[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1873-H1891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE ACT OF 2012
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 4089.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reichert). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 614 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4089.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1515
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational
hunting, fishing and shooting, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act
of 2012.
This legislation protects the traditional right of American sportsmen
to hunt and fish from arbitrary and unjustified bureaucratic
restrictions and limitations. It will remove government roadblocks to
these activities on certain public lands and guard against new
regulations that threaten hunting and fishing.
This is a bipartisan bill, Madam Chairman. It has the bipartisan
sponsorship of the Republican and Democrat chairs of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Miller of Florida and Mr. Ross of Arkansas, as
well as the caucus' vice chairs, Mr. Latta of Ohio and Mr. Shuler of
North Carolina. This bill also has the broad support of America's
recreational fishing, hunting, shooting, and wildlife conservation
community.
At the appropriate time, I will include two letters, one from over 35
sportsmen's organizations and one from the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, for the Record.
There are four titles to this legislation, and each reflects stand-
alone bills sponsored by individual Members of the House. Mr. Benishek
of Michigan, Mr. Flake of Arizona, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr. Miller
of Florida all deserve credit for leadership on these important
sportsmen issues. Their four bills were assembled in this package to be
among the first pro-sportsmen bills considered and, I hope, passed by
the House this year. I expect and anticipate further action on
additional legislation in the months ahead.
This legislation is an affirmative declaration that Americans'
ability to fish and hunt is not arbitrarily subject to limitation by
the whim of Federal bureaucrats. It makes clear that public lands are
``open until closed'' to such recreational activities, and it makes
absolutely clear, Madam Chairman, that the EPA does not have the
authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle. This bill is not a
solution in search of a problem, but regrettably, bureaucratic threats
to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are very real, thus the
need for this legislation.
Title I of this bill protects sportsmen from arbitrary Federal
efforts to block hunting and fishing on public lands managed by the
U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM.
{time} 1520
It requires that these activities be supported and facilitated, but--
this is very important, Madam Chairman--it does not prioritize hunting
and fishing over other multiple uses.
The vast majority of our Nation's public lands are to be open and
available for multiple uses, but, regrettably, there are agency
personnel and land managers who attempt to control these lands as
personal fiefdoms and prevent legitimate uses and activities, including
hunting and fishing. In addition, activist groups bring lawsuits to
limit these activities; and in the worst situations, bureaucrats
willingly roll over to such lawsuits as a convenient way to limit the
use of these facilities. This bill will protect against such lawsuits
and the ensuing costly paperwork associated with them.
Title II of the bill directly addresses the sudden attempt last year
by the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management to limit target
shooting on certain lands. An agency spokesman was cited in a news
article saying that their proposed ban was being enacted in response to
urbanites who ``freak out'' when they hear shooting and that the
restriction wasn't rooted in public safety but, rather, to reduce
``social conflict.'' This proposed ban echos the Obama administration's
attempt to impose a new classification of wildlands on Federal property
in an attempt to unilaterally establish de facto wilderness.
Madam Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues once again that only
Congress has the authority to establish wilderness areas.
[[Page H1874]]
Just as with the wildlands proposal, public outcry against the BLM's
attempt to limit target and recreational shooting forced Interior
Secretary Salazar to retreat from this effort, and rightfully so.
However, at any point--say, right after the November election--the
administration could again attempt such a ban on such activities. This
is exactly why this legislation is necessary, because it would clearly
provide that any closure must be specifically and publicly justified
and be for reasons of national security, public safety, or to comply
with Federal or State laws.
Title III of the bill would allow for the importation of certain
legally taken hunting trophies from Canada that, through no fault of
the sportsmen, have become trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. This is
focused squarely on resolving existing situations ensnarled in red tape
and does not open the door to unlimited future imports.
Finally, title IV of the bill is in response to perhaps the greatest
bureaucratic threat posed, and that threat comes in the form of the
Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. In 1976, Congress barred the
EPA from regulating firearms and ammunition. However, this has not
stopped attempts to try and circumvent the law with the argument that
EPA may not be able to regulate ammunition, but it can regulate
components of ammunition and components of fishing tackle.
Regulating components of ammunition and fishing tackle would be a
massive power grab by the EPA despite a clear lack of legal authority.
Has that stopped the EPA under this administration? Sadly, it hasn't.
The EPA is an unfettered agency with an appetite for greater
regulations that result in a greater stranglehold of our economy and
how Americans are allowed to live their lives. But, unfortunately, the
EPA is not without its allies.
In March, over 100 activist antihunting and environmental groups
petitioned the EPA to ban the use of lead in hunting and fishing
components. This is an overt attempt to end-run a law that has been on
the books for nearly 40 years.
This legislation that the House will vote on today reiterates and
clarifies existing law, leaving no question that the EPA does not have
the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle.
Madam Chairman, hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are
longstanding American traditions that deserve protection, which is
exactly what this underlying legislation does, the Sportsmen's Heritage
Act of 2012. This is why the bill has received strong bipartisan
support and the endorsement of dozens of sporting and wildlife
organizations.
I again want to commend the sponsors for their work and encourage all
of my colleagues to support and vote for this legislation. I also want
to thank Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee and
Chairman Lucas of the Agriculture Committee for their cooperation and
assistance in helping to expedite consideration of this bill. At the
appropriate time, I will again insert into the Record an exchange of
letters between me and those chairmen regarding this legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, March 8. 2012.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings: I am writing concerning H.R. 4089,
the ``Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012,'' which was ordered
reported from your committee on February 29, 2012. I wanted
to notify you that, although it received a referral on the
bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action
on H.R. 4089 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the
House floor for consideration.
This is done with the understanding that the Committee on
Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction,
and the Committee will not be prejudiced with respect to the
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4089, and ask that a
copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in
the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, March 8, 2012.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. As you know, the
Committee on Natural Resources reported the bill by a
bipartisan vote of 27 to 16 on February 29, 2012. I recognize
and appreciate your desire to facilitate the consideration of
this legislation by the House of Representatives, and
accordingly, understand that the Committee on Energy and
Commerce will forgo action on the bill.
The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual
understanding that by forgoing consideration of H.R. 4089 at
this time, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not
waive any jurisdiction over Title IV of the bill or similar
legislation. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee
on Energy and Commerce represented on the conference
committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter
and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee
on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record
during floor consideration of H.R. 4089, to memorialize our
understanding.
Thank you for your cooperation and support.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, March 8, 2012.
Hon. Frank Lucas,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On February 29, 2012, the Committee on
Natural Resources ordered reported H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act of 2012, by a bipartisan vote of 27 to 16. The
bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural
Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on
Agriculture and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it
may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no
way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future
referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee
on Agriculture represented on the conference committee.
Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and your
response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural
Resources to memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, April 10, 2012.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman on Natural Resources,
Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter dated March
8, 2012, I am writing regarding H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act of 2012, which contains provisions within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture.
Our two Committees have a history of working cooperatively
on matters that generally concern the jurisdiction of both
Committees. In order to permit floor consideration of this
bill, the Committee on Agriculture will forgo action with the
understanding that it does not prejudice the Committee with
respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional
prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the
future.
I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this
matter be included in the Congressional Record during
consideration on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Frank D. Lucas
Chairman.
____
Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, DC, April 16, 2012.
Dear Chairman Hastings: I write to reflect the support of
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for HR 4089
with the changes as reflected in the Manager's Amendment to
the Rules Committee Print from Mr. Hastings of Washington. As
you know, the Association represents the collective
perspectives of the state fish and wildlife agencies, and all
50 state agencies are members. We appreciate the work of
Committee Members and staff in concluding the perfecting
language as reflected in the Manager's Amendment. We also
appreciate the enhanced opportunities for recreational
fishing, hunting and shooting that will be realized as a
result of the bill upon enactment.
We respectfully urge you to oppose any potential floor
amendments that would threaten either state fish and wildlife
agency authority, or jeopardize the Pittman-Robertson
[[Page H1875]]
and Dingell-Johnson laws, the most successful conservation
funding models of user-pay/public benefits for fish and
wildlife conservation and hunting, fishing and shooting
sports.
As we celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the Wildlife and
Sportfish Restoration Funds (Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-
Johnson), it reminds us of the need to recommit ourselves to
protecting the integrity of these funds and the conservation
decisions using these funds that are best made at the state
and local levels with the input of the hunting, angling and
shooting community. State/local decision making is one of the
foundational tenets of the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation, and the sportsmen's funding of fish and
wildlife conservation through license dollars and Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise taxes apportioned to the
states is the most successful conservation program in the
world.
Thank you for your consideration of the Association's
perspectives.
Sincerely,
Jonathan W. Gassett, Ph.D.,
President, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies and
Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife
Resources.
____
April 12, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, Longworth H.O.B., Washington, DC.
Hon. Eric Cantor,
House Majority Leader, Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Minority Leader, Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, and Minority
Leader Pelosi: The undersigned organizations from the
recreational fishing, hunting, shooting, and wildlife
conservation community would like to bring to your attention
our support for H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of
2012. This legislation is basically comprised of several of
the approximately eight sportsmen's priority bills being
championed by the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus. Additionally, in these fiscal times, none of the
provisions of H.R. 4089 score or contain any authorization
for funding. We understand that not all of the eight
sportsmen's priority bills are included within this Act;
however, we appreciate the need to quickly move this
legislation as it currently stands.
H.R. 4089 is essential to recognizing the importance of and
facilitating the expansion and enhancement of hunting and
recreational fishing and shooting. H.R. 4089 is a compilation
of four different bills (H.R. 2834, H.R. 3440, H.R. 991, and
H.R. 1558) that promote and advance our hunting and
recreational fishing and shooting heritage. Summarily, the
bill includes language that:
Requires hunting and recreational shooting and fishing to
be recognized activities on all Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management lands;
Protects recreational shooting on National Monuments under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management;
Amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow hunters
who legally harvested polar bears in Canada prior to its
listing under the Endangered Species Act to purchase permits
in order to transport their trophies into the U.S.; and
Clarifies that the Environmental Protection Agency does not
have the jurisdiction to regulate traditional ammunition with
lead components and lead fishing tackle.
Specifically, H.R. 4089 is composed of the following
titles:
TITLE I--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND
OPPORTUNITIES. After acknowledging that ``recreational
anglers and hunters have been and continue to be among the
foremost supporters of sound fish and wildlife management and
conservation in the United States'' and defining hunting and
recreational fishing as ``environmentally acceptable and
beneficial activities,'' Title I would require the Bureau of
Land Management and Forest Service to keep their lands open
to hunting, recreational fishing, and shooting and facilitate
the use of and access to Federal public lands and waters for
these activities, pursuant to reasonable exceptions. Access
to areas to participate in these activities is one of the top
reasons cited as to why sportsmen stop participating in their
sports. We support and endorse the perfecting language
designed to address potential unintended consequences, as
reflected in the amended H.R. 2834 as reported out of the
House Natural Resources Committee.
TITLE II--RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION. This portion of
the bill protects the ability of Americans to enjoy
recreational shooting on public lands. Specifically, this
portion of the bill says, ``Subject to valid existing rights,
National Monument land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
of Land Management shall be open to access and use for
recreational shooting.'' Therefore, if a Federal land agency
needs to close a portion of land to recreational shooting
they are required to ``submit to Congress a report detailing
the location and extent of, and evidence justifying, such a
closure or restriction'' and to meet other criteria designed
to keep all available lands open to sportsmen and
recreational shooters. This portion of H.R. 4089 also
instructs Federal land managers to manage lands ``in a manner
that supports, promotes and enhances recreational shooting
opportunities. . . .''
TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS. This
portion of the legislation permits the importation of polar
bear trophies taken legally by hunters in Canada through an
amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. If this bill
were to be enacted, up to $41,000 would be generated for
polar bear conservation and research which would aid in
future polar bear conservation efforts.
TITLE IV--HUNTING, FISHING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING
PROTECTION. This portion of the legislation amends the Toxic
Substances Control Act to exclude traditional ammunition with
lead components and lead fishing tackle from regulation by
the Environmental Protection Agency. Title IV covers a
variety of hunting and fishing components that will be exempt
because they are subject to a Federal excise tax which serves
as a revenue source for conservation efforts at the state
level. There is no scientific evidence to suggest the lead
contained in ammunition and fishing tackle is having an
adverse impact at the population or ecosystem level, and a
ban on lead in sporting equipment would unduly burden both
industry and sportsmen alike.
