Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. First, I want to make clear that no provision of H.R. 1675 should be read or interpreted as altering in any way the purposes or administration of the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. Second, the term ``compatible use'' is defined in a way that codifies an existing definition used by the Fish and Wildlife Service for many years, using reliable scientific information for reaching compatibility decisions.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just in closing would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan. He was the father of the Refuge Act as far as this Congress goes and what occurred in the past. He has been very supportive. His staff has been extremely supportive. But more than that, John Dingell has been a true sportsman all through the career I have known him. He has gone to Alaska. He has participated in Alaska sporting activities. He has seen what can be done and what should be done, and it is truly a conservation award that he should be receiving with this legislation. What we have done here today is trying to improve the Act to make sure that we gain that support for a bill that has worked very well in the past, a position that can be worked well in the future. This working together can work for the conservation and for the sportsmen of America. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a substitute for H.R. 1675, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1996. This substitute is the result of many months of hard work and negotiations with the Department of Defense and Interior, interested Members, and many outside groups, and it goes a long way towards resolving concerns the administration had about earlier versions of the bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System contains 508 wildlife refuges located throughout the United States, and comprises 91.7 million acres of Federal lands. These refuges are multiuse lands that offer recreational opportunities to millions of Americans each year. In fact, fishing and hunting occurs on over half of the refuges, more than 90 percent of the acreage in the System. Nearly 30 million people visit refuges each year to observe wildlife and over 50,000 students enjoy environmental education activities. Over the last 30 years since the last major refuge reform legislation was enacted, a series of government reports and congressional hearings have found that the System needs a more standardized, centralized management regime. This bill addresses these findings. Under current law--the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966: there is no statutory list of purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System; there is no statutory definition of what constitutes a ``compatible use'' of a refuge. As a result, individual refuge managers have broad discretion to prevent certain recreational activities and they are subject to tremendous pressure from various interest groups; refuges are not managed as a national system because of the lack of centralized guidelines from the Fish and Wildlife Service; secondary uses, such as fishing and hunting, are prohibited on new refuge lands until boundary studies, environmental assessments, and management plans are completed. This can take years; when a compatibility determination is made by a refuge manager, the public is denied any opportunity to comment on proposed changes or restrictions; and there is no requirement to complete comprehensive conservation plans for any of the 508 refuges. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service admits that it has completed such plans for only a fraction of all refuges. The Young-Dingell substitute solves these problems. It establishes a nationwide set of purposes for the refuge system. These purposes are: (1) to provide a network of lands and waters to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats; (2) to conserve, manage, and restore fish and wildlife populations, plant communities, and refuge habitats; (3) to conserve and manage migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish species, and marine mammals; (4) to provide opportunities for compatible fish- and wildlife-dependent recreational uses of refuges, including fishing and hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education; (5) to preserve, restore, and recover threatened or endangered species; and (6) to fulfill international treaty obligations with respect to fish, wildlife, and plants. The substitute statutorily defines ``compatible use'' by using the exact language the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has used for many years and is currently found in their operating regulations. While a refuge manager will retain the power to determine what is a ``compatible use'', this definition should provide the guidance needed to make the proper decision. The bill allows traditional wildlife-dependent recreation--that is, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education--to continue during the interim period after the acquisition but before the implementation of a management plan. The author of this ``open until closed'' provision is the gentleman from New Jersey, Jim Saxton. It is an essential change because there are a growing number of Americans who are angry and frustrated over the Service's land acquisition process. These Americans have worked hard to protect certain lands, they have contributed millions of dollars to the purchase of refuge lands, and they have found, much to their dismay, that for no rational reason their favorite fishing spot is now off limits during an open-ended period of governmental studies. This is a wrong-headed policy and I compliment Jim Saxton for his contribution to restoring confidence to the System. This bill requires conservation plans for each refuge within 15 years of enactment. It is important that we know what kind of archaeological, natural, or wildlife resources exist on these refuges. This inventory has been a goal of the environmental community for many years. This substitute bill incorporates the President's March 25, 1996 Wildlife Refuge Executive Order, and his ``Directives to the Secretary'' are codified in section 5, the Administration of the System. The substitute stipulates that no funds may be spent from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the creation of a new wildlife refuge without a specific congressional authorization. In the past, more than $1 billion in taxpayer money has been appropriated from this fund to acquire refuge lands. This money has been spent with little oversight from congressional authorizing committees and without the checks and balances of the Migratory Bird Commission. Congress must have a role in this process, and we should authorize new wildlife refuge units just as we authorize new parks, flood control projects, and weapons systems. In this way, private