.R. 1420, so that we can fairly quickly get a 
bipartisan, broadly supported piece of legislation to the President for 
his signature.
  I would like to remind everyone that the future of our Nation's 509 
national wildlife refuges is at a critical juncture given the system's 
100th anniversary in 6 short years. This legislation's focus on 
conservation, compatible uses such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife 
observation, and general management practices for the system marks a 
significant step forward in the care and maintenance of our refuge 
system.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1420, The National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and take this 
opportunity to clarify the scope and application of this important 
legislation.
  This Act directly affects 509 wildlife refuges, covering 92 million 
acres of Federal lands, in all 50 States and territories. These refuges 
provide enjoyment for millions of Americans each year, while at the 
same time they protect and preserve vital habitat and species for 
futures generations. Our Federal Government, however, has managed its 
refuge system for more than 30 years without any clear mission or 
direction.
  H.R. 1420 provides a beacon of light for public lands management on 
our national wildlife refuges by establishing a mission ``to administer 
a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management 
and,

[[Page H3231]]

where appropriate, the restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future 
generations of Americans.'' For far too long the Federal agency 
responsible for maintaining these refuges, the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, has proceeded without direction or instructions on 
how to manage our national refuges. They have been left to their own 
whims to make arbitrary decisions regarding who may or may not gain 
access to our refuge system. Now, local administrators will be provided 
a clear definition of wildlife-dependent recreational activities that 
are considered ``compatible uses'' within our national refuge system.
  It is important to note that this legislation applies directly to 
``wildlife-dependent recreation,'' and defines this type of recreation 
as: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or 
environmental education and interpretation. This legislation does not, 
however, apply to, preclude, or otherwise bar other activities vital to 
management of our national refuge system. Most particularly, this 
legislation does not preclude mosquito control activities. Mosquito 
abatement on our national refuges is integral to providing for the 
public health and safety of communities in and around the refuge 
system. Without these important activities our national refuges become 
breeding grounds for disease carrying mosquitoes that migrate from the 
refuges, travelling anywhere from 20 to 50 miles, to infect animals and 
humans who live in neighboring urban and rural communities. Mosquito 
control activities do not materially interfere with or detract from the 
fulfillment of the mission or purpose of the refuge system, but they do 
have a direct positive impact on public health and safety.
  I support H.R. 1420 and join with my colleagues in providing common 
sense direction for management of our national refuge system.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
1420. As my colleagues are aware, I opposed bills last Congress and 
again in this Congress that would have harmed the 92-million-acre 
national wildlife refuge system by making recreational uses a purpose 
of the system and by establishing a process for determining compatible 
uses that favored some activities over others. These bills also placed 
new restrictions on the Fish and Wildlife Service in acquiring and 
managing refuge lands that would have impeded its ability to conserve 
fish and wildlife.
  However, this compromise resolves those concerns in a way that I hope 
will satisfy the diversity of users of our wildlife refuges, from bird 
watchers to duck hunters. This bill represents a bona fide compromise 
that resulted from concessions on both sides. I think perhaps the most 
important result of this process has been the realization by 
environmentalists and hunters that many of their interests really do 
coincide in the long run. The goals they seek and the activities they 
enjoy are all dependent on our assuring that there are abundant, 
healthy wildlife populations. I believe H.R. 1420 accomplishes that.
  First and foremost, H.R. 1420 builds a solid foundation for managing 
the refuge system by making conservation the singular, fundamental 
mission of the system. In support of the mission, the bill requires 
conservation plans to be developed for each refuge and requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the biological integrity, 
diversity, and health of the system are protected. The bill establishes 
a well-defined process for deciding what uses are compatible with 
wildlife conservation and the purposes of each refuge. Importantly, no 
use is allowed on a refuge until it has been determined that the use 
will not have a tangible adverse impact on the conservation mission of 
the system or the purposes of the refuge where the activity will take 
place. Once permitted, compatible activities remain subject to 
appropriate regulation.
  In addition, H.R. 1420 acknowledges the excellent outdoor 
recreational opportunities provided to the public by the refuge system. 
The bill gives recreational uses that depend on wildlife--fishing, 
hunting, nature observation and photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation--priority over other uses of the system. 