The enactment of H.R. 4089 is an important step in the
advancement of America's sporting heritage. We urge you to
support H.R. 4089. With your support, we can help overcome
the obstacles facing sportsmen and women today and further
the sportsmen tradition so that it can be handed down for
generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to
working with you to enact H.R. 4089.
Sincerely,
American Sportfishing Association, Archery Trade
Association, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting
Preservation Alliance, Campfire Club of America, Catch-
A-Dream Foundation, Center for Coastal Conservation,
Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force, Dallas
Safari Club, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks
Unlimited, Houston Safari Club, International Game Fish
Association, International Hunter Education
Association, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mule
Deer Foundation, National Rifle Association.
National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Trappers
Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, North
American Bear Foundation, North American Grouse
Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pope and Young Club,
Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association,
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society,
Safari Club International, Shimano, Texas Wildlife
Association, The Bass Federation, U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance, Wild Sheep Foundation, Wildlife Forever,
Wildlife Management Institute.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
4089 and yield myself such time as I may consume.
This legislation is completely unnecessary. If enacted, it would
actually harm hunting and fishing on our public lands.
Today, April 17, 2012, nearly 85 percent of Federal lands are open
for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. These activities have
always been an essential part of Federal land management, and they
always will be.
Yes, hunting and shooting are facing ever increasing pressures from
development, from pollution and habitat destruction. Areas that were
once fertile and open hunting grounds are now condominiums or strip
malls.
The reality is that Federal public lands and Federal land managers
are the last bastion of a hunting tradition many have enjoyed for
generations. While so much private property is closed to hunters, the
Federal lands remain open.
But instead of recognizing the value of these lands and the expertise
of these dedicated land managers, instead of recognizing the complexity
of balancing the competing demands of our public lands, supporters of
this bill accuse local land management professionals of opposing
hunting and claim that officials here in Washington and we here in the
Capitol know best how to manage wildlife thousands and thousands of
miles away. The legislation and its supporters are wrong on every
count.
As part of the analysis of H.R. 4089 by the Congressional Budget
Office, CBO found that hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are
allowed on most Federal lands under current law. The problem this bill
claims to solve actually does not exist. What's worse, this
[[Page H1876]]
bill is not designed to improve the quality of our public lands or our
public recreation, rather, it is another in a string of legislative
proposals put forth by the majority intended to devalue and degrade our
public resources.
Since the beginning of this Congress, Republicans have pushed for
unlimited oil and gas development on Federal lands, even waiving
important environmental assessments designed to make sure energy
development doesn't destroy wildlife and surrounding communities.
Republicans have rejected efforts to put safeguards on offshore
drilling to protect important coastal ecosystems.
Republicans have fought to sell Federal lands on the cheap or just
give them away.
Republicans have tried to cut off funding for new habitat through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund; they support dams and other
development in and along wild and scenic recoveries; they even push for
uranium mining near the Grand Canyon in my beloved State of Arizona.
Supporters of this bill will claim to love wildlife, but they attack
wildlife habitats every chance they get.
At every turn, we've argued that our parks, forests, and monuments
are important for recreation, for wildlife, and for water. We have
argued against these development proposals because we believe that
these lands provide economic benefits to the surrounding communities.
For supporters of this legislation to come to this floor and claim
they have seen the light, that all of a sudden they realize Federal
public lands are valuable, is not credible.
This bill is not intended to save Federal lands or to support Federal
land managers. This bill is designed to wrap them in red tape, place
obstacles in their path, and intimidate them by making them seek
permission from agency heads in Washington before they can do their
jobs.
This bill is about scoring political points with outside groups, even
if it means harming our precious public resources.
Not only is H.R. 4089 bad policy, it is an expensive piece of
legislation. Again, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office, forcing the Federal land management agencies to scrap decades
of careful planning and then forcing them to redraft all of these
current plans according to the dictates of politicians here in
Washington will ultimately cost $12 million.
{time} 1530
On a day when the majority has voted to deem the Ryan budget in
place, a budget we are told is necessary, even though it will devastate
our seniors, our students, our families, our environment, the majority
is asking the House to vote for $12 million in new spending that is
both unnecessary and harmful.
Hunting and fishing and recreational shooting are commonplace on
Federal lands. The only step this Congress could take to endanger these
activities is to pass H.R. 4089.
With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to
yield 4 minutes to the author of one of those pieces of legislation,
the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank Chairman Hastings for yielding,
Subcommittee Chairman Bishop and all the members of the Natural
Resources Committee for their help and support in bringing this piece
of legislation to the floor.
I also want to take this time to say thank you to the entire
sportsmen's community, which has worked very hard to solidify the
support here in Congress, including Congressmen Benishek, Flake, Young,
and Broun, and my counterparts in the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus
leadership, Congressmen Ross, Latta, and Shuler.
I would be remiss not to recognize the efforts of the individuals who
have diligently worked together with the sportsmen's community to help
advance this very bipartisan package of legislation.
I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that hunting,
fishing, and other wildlife-dependent activities have always and should
be continued on our public lands. What this legislation does is
protects sportsmen's rights. It protects sportsmen's rights that
preserves our Nation's heritage; and among the provisions in this
legislation, it prevents the EPA from expanding TSCA to regulate
traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.
Those in opposition may suggest it is the majority's belief that lead
shot, bullets, and other projectiles, propellants, and primers should
not be regulated by anyone at all. But as you heard just a moment ago
by the chairman of the full committee, State fish and wildlife agencies
are authorized to manage most of the States' fish and wildlife
activities and, therefore, closely monitor and address any local
concerns about lead-based ammunition.
Some will also falsely claim that there is significant danger to
wildlife populations. With very limited exceptions, there is simply no
sound evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is causing harm
to wildlife or their populations. Others incorrectly claim that
traditional ammunition was a threat to human health. In fact, according
to the CDC, there has never, never been a case where lead poisoning has
been traced to wild-game meat.
Succumbing to the anti-hunting and anti-fishing groups at the expense
of the taxpayer and sportsmen, it will be detrimental to the countless
manufacturing facilities of sportsmen and recreational industry. It
will destroy thousands of jobs and hurt wildlife conservation funding
and efforts.
It is the very ammunition, the firearms and the fishing tackle, along
with sportsmen and -women that are footing the bill to manage, to
protect, and create the habitat for the species that the very anti-
hunting and -angling interests claim that they are trying to save. That
is why the sportsmen's conservation organizations and the State fish
and game agencies have united with industry and Second Amendment
interests to get behind this piece of legislation.
While there is still much work to be done to ensure that sportsmen's
rights continue to be protected, H.R. 4089 addresses some of the
sportsmen's communities' most pressing concerns, and I urge passage of
this important piece of legislation.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), who is a member of the Natural
Resources Committee.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today in support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of
2012, a bill that will protect hunting and fishing on public lands and
preserve the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.
I am an avid hunter and sportsman. In fact, I'm a life member of
Safari Club International and my life member number is 17. I began
coming to Washington, D.C., as a volunteer advocate for hunting and
fishing rights and for gun owners' rights and responsible conservation.
I'm also honored to be a life member of the National Rifle Association.
I know the importance of ensuring that our hunters' and our anglers'
rights are protected, as well as ensuring the sustainability of
wildlife.
This legislation is a compilation of four pro-hunting, -shooting, and
-fishing bills offered by my friends Jeff Miller of Florida, Don Young
of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Dr. Dan Benishek of Michigan. I
commend all of them for their great work on this issue. I am also
pleased to say that I cosponsored all of their legislation.
Of note, I would like to personally thank Dr. Benishek for allowing
me to amend his portion of the bill, the Recreational Fishing and
Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, that we marked up in our Natural
Resources Committee.
In this Congress, as I have done in the past two Congresses, I
introduced H.R. 1444, legislation that would require that hunting
activities be considered as a land use in all management plans for
Federal land. My amendment was complementary to Mr. Benishek's
legislation, and it is included in this legislation that we are voting
on today.
Sportsmen devote their time, their money, and their efforts towards
ensuring that our Nation's fish and wildlife are sustainable for all
Americans to
[[Page H1877]]
enjoy. In return, I urge my colleagues to support the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act so that future generations can continue to hunt, fish, and
enjoy God-given natural resources.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I urge my colleagues to support the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act so that future generations can continue to hunt, fish, and
enjoy the God-given natural resources that were bestowed upon this
country.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek, who is also a sponsor of one of
the pieces of legislation that's part of this legislation.
Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Chairman, I come before the House today as a
cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.
I thank my good friend, Chairman Miller, for introducing it, and I'm
particularly pleased that title I of the bill contains the Recreational
Fishing and Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, a bill I introduced
last September.
Madam Chairman, my northern Michigan district is blessed with
abundant natural resources, including three Federal forests. Like many
in the First District, I have enjoyed hunting and fishing since I was a
child. These are memories I have cherished for a lifetime, and I want
to ensure that northern Michigan's children and grandchildren will be
able to enjoy the same.
Today's bipartisan bill is not some sweeping or radical piece of
legislation. It simply confirms that sportsmen will be able to access
Federal lands to enjoy fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting.
These pursuits are part of the tradition of American public land use,
but regrettably they are threatened by animal rights and environmental
groups that seek to end that tradition.
Like many in this House, I believe these traditions are something to
be celebrated and protected. Whether it's trout fishing in May, deer
hunting in November, or just shooting clays with some friends, every
person in this country has a right to enjoy these lands.
Madam Chairman, let us make clear today that hunting, fishing, and
recreational shooting on Federal lands must be protected. Let us make
sure that when our grandchildren pick up their fishing rod or firearm
for their first time and head out into America's great outdoors, they
have the same rights and privileges that we have always known.
I invite all my colleagues to visit northern Michigan this summer for
some of the best trout fishing in America or visit this October or
November for some grouse and deer hunting.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, just to make sure that the record is
clear, as I mentioned, much of our public lands--and CBO mentioned that
as well--are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.
{time} 1540
I think it's important to see how that translates into acreage:
BLM lands, 245 million acres, 95 percent open;
Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open;
Fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 57 percent open;
Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open.
The real threat to access to our public lands for hunters, anglers,
and recreational shooting is the privatization of these very important
public resources, degraded habitat due to lack of funding, and
development that disrupts habitat and water quality.
The majority frequently laments that Federal lands dominate the West
and are robbing local communities of important resources. They have
promoted taking these same lands and giving it to the States,
liquidating others, and intensely developing what is left. If that is
the pattern of land management that the majority seeks for our public
lands, then hunters, anglers, recreational and people that enjoy our
open spaces and public lands will be more endangered by that public
policy than by a problem that this bill attempts to address that
doesn't exist.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Arizona, somebody who has worked on this
legislation, Mr. Gosar.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of
2012. I have lived in rural America my entire life, where hunting,
fishing, and sport shooting are more than just hobbies--they are a way
of life.
Unfortunately, in Arizona, where the Federal Government administers
nearly 50 percent of our land, recreational activities are being
restricted by ill-advised land management decisions. BLM has shut down
nearly 72,000 acres in Agua Fria and is targeting 600,000 more at the
Sonoran Desert and the Ironwood Forest National Monument.
The bill we are considering today removes government roadblocks to
these activities and guards against new regulations that threaten to
block or limit access to hunting and fishing. Our way of life should
not be infringed upon because of the prejudices of bureaucrats who do
not understand the lifestyles of sportsmen in rural America.
I urge my colleagues to protect jobs, economic growth, and the
traditional right of American sportsmen to hunt and fish. Vote ``yes''
on H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Let me touch a bit on an issue that was brought up as to the cost of
this legislation--cost that I acknowledge was scored by the
Congressional Budget Office. I have to say, sometimes we have
differences with those agencies. I guess that's understandable. But
they suggest that there is a cost associated with this bill. Let me
kind of walk through some points of this bill that I hope will point
out: How can there be a cost associated with it?
Because, first of all, this bill does not create a new program. New
programs would be associated with cost. This does not create a new
program. It does not authorize any new spending. So because it doesn't
authorize spending, how can there be a cost associated with it? It does
not authorize any new personnel. So if we don't add any new personnel,
how can there be a cost associated with it? Further, the bill restricts
the ability of Federal land managers to oppose restrictions. Well, if
they do less, one would say, logically, how could there be a cost
associated with it?