property owners and their tax dollars are well protected. Finally, this substitute contains a number of other provisions negotiated with the Clinton administration. These include: overflights above a refuge, the eradication of aquatic nuisance species, and language allowing the President to exempt certain activities on military refuge lands because of national security reasons. Much of the rhetoric surrounding this bill has been at best misleading. So I also want to make clear what this substitute does not do. It does not: permit or require hunting and fishing to occur on every wildlife refuge. These activities must be found ``compatible'' and must meet the three part of being based on sound fish and wildlife management practices, being fully consistent with the fundamental reasons the refuge was created, and not endangering public safety; affect Federal, State, or local water rights. This bill does not limit the ability of the Federal Government to secure water for a refuge; facilitate nonwildlife-dependent uses such as grazing, farming, mining, oil and gas development, jet skiing, et cetera. As under current law, nonwildlife-dependent uses may continue to occur when compatible, and when the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks legal authority or sufficient ownership interest in the property to prevent them. But this bill does not mandate, enhance, or protect such uses; increase or decrease the size of any of the 508 refuge units; permit the pesticides not approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service to be used by row farmers or anyone else in the Refuge System; permit the commercialization of our Refuge System. To repeat, it is limited to wildlife-dependent uses. They are clearly defined as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education; and limit the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to acquire lands at existing refuges. In fiscal year 1997, the Service proposes to spend $19.2 million to acquire new acreage for our Refuge System. This provision will not delay, stop, or otherwise affect those acquisitions. This legislation is the product of many months of hearings, discussions, and revisions. This measure was reported by voice vote by both the subcommittee and the full committee. This legislation is supported by the American Archery Council, the American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S., Inc., the California Waterfowl Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, International Bowhunters Organization, Masters of Foxhounds Association of America, Mzuri Wildlife Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen, North American Waterfowl Federation, Quail Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. It has also been endorsed by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, which has a membership of 204 Members of this body. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1675 is a sound piece of conservation legislation that reaffirms the legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt and the vision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. Finally, I want to express my sincere appreciation to the highly distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell. Without his dedication, tireless commitment, and leadership, this effort would not have been achievable. I urge an ``Aye'' vote on H.R. 1675.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, once again, it does not.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The bill is intended to make it clear that wildlife dependent recreation must be allowed when it would not detract from the other purposes of the refuge system. It does not require that recreational activities always be allowed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Whatever is right. I will do hers.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time. I will have the gentlewoman's amendment made in order right off the bat.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] will be offering his amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman from California will yield back the balance of his time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, this provision of the bill you are referring to is intended to clarify that no new reserved water rights are created for wildlife refuges as a result of the passage of this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my problem is the gentleman from New York spoke so fast and said et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. When I see a few et ceteras, I get a little concerned.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am suggesting with the Boehlert amendment we have solved the problems of the emergency. But we have also put a cap on the administration or the agency itself of misusing its power as it has done in the past. The gentleman from New York may not be aware of this, but this has occurred. All we are saying is we have a responsibility as Congressmen, and the Member of that district has the responsibility if a refuge is in fact proposed that is beyond 500 acres, then in reality they ought to come back here and talk to the chairman of the subcommittee and the Members, and especially the Member of that district. So I support the Boehlert amendment, and I definitely oppose the Nadler amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1675, the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes as are necessary to reflect the actions of the House on the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1675, the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3049, a bill providing for the continuity of the Board of Trustees of the Institute for American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development. Since 1988, I have been appointed by the Speaker's office to fulfill the Board of Trustee position for the two congressional seats of the U.S. House of Representatives and I thank the Speaker for this honor. As you know, the Institute is a federally created institution for higher education, authorized under title 15 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1986. Its primary function is to provide instruction in Indian arts and culture and establish a program which completes with the award of degrees in the contemporary and traditional fields of Indian art and culture. Unfortunately, the appointment/reappointment process of fulfilling the Board of Trustees vacancies has proven to be extremely cumbersome and the appointments of voting members to the board has not been made in a timely manner. H.R. 3049 would prevent the situation where board members have felt obligated to serve additional terms in order to maintain a quorum for the purpose of conducting business. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this purely technical corrections bill and thank the Speaker for the opportunity to voice my concerns.

