John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. In that case, other activities such as the use of all- terrain vehicles, jet skis, and other uses are not covered under this provision?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have some further questions of the gentleman from Alaska, and they relate to the question of open until closed. Mr. Chairman, since the Resources Committee finished consideration of the legislation before us, considerable confusion has arisen over section 6 of the substitute. Specifically, I am referring to paragraph (3)(a)(2), which specifies that existing and compatible wildlife- dependent uses of a refuge are allowed to continue, on an interim basis, on lands added to the System once the legislation before us is enacted into law. Would the gentleman please explain to us the intention of this paragraph in section 6?

Mr. DINGELL. There has been much discussion from interested parties about the fact that any recreational use would be allowed to continue on new refuge lands. Is this a correct reading of the bill?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, section 8(a) of H.R. 1675 would establish a new subsection 4(n)(1) in the Refuge System Administration Act to address the general question of water rights within the refuge system. This subsection appears to contain two important statements affecting reserved water rights in particular. First, the subsection contains a disclaimer stating that nothing in H.R. 1675 should be interpreted as creating any new reserved water rights within the refuge system. Is that an accurate interpretation of the legislation before us?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Second, this subsection contains another disclaimer stating that nothing in the bill should be interpreted as affecting any refuge water right in existence on the date of enactment of H.R. 1675. I interpret this provision to mean that nothing in H.R. 1675, including the definition of ``refuge'' in section 3(a), is intended to override, cede, or extinguish any refuge reserved water right which may have been previously created by a past land withdrawal for wildlife refuge purposes. Is that the gentleman's intent and interpretation of this provision as well?

Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank my good friend, and I have further questions: Therefore, it was the intention of my good friend that the exclusion of reserved water rights in the definition of the word ``refuge'' in section 3(a) of the substitute bill was designed to limit the geographic boundaries of a given refuge rather than to cede or extinguish any reserved water rights which might otherwise be asserted within the system?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with my dear friend, the gentleman from Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my good friend from Alaska to engage in a colloquy with me with regard to the existing reserve water rights on the national refuge system under H.R. 1675. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that a statement of the committee report on H.R. 1675 would be interpreted by some to mean that this bill eliminates, waives, or concedes existing Federal water rights which currently attach to lands which were previously withdrawn from the public domain from old military bases or from other lands owned by the Federal Government for use as refuges. The statement I am referring to is on page 11 of the committee report and defines the term refuge under section 3(a) of H.R. 1675. In particular, this section of the Report states that ``* * * Federal reserved water rights do not constitute `interests' within the meaning of the term `refuge'.'' This statement appears to be contrary to the language in Section 7(a) of H.R. 1675 which addresses the status of various water rights under the original 1966 Refuge Administration Act and H.R. 1675. I would like to ask the gentleman from Alaska a series of questions to clarify the intent of the Committee with regard to these matters.