I think what the reason is--and sometimes we point fingers here too
much, but I mentioned in my opening statement that the Department of
the Interior had some problems with this legislation, and maybe they
had some problems and said that there would be new activities for
people that work for them and, therefore, there would be a cost.
Let me reiterate: it doesn't create a new program. It does not
authorize new spending, doesn't hire anybody. Under current law, they
are required to do what they are required to do. How could that
possibly cost more money? But yet that is what the CBO scored, and
there's absolutely nothing we can do because that's their score.
But I will tell you, Madam Chairman, for the record, I highly doubt
that if one were to walk their way through the restrictions that I have
here and apply it to any other legislation, I would have to think that
there would be no costs associated with that legislation. And I think
that is probably the case, when you really get down to it, on this
legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 23 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Washington has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to
another gentleman that has authored legislation that is part of the
title of this legislation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
[[Page H1878]]
I rise in support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.
I have appreciated the opportunity and have helped with the
introduction of legislation that will protect and enhance opportunities
for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. I am proud that the
Recreational Shooting Protection Act, legislation that I introduced
earlier this year, is a critical measure towards protecting the rights
of recreational shooters and is included in the bill that we're
debating today.
As I stand here, the Bureau of Land Management is actively working to
ban recreational shooting in both the Sonoran Desert and Ironwood
Forest National Monument in Arizona. That's more than 600,000 acres of
taxpayer-supported public lands that, if the administration had its
druthers, would be closed to recreational shooting in my State of
Arizona alone.
Don't be confused; this isn't just an Arizona issue. In 2010 alone,
the agency unilaterally closed more than 400,000 acres across three
States to recreational shooting. Just as troubling as the closures
themselves is the process by which they're coming about. The mechanism
for these closures is just bureaucratic fiat.
Too often, the BLM seems quick to point to the action of some bad
actors and just as quick to ignore that many recreational shooting
enthusiasts responsibly use their Federal lands and the existing laws
already on the books that make disreputable actions illegal already.
Whether it's closing a million acres of Federal lands to do mining,
investigating costly pollution controls for a new power plant, trying
to require costly modifications to pools, or locking up recreational
shooting areas, you would think that the administration's arms at some
point would get tired from overreaching.
As a remedy in the shooting areas, the Recreational Shooting
Protection Act portion of the bill would require congressional approval
for existing and future recreational shooting restrictions on BLM-
managed national monument lands. It would also direct the BLM to manage
national monument lands in a manner that enhances recreational shooting
opportunities. I should say that that really is the instructions that
the agencies are under now, yet they're continuing to carry forward
with these actions.
For generations, the Federal Government has recognized recreational
shooting as a traditional and legitimate activity on public lands.
Nowhere is this more relevant than in the Western States, like Arizona,
where communities are often and literally surrounded by Federal lands.
To be clear, all this provision advocates is an additional layer of
supervision and oversight of the process. It does not prevent the
closure of BLM lands to recreational shooting, it does not
unconditionally reverse existing closures, and it does not grant
recreational shooters carte blanche on national monument lands. It also
does not authorized any new spending.
I believe the Recreational Shooting Protection Act affords Congress
the necessary oversight to prevent unnecessary recreational shooting
bans, and I urge its adoption.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.
I should mention that as a diverse package of critical natural
resource bills, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act is poised to protect and
enhance opportunities for sportsmen across the Nation. I urge its
passage.
Again, I thank the chairman for bringing this forward, and those
who've worked on the broader piece of legislation. It's a good piece of
legislation. It ought to be passed.
{time} 1550
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairman, my State and my colleague's,
Congressman Flake's, State, and my district are both blessed with
Federal lands, both Forest Service Bureau of Land Management areas. The
debate over access for shooting has been fierce for many, many years.
We've had closures of some areas because shooting activities, in
particular, using saguaro cactuses as targets, was impacting the lands,
and the ironwood, which is an endangered bosque that is one of the few
left in our Nation and certainly in the Southwest.
These processes by which communities go through an arbitrary, cookie-
cutter approach at the national level in terms of recreational shooting
robs the local community of their ability to impact and their ability
to be able to negotiate compromise and draw consensus on appropriate
shooting ranges and sites.
I would suggest that here in Washington, D.C., whether it's Congress
or the officials here in Washington making those decisions for Arizona,
for our respective districts, that the reaction from the public will
not be a good one insofar as they have been robbed of the opportunity
to find a workable solution for all the parties involved.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to
yield 2 minutes to a vice chairman of the bipartisan Sportsmen's
Caucus, Mr. Latta, from Ohio.
Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act of 2012. This important legislation for sportsmen and -
women protect their rights to hunt and fish while limiting restrictions
in regards to these activities. As a lifelong hunter and Ohio hunter
education instructor and current vice chairman of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus, these issues are not only important to me but to my
constituents, as well as individuals across this Nation.
I strongly support H.R. 4089 and will discuss a provision of the bill
relating to the importance of having access to public lands for our
sportsmen and -women. This portion of the bill would ensure that
Federal land management agencies, primarily the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management, act to protect and foster hunting, fishing,
and shooting traditions on Federal public lands by directing these
Federal agencies to exercise their land management discretion to
facilitate sportsmen's and -women's activities.
One of my priorities has been to ensure our youth have the
opportunities to access to become involved in hunting, fishing, and
other shooting sports. One of the main reasons cited as to why
sportsmen and -women stop participating in these activities is the
limitation and access of land. By having more access to Federal lands,
it helps current users and facilitates that next generation of hunters,
anglers, and shooters.
In my home State of Ohio, only 3 percent of the land is publicly
owned, whereas in some of our Western States, the majority of the land
is publicly owned, as just mentioned by my friend. For example, in
Nevada, approximately 80 percent of the land is Federal land, and in
Wyoming, it's almost 50 percent. Again, if these lands in these States
with large tracts of Federal lands are restricted, hunters and
recreational fishermen and -women will not be able to participate in
those outdoor activities. And, again, it will impede our youth from
being able to participate in the future because, again, they rely on
those adults to get them out.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4089, and I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, if I could inquire from Chairman Hastings as
to anymore speakers. I am prepared to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman. I am prepared to
close, and so if he wishes to close, then I will close on my side.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dams, derricks, distress sales--that has been the agenda of the
majority until today regarding our public lands. Today, an epiphany. We
need to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and access for hunters,
fishermen, anglers, and recreational shooting. Promoting more hunting
and fishing activities on Federal land involves ensuring the habitat is
protected, acquiring new lands to expand existing habitats, funding
wildlife and habitat management and continuing to ensure that our
parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas remain in public hands.
So if we're going to have a discussion about access for a very wide
and broad issue of hunting and fishing on our public lands, we should
do that, have a
[[Page H1879]]
serious discussion. I invite the majority to enter into that, a serious
discussion about the funding for fish and wildlife habitat, a serious
discussion of land acquisition to increase access and availability for
hunters and fishermen and clean water programs that would ensure that
that habitat is protected.
Hunting and fishing are under attack, but they're under attack from
privatization and development, not from Federal land managers.
This bill says that top-down Washington knows best, knows the best
management and that that is the way to go. We support letting local
land managers and local communities do their job. You can't say you
trust CBO when you like the score and don't trust CBO when you don't
like the score. A vote for this bill is a vote to spend $12 million.
It's that simple. A vote for this bill is to continue the philosophy of
dams, derricks, and distress sales of our public lands under the
guise--under the guise--of solving a problem for hunters and fishermen
in this country that does not exist on the public lands.
Four out of five acres is available for hunting and fishing on our
public lands. I would suggest that that is not just a question of being
enough; that is about access and opportunity on our public lands for
those activities. Let's not jeopardize them.
Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4089, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of the time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for up to 6 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Let's go back and set the stage for why
this legislation is needed, and let's understand that public lands were
designated for multiple use which, of course, means recreation and, of
course, commercial activity, unless Congress says otherwise. And the
most obvious example of where Congress says otherwise is in wilderness
designations. But even then, in wilderness designations, there are
certain activities. But Federal lands were designed to be multiple use.
The reason for this legislation is because we are finding arbitrary
decisions on the ground not for the exceptions that Congress looked at
that would restrict land activity. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) pointed that out very well with his portion of this bill.
Some of the restrictions make perfectly good sense if one were to
look at it hopefully logically, and sometimes we miss that point when
we debate here on the floor. One of the reasons is for reasons of
national security. If there should be restrictions on public lands for
national security, nobody, I think, would argue with that. If there
should be restrictions on public lands for public health, nobody would
argue with that. Forest fires or wildfires come to mind in that
situation--or if they are contrary to applicable Federal statutes. All
of those things make sense.
But let's not lose the underlying principle of public lands, that
they should be for multiple use. And what this legislation simply does
is reiterates, reiterates that hunting and fishing have their portion--
not higher, not lower--but have their portion on use for public lands.
That's what the whole intent of this legislation is.
We hear my friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is
becoming top down; and yet when you look at the concerns that Members
have had trying to offer amendments where they're trying to get more
flexibility, you can't have it both ways. This simply reiterates what
are the national standards. It should be multiple use, but particularly
in this case as it relates to hunting and fishing.
With that, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, this so-called ``Sportsmen's Heritage
Act'' is an amalgam of four separate bills that have more to do with
undermining conservation laws than hunting, fishing or recreational
shooting.
Like many Americans and most Members of this House, I don't have a
problem with hunting, fishing or recreational shooting on federal land
where appropriate. As a practical matter, over 75% of all federal lands
are already open to hunting and fishing--and more than 85% of all
national monuments are open for recreational shooting. But as a matter
of common sense, these recreational activities need to be balanced
against the health and safety of other park users and uses, as well as
the proper management of wildlife and wildfire risk. And at the end of
the day, these kinds of decisions are best made by local land managers,
not an agency head in Washington, D.C.
This legislation is further encumbered by a regulatory earmark
benefitting an estimated 41 trophy hunters at the expense of our
endangered species laws, and a provision banning the EPA from doing
something it has already publicly said it isn't going to do.
Accordingly, I urge a no vote.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, as an avid outdoorsman and member
of the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am grateful for
the opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act. This legislation clarifies federal policies for the
management of sporting activities on public lands and protects
opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. I
commend the House Committee on Natural Resources for their commitment
to preserving the legacy of conservation and upholding Second Amendment
rights, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important
legislation.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 19. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 4089
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Definition.
Sec. 104. Recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting.
TITLE II--RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Recreational shooting.
TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Permits for importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport
hunts in Canada.
TITLE IV--HUNTING, FISHING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Modification of definition.
TITLE I--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Fishing and
Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act''.
SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) recreational fishing and hunting are important and
traditional activities in which millions of Americans
participate;
(2) recreational anglers and hunters have been and continue
to be among the foremost supporters of sound fish and
wildlife management and conservation in the United States;
(3) recreational fishing and hunting are environmentally
acceptable and beneficial activities that occur and can be
provided on Federal public lands and waters without adverse
effects on other uses or users;
(4) recreational anglers, hunters, and sporting
organizations provide direct assistance to fish and wildlife
managers and enforcement officers of the Federal Government
as well as State and local governments by investing volunteer
time and effort to fish and wildlife conservation;
(5) recreational anglers, hunters, and the associated
industries have generated billions of dollars of critical
funding for fish and wildlife conservation, research, and
management by providing revenues from purchases of fishing
and hunting licenses, permits, and stamps, as well as excise
taxes on fishing, hunting, and shooting equipment that have
generated billions of dollars of critical funding for fish
and wildlife conservation, research, and management;
(6) recreational shooting is also an important and
traditional activity in which millions of Americans
participate, safe recreational shooting is a valid use of
Federal public lands, and participation in recreational
shooting helps recruit and retain hunters and contributes to
wildlife conservation;
(7) opportunities to recreationally fish, hunt, and shoot
are declining, which depresses participation in these
traditional activities, and depressed participation adversely
impacts fish and
[[Page H1880]]
wildlife conservation and funding for important conservation
efforts; and
(8) the public interest would be served, and our citizens'
fish and wildlife resources benefitted, by action to ensure
that opportunities are facilitated to engage in fishing and
hunting on Federal public land as recognized by Executive
Order 12962, relating to recreational fisheries, and
Executive Order 13443, relating to facilitation of hunting
heritage and wildlife conservation.
SEC. 103. DEFINITION.
