Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, purchases made with money from the land and water conservation fund operate differently from virtually every other type of Federal land acquisition. Now, there is a legitimate reason for that. The land and water conservation fund needs to be available for emergencies. I will offer a substitute amendment to address any conceivable emergency situation. The Nadler amendment goes a step further to extract the Congress from legitimate policy making. I think that goes too far. The section the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is amending is already very narrow. The bill would not change the procedures for expanding any existing refuge and, with my amendment, it would not change the procedures for any emergency acquisitions of new refuges. So we are talking about very few cases where the new restriction in section 10 would apply. In those cases, it is perfectly legitimate to exercise congressional oversight. That is what the people send us here for. I would also add that this discussion is quite hypothetical. Given the budget crunch, the Interior Department is not going to be able to manage much new land in the near future. The administration has projected in its budget that no new refuge land will be acquired in fiscal year 1997. In short, my amendment takes care of the problem with section 10 of the original bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the Nadler amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is the same language as in my en bloc amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. The staff will bring that over.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate some legitimate concerns that have been raised about this bill. We want to ensure that this bill strengthens the refuge system and it is built to carry out its vital conservation mission. I think this package of amendments will accomplish that objective. The amendment addresses three problems with the bill as reported out of the Committee on Rules. That bill, by the way, was a significant improvement over the version that was reported out of the Committee on Resources originally. The first problem concerns coordination areas. These are Federal lands that are managed by the States. Now, neither we nor anyone else I know of has any problem with the concept of cooperative management. But we want to ensure that no one can ever use coordination areas as a back door way to allow damaging activities on refuges. The refuge system is Federal, and Federal standards are essential. The first amendment in this package makes it clear that coordination areas have to be managed using the same standards as refuges. As a practical matter, what that means is that if some use, say jogging, was not permitted in a refuge because it would damage the wildlife and a piece of that refuge became a coordination area, jogging would still be forbidden. I should add that this applies only to coordination areas created by the transfer of land after the bill is signed into law. We are not interfering with any existing agreements between the Federal Government and any State. The second problem addressed by this package is the key issue of when wildlife dependent recreation, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and so forth, when that recreation is permitted at the refuge. Over the years the Fish and Wildlife Service has struck a delicate balance between protection of species and human enjoyment of the refuge. By and large, no one I have spoken to has a problem with that balance, not sportsmen, not environmentalists. Everyone wants to protect the balance. But the language in this bill could be interpreted as throwing aside that balance and replacing it with a new one that could be damaging to wildlife protection. That would be intolerable. My amendment is designed to ensure that no one will ever interpret the bill in that matter. The amendments, there are three of them, make clear that recreational activities can be permitted only when the secretary determines that they would not detract form the overall mission of the refuge system. That is conservation. The amendment makes clear that we are still requiring a balancing act here, that recreational activities can occur only when they would cause no harm. Let me repeat that: Recreational activities can occur only when they would cause no harm. I would like to engage the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] in a colloquy on this essential point. I appreciate the willingness of the Committee on Resources to work with us on this amendment, but I would like to clarify some issues. As I understand it, this bill is not intended to require that wildlife dependent recreation be allowed on every refuge; is that correct?

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I also would like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the cosponsor of this amendment, who is much more intimately familiar with the details of some of these issues than I am. He has lived with this for a long time. Mr. Goss and his staff have provided invaluable guidance on this issue. Mr. Chairman, let me give particular credit to my own staff. This may be viewed as a self-serving declaration, but I happen to think I have got one of the best staffs anyplace on Capitol Hill. Two of those valued members, three of them are sitting right here with me: David Goldston, my legislative director; Jeff More, who is my professional staff member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment; and Dr. Natalie D'Nicola, who is a science fellow. We have science-based decisionmaking in our office.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult issue in which the future survival of species and the availability of open land for the American people are at stake. This amendment, I believe, restores a sense of balance that was lacking in the original bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the bill as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this is consistent with the existing policy that the Secretary of the Interior is already familiar with as it pertains to national parks. If there is going to be an addition to the national parks, the Secretary of the Interior is used to coming to Capitol Hill to get the authorization.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his valuable support. This is a significant improvement to the bill because it allows emergency purchases of environmentally sensitive lands and that is exactly what we want to do. Keep in mind the overwhelming majority of refuges around the country are less than 500 acres.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, once again, the same holds true. I think we have had the discussion, the colloquy I had with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and I have made the case for the perfecting amendment. I ask that it be considered.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct, to expand it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is right.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct. We are just talking about new refuges over 500 and if you expand those.

Mr. BOEHLERT. No, for new refuges in excess of 500 acres, and the expansion of any of those refuges.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Because of the way this is flowing, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is first up, his amendment was printed in the Record, so it is timely for me to address his specific amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct. amendment offered by mr. boehlert as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. nadler

Mr. BOEHLERT. That is correct.

Mr. BOEHLERT. None of this applies to existing refuges. What I am suggesting is as we go forward and we develop new refuges, we should have the authority to go and acquire refuges of less than 500 acres just like that, because they are time sensitive. We all know the reasons why. If we go into a massive refuge, in excess of 500 acres, I think then the Congress should have authorizing responsibility and fulfill that responsibility. The gentleman and I, as so often on these issues, are on the same wavelength.