PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 540.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Aug 3, 1994
National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act of 1994 - Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to set forth the mission and purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System), including units within the System. (Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to: (1) issue final regulations for determining System use compatibility; and (2) prohibit a new, expanded, or existing refuge use that is not compatible with such regulations. Exempts military use of the airspace at the Cabeza Preta National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona and Desert National Wildlife Range in Nevada from such compatibility requirements. Provides for the transfer of certain lands between the Departments of Defense and Interior. (Sec. 7) Directs the Secretary to issue a comprehensive System conservation plan, including a plan for each refuge or complex of refuges. (Sec. 8) Grants specified emergency authority to the Secretary and to the President with regard to refuge lands. (Sec. 11) States that nothing in this Act shall create a reserved water right in the United States. (Sec. 12) Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Graham, Bob [D-FL] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 540.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Baucus with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 103-324. Additional views filed.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Baucus with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 103-324. Additional views filed.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.
Subcommittee on Clean Water, Fisheries. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 103-172.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4921-4922)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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 S.823 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 S.823 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 S.823 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 S.823 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.