PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-57.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 3, 1997
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 - Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to state as the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats. Adds a requirement that, in administering the System, the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the System's mission and policies are carried out, except that if a conflict exists between the purposes of a refuge and the System mission, it shall be resolved in a manner that first protects the purposes of the refuge. Recognizes and supports wildlife-dependent recreation (recreation which involves hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation) within the System. Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative arrangements with State fish and wildlife agencies for the management of programs on a refuge. Prohibits the Secretary from initiating or permitting a new refuge use or expanding, renewing, or extending an existing use, unless the Secretary determines that such use is a compatible use which is not inconsistent with public safety. Establishes compatibility standards and procedures, including those for wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Requires the Secretary to issue final regulations establishing the process for determining a compatible use. States that the compatibility determination provisions of the Act shall not apply to overflights above a refuge or to activities authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency having primary jurisdiction over a refuge. Directs the Secretary to propose comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge in the System except for lands in Alaska (which are governed by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act). Requires maximum 15-year cycles of plan revision. Sets forth matters to be considered in plan development, including fish and wildlife distribution and migration patterns, plant populations, archaeological and cultural values, habitat problems, and opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Authorizes the Secretary to temporarily suspend any refuge activity when necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-57.
Became Public Law No: 105-57.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 419 - 1 (Roll no. 424). (consideration: CR H7714)
House roll call 424 · Individual votesResolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 419 - 1 (Roll no. 424).(consideration: CR H7714)
House roll call 424 · Individual votesAt the conclusion of debate, the Speaker put the question on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill and announced that, by voice vote, the Motion was agreed to. Mr. Condit objected to the vote on grounds that a quorum was not present and made a point of order that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings were postponed and the point of no quourum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Mr. Young (AK) moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1129 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1129 proposed by Senator Gorton for Senator Chafee.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9092-9096)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 407 - 1 (Roll no. 156).
House roll call 156 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 407 - 1 (Roll no. 156).
House roll call 156 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3225-3232, H3238-3239)
Mr. Young (AK) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 64.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-106.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-106.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Favorable Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1420 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1420 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1420 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1420 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.