[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3420-H3423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NEW WILDLIFE REFUGE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 512) to prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges 
without specific authorization from Congress pursuant to a 
recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
create the refuge, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 512

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``New Wildlife Refuge 
     Authorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DESIGNATION OF NEW REFUGES.

       (a) Limitation on Appropriations from Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund.--
       (1) In general.--No funds are authorized to be appropriated 
     from the land and water conservation fund for designation of 
     a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, unless the 
     Secretary of the Interior has--
       (A) completed all actions pertaining to environmental 
     review that are required for that designation under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
       (B) provided notice to each Member of and each Delegate and 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress elected to represent an 
     area included in the boundaries of the proposed unit, upon 
     the completion of the preliminary project proposal for the 
     designation; and
       (C) provided a copy of each final environmental impact 
     statement or each environmental assessment resulting from 
     that environmental review, and a summary of all public 
     comments received by the Secretary on the proposed unit, to--
       (i) the Committee on Resources and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives;
       (ii) the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (iii) each Member of or Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
     to the Congress elected to represent an area included in the 
     boundaries of the proposed unit.
       (2) Limitation on application.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to appropriation of amounts for a unit of the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System that is designated, or specifically 
     authorized to be designated, by law.
       (b) Notice of Scoping.--The Secretary shall publish a 
     notice of each scoping meeting held for the purpose of 
     receiving input from persons affected by the designation of a 
     proposed unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 
     notice shall be published in a newspaper distributed in each 
     county in which the refuge will be located, by not later than 
     15 days before the date of the meeting. The notice shall 
     clearly state that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss 
     the designation of a new unit of the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System.
       (c) Limitation on Application of Federal Land Use 
     Restrictions.--Land located within the boundaries (or 
     proposed boundaries) of a unit of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System designated after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act shall not be subject to any restriction on use of 
     the lands under Federal law or regulation based solely on a 
     determination of the boundaries, until an interest in the 
     land has been acquired by the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, a little history on this particular 
legislation. I

[[Page H3421]]