In this title:
(1) Federal public land.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``Federal public land'' means any land or water that
is--
(i) owned by the United States; and
(ii) managed by a Federal agency (including the Department
of the Interior and the Forest Service) for purposes that
include the conservation of natural resources.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``Federal public land'' does not
include any land or water held in trust for the benefit of
Indians or other Native Americans.
(2) Hunting.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``hunting'' means use of a firearm, bow, or other
authorized means in the lawful--
(i) pursuit, shooting, capture, collection, trapping, or
killing of wildlife; or
(ii) attempt to pursue, shoot, capture, collect, trap, or
kill wildlife.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``hunting'' does not include the
use of skilled volunteers to cull excess animals (as defined
by other Federal law, including laws applicable to the
National Park System).
(3) Recreational fishing.--The term ``recreational
fishing'' means the lawful--
(A) pursuit, capture, collection, or killing of fish; or
(B) attempt to capture, collect, or kill fish.
(4) Recreational shooting.--The term ``recreational
shooting'' means any form of sport, training, competition, or
pastime, whether formal or informal, that involves the
discharge of a rifle, handgun, or shotgun, or the use of a
bow and arrow.
SEC. 104. RECREATIONAL FISHING, HUNTING, AND SHOOTING.
(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and
subsection (g), and cooperation with the respective State and
fish and wildlife agency, Federal public land management
officials shall exercise their authority under existing law,
including provisions regarding land use planning, to
facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands and
waters for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting
except as limited by--
(1) statutory authority that authorizes action or
withholding action for reasons of national security, public
safety, or resource conservation;
(2) any other Federal statute that specifically precludes
recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting on specific
Federal public lands, waters, or units thereof; and
(3) discretionary limitations on recreational fishing,
hunting, and shooting determined to be necessary and
reasonable as supported by the best scientific evidence and
advanced through a transparent public process.
(b) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), the head
of each Federal public land management agency shall exercise
its land management discretion--
(1) in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational
fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities;
(2) to the extent authorized under applicable State law;
and
(3) in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(c) Planning.--
(1) Effects of plans and activities.--
(A) Evaluation of effects on opportunities to engage in
recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting.--Federal public
land planning documents, including land resources management
plans, resource management plans, travel management plans,
general management plans, and comprehensive conservation
plans, shall include a specific evaluation of the effects of
such plans on opportunities to engage in recreational
fishing, hunting, or shooting.
(B) Not major federal action.--No action taken under this
title, or under section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), either
individually or cumulatively with other actions involving
Federal public lands, shall be considered to be a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, and no additional identification,
analysis, or consideration of environmental effects,
including cumulative effects, is necessary or required.
(C) Other activity not considered.--The fact that
recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting occurs on adjacent
or nearby public or private lands shall not be considered in
determining which Federal public lands are open for these
activities or for setting levels of use for these activities.
(2) Use of volunteers.--If hunting is prohibited by law,
all Federal public land planning documents of listed in
paragraph (1)(A) of an agency shall, after appropriate
coordination with State fish and wildlife agency, allow the
participation of skilled volunteers in the culling and other
management of wildlife populations on Federal public lands
unless the head of the agency demonstrates, based on the best
scientific data available or applicable Federal statutes, why
skilled volunteers shall not be used to control
overpopulations of wildlife on the land that is the subject
of the planning documents.
(d) Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Lands.--
(1) Lands open.--Lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
of Land Management and the Forest Service, including lands
designated as wilderness or administratively classified as
wilderness eligible or suitable and primitive or semi-
primitive areas but excluding lands on the Outer Continental
Shelf, shall be open to recreational fishing, hunting, and
shooting unless the managing Federal agency acts to close
lands to such activity. Lands may be subject to closures or
restrictions if determined by the head of the agency to be
necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence,
for purposes including resource conservation, public safety,
energy or mineral production, energy generation or
transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities,
protection of other permittees, protection of private
property rights or interests, national security, or
compliance with other law. The head of the agency shall
publish public notice of such closure or restriction before
it is effective, unless the closure or restriction is
mandated by other law.
(2) Shooting ranges.--
(A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency--
(i) may lease its lands for shooting ranges; and
(ii) may designate specific lands for recreational shooting
activities.
(B) Limitation on liability.--Any designation under
subparagraph (A)(ii) shall not subject the United States to
any civil action or claim for monetary damages for injury or
loss of property or personal injury or death caused by any
activity occurring at or on such designated lands.
(e) Necessity in Wilderness Areas.--
(1) The provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing and
recreational shooting, and the conservation of fish and
wildlife to provide sustainable use recreational
opportunities on designated wilderness areas on Federal
public lands shall constitute measures necessary to meet the
minimum requirements for the administration of the wilderness
area.
(2) The ``within and supplemental to'' Wilderness purposes,
as provided in Public Law 88 577, section 4(c), means that
any requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented
only insofar as they facilitate or enhance the original or
primary purpose or purposes for which the Federal public
lands or Federal public land unit was established and do not
materially interfere with or hinder such purpose or purposes.
(f) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the
head of each Federal agency who has authority to manage
Federal public land on which fishing, hunting, or
recreational shooting occurs shall publish in the Federal
Register and submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate a report that describes--
(A) any Federal public land administered by the agency head
that was closed to recreational fishing, sport hunting, or
shooting at any time during the preceding year; and
(B) the reason for the closure.
(2) Closures or significant restrictions of 640 or more
acres.--
(A) In general.--Other than closures under subsection (c),
the withdrawal, any change of classification, or any change
of management status that effectively closes or significantly
restricts 640 or more contiguous acres of Federal public land
or water to access or use for fishing or hunting or
activities related to fishing and hunting (or both) shall
take effect only if, before the date of withdrawal or change,
the head of the Federal agency that has jurisdiction over the
Federal public land or water--
(i) publishes notice of the closure, withdrawal, or
significant restriction;
(ii) demonstrates that coordination has occurred with a
State fish and wildlife agency; and
(iii) submits to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate written notice of the
withdrawal, change, or significant restriction.
(B) Aggregate or cumulative effects.--If the aggregate or
cumulative effect of small closures or significant
restrictions affects 640 or more acres, such small closures
or significant restrictions shall be subject to these
requirements.
(g) Areas Not Affected.--Nothing in this title requires the
opening of national park or national monuments under the
jurisdiction of the National Park Service to hunting or
recreational shooting.
(h) No Priority.--Nothing in this title requires a Federal
agency to give preference to recreational fishing, hunting,
or shooting over other uses of Federal public land or over
land or water management priorities established by Federal
law.
(i) Consultation With Councils.--In fulfilling the duties
set forth in this title, the heads of Federal agencies shall
consult with respective advisory councils as established in
Executive Orders 12962 and 13443.
(j) Authority of the States.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this title shall be construed
as interfering with, diminishing, or conflicting with the
authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of any State to
manage, control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State
law (including regulations) on land or water within the
State, including on Federal public land.
(2) Federal licenses.--Nothing in this title authorizes the
head of a Federal agency head to require a license or permit
to fish, hunt, or trap on land or water in a State, including
on Federal public land in the States, except that this
paragraph shall not affect the Migratory Bird Stamp
requirement set forth in the Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718 et seq.).
[[Page H1881]]
TITLE II--RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Shooting
Protection Act''.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Bureau of Land Management.
(2) National monument land.--The term ``National Monument
land'' has the meaning given that term in the Act of June 8,
1908 (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act''; 16 U.S.C.
431 et seq.).
(3) Recreational shooting.--The term ``recreational
shooting'' includes any form of sport, training, competition,
or pastime, whether formal or informal, that involves the
discharge of a rifle, handgun, or shotgun, or the use of a
bow and arrow.
SEC. 203. RECREATIONAL SHOOTING.
(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, National
Monument land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management shall be open to access and use for recreational
shooting, except such closures and restrictions determined by
the Director to be necessary and reasonable and supported by
facts and evidence for one or more of the following:
(1) Reasons of national security.
(2) Reasons of public safety.
(3) To comply with an applicable Federal statute.
(4) To comply with a law (including regulations) of the
State in which the National Monument land is located that is
applicable to recreational shooting.
(b) Notice; Report.--
(1) Requirement.--Except as set forth in paragraph (2)(B),
before a restriction or closure under subsection (a) is made
effective, the Director shall--
(A) publish public notice of such closure or restriction in
a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the
closure or restriction will be carried out; and
(B) submit to Congress a report detailing the location and
extent of, and evidence justifying, such a closure or
restriction.
(2) Timing.--The Director shall issue the notice and report
required under paragraph (1)--
(A) before the closure if practicable without risking
national security or public safety; and
(B) in cases where such issuance is not practicable for
reasons of national security or public safety, not later than
30 days after the closure.
(c) Cessation of Closure or Restriction.--A closure or
restriction under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a)
shall cease to be effective--
(1) effective on the day after the last day of the six-
month period beginning on the date on which the Director
submitted the report to Congress under subsection (b)(2)
regarding the closure or restriction, unless the closure or
restriction has been approved by Federal law; and
(2) 30 days after the date of the enactment of a Federal
law disapproving the closure or restriction.
(d) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), the
Director shall manage National Monument land under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management--
(1) in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances
recreational shooting opportunities;
(2) to the extent authorized under State law (including
regulations); and
(3) in accordance with applicable Federal law (including
regulations).
(e) Limitation on Duplicative Closures or Restrictions.--
Unless supported by criteria under subsection (a) as a result
of a change in circumstances, the Director may not issue a
closure or restriction under subsection (a) that is
substantially similar to closure or restriction previously
issued that was not approved by Federal law.
(f) Effective Date for Prior Closures and Restrictions.--On
the date that is six months after the date of the enactment
of this Act, this title shall apply to closures and
restrictions in place on the date of the enactment of this
title that relate to access and use for recreational shooting
on National Monument land under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management.
(g) Annual Report.--Not later than October 1 of each year,
the Director shall submit to the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that
describes--
(1) any National Monument land under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Land Management that was closed to recreational
shooting or on which recreational shooting was restricted at
any time during the preceding year; and
(2) the reason for the closure.
(h) No Priority.--Nothing in this title requires the
Director to give preference to recreational shooting over
other uses of Federal public land or over land or water
management priorities established by Federal law.
(i) Authority of the States.--
(1) Savings.--Nothing in this title affects the authority,
jurisdiction, or responsibility of a State to manage,
control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State law
(including regulations) on land or water in the State,
including Federal public land.
(2) Federal licenses.--Nothing in this title authorizes the
Director to require a license for recreational shooting on
land or water in a State, including on Federal public land in
the State.
TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Polar Bear Conservation
and Fairness Act of 2012''.
SEC. 302. PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TROPHIES
TAKEN IN SPORT HUNTS IN CANADA.
Section 104(c)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
``(D)(i) The Secretary of the Interior shall, expeditiously
after the expiration of the applicable 30-day period under
subsection (d)(2), issue a permit for the importation of any
polar bear part (other than an internal organ) from a polar
bear taken in a sport hunt in Canada to any person--
``(I) who submits, with the permit application, proof that
the polar bear was legally harvested by the person before
February 18, 1997; or
``(II) who has submitted, in support of a permit
application submitted before May 15, 2008, proof that the
polar bear was legally harvested by the person before May 15,
2008, from a polar bear population from which a sport-hunted
trophy could be imported before that date in accordance with
section 18.30(i) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations.
``(ii) The Secretary shall issue permits under clause
(i)(I) without regard to subparagraphs (A) and (C)(ii) of
this paragraph, subsection (d)(3), and sections 101 and 102.
Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the
importation of any polar bear part authorized by a permit
issued under clause (i)(I). This clause shall not apply to
polar bear parts that were imported before June 12, 1997.
``(iii) The Secretary shall issue permits under clause
(i)(II) without regard to subparagraph (C)(ii) of this
paragraph or subsection (d)(3). Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and
102(b)(3) shall not apply to the importation of any polar
bear part authorized by a permit issued under clause (i)(II).
This clause shall not apply to polar bear parts that were
imported before the date of enactment of the Polar Bear
Conservation and Fairness Act of 2012.''.
TITLE IV--HUNTING, FISHING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Hunting, Fishing, and
Recreational Shooting Protection Act''.
SEC. 402. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION.