Of course, these important recreational uses of the system are the 
result of sound wildlife conservation because they depend on abundant 
wildlife.
  As with any compromise, not every problem can be addressed to 
everyone's satisfaction. In particular, I want to express my concern 
that language directing the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
``increased opportunities for families to experience compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreation'' not be taken as a directive to divert 
scarce operational funding for the construction of roads, visitor 
facilities and other amenities. Where appropriate, such amenities 
provide important public access to the system's wildlife resources, but 
wildlife and wildlife habitat should come first.
  There has also been considerable discussion about the definition of a 
refuge. The bill's definition is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's interpretation of a refuge as an area in which the United 
States has a property interest. I think it is important to note that 
the United States may have an interest in refuge lands that extends 
beyond a property interest. However, any authority to protect that 
interest, to the extent it exists, is neither enhanced nor diminished 
by this legislation.
  I would like to commend Secretary Babbitt for taking the time and the 
initiative to bring disparate interests together to negotiate. I would 
also like to commend Messrs. Dingell and Young for their willingness to 
seek common ground. Although we initially disagreed on how to manage 
it, they never wavered in their support for the refuge system. The 
fragile coalition that was built to broker this compromise is likely to 
be sorely tested in the other body, but if we can hold it together, I 
believe the refuge system will be the better for it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Many of the refuge system's past 
problems resulted from the individual refuges not being managed as part 
of a larger system. This bill builds on the original vision of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] of a true national wildlife 
refuge system. H.R. 1420 ensures that wildlife refuges, the only public 
lands dedicated to wildlife conservation, are properly managed and 
protected, while encouraging greater public appreciation of wildlife 
and use of the refuge system. Whether you like to shoot birds with a 
Browning or a Nikon, H.R. 1420 will enhance your appreciation and use 
of the refuge system. I urge the House to support the bill.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1420, because: it 
clarifies that the mission of the refuge system, first and foremost, is 
to conserve fish and wildlife, with wildlife dependent recreation and 
education secondary, and other uses as its lowest priority; it 
establishes a more formal and public process to determine what uses are 
compatible on refuge lands; and it requires comprehensive planning with 
public participation.
  Theodore Roosevelt created the first wildlife refuge over 90 years 
ago to protect the wildlife at Pelican Island, FL. Today there are 509 
wildlife refuges covering approximately 92 million acres of Federal 
land, protecting a wide variety of fish and wildlife. In my own 
district, two refuges have been established to protect endangered 
species: the Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge for the 
endangered Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, and the Salinas River 
National Wildlife Refuge for the endangered Smith's blue butterfly.
  Americans benefit a lot from their wildlife refuges, enjoying their 
bounty and beauty for a variety of wildlife-dependent recreation and 
environmental education. Last year, over 27 million people visited 
national wildlife refuges to observe and photograph wildlife. Five 
million anglers and 1.5 million hunters visited the refuges, and nearly 
500,000 students visited the refuges for environmental education 
programs.
  However, as I brought up in committee, I believe that the definition 
of a refuge should be as defined in the dictionary--as a place 
providing protection or shelter, a haven. Refuges exist to conserve 
wildlife, first and foremost, and public use at some refuges may not be 
appropriate. For example, at the Ellicott Slough National Wildlife 
Refuge in my district, no public recreation takes place, due to the 
sensitivity of the habitat. The American public benefits greatly even 
when such restrictions are placed on certain refuges, in the knowledge 
that biological resources are being conserved, for present and future 
generations, and may be conserved to such a degree that some day 
populations may rebound to the point where they are no longer 
endangered.
  I appreciate the work that has gone into arriving at this version of 
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, and strongly 
support the belief that only uses that do not have a tangible adverse 
impact on the refuges ability to meet its conservation purpose or the 
mission of the system be allowed. The bill requires that these 
decisions be made in writing, based on sound science, and available for 
public review and comment, codifying Clinton administration policies. I 
also support the requirement that the Service ensure that adequate 
funds are available to administer public uses before they can be 
permitted: in other words that funds aren't diverted from conservation 
activities to public use management.
  I would also further urge that, although specific language to this 
effect is not present in this version of the bill, as it was in Mr. 