introduced this legislation four years ago in Congress in response a 
problem that had arisen and come to my attention over the creation of a 
new wildlife refuge.
  Over the past several years, Congress has authorized 70 new wildlife 
refuges throughout this country of the 513 current. The rest of the 443 
refuges were created with little or no oversight by Congress. I feel it 
is very important that Congress fulfill its responsibility as a 
watchdog of the taxpayer money in the creation of a new wildlife 
refuge.
  Currently, the refuge system is suffering a construction and 
maintenance backlog of over $600 million. At the same time, every 
single year we create new wildlife refuges throughout the country.
  During the effort that has been made over the past year to bring this 
legislation to the floor, compromise legislation was reached with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the chairman of the Committee 
on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), that we believe 
everyone has agreed to at this point.
  What it does is it in essence requires that upon the creation of a 
new wildlife refuge, that Members must be notified if a refuge is being 
created in their district; that all the environmental documents, the 
environmental assessment, the environmental impact statement and a 
summary of the public comments relating to the proposed new refuge must 
be given to the Congressional committee of authority, as well as the 
appropriating committee; and that notices of scope and meetings 
required under the NEPA process are published in local newspapers 
notifying the people who live in that particular area that there is the 
possibility of creation of the new wildlife refuge in that area.
  Mr. Speaker, we also clarify, and I believe this is very important, 
that the determination of the boundary for a new refuge does not impose 
any additional Federal land use restrictions as a result of simply 
determining the proposed boundary until the land is acquired by the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute 
amendment to H.R. 512. I opposed the bill as it was reported from the 
Committee on Resources because it imposed unjustified restrictions on 
the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to establish national 
wildlife refuges. This issue was debated on several occasions within 
the committee and on the floor over the last two years and, in my 
opinion, the supporters of this proposal never made a convincing case 
that there was something fundamentally flawed with the process used to 
establish new wildlife refuges.
  Increasingly, land and water fund monies are used to acquire refuge 
lands to protect endangered species or threatened wetlands. In fact, 
Federal ownership of habitat for threatened and endangered species is 
one of the best ways to relieve the burden on landowners of endangered 
species protection and to avoid costly controversial endangered species 
listings. Further, there is often a need to act expeditiously to 
acquire land to prevent harmful development. Yet, because of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's policy of acquiring only from willing sellers, 
property rights are respected. In summary, the bill, as reported from 
the Committee on Resources, was unnecessary and harmful in my opinion 
to the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  We have now, however, worked out a compromise that addresses concerns 
about public notice of and Congressional oversight over new refuge 
designations without unduly hampering the designation process. Through 
NEPA and at the Administrative Procedures Act, there is already a 
process for providing public notice and soliciting input into the 
establishment of a new refuge. In addition, Congress has control over 
refuge land acquisition through appropriations from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, no process is perfect and there is always room for 
improvement. The bill before the House today provides for even better 
public notice and input, as well as making sure that any Member of 
Congress whose district includes lands being considered for inclusion 
in the new refuge will be amply notified.
  It also explicitly states what is already the case under current law, 
that the designation of a proposed refuge boundary does not give the 
Fish and Wildlife Service any regulatory authority over private lands 
within the proposed boundary unless and until that land is acquired by 
the government. In other words, the proposed boundary is a wish-list 
for acquisition, and nothing more.
  By ensuring that the local community is fully vested in any new 
refuge and by laying to rest landowners' fears that their property 
rights will be compromised, it is hoped that H.R. 512 will actually 
facilitate the establishment of new refuges.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I support the substitute. I commend the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for 
working with the minority and the administration to craft such a 
reasonable compromise, and I urge the House to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with 
the original intent of this measure. In fact, I wish the bill even went 
further toward making Federal agencies accountable for their actions.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it would surprise many people to know that 
current law allows Federal bureaucrats to create national wildlife 
refuges at will without the consent of Congress and without thorough 
public debate that should accompany any allocation of taxpayer money. 
The creation of wildlife refuges is particularly important in my 
district, where we are currently debating the future management of a 
stretch of the Columbia River called the Hanford Reach.
  The Department of Energy, which currently owns the land on both sides 
of the river where the Hanford Reach is, has stated that it no longer 
needs to own, manage or maintain the land on the opposite side of the 
river from the Hanford nuclear reservation. However, back in 1971, the 
Department of Energy had already decided that they did not need to 
manage their own lands and signed a lease agreement with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service to manage a portion of the lands as a national 
wildlife refuge. No act of Congress, no public commented, no discussion 
whatever. Instead, the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge was 
created through a simple lease agreement with the Department of Energy.
  Now, I am not suggesting that the national wildlife refuge system has 
not benefitted our wildlife, and I am not suggesting that this 
particular refuge has not been important to our area. In fact, far from 
it. However, continuing to allow the purchase of private property by 
the Federal Government without thorough and open discussion and the 
involvement of Congress really belies the national nature of these 
refuges.
  The American people must have some level of confidence that our 
national wildlife refuges are created not only for scientific reasons, 
but with the appropriate consideration of local concerns and 
priorities.
  Because I know that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Resources shares my concerns on refuge designations, I would like to 
engage in a colloquy with the gentleman so he might indicate whether 
the committee plans to address this issue in the future.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am 
pleased to respond to that inquiry.
  I certainly understand the gentleman's concern, and I can assure the 
gentleman that the committee is fully committed to strengthening the 
congressional role on national wildlife refuge systems as well as 
designations and other what we call acquisition of lands by any other 
Federal agency.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Chairman's 
strong leadership on national resource issues generally and, in 
particular, on his commitment to focus further committee action on the 
increasing issues

[[Page H3422]]