Section 3(2)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (v), by striking ``, and'' and inserting ``,
or any component of any such article including, without
limitation, shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants,
and primers,'';
(2) in clause (vi) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, and''; and
(3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) any sport fishing equipment (as such term is
defined in subsection (a) of section 4162 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) the sale of which is subject to the tax
imposed by section 4161(a) of such Code (determined without
regard to any exemptions from such tax as provided by section
4162 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code), and sport
fishing equipment components.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112
444. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
{time} 1600
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 112 444.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 15, after ``of Federal public lands,'' insert
``including the establishment of safe and convenient shooting
ranges on such lands,''.
Page 5, line 4, strike ``; or'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 5, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 5, after line 6, insert the following:
(iii) the training of hunting dogs, including field trials.
Page 6, line 5, strike ``and waters'' and insert ``,
including Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or lands
administratively classified as wilderness eligible or
suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas,''.
Page 7, line 20, after ``(16 U.S.C. 668dd),'' insert ``as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997,''.
Page 8, strike lines 4 through 10 and insert the following:
(C) Other activity not considered.--Federal public land
management officials are not required to consider the
existence or availability of recreational fishing, hunting,
or shooting opportunities on adjacent or nearby public or
private lands in the planning for or determination of which
Federal public lands are open for these activities or in the
setting of levels of use for these activities on Federal
public lands, unless the
[[Page H1882]]
combination or coordination of such opportunities would
enhance the recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting
opportunities available to the public.
Page 8, line 13, strike ``of' '' the first place it
appears.
Page 8, line 15, strike ``agency'' and insert ``agencies''
Page 9, line 3, after ``Forest Service, including'' insert
``Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas,''.
Page 9, beginning at line 18, strike ``The head'' and all
that follows through line 21.
Page 9, strike lines 23 through page 10, line 4 and insert
the following:
(A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency shall use
his or her authorities in a manner consistent with this Act
and other applicable law, to--
(i) lease or permit use of lands under the jurisdiction of
the agency for shooting ranges; and
(ii) designate specific lands under the jurisdiction of the
agency for recreational shooting activities.
Page 10, strike line 12 and all that follows through page
11, line 3, and insert the following:
(e) Necessity in Wilderness Areas and ``Within and
Supplemental to'' Wilderness Purposes.--
(1) Minimum requirements for administration.--The provision
of opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational
shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to
provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on
designated wilderness areas on Federal public lands shall
constitute measures necessary to meet the minimum
requirements for the administration of the wilderness area.
(2) The term ``within and supplemental to'' Wilderness
purposes in section 4(a) of Public Law 88 577, means that any
requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented only
insofar as they do not prevent Federal public land management
officials and State fish and wildlife officials from carrying
out their wildlife conservation responsibilities or providing
recreational opportunities on the Federal public lands
subject to a wilderness designation.
(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are not intended to authorize or
facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or
motorized recreational access or use.
Page 11, strike line 4 and all that follows through line 6,
and insert the following:
(f) Report.--Not later than October 1 of every other year,
beginning with the second October 1 after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the head of each Federal agency who
has
Page 11, line 9, strike ``publish in the Federal Register
and''.
Page 11, lines 14 through 18, redesignate subparagraphs (A)
and (B) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively (and conform
the margins accordingly).
Page 11, strike line 19 and all that follows through page
12, line 23, and insert the following (and redesignate the
subsequent subsections accordingly):
(g) Closures or Significant Restrictions of 640 or More
Acres.--
(1) In general.--Other than closures established or
prescribed by land planning actions referred to in subsection
(d) or emergency closures described in paragraph (3) of this
subsection, a permanent or temporary withdrawal, change of
classification, or change of management status of Federal
public land that effectively closes or significantly
restricts 640 or more contiguous acres of Federal public land
to access or use for fishing or hunting or activities related
to fishing and hunting (or both) shall take effect only if,
before the date of withdrawal or change, the head of the
Federal agency that has jurisdiction over the Federal public
land--
(A) publishes appropriate notice of the withdrawal or
change, respectively;
(B) demonstrates that coordination has occurred with a
State fish and wildlife agency; and
(C) submits to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate written notice of the
withdrawal or change, respectively.
(2) Aggregate or cumulative effects.--If the aggregate or
cumulative effect of separate withdrawals or changes
effectively closes or significantly restricts 1280 or more
acres of land or water, such withdrawals and changes shall be
treated as a single withdrawal or change for purposes of
paragraph (1).
(3) Emergency closures.--Nothing in this Act prohibits a
Federal land management agency from establishing or
implementing emergency closures or restrictions of the
smallest practicable area to provide for public safety,
resource conservation, national security, or other purposes
authorized by law. Such an emergency closure shall terminate
after a reasonable period of time unless converted to a
permanent closure consistent with this Act.
Page 12, after line 23, insert the following:
(3) National wildlife refuge system.--Nothing in this Act
is intended to amend or modify the provisions of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd et seq.), except as expressly provided herein.
Page 13, line 22, after ``license'' insert ``, fee,''.
Page 18, after line 18, insert the following:
(j) Controlling Provisions.--In any instance when one or
more provisions in title I and in this title may be construed
to apply in an inconsistent manner to National Monument land,
the provisions in this title shall take precedence and apply.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much
time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, this manager's amendment is a noncontroversial
amendment to H.R. 4089 that makes several technical, clarifying, and
harmonizing changes to the bill. It adds to the bill amendments that
were adopted by the Natural Resources Committee when it considered
several of the individual bills that are now separate titles of the
Sportsmen's Heritage Act.
In addition, although I believe the original bill never allowed
extractive commercial activity or motorized travel in wilderness areas,
this amendment adds language that will say so explicitly.
Finally, the amendment reduces the administrative tasks faced by the
agencies with regard to the format and frequency of public notice and
congressional reporting requirements.
I ask for your support for this amendment, and with that, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we do not object to this dab of lipstick
on H.R. 4089.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112 444.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 12, strike line 24 and all that follows through page
13, line 2 and insert the following:
(g) Areas Not Affected.--Nothing in this title requires the
opening to hunting or recreational shooting of--
(1) a national park or national monument under the
jurisdiction of the National Park Service; or
(2) a unit of the National Park System (that is not a
national park or national monument) unless specifically
provided by statute that such unit be open to hunting or
recreational shooting.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4089 deems all Federal land open for
hunting and recreational shooting unless a closure is made by the head
of the agency here in Washington. The authors of the legislation
intended to exempt from the bill lands under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service. I'm sure, I have it on good authority from them,
from the authors, that this was their intention. However, as written,
the bill only exempts national parks and national monuments. My
amendment is a simple, technical correction that ensures all units of
the National Park Service are included in the exemption.
The exemption language in title I is, I believe, unintentionally
broad and not clear. The National Park System includes units that have
a variety of designations--national seashores, national scenic trails,
national battle fields, among others. The National Park System has
units in urban areas, in rural areas, in suburban communities, in the
East, in the West, in the center of our country.
And without this amendment, H.R. 4089 could potentially open for
hunting the Paterson, New Jersey, Great Falls National Historic Park in
the heart of Paterson, the third-largest city in my State. The bill
could, as written, potentially allow hunting within Antietam or
Manassas National Battlefields.
All units of the National Park System, like our national battlefields
and military parks, are sacred ground and should be reserved for solemn
contemplation of the sacrifices of our ancestors. My amendment would
ensure
[[Page H1883]]
that the policies of the National Park Service involving firearms in
areas controlled by the National Park Service stay in place.
Now, some have suggested that the historic battle reenactments
constitute recreational shooting, and this, my amendment, would, they
say, prevent reenacting on battlefields. Maybe my good friend from Utah
doesn't know the National Park Service policy.
It's important to note that current National Park Service policy,
right now, prohibits ``battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle
tactics that involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines or any
other form of simulated warfare.'' I'm not aware of any problems that
this sensible policy has caused.
It's important to note that there are National Park System units like
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in Washington State, I say to
my friend, the chairman, or Craters of the Moon National Preserve in
Idaho that allow hunting and recreational shooting. My amendment would
not affect those policies. The hunting and recreational shooting could
continue in those places.
I just want to emphasize, this is a technical amendment. I'm not
getting at the merits for or against the bill overall. But should this
bill proceed, it would be a big mistake to say that the hunting, the
recreational shooting could take place in Gettysburg and Chincoteague
and any number of other places that aren't intended.
Let's ensure that, in the hurry to open all Federal lands to hunting
and recreational shooting, we don't carelessly open up to gunfire
consecrated grounds like the Civil War battlefields, like the parks and
beaches and forests of our national recreation areas.
I urge my colleagues to support this technical correction to the
bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Holt amendment uses a blunderbuss and not a rifle
to address the complex issue of the programs in national parks that
involve shooting. This issue goes beyond sport or subsistence hunting,
which are currently allowed in some park units.
In addition to national parks that allow traditional forms of
hunting, the National Park Service has a historic weapons program that
would be silenced, contrary to what my good friend and the author of
this amendment, Mr. Holt, says.
In 2011, more than 600 national parks participated in some form of
historic weapons demonstrations. From cannons to flintlocks, the Park
Service says this program is ``undeniably popular with visitors'' and
drew just less than a million visitors to various national parks around
the country last year.
At Fort Vancouver National Park in Oregon and Washington, for
example, both rangers and volunteers regularly fire muskets and cannons
to demonstrate the historic role these weapons played in the history of
the site.
One of the most popular public participation events in many parks
involves the reenactment of historic battles. Thousands of reenactors
participate. They use their own historically accurate weapons and
costumes to re-create, on location, the great battles that took place
at our Civil War sites. For many of those who participate or come to
watch, these educational passions are the favorite of the national park
events.
It was on this week, 237 years ago, that General Thomas Gage, the
Royal Governor in Boston, sent his troops to confiscate the patriot
weapons at Lexington and Concord. And at the Minuteman National
Historic Park today, a living history event is conducted in which
volunteers are permitted to bring reproductions of the flintlock
muskets, pistols, and percussion cap weapons their ancestors used
during the first battle for our independence.
At a time when the National Park Service is running a multibillion
dollar maintenance backlog, the Holt amendment will disarm it of its
real draw. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to allow
the Park Service to continue the tradition of educating visitors about
our proud American history.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the remaining time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HOLT. My amendment simply ensures that nothing in this act would
force hunting in the National Park Service. I really don't understand
what the chairman is talking about here, because where it is allowed,
it would be allowed. Where it's not allowed, it would not be allowed.
It is policy of the National Park Service not to allow reenactment of
battles.
{time} 1610
The battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that
involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines, the taking of
casualties, hand-to-hand combat, et cetera, are prohibited in all
parks. Park Service employees can conduct demonstrations as part of
their living history program. That's done now. It would be continued
under this.
What this says is, under this legislation, were it to become law, a
person who wants to hunt in Gettysburg Park can't do that unless the
National Park Service policy allows it. That's all this says. It
extends it to all facilities of the National Park Service, not just
what was specified in the bill parks and monuments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
I beg to differ. I understand where my good friend from New Jersey is
coming from. I'm sure that's what his intent is, but that's not what
his amendment says. His amendment says that that activity has to be
provided by statute at each facility, and that's simply not the case.
We haven't done that. We blanket authority give that to the National
Park System to carry on what is classified as pastimes, that sort of
activity. He prohibits that unless it's provided by statute. He did not
offer an amendment to say we should statutize every one of those at
every one of the sites. That's the flaw in the amendment. It was
brought up in Rules yesterday, and yet the amendment wasn't corrected
and so here we are.
Now, I understand what he's trying to do, but the amendment does not
say that. So I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112 444.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 14, after line 2, insert the following:
SEC. 105. APPLICABILITY CONDITION.
This title shall be in effect and apply only when less than
75 percent of Federal public land is available for hunting,
fishing, or recreation shooting, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior.
Page 18, after line 18, insert the following:
SEC. 204. APPLICABILITY CONDITION.
This title shall be in effect and apply only when less than
75 percent of Federal public land (as defined section 103) is
available for hunting, fishing, or recreation shooting, as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to
emphasize the point that nearly 85 percent of
[[Page H1884]]
all public lands are already open for hunting, fishing, and
recreational shooting. Whether we are talking about Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management--including national monuments--
National Park Service lands, or Forest Service lands, in each and every
case the majority are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting.
My amendment would only trigger the provisions in title I and II of
this legislation if less than 75 percent of Federal public lands are
open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. I can't think of
any other use that occurs on 75 percent of our public lands.