Mr. DON YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. DON YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2679, introduced by our colleague from Nebraska, Bill Barrett, will remove about 2,470 acres of land from the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge. This legislation is a direct result of a report issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that recommended that these lands be divested from the refuge because they provide ``nothing significant toward the refuge or the National Refuge System purposes and goals.'' While these lands may have limited value within the refuge unit, they offer recreational opportunities to thousands of our citizens who enjoy boating, fishing, sightseeing, and swimming in Nebraska. Under the terms of this legislation, which is strongly supported by the Department of the Interior, these lands would be removed from the refuge and they will be managed by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission through a lease from the Bureau of Reclamation. While title to these lands would remain with the Federal Government, this measure is beneficial to the Refuge System and the thousands of Americans who will enjoy utilizing Lake Minatare in the future. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2679 and I compliment Bill Barrett for his outstanding leadership on behalf of his constituents and this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2660 has been introduced by our distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Jim McCrery. This is a noncontroversial bill that simply increases the amount of the authorization level for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. It is my understanding that there is interest in expanding the boundaries of this refuge, but these efforts are constrained by the provisions of Public Law 96-285 that legislatively created the refuge. H.R. 2660 will increase from $10 million to $20 million the amount of funds that may be appropriated to the Department of the Interior, and it makes those funds available as of October 1 last year. These modifications are necessary because the cost of acquiring certain lands for inclusion in the Refuge were more expensive than anticipated. Finally, the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge had been deemed critical habitat for the threatened Louisiana black bear and the river is the only major waterway in the Louisiana delta that has not been extensively altered by channelization. Congressman Jim McCrery has made a persuasive case, and I compliment him for his outstanding leadership on this legislation. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2660.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House H.R. 1836, introduced by our colleague from New York, Mike Forbes, to add a 98-acre ocean-front parcel of land in Montauk, NY, to the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge. During our committee's deliberations on this bill, a local supervisor and a group of concerned citizens testified in strong support of protecting this property called Shadmoor, which is essential habitat for several highly endangered plants. While it is unclear how much it will cost the Federal Government to purchase this tract of land, I am encouraged by the fact that the local community in the Town of East Hampton, NY, has voted to share in the acquisition costs. This is a positive step in the right direction. I am prepared to support H.R. 1836 based on this innovative cost- sharing commitment and the stipulation that those private citizens who now own Shadmoor are fully compensated for their property prior to its inclusion in the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge complex. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1836 and I compliment Congressman Mike Forbes for his outstanding leadership in this matter.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1772, introduced by our colleague from Hawaii, Patsy Mink, to add some 36 acres of wetlands to the Oahu National Wildlife Refuge complex. It is my understanding that these wetlands are essential habitat for a number of native Hawaiian birds and migratory waterfowl. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has apparently been interested in acquiring the entire Waihe'e Marsh wetlands for a number of years, the purchase costs have been prohibitive. This bill will simply tell the Secretary of the Interior that he may obtain these lands for inclusion in the refuge without providing any money to buy them. While I intend to support H.R. 1772, I do so with the stipulation that if these wetlands are purchased by the Federal Government, all private property owners must be willing sellers and they must be fully compensated for their land interests. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1772.