Miller's bill, H.R. 952, the Service should improve its wildlife 
monitoring as part of the comprehensive conservation plans that are 
required under this bill. A strong wildlife monitoring program is key 
to ensuring proper species and ecosystem management.
  I would like to end with a final, but very important matter: that of 
funding for our refuge system. Earlier this month, Reps. Gilchrest, 
young, Miller, Saxton, Abercrombie, and I, along with nearly 50 
additional House Members, wrote to Chairman Regula and Ranking

[[Page H3232]]

Democrat Yates to urge increased funding for the refuge system. This 
funding is absolutely necessary for the conservation goals of our 
refuges to be adequately addressed, and strongly urge support of this 
investment through the appropriations process.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1420, the 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. In an attempt to assist 
in the fulfillment of important international treaty obligations of the 
United States, today we are asked to support a bill which reinforces an 
unconstitutional program of the Johnson administration, the National 
Wildlife Refuge Act of 1966.
  Rather than this Congress debating the merits or constitutionality of 
Federal land management programs and the inherently flawed notion of 
common ownership and the necessarily resulting tragedy of the commons, 
this bill would amend the 1966 Act to instill internationally 
centralized management of these wildlife refuges to include requiring 
the Interior Department, using sound professional judgment, to prepare 
comprehensive plans detailing the appropriate use of each refuge. 
Additionally, this bill instills as the mission of the wildlife system 
the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats and 
provides the statutory authority for denying use of the refuges for all 
noncompatible uses which materially interfere with or detract from the 
mission. Moreover, H.R. 1420 directs the Interior Secretary to direct 
the continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to 
accomplish the mission [emphasis added].
  Apparently, the era of big government is not over. In fact, in the 
name of satisfying international treaties, it seems as though even the 
Great Society is alive and well and growing.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, Teddy Roosevelt named Pelican Island, FL as 
the first United States wildlife refuge. In that tradition, I'm proud 
that Florida's fourteenth Congressional district boasts four wildlife 
refuges, including the J.N. ``Ding'' Darling refuge on my home island 
of Sanibel.
  I want to commend Chairman Young and the Resources Committee; 
bringing together many diverse interests, they've crafted a bill that 
meets with the satisfaction of all parties. H.R. 1420, for the first 
time, establishes a central purpose for the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, namely, providing a sanctuary for wildlife. It also addresses 
the issues of compatible uses in a responsible way. As the session 
continues, the House will undoubtedly face other contentious 
environmental debates--I am hopeful that we can address those issues in 
a similarly cooperative and productive manner.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (H.R. 1420). As cochairman of 
the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I encourage all my colleagues to 
support this important legislation.
  The refuge bill is a proenvironment bill which will protect our 
Nation's tradition of allowing people using their national recreational 
areas to hunt, fish, and look at birds, while preserving the 
environment.
  Specifically, H.R. 1420 creates a nationwide set of six purposes for 
our national refuge system. Our refuge system will now be a dedicated 
network of lands to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and plant 
species; to conserve, manage, and restore fish and wildlife 
populations, plant communities, and refuge habitats; to preserve, 
restore, and protect endangered and threatened species; conserve and 
manage migratory birds, anadromous fish and marine mammals; to allow 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, which includes hunting, 
fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education; and to 
fulfill our international treaty obligations.
  This bill also requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create 
conservation plans for each of America's 511 refuges within the next 15 
years. These plans will help Americans understand the goals of our 
refuges and provide a better accounting of our national treasures.
  It is also important to recognize what this bill does not do. This 
bill does not permit hunting and fishing on every wildlife refuge. The 
individual refuge manager must find that these activities are 
compatible with the purpose of the refuge. In addition, this bill sets 
clear guidelines and standards for managers to determine compatible 
uses. This bill does not permit non-wildlife activities such as mining, 
jet skiing, or oil and gas development. This bill does not increase or 
decrease the size of any of our 511 refuges.
  This bill is the first significant refuge reform bill considered by 
Congress since the original refuge legislation in 1966. This 
legislation is supported by many outside organizations, including the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife 
Legislative Fund of America, American Sportfishing Association, Safari 
Club International, and many other groups.
  I hope that all my colleagues recognize how important this 
legislation is and vote for H.R. 1420.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1420, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________