I understand that some individuals are upset about some specific
court decision or specific local closures, but we need to keep things
in perspective. Right now, more than 4 out of 5 acres are open for
hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Given that, do we really
need Federal employees in D.C. making decisions about which lands to
close or, worse yet, have Congress make that decision?
My State and my district are both blessed with Federal lands. Debates
occur all the time about shooting ranges, and they have been very
fierce, as I mentioned earlier. Local land managers have worked with
local groups and communities to come up with solutions, including
providing access on other Federal lands. Unless we see significant
closures across the landscape, I think we should allow local managers
to make local decisions based on local input.
The problem this bill claims to solve does not exist, but this
amendment would allow the provisions of the bill to kick in if this
problem ever actually developed.
I would urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, last year, the Bureau of Land Management decided that
it would close a lot of the land it manages to shooting sports. The
agency never explained why it wanted to do this, but one BLM official
was quoted in a news article as stating, ``It's not a safety issue;
it's a social conflict issue.'' He elaborated by saying that urbanites
``freak out'' when they hear shooting.
Now, after a public outcry on this, the Interior Secretary had to
send out an order telling BLM to stand down on this regulation, but the
question is really: For how long?
There is nothing that prevents the Obama administration from changing
its mind--say, immediately after the November election--and again
seeking to arbitrarily limit shooting sports. That's why this bill is
necessary, to prevent such an arbitrary action by bureaucrats to limit
recreational shooting, fishing, and hunting without justification.
The amendment by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands is even more arbitrary. While the
amendment is drafted to appear reasonable, it is most certainly not.
The devil is in the clever details. It appears to permit fishing,
hunting, and recreational shooting, but in reality the amendment
nullifies the actual purpose of the underlying bill to protect these
activities.
First, one needs to understand that you could fit a lot of eastern
States in a small fraction of our land that is BLM land. BLM controls
253 million acres of land, more than one-eighth all the land in the
United States.
Second, the term ``public land'' used in this amendment has an
expansive meeting. Legally, public land means more than national forest
and BLM land. It also includes the Outer Continental Shelf. So, under
this amendment, as long as fishing is allowed in any part of the ocean,
no actual land need to be open to hunting; in other words, the 20
percent requirement could be satisfied in the Outer Continental Shelf.
Who hunts in the Outer Continental Shelf, Mr. Chairman?
Again, the bill we are considering today is about public land open to
American people for outdoor recreation. That is a good goal. This
amendment tries to hijack the bill by sending it 180 degrees from the
intent of the underlying legislation.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the argument that nothing to do with
hunting and shooting has happened yet but there may be a secret plan to
do so after the election, that's as preposterous as it is ridiculous.
The problem does not exist, and this bill would do real harm.
The example that my good friend, the chairman, used about urban
encroachment and development speaks to the point that we have been
trying to make in this legislation, that the greatest threat to hunting
and fishing and recreational shooting is exactly that--development,
privatization, and unregulated extraction--as we were talking about
around the Grand Canyon and uranium mining. Those threats to our public
lands are the threats and the trends and the public policy that is
being promoted by the majority that will limit and deny access to
public lands to hunters, fishermen, and recreational shooters.
Right now, as we stand, BLM, 245 million acres, 95 percent open to
those activities; Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open to
those activities; fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 50 percent open
to those activities; Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open
to those activities, ``those activities'' being hunting, fishing, and
recreational shooting.
If we want to protect access and protect the opportunities for
hunters and fishermen in our public lands, I would urge the approval of
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Arizona said that suggesting in my
argument that there could be a change in direction after the November
election--and I'll paraphrase. He said that's preposterous. It may be.
But I would just remind my colleagues that in a situation here several
weeks back when it was not supposed to be recorded, our President was
talking to the President of Russia.
{time} 1620
This was recorded on an open mike when he was talking to the
President, and again I'll paraphrase. He said, After the election, I'll
have more flexibility on missile defense.
Now, on that issue, keep in mind, he had already given up the missile
defense in Eastern Europe. Why would he want to have more flexibility
for the defense of our country? The issue there is flexibility. And the
issue is, if the President is going to use flexibility in that context,
couldn't you apply the same flexibility to something that he has
already done this year that has been reversed?
So I don't think it is preposterous. The flexibility issue, I
believe, is going to be an issue that is going to be talked about a lot
between now and November, and it could apply to a great deal of
policies that we could be considering in this House. This is one of
them because the administration has already said that these activities
should make BLM lands off limits to target shooting. I don't know why
that same principle could not be applied if the President has more
flexibility after the election.
So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112 444.
[[Page H1885]]
Mr. PETERS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike title III.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to support my amendment, which strikes a bailout that
was slipped into this bill for 41 wealthy sport hunters who want to
import polar bear trophies taken during hunts in Canada.
Polar bears were listed as threatened in May of 2008 by the Bush
administration's Fish and Wildlife Service, which prohibited their
importation as trophies. This protection was not implemented overnight.
Trophy hunters were warned. They were warned by Federal agencies and
hunting associations for more than a year that the final listing would
cut off imports immediately. The Hunting Report told its readers in
2007:
The bottom line is, no American hunter should be putting hard, non-
returnable money down on a polar bear hunt at this point.
These individuals knowingly assumed the risk that their trophies
might not be approved for importation, and they decided to hunt and to
kill these beautiful, threatened creatures anyway.
While it is too late to save these bears, passing this bill creates a
perverse incentive for trophy hunters to rush to hunt any species soon
to be protected under the Endangered Species Act because their friends
in Congress will simply bail them out after the fact. We cannot allow
that, and that's why I encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
I am deeply surprised the gentleman from Michigan would, in fact,
propose the amendment. He has one of these bears from his State, and a
lot of hunters are not wealthy. This is a legal activity in Canada.
They hunted these bears prior to 2008 and even prior to 2007. These are
dead bears, and they are sitting in Canada. When the hunters hunted
legally, the Canadian Government gave them the proper authority to do
so, and it helped the native villages. Right now, there are more bears
in Canada than there ever has been in history.
Hunting is a vital process of the management of game, and these
people included two wounded veterans. They were in Iraq, in that heated
area, and the one dream they had when they got back was to be able to
go and hunt a polar bear. I can understand that. They shot their
trophies legally and with the blessing of the Canadian Government and
the local province, and then they expected to be able to return those
bears, those hides--and yes, even sometimes the bodies--back home for
the proper display of their hunts. To say now you can't import
something when a bear was declared threatened by, yes, the Bush
administration--and wrongfully so--the bears are not threatened. There
are more bears now than there were in 1964. I'm probably the only
individual on this floor who had ever shot a polar bear in '64, and I'm
certainly not rich.
I am suggesting that this amendment is ill-placed, poorly thought
out, and improper. I want those people who did things legally by the
nation of our neighbors and blessed by the province to be able to bring
those trophies back home, as they have the right to do. Yet the act of
a Secretary of the Interior took that away from them arbitrarily.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. I rise in strong support of the Peters amendment. Without
this amendment, the bill will undermine the protections currently in
place for wild species under the Endangered Species Act and under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
In this case, the hunters who chose to kill these polar bears knew
they were taking a risk. They had good information that polar bears
would be listed as an endangered, threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act, and they acted contrary to it. They were
repeatedly warned by Federal agencies and hunting associations that the
final listing would cut off imports immediately, and they had well over
a year's notice. Despite this knowledge, hunters still chose to shoot
and kill polar bears at a time when the species faced severe hardship
and when legal protections were imminent.
We should not encourage a small group of people to take conscious
risks and then turn around and ask Congress for relief. If we pass this
bill without the Peters amendment, we are, in effect, telling hunters
that, when species are likely candidates for the endangered or
threatened lists, kill them as soon as you can, and then Congress will
give you special treatment and exempt you from the law.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Peters amendment. Don't
destroy the long-term conservation efforts for the special interests of
a few trophy hunters who are hoping for home decor and bragging rights.
I will strongly oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am surprised by my good friend from
California. He has a lot of polar bears in California. It's really
amazing to me. He doesn't know squat about the population of polar
bears. Then to imply that these are rich people who are going to hunt,
now isn't that class warfare? It's exactly a Democrat position, the
idea that now this is wrong when they did it legally. These bears
weren't all killed in 2008, and they weren't all warned in 2008. I want
to see the documentation of that. You know there's no documentation.
That's the same propaganda you get out of the same groups of people
that are anti-gun and anti-hunting.
Yes, step up to the plate. That's what you are. I know that. Yet to
take that right away from an American citizen, especially from a
wounded veteran--two of them--is wrong. It is wrong when this is
legally taking species arbitrarily by a Secretary of the Interior who
is saying now they're threatened. By the way, the administration does
not oppose this bill. That's amazing. The Fish and Wildlife Service
actually supports this bill now because we made some changes that they
wanted, and we gave them, specifically recognizing that it does not
encourage hunting.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Notwithstanding the statement of my very good friend from
Alaska, I rise in support of Mr. Peters's amendment. It would remove a
provision that would allow for the importation of polar bears killed in
Canada, but the provision only benefits 41 big game hunters who shot
bears in Canada prior to their listing as a species threatened with
extinction.
{time} 1630
These hunters were on notice that the trophies would likely not be
allowed into the United States, but rushed to hunt the bears anyway.
Now they're asking for Congress to bail them out by creating an
exemption in the law so they can bring their trophies into the country.
It's not about the number of polar bears. It is about the underlying
principle that decisions related to the protection of threatened and
endangered animals should be based upon science and subject to
consistent enforcement, not dependent upon the whims of Congress. Polar
bears are already threatened, and the last thing they need is more
trophy hunters chasing them down and shooting them. But that's exactly
what will happen if this Congress demonstrates that it is fully willing
to retroactively change the law in this manner to accommodate the
wishes of a very small minority. It's only 41 big-game hunters but
we're changing the law on their account?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a Federal court have rejected
previous requests to import trophies after 2008. That should be the
final word on the subject.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Peters amendment.
[[Page H1886]]
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired. The gentleman from Alaska has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman from Virginia has lots of polar
bears in Virginia. I know it's springtime, but I don't think there's
many polar bears in Virginia.
It's strange that all three of them have said endangered species.
This has nothing to do with endangered species. This is about marine
mammals. Endangered species, in fact, are still imported to the United
States. Hartmann's mountain zebras, yes; the African elephants, yes. We
can still import those. This has to do with marine mammals.
I really can't understand because the government warns you--it's not
against the law, but they warn you and you better follow it because
we're warning you. That's not law. These people may have been notified
there's a possibility, but they hunted under existing law, under
existing permits and paid for. To take that away from them--I don't
care if it's one person or 500 people or 41 people. When the law is
followed and we don't follow through with it, then shame on us. These
people did what was right, and legally. Now you're trying to take that
right away from them.
I urge a strong resounding ``no'' on this amendment and vote for the
people of America to have a right under the Constitution as long as
they follow the law to do something that's correct and they've done
that. They did everything by the law and to say now to have an
amendment and say you don't have a right when they followed it
correctly is shame on you.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Peters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Fleming
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112 444.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that has been made in
order.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
TITLE V--HUNTING IN KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST
SEC. 501. HUNTING IN KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST.
(a) In General.--Consistent with the Act of June 4, 1897
(16 U.S.C. 551), the Secretary of Agriculture may not
restrict the use of dogs in deer hunting activities in
Kisatchie National Forest, unless such restrictions--
(1) apply to the smallest practicable portions of such
unit; and
(2) are necessary to reduce or control trespass onto land
adjacent to such unit.
(b) Prior Restrictions Void.--Any restrictions regarding
the use of dogs in deer hunting activities in Kisatchie
National Forest in force on the date of the enactment of this
Act shall be void and have no force or effect.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment today maintains the State of Louisiana's ability to
regulate hunting within its borders. In a decision announced March 1,
2012, the Forest Service Regional Forester located way over in Atlanta,
Georgia, went over the heads of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries
Commission to forever prohibit the use of dogs to hunt deer in
Kisatchie National Forest.
Deer hunting has a long and important cultural history within the
State of Louisiana. When French settlers first came to Louisiana in the
18th century, Louisiana was covered by thickets and dense timber. Most
of these settlers had companion dogs with them, but the most treasured
were the deerhounds. The use of dogs would help the hunter drive the
deer out of the forest because deer were so plentiful and provided
exciting races that provided sound nourishment.
Hunting in many forms has been for decades, and continues to be, a
compatible activity on the 600,000-acre Kisatchie National Forest.