of concern to the West. I look forward to helping in any way that I 
can.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say that I speak in support of H.R. 512, and I can only 
suggest that this is just a small step forward in the right direction.
  I often suggest in this legislative work that nothing happens without 
a reason. The reason I introduced this bill, we did have cases where 
the Fish and Wildlife Department, especially in the district of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), there is another one in another 
district, one of the Members came to me the other day where they do it 
by action of the agency without any input from the Congress. Under our 
Constitution, we are the only ones that should have the authority to 
make designation of lands.
  This is a small step forward and requires the agencies to go forth 
and at least identify the representative of that area and also have 
consultation with public input and then having to come back to the 
Congress for the identification of those refuges that would take place. 
I think it is important that we must keep the integrity for the refuge 
system in place, and I hold no second place to anyone when it comes to 
refuge creations by act of Congress.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a dear friend of mine, and 
I worked on this legislation for over 28 years. So I am confident that 
this is the right step. But I will, as the gentleman from Washington 
asked me, continue, as chairman of the committee, to watch what the 
agencies are doing. How does this affect the community? Is the 
community supportive? And, really, who is asking for this refuge? If it 
is scientifically backed up, people back it up, then it ought to go 
forward and go through the congressional action.
  I rise in support of this modified version of H.R. 512, which is the 
product of successful negotiations between the Department of the 
Interior, our colleagues, John Dingell, George Miller, Richard Pombo, 
and me.
  While this compromise is not as comprehensive as a Congressional 
authorization, it will improve the refuge land acquisition process and 
establish additional safeguards for private property owners.
  Under the terms of this proposal, no money can be authorized to be 
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to create a new 
refuge unless: The environmental reviews required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act are completed; a copy of the final 
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment and a 
summary of all public comments on the proposed refuge are provided to 
the House and Senate authorizing and appropriations committees; and the 
Department of the Interior provides notice to each Member of Congress 
representing a district in which the proposed wildlife refuge will be 
located when a preliminary project proposal is completed.
  The bill also requires that notice be provided in the local 
newspapers of an affected community of any public meetings to discuss 
the scope of a proposed new refuge. In fact, according to NEPA 
regulations (40 CFR 1501.7), ``There shall be an early and open process 
for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying 
the significant issues related to proposed action. This process shall 
be termed scoping.''
  Finally, H.R. 512 clarifies that no additional land use restrictions 
shall be imposed on property included within the acquisition boundary 
of a National Wildlife Refuge until that land is purchased by the 
Federal Government.
  This compromise does not provide the same level of oversight that is 
afforded to Bureau of Land Management lands, National Forests, Parks, 
or Scenic Rivers. It does, however, provide an increased opportunity 
for Congressional review when necessary, fairness to property owners 
who are waiting to sell their land to the government, better notice to 
the public when new refugees are proposed, and statutory protection to 
private landowners whose property is located within a refuge boundary.
  With a $600 million backlog of critical resource management needs, 
reasonable people can ask why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 
obsessed with buying more private land, which by their own admission 
they are incapable of managing effectively. Nevertheless, I recognize 
that many members of this body want additional land acquisitions and 
because of their support, this process is likely to continue in the 
future. At the same time, there are thousands of Americans who want to 
keep and use their private property without the shadow of Federal land 
control. This measure strikes a balance between those groups.
  It allows the creation of new wildlife refuges while ensuring that 
the local community and its elected representatives in Congress are 
informed of the Service's plans for new refuges. Finally, this 
institution will have a full and complete record of information in 
order to assess the merits of the various land acquisition requests.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this important legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation, as amended in response to an agreement between Chairman 
Young, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) and myself.
  As agreed to, H.R. 512 will codify several existing practices of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service to make absolutely certain that property 
owners, local governments, concerned citizens, and Members of Congress 
are brought into the public comment and review process when a new 
wildlife refuge is added to our National Wildlife Refuge System using 
Land and Water Conservation Act funds.
  The compromise before us today is substantially different than the 
bill as reported by Committee. Had the reported measure been presented 
here for debate without amendment, I would have fought vigorously 
against its enactment. However, I am pleased to report to my colleagues 
that the bill as presented today does not create needless roadblocks in 
creating new refuges, will not tie the hands of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service in proceeding with land acquisition, and does not establish a 
new Congressional review and approval process for the creation of new 
wildlife refuges.
  Instead, H.R. 512 would enact a requirement that all environmental 
analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) be 
completed prior to acquisitions of new LWCF refuges, and that Members 
of Congress in affected areas be notified early in the acquisition 
process.
  Last year, through the sustained efforts of my dear friend, Chairman 
Young, Ranking Member George Miller and Interior Secretary Bruce 
Babbitt, Congress approved long-overdue legislation to specify the 
mission and management direction of the Refuge System. The original 
text of H.R. 512 was deliberately left out of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System Improvement Act because of intense and broad opposition 
to what was rightly viewed as tying the hands of our Nation's refuge 
managers.
  However, the Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged isolated 
cases in which its personnel could have acted with more sensitivity and 
accountability to the local citizens and property owners within refuge 
acquisition boundaries. The Service has indicated to me that it has 
strong public participation policies in place when new wildlife refuges 
are created. I urge the Director and her subordinates to place a high 
priority on responsiveness in such cases, so that answers are provided, 
fears are allayed, and property owners can count on a positive 
relationship with their refuge system neighbors.
  Mr. Speaker, while the legislation before us today will not prevent 
every future complaint or problem, it will hopefully be a gentle 
reminder that citizens have every right and expectation to fair, prompt 
and just treatment by the Federal agencies that serve them.
  I hope that the passage of this bill will eliminate the need some 
have felt to legislate solutions to rather confined sets of problems on 
our National Wildlife Refuge System. As a Member of the Migratory Bird 
Conservation Commission, I take great pride in serving this body to 
assure that our wildlife refuges live up to the vision of their 
founder, President Theodore Roosevelt, when he created the first refuge 
almost a century ago. When writing legislation, we must keep the best 
interests of the whole system in mind.
  Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is a modest-sized agency with a large and important mission, 
and that we are fortunate it provides the American taxpayers with a 
group of highly skilled, dedicated and motivated employees who take 
pride in preserving our Nation's ecological heritage. To my colleagues 
who never have visited a wildlife refuge in your home states, I urge 
you to do so, to meet your refuge managers and express your interest in 
helping form a strong partnership between your constituents and those 
who manage their wildlife refuges.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the substitute 
to H.R. 512, the New Wildlife Refuge Reauthorization Act. I feel that 
it is appropriate for the Congress to be a part of the process in the 
purchasing of land by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. I 
fully support the requirement in the bill that the Congressional 
member, whose district is directly affected by the decision to 
establish a wildlife refuge, be notified in advance of the transaction.
  I understand that we are here today to improve upon a procedure which 
has existed

