[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.
____________________