Oddly enough, the Regional Forester does not prohibit the use of dogs
for hunting raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, and game birds.
In 2011, the Kisatchie dog deer season was only 9 days and only
applies to certain ranger districts. According to communication with
the Forest Service, seven southern States allow hunting on national
forests within their borders. They include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina; but in this case, not
Louisiana. However, this is the first time the Forest Service has
issued a ban on dog deer hunting, or hunting deer with dogs, within a
specific State.
According to the Forest Service itself, they indicate that revenue
generated on dog deer hunting, including expenses to care for dogs,
contributes to approximately 18 to 29 direct jobs and results in
roughly $890,000 to $1.4 million of income. By their own assessment, it
is likely that some economic benefits will be lost depending on whether
hunting with dogs for deer leave the area to pursue the sport
elsewhere. Now this is about to kill even more jobs in Louisiana.
I would also like to emphasize that the State of Louisiana, the NRA,
and the Safari Club all support my amendment; and I urge support of
this amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLEMING. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his talk and discussion about the long history and strong local
support for this traditional form of hunting in his State.
The primary purpose of this legislation is to limit unjustified
Federal bureaucratic limitations and restrictions on hunting and
fishing in public lands. The circumstances that he has detailed
demonstrate that his amendment fits squarely within the spirit of this
bill, and I therefore support the amendment.
It is important to recognize that it is the authority of States to
regulate hunting and fishing. Individual Federal agency personnel
should not be substituting their opinion for the laws of the State.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and I urge adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fleming
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are a few points that I really believe need to be made. The
decision to eliminate dog deer hunting in this forest was made only
after more than half a dozen public meetings, a comment period that
resulted in a 1,000 comments which were thoroughly reviewed. In fact,
the policy has been amended in response to those specific local
concerns.
The justification for this policy is not only to prevent trespassing,
though this is one reason it is necessary. The forest has a
checkerboard pattern of non-Federal lands mixed in with Federal lands.
Dog deer hunting results in deer running over long distances and
hunters pursuing them and at times discharging firearms on the run. In
an area with private homes, the Forest Service determined that this was
simply too dangerous.
The Forest Service has collected input from local residents and not
hunters who fear for their safety during dog deer hunting season. To be
clear, while the decision was ultimately approved by the region in
Atlanta, the policy was developed by the local Forest Service staff who
work on the forest.
Lastly, this amendment is redundant and wasteful because a rule
already in place meets the requirements of the proposed amendment. The
current rule already covers the smallest portion of forest possible
because with the checkerboard lands the rule must cover the entire
forest to be effective.
[[Page H1887]]
While public safety is the primary justification for this rule,
preventing trespass is another reason for the rule and why it was put
in place.
{time} 1640
The Fleming amendment would throw out the current rule and then
require a new rule that meets the exact same requirements. This is
redundant, a waste of time and money.
Finally, according to the Forest Service, the State of Louisiana
already prohibits dog deer hunting on State lands, so this is simply
consistent with State policy. This amendment should be defeated.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to respond to some of the statements that were made.
I received a petition of thousands of hunters from Louisiana and
several States who wanted this to continue. The State, not the Federal
Government, is in the best position to make this determination. By
October 6, 2009, the Forest Service had received 1,237 responses to its
2009 request for comments. Of these, 320 agreed with the proposed
prohibition, but 917 were against it. That's a 77 percent majority of
these respondents who were actually from central Louisiana where this
Kisatchie National Forest exists. During October 2011, the Forest
Service received over 1,300 more comments on the original proposal and
environmental analysis. All but five letters--all but five letters, Mr.
Chairman--were opposed to the proposed prohibition.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will close. The
contradiction is very important.
The majority talks about local control, local control. In this
instance, you have the State of Louisiana that has prevented this, that
has prohibited this type of hunting on its lands, and that is a local
decision to be honored, but it is okay to honor that decision, but on
Federal lands we want to make an exception and set a precedent.
I would suggest that the contradiction in this amendment merits its
defeat.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. FLEMING. I just want to respond, again, the people of Louisiana,
the State of Louisiana has full support of doing away with this
prohibition. This was a decision made by somebody in Atlanta, a Federal
person, that has to do with what is really a local issue. This is a
tradition that goes back 300 years, and I think it's pretty obvious
that the people of Louisiana support the continuance of hunting deer
with dogs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 112 444.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new title:
TITLE V--RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS IN THE BLOCK
ISLAND SOUND TRANSIT ZONE
SEC. 501. RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS IN
THE BLOCK ISLAND SOUND TRANSIT ZONE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (a), the
Secretary shall not prohibit fishing for Atlantic Striped
Bass in the Block Island Sound transit zone.
(b) Exception.--This subsection does not limit the
authority of the Secretary to establish seasonal or other
temporary limitations on fishing that are specifically
necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic
striped bass.
(c) Block Island Sound Transit Zone Defined.--In this
subsection the term ``Block Island Sound transit zone'' means
the area of the exclusive economic zone within Block Island
Sound, north of a line connecting Montauk Light, Montauk
Point, New York, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block
Island, Rhode Island; and west of a line connecting Point
Judith Light, Point Judith, Rhode Island, and Block Island
Southeast Light, Block Island, Rhode Island.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The purpose of my amendment is straightforward. It opens an area off
the coast of my congressional district to recreational striped bass
fishing. Striped bass is a popular game fish in New York, and it has
long been an important catch for recreational fishermen.
The formation of an exclusive economic zone creates a small area of
Federal water in the Block Island Sound between Montauk Point, Block
Island, and Point Judith, Rhode Island. In most cases, when you hit the
3-mile point off the coast of the United States, you have nothing but
Federal waters in front of you. This is not always the case for New
York fishermen. Because of this geographic anomaly, when the ban on
striped bass fishing in the EEZ went into effect, it closed off 60
percent of New York's traditional striped bass recreation areas from
fishing, according to the Montauk Boatmen and Captains Association in
my district.
The National Marine Fisheries Service recognized this unique area by
designating it as a transit area where it was permissible for fishermen
to possess striped bass on their boats as long as no fishing takes
place while in the EEZ and the boat is in continuous transit.
My amendment goes one step further and opens this relatively small
area to recreational fishing. Mindful of the need for reasonable
conservation, my amendment also provides the ability to take necessary
action for conservation purposes.
Fishermen and charter captains on Long Island know these waters
better than anybody in Washington, D.C. Our friends on the other side
of the aisle talk about government regulation stifling the economic
recovery. After all, fishermen are job creators, both directly and
indirectly. They hire crews, they have their boats maintained by
mechanics, and they sell their catch to restaurants where Americans go
out to eat.
I support fisheries management that is designed to promote robust
health of fish stocks; but as the representative for the oldest fishing
ports in New York State, I also support sensible efforts to ensure our
fishermen can fish and earn their livelihood.
Opening this area would once again give recreational fishermen access
to fruitful striped bass fishing grounds. Charter boats will benefit,
as will the ports they depart from as people come to the east end of
Long Island for great fishing. This will promote job growth and
tourism, which is the goal of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act's authorization of
appropriations expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. Our Fisheries
Subcommittee intends to hold hearings on the reauthorization in this
Congress. I think this would be the appropriate time and place to have
the discussion which is the subject of your amendment.
I understand the gentleman's concern. Believe me, we have heard other
concerns on the Atlantic striped bass. If the gentleman would withdraw
his amendment, I can assure him that he will get a full hearing on the
content of his amendment in our committee this year.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I very much appreciate that offer, Mr.
Chairman. Based on your assurance that this issue will receive a full
hearing in your committee or in the appropriate subcommittee, I will
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, I thank you
very much, and we will work together on
[[Page H1888]]
this. This is a larger issue, and I certainly understand the
gentleman's concerns.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I appreciate that.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Heinrich
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 112 444.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE V--ACTIVITIES WITHIN WILDERNESS OR LAND MANAGED AS WILDERNESS
SEC. 501. ACTIVITIES WITHIN WILDERNESS OR LAND MANAGED AS
WILDERNESS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow oil and gas
development, mining, logging, or motorized activity on
Federal public land (as defined in section 103) designated or
managed as wilderness.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As an active sportsman, I am proud to introduce this amendment today.
It's likely that you have heard claims from some of my colleagues
across the aisle that the manager's amendment will resolve the concerns
that I have raised today, thus making this amendment redundant or
duplicative.
Mr. Chairman, that is simply not the case. While I appreciate the
intent of my colleagues to resolve my concerns, their language is still
far too vague and needs additional clarification. As an avid hunter, I
strongly support increasing access to public lands for hunting and
fishing, but we can achieve that goal without eliminating the very
wilderness protections that have protected some of the best wildlife
habitat and, I would add, some of the best backcountry hunting
opportunities in our Nation.
The bill under consideration today would eliminate long-standing
protections against logging, oil and gas drilling, and motor vehicle
use in wilderness areas. It would create a loophole in the Wilderness
Act for anything that would provide ``opportunities for hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting.''
Under the Wilderness Act, land managers are allowed to act in ways
that are otherwise not allowed in wilderness areas if the action is
necessary for ``the minimum requirements necessary'' for the
administration of the area. In practice, the minimum requirements
necessary language and standard means that land managers can use
motorized vehicles, chainsaws, even helicopters in extreme emergencies,
to fight fires, rescue stranded hikers, or remove downed trees from
trails that threaten human safety.
This bill would extend that kind of exemption to any action that
would ``provide an opportunity for hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting.'' This means that activities otherwise not allowed in a
wilderness area, like motor vehicle use, would now have to be permitted
if it could be used to facilitate everyday activities like hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting.
Now, the manager's amendment includes language intended to address
these concerns by providing that these provisions ``are not intended to
authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or
motor recreational access or use.''
{time} 1650
Whether or not that's the bill's intention, the language in the bill
allows for that possibility, and saying that wasn't the intent doesn't
change what the language allows.
In contrast, my amendment provides that nothing in this bill ``shall
be construed to allow'' these otherwise prohibited activities in
wilderness areas.
``Intended'' versus ``shall''; there's a very powerful legal
difference. And sportsmen across the country recognize this difference
and support my amendment. In the last few hours, I've heard from
countless supporters in my own State, including the New Mexico Wildlife
Federation; the New Mexico chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers;
Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen; the High Desert Sportsmen; and
the Sportsmen Concerned of Northeast New Mexico, just to name a few.
And nationally, we've heard from groups like the Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership and TU.
As the bill's sponsors say that they are not trying to create
sweeping exemptions to the Wilderness Act, I have no doubt that they'll
support my amendment, as it clearly eliminates these loopholes that
were unintentionally included. As a back-country hunter, I know how
valuable wilderness is to hunters and anglers, and I hope my colleagues
will continue to support protecting wildlife habitat in wilderness
areas and vote for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the section of the bill that applies to hunting and
fishing was derived from the excellent bill offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
I have noticed that whenever a new wilderness designation bill is
introduced and a subcommittee hearing is held, the sponsor testifies
that his or her bill will not reduce hunting because hunting is clearly
permitted in wilderness areas. And they are right. Nevertheless, when
an anti-hunting group went to court recently to block hunting in the
wilderness section of a national forest in Michigan, the Forest Service
had to waste a great deal of time and money justifying the hunting
permitted there.
Similarly, anti-hunting groups have sought to use the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, to entangle the land management
agencies in NEPA's briar patch when the agencies allow hunting activity
on public land.
Now I'm certain that many would agree that hunting and fishing on
public land is not a new major Federal action that requires a full
environmental impact statement. However, to protect sportsmen and to
prevent the waste of resources that occurs when conservation dollars
are diverted into defending against nuisance lawsuits, Dr. Benishek's
provision gives clear statutory support to legitimacy of hunting on
public land.
I believe from the beginning that the Benishek bill dealt only with
hunting and fishing. It never authorized motorized travel or extractive
industries, even though some environmental activist groups quickly made
that accusation. But to allay any genuine concerns people may have, we
worked closely with a wide variety of conservation groups and decided
to include in the manager's amendment that was passed a provision that
explicitly states that the relevant portions of the bill--and I quote
from the amendment--``are not intended to authorize or facilitate
commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational
access or use.''
With that very direct language I can honestly say that virtually
every major conservation group that is not anti-hunting supports the
bill. I don't have time to read the whole list, but it does include the
NRA, the Safari Club, the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus,
the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Ducks Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies.