[[Page H3423]]

since the establishment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 
Congress in 1965. I caution my fellow colleagues, however, that as we 
seek to become active participants we are still neglected in other 
processes that the Fish & Wildlife Service can and has exploited.
  The reacquisition in Guam, by the United States, at the close of WWII 
resulted in large tracts of land condemned at the expense of landowners 
on Guam. U.S. officials reasoned with locals that the condemnations 
were in the interest of National Security. At that time, approximately 
one-half of Guam's land mass were taken. Today, one-third is still held 
by the Department of Defense. The people of Guam have lived with this 
reality for the better part of this century.
  Though this situation has been one in which the people of Guam have 
had to endure, it was not widely questioned. After all, the security of 
your liberators is important to the security of yourself and at the 
time, threats to democracy were still clearly visible in the era of the 
Cold War. With the close of the Cold War era, however, the mindsets of 
individuals and families began to change. It was logical to think that 
if land takings were a result of National Security, and the threats to 
American democracy ceased to exist as another world power, then maybe 
someday the United States may give some land back to the people of 
Guam.
  Perhaps this logic was too simple, but it was not far off. The focus 
of U.S. demilitarization and transition to opening up America to a 
global economy prompted downsizing of America's military services. Each 
of us here with a military base in their district are all too familiar 
with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which was created to 
close military installations based on need and not want.
  In my district of Guam, this news was difficult for civil service 
employees who designed their careers around military presence on our 
island. After all, the military's years of presence and integration 
with the local community was accepted and welcomed. For landowners and 
their descendants, the news of base closures was a glimmer of hope that 
military land would be returned to anxious families.
  Aside from being second-class citizens or regularly put-off in 
aspirations to seek a new political relationship, Guam does have 
something in common with other states of the Union. Not all the lands 
acquired by the Fish & Wildlife Service, for purposes of establishing a 
Wildlife Refuge, come from tapping the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
or the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, nor does all the land come 
from private donations. My colleagues, our commonality is that the Fish 
& Wildlife Service can take lands from our districts without our 
knowledge . . . without our consultation . . . even without notice to 
our respective local governments.
  In the case of my island of Guam, the Fish & Wildlife Service seized 
more than 300 acres of land to be deemed excess by the US Air Force. 
This figure may seem small upon first hearing but if added to the 
additional 28,000 acres designated as an overlay for the refuge. 
Proportionately, this is akin to condemning 12 states and making them 
off limits. Fish & Wildlife arranged for this possession to occur with 
no notice to myself or any other local government leader. Fish and 
Wildlife hid behind procedural nonsense which leaves for no 
consideration to any entity other than themselves.
  Often, Mr. Speaker, I express to the Congress circumstances that are 
unique to Guam's situation. In many cases, the experiences of my island 
and people have not and will not be duplicated or relived in any other 
territory or state, or by any other American citizen. I must remind my 
colleagues, however, that this is not the case in this case.
  In light of these concerns, I am in agreement with the substitute to 
H.R. 512 and am appreciative that we are working to correct problems 
with current land acquisition procedures. In the future, I am hopeful 
that the issues I raised can be addressed in discussions with my 
colleagues.
  We want to protect our resources; we want to protect the endangered 
species. But we must do so in a collaborative manner and in a way which 
takes into account local leadership and concerns.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 512, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to establish 
requirements relating to the designation of new units of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________