Mr. DINGELL. Finally, I am concerned that section 5 could be interpreted in a way which may limit or prohibit future Federal action to protect the system by its call for acquisitions under State law. Could the gentleman inform me how this provision would affect the current balance of Federal and State interests in the refuge system?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for his kindness in yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for his kindness in granting me this time. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], my good friend, the chairman of the committee, with whom I have worked very hard on this legislation. I would like the House to know that this is good legislation, and I would like to tell them a little bit as to why. In my young days between about 1966 and about 1974, I was chairman of a little subcommittee called the subcommittee on fisheries and wildlife conservation. It was one of the components of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. It had jurisdiction overall of the national refuge system. And during that time we wrote the National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966. Since that time I have also served for 26 years as a Democratic Representative of the House to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, which is in charge of buying land for the migratory bird refuge system, and in that time the Nation has acquired over 600,000 acres of habitat for the protection of migratory birds and other wildlife. This is a great treasure and one of my principal purposes has been to protect it to assure that it would not be destroyed or dissipated. Indeed one of the early things which we confronted was an attempt by the then-Secretary of the Interior McKay to dissipate the entirety of the refuge system. That was brought to a halt, and, as a result of that, the Refuge Administration Act was put together. This legislation has been called the best piece of public land management legislation ever. Some 30 years now after that was done, I am proud to see the accomplishments which have taken place as a result of that bill. The system is now providing well-managed habitat for the protection of resident and migratory species. It is also helping to recover threatened and endangered species. It is contributing to the diversity of refuge areas, and it is serving for all of the people much more traditional and wildlife-related purposes, such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. It is a system which, I would remind my colleagues, is funded in the largest part by the contributions of the hunters of this Nation who, by their purchase of duck stamps, make it possible for this Nation to acquire the lands which are set aside forever as a part of the refuge system. It is important to recognize then the inequal part that our Nation's hunters and fishermen pay--play in providing constant support for the expansion and the maintenance of our refuge system. America's sportsmen and sports women provide this help not only with their votes but also through the purchase of duck stamps, a substantial portion of the public dollars then which are expended in support of the refuge system. A few weeks ago the President expressed his support of the sportsmen community by issue of executive order. It recognizes supporting uses as a priority use of the system, and this is one of the reasons that we are able to sustain that system and to encourage patriotic sportsmen, hunters, outdoors men and women for contributing to the system. Now, I have hunted with the President, and I know of his strong interest in our refuge systems, and I am pleased that he took the initiative with this executive order. It is my hope that he will see the merits of the legislation here which codifies much of that order. H.R. 1675 is the result of some long-sought legislative improvements in the refuge system. For many years, environmentalists and sportsmen and women have called for an organic act which lays out clear purposes of the system and requires the completion of the conservation management plans for each refuge. A number of studies by the General Accounting Office and the Fish and Wildlife Service have found many problems in our refuges. These problems range from overuse to toxic contamination to a lack of proper funding and proper management. H.R. 1675 is the result of thorough examination of these problems and an attempt to make improvements of the management of the system which will require better planning, compatible uses, and a clear identification of the purposes of the system. Chairman Young last year talked to me about cosponsoring this legislation. I agreed to do so so that this body could give the Fish and Wildlife Service the tools that it needs to do the job. In fact, I decided to cosponsor this bill only after consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and being convinced that the bill is in the best interest of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the wildlife that it protects. I want to commend again the distinguished gentleman from Alaska for his leadership in this. This is a good bill. It is one which will make progress in terms of protecting the refuge system and one which will make real progress in terms of protecting the wildlife that are dependent upon it, and in assuring that we can continue the public support which has made possible the success of one of the greatest systems of public lands and the greatest systems of public land management for an important national purpose, and that is the protection of wildlife. There is no doubt that this bill has, I would observe, some reservations. I have worked for several months with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior Department, the Council on Environmental Quality, and other organizations to address problems that they have brought to my attention. I would observe that in each instance my good friend from Alaska has been most helpful in addressing those concerns. Now, one major source of concern is the question of hunting and wildlife-dependent recreation on the system. Well, first of all, under this legislation no hunting and no refuge use can take place which is inconsistent with the purposes for which this system is set up. Remember, this system is set up and paid for in good part by the hunters of America who contribute to this. I would observe that the critics of this bill have probably in toto contributed nothing to the purchase of refuge system lands over the years. I think that tells us a great deal, that people who love it enough to put their money where their mouth is are the hunters and the sportsmen. They will use this, and they will use it in a fashion which is consistent with the purpose of the refuge and in a fashion which is consistent with the best interests of not only the habitat but also the wildlife. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to understand that basic good sense and basic hunting, not only as a purpose of the refuge but also as a device for the management of the wildlife there, makes the best of good sense. This is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. I tell the Members, both as a hunter and a conservationist and as one who has authored much of the legislation that relates not only to the refuge system but protection of the environment, that this is good legislation. I urge my colleagues strongly to support it. It is in the public interest, it is in the interest of the refuge system, it is in the interest of the wildlife, and future generations will thank us for passing this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. I am concerned and I want this clear on the Record. It is correct that the Secretary will retain significant discretion regarding the authorization of such activities on existing refuge lands?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, 33 Americans were taken from us far too early in the plane that crashed April 3 near Dubrovnik. This morning, we paid tribute to our good friend, Secretary Ron Brown. At this time, I want to commemorate one of those brave souls traveling with the Secretary, Mr. David L. Ford. David Ford was one of 12 American business executives accompanying Secretary Brown on a mission with the most noble goal of helping the people of Bosnia and Croatia to rebuild their war-ravaged countries. An executive with Guardian Industries, headquartered in Michigan, David was to donate 23 metric tons of flat glass to Sarajevo, enough to produce about 8,000 windows for use in rebuilding the Bosnia capital. After the trade mission ended in tragedy, the glass was delivered to Sarajevo as planned and donated to the people by the U.S. Embassy. David Ford's career at Guardian began in 1971, and he spent time at its facilities around the country, including several years at the Guardian plant in Carleton, MI, in my congressional district. He helped lead his company's expansion into the European market, and at the time he was taken from us he headed Guardian's European operations. We will remember David Ford as a successful businessman, but more importantly, his wife and two children will remember him as a loving husband and devoted father. He was a deeply religious man, who before his passing was able to provide some desperately needed relief to the people of Sarajevo. There, his final effort will be honored by a plaque. I know that my colleagues join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to his family.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney]. (Mr. NEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend our distinguished minority leader and the Speaker for introducing this important resolution and for bringing it to the floor in this expeditious manner. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution, which pays tribute to Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and the other 33 Americans who lost their lives in the tragic airplane crash on April 3. In the past 2 weeks, we all have heard the tremendous accolades paid to Secretary Brown for his numerous contributions to this Nation. He was a great public servant, a loving husband and father, and a man who brought tremendous enthusiasm, vision, humor, and intelligence to every challenge he accepted. The country is much better off because of Ron Brown. We have all heard the many tributes from American business leaders who have called him the best Secretary of Commerce in our Nation's history. These statements were made well before his tragic death. As Secretary of Commerce, Ron worked tirelessly and aggressively to create and protect American jobs. Under his leadership, the Department delivered more for less by making sensible investments in our communities, protecting intellectual property rights, stimulating advances in technology and telecommunications, increasing our competitiveness and exports, and providing essential weather forecasting, research, and environmental services. I know many other Members with to speak this morning, so I will end by simply saying farewell and thank you to my dear friend Ron Brown and by extending my deepest condolences to his wife Alma, to his wonderful children, and to the families and friends of the other Americans who lost their lives in service to their country on April 3. The loss of their collective talents will be felt for years to come.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].