[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.
____________________