PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jul 31, 1995
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995 - Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to: (1) add definitions of "compatible use," "conserving," "Coordination Area," and other terms; and (2) set forth the overall mission and enumerate the specific purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Adds a requirement that in administering the System the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that such mission and purposes are carried out, except that if a conflict exists between the purposes of a refuge and any purpose of the System, it shall be resolved in a manner that first protects the purposes of the refuge. Authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements with State fish and wildlife agencies, which are subject to standards by and management oversight of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the management of programs on, or part of, a refuge. States that, with specified exceptions, three years following enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall not initiate nor permit a new use of a refuge or an expansion of an existing refuge unless it is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the System. Establishes compatibility standards and procedures, including those for fishing and hunting. Requires the Secretary to issue final regulations establishing the process for determining a compatible use. Sets forth the activities relating to overflights and Federal agency usage under which the compatibility determinations shall not apply. Directs the Secretary to propose comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge in the System, except those lands in Alaska (which shall be governed by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act). Requires maximum 15-year cycles of plan revision. Sets forth the matters to be considered in plan development, including wildlife migration patterns, plant populations, archaeological values, habitat problems, and recreational opportunities. Permits temporary suspension of any refuge activities in emergencies that constitute an imminent danger to the public or any fish or wildlife population. Requires certain land leasing contracts to require compliance with an integrated pest management plan. States that no funds may be expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the creation of a new refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge System without specific authorization from the Congress pursuant to recommendation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
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.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 287 - 138 (Roll no. 131).
House roll call 131 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 287 - 138 (Roll no. 131).
House roll call 131 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1675.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Paul E. Gillmor to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 410 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1675 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 410. (consideration: CR H3757-3776)
Rule H. Res. 410 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 410 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1675 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 114.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-218.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-218.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held. Hearings Printed: H. Hrg. 104-21.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H5358-5379)
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.1675 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.1675 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.1675 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.1675 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.