I think H.R. 4089, as amended, now has the support of the entire
range of sportsmen conservation groups, ranging from those considered
conservative to those that are quite liberal, and do not believe that
the wilderness section needs any additional changes as offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico's amendment. Again, the concerns expressed by
the gentleman from New Mexico in support of his amendment, in my view,
are unfounded. This bill deals squarely with hunting and fishing, and
does not authorize motorized travel or mining or other such activities
in wilderness areas.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1889]]
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to my good friend and colleague and a sportsman from northern
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Heinrich amendment.
I want to thank my friend from New Mexico for offering this amendment
to ensure protection of our wilderness areas.
Mr. Chairman, I'm from the western United States. I'm a supporter of
the Second Amendment. I'm a hunter and a fisherman. My family raised
sheep and cattle on allotments in the area where I was raised. Like
many other States in the West, we New Mexicans value our access to
public lands for hunting, fishing, shooting, and recreational
enjoyment.
I want to make sure that everyone understands that I'm not opposed to
everything in this bill, but I do have specific concerns with language
that would create a loophole in the Wilderness Act. This loophole would
undermine one of the defining laws that protects public lands and
enables us to have pristine areas to hunt and fish--critical areas that
should be preserved for future generations to enjoy. But this bill, as
written, walks a dangerous line.
I had concerns in the committee markup of this bill, and today I
reiterate these concerns--specifically, language in section 104(e),
which opens up for interpretation to allow motorized vehicles in
sensitive areas, completely undermining the effort to protect these
lands. Although the majority has indicated that they have clarified
this problem in the manager's amendment, a CRS memorandum issued on
April 13, 2012, on section 104(e) of H.R. 4089 has confirmed my concern
that section 104(e) ``could lead to motorized use and inappropriate
commercial activities in congressionally designated wilderness areas.''
If the majority states through the manager's amendment that their
intention is not to open up these areas for motorized vehicles, then
let's make absolutely sure that this won't happen. I'm glad to see that
they see that there's a problem as well, which they've attempted to
address. But sadly, the loosely worded amendment won't accomplish that.
Let's work together to support the Heinrich amendment and make sure
that we don't combine motorized vehicles with Second Amendment issues
in our backyards. I think we can work together, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico has
expired. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
It appears that the argument here is that this language that we've
drafted and passed in the manager's amendment is not strong enough. Let
me read the appropriate words. In the gentleman from New Mexico's
amendment, he focuses on the word ``shall,'' which, of course, is
strong language. But he follows it with ``construed.'' Now that raises
the question: Construed by whom?
Our language says very specifically that nothing in here is intended
to authorize or facilitate any use regarding extraction. We say that is
the intent of the law, very specifically. When you use the word
``construed,'' I dare say, Mr. Chairman, that you are opening this wide
open to litigation, and maybe that is exactly what the gentleman
intended.
By focusing on ``shall,'' he doesn't focus on the operative word,
which is ``construed,'' because ``construed'' can be used by anybody
outside in order to sue. We say very specifically, even though we
didn't think extraction was part of this underlying legislation, but we
say very specifically it's not intended to reinforce it. That was the
reason that provision was in the manager's amendment.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Heinrich amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 112 444.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE V--DESIGNATION OF AND RESTRICTIONS ON NATIONAL MONUMENTS
SEC. 501. DESIGNATION OF AND RESTRICTIONS ON NATIONAL
MONUMENTS.
(a) Designation.--No national monument designated by
presidential proclamation shall be valid until the Governor
and the legislature of each State within the boundaries of
the proposed national monument have approved of such
designation.
(b) Restrictions.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not
implement any restrictions on the public use of a national
monument until the expiration of an appropriate review period
(determined by the Secretary of the Interior) providing for
public input.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a supporter of H.R. 4089, I rise today to offer an amendment which
would add another positive element to the underlying bill. As we all
know, the Antiquities Act of 1906 authorized the President to designate
national monuments on Federal lands that contain historical landmark
structures or other objects of scientific interest. This authority has
been used 129 times by Presidents of both parties to designate such
national treasures as the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, and the Statute of
Liberty.
As someone who has enjoyed and appreciated some of the abundance of
national and historic treasures throughout this great country, I
greatly appreciate the importance of protecting these great blessings.
Currently, a National Monument designation allows for the President
to impose unilaterally further restrictions on the use of Federal
lands.
{time} 1700
Since State authorities are more aware of the local circumstances
affecting land restrictions, I've offered a standalone bill, H.R. 302,
the Preserve Land Freedom for Americans Act of 2011, which is the model
for the amendment I'm now offering. This amendment provides for
accountability to the process by requiring the approval of the
legislatures and Governors of the States where monuments are proposed
to be located.
With the Federal Government currently owning such a large percentage
of land throughout the country, particularly in Western States, it's
important to respect and allow State policymakers to weigh in on
proposed Federal land restrictions within their borders.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you.
I rise in strong opposition to the Foxx amendment and in strong
support of National Monuments and the Antiquities Act.
Following in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the
Antiquities Act to protect the Grand Canyon, and Franklin Roosevelt,
who used it to protect the Grand Tetons, 16 Presidents--eight
Republicans and eight Democrats--have used the Antiquities Act to
designate approximately 130 national monuments. In more recent history,
President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to designate the
largest national monument in history. Most recently, President Obama
used the act to preserve an enormously popular Fort Monroe in Virginia.
These special places might have been lost to development or
destruction had the 59th Congress not authorized Presidents to use the
Antiquities Act to
[[Page H1890]]
move quickly to protect Federal lands. And that is worth repeating: the
Antiquities Act allows designation of national monuments on Federal
land only. This land is already owned by the Federal Government, and
the claim that there is some kind of land grab going on is totally
false.
Our national monuments are valuable, popular tourism designations
that serve as powerful economic engines. Headwaters Economics studied
17 large national monuments in 11 Western States and found positive
impacts to the local economies and employment.
The Antiquities Act has served present and future generations well
for more than a century, and there is no need for this amendment.
National monuments do not harm private property rights, and they
improve the quality of life in surrounding communities while saving
historic, cultural, and scenic resources for our children and our
grandchildren.
The Foxx amendment will hobble the Antiquities Act by giving States a
veto over Federal designations on Federal land, and it would do so
based on criticisms of the act and of national monuments that are
patently false. The Foxx amendment should be defeated, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 40 seconds to the distinguished
chairman of the committee, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act is used more often than not to
circumvent Congress' role in setting land-use policy or to foreclose
any opportunity for anyone outside the White House to participate in
whatever decision they make, including the affected States.
Unlike America in 1906 when the antiquities law was first enacted, we
now have an elaborate set of other laws and regulations that require
deliberative processes and procedures to be followed before any
significant action affecting public lands can be taken.
I think the gentlelady's amendment would improve this process, and
with that, I support it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for
2\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, for more than a century, the Antiquities
Act has given American Presidents the authority to protect some of our
Nation's most important and threatened places. Across my State of New
Mexico, we see the benefit of the Antiquities Act.
Bandelier National Monument, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, White
Sands National Monument, and El Morro National Monument were all
originally protected through the Antiquities Act.
Research done last year by the New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce
shows that New Mexico's 10 national monuments established through the
Antiquities Act account for 1.3 million annual tourist visits and $54
million in annual tourist spending supporting over 1,000 New Mexico
jobs. In the last few weeks, countless New Mexicans, including
sportsmen like myself, have asked President Obama to designate a new
national monument to protect the Organ Mountains outside of Las Cruces,
New Mexico.
We are calling on our President to protect our vulnerable natural and
cultural resources in southern New Mexico through the Antiquities Act.
This amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina would take
that power away from the President and give State legislatures the
power to make decisions about public lands that belong to all
Americans.
The Antiquities Act was specifically designed to allow Presidents to
respond quickly to protect places in the national interest. Had the
Antiquities Act been written with the language of this amendment, the
Grand Canyon could have been overrun by sprawl, ancient cliff dwellings
and the Petrified Forest National Park might have been looted, and the
Arches National Park wouldn't even exist.
An additional concern is that several State legislatures only meet
for a limited number of days each year and can't respond to urgent
threats to public lands. In my State, we only meet for 60 days in odd
years and 30 days in even years.
The Foxx amendment would prevent archeological, cultural, and
historical sites from receiving the urgent protections they need. It
also doesn't recognize that the United States has vast areas of
unincorporated territory that is not under the jurisdiction of any
State legislature.
President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to protect lands
and waters in unincorporated Federal areas, including the Marianas
Trench Marine and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments.
National monuments should not be a partisan issue. After being signed
into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, 16 Presidents of both
parties--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have used this act to
protect federally owned lands and waters to better protect America's
treasures for future generations. And by attaching this divisive issue
to this bill, the chances of a Presidential veto are greatly increased.
I hope that we would refrain from endangering the pro-sportsmen
portions of this bill with controversial issues like this one. As an
active sportsman, I strongly support the Antiquities Act, and I ask for
a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The Antiquities Act, which allows the President
to designate land, is a legislative function that the legislature gave
to the executive branch in Teddy Roosevelt's time. Whether it is good
or not, it is wrong for Congress to give its authority away to the
executive branch. At the time, it was thought it would be okay because
there were specific restrictions placed on it. You had to have a
specific something geological, historical that you were going to
preserve, it was in imminent danger, and it was going be on the
smallest area possible in the debate that was going to be over a couple
hundred acres.
The unfortunate thing is Presidents since that time have used this
monument designation power for political purposes in areas quite bigger
than that. The last monument that was created in my State was not a
couple of hundred acres. It was bigger than the States of Connecticut,
Delaware, and Rhode Island combined. It was done at 9 a.m. after the
Governor of the State was told about it at 2 a.m., after having been
told earlier that day that nothing was going to happen in this kind of
an area.
Earlier this year, the Antiquities Act was used at Fort Monroe when
the entire delegation and the local community were in favor of it. When
ours was done, as well as many of the other Antiquity Act monuments
were done, the local delegation was not in favor of it, and the
Governor was not in favor of it. Everyone was not in favor of it. What
the Foxx amendment tries to do is simply say, look, if you're going to
keep this power with the President, at least get a check-and-balance
system somewhere. Let's make sure that the local people, the State
people are fine with this designation before the President does
something arbitrarily, capriciously and, unfortunately too often, for
political reason.
Keep the legislative power where it should be, with the legislature,
but at least if you're not going to do that, at least put some kind of
logical check and balance on the system.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 45 seconds
remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank my two colleagues who spoke on behalf of my amendment
and tell them how much I appreciate their comments. And I want to say
to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if designating an area as
a national monument would be such a good idea, there shouldn't be any
problem with gaining approval from the legislatures and the Governor,
and it takes no power away from the President but allows the States to
be part of the process.
I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Foxx Amendment that
seeks to gut the Antiquities Act and add unnecessary bureaucracy.
[[Page H1891]]
The Antiquities Act is the best tool in the tool box for saving
America's heritage--cultural and natural--to respect what our ancestors
set aside for us and to inspire, educate, and enlighten future
generations.
The Antiquities Act has a long bipartisan tradition. After being
signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, sixteen presidents of
both parties--8 Republicans and 8 Democrats--have used this Act to
protect federally-owned lands and waters to better protect America's
treasures for future generations.
The Antiquities Act protects our national heritage. Sites like the
Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, and the World War II Valor in the
Pacific National Monument and in my Congressional District the
Pinnacles National Monument have been protected through the Antiquities
Act.
The Foxx Amendment seeks to gut the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities
Act was specifically designed to allow presidents to respond quickly to
protect places in the national interest.
Had the Antiquities Act been written with Rep. Foxx's language, the
Grand Canyon would be overrun by sprawl, ancient cliff dwellings and
the Petrified Forest National Park would have been looted, and Arches
National Park wouldn't even exist.
The Foxx Amendment is poorly conceived. Several state legislatures
only meet every other year and are ill-equipped to respond to urgent
threats to public lands.
The Foxx Amendment would prevent archaeological, cultural and
historical sites from receiving the urgent protections they need from
looting, vandalism or other threats.
The Foxx Amendment also doesn't recognize that the United States has
vast areas of unincorporated territory that is not under the
jurisdiction of a state legislature.
President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to protect lands
and waters in unincorporated federal areas including the Marianas
Trench Marine and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments.
Stand up for our National Parks and our national heritage. Vote
against the Foxx Amendment to H.R. 4089.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Foxx) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4089) to
protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and
shooting, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________