[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1555-H1566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 470

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3590) to protect and enhance opportunities for 
     recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only 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 in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for being 2 minutes late to come 
here. I apologize to not only you but also the staff and my friends 
from the Rules Committee for being late.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 470 provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3590. This rule makes in 
order 11 amendments which provide for discussion and opportunities for 
Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.
  Yesterday in the Rules Committee, we held what I consider to be an 
open discussion about this bill where amendments were fully discussed 
and debated, and I am pleased to say that there will be these 11 
amendments as a result of the action by the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today represents a yearlong 
bipartisan, bicameral legislative process to protect our public lands 
and to preserve traditional hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting 
for American sportsmen and sportswomen.
  Specifically, H.R. 3590 improves access to Federal lands for hunting 
and fishing. It protects Second Amendment rights enshrined by the 
Constitution of the United States and promotes sportsmen's views by 
giving them a seat at the table through an innovative advisory 
committee to collaborate with the Secretaries of Interior and 
Agriculture on ways to better conserve wildlife, habitat, and 
traditional outdoor activities.
  American sportsmen are some of the strongest stewards of our Nation's 
unparalleled natural resources. We have an abundance of natural 
resources, but they all must be in a protected and stewardship role, 
and that is what the American hunter does for this country. They direct 
conservation projects. They establish nonprofit organizations to 
protect wildlife and precious habitat. Sportsmen are leading advocates 
to ensure that we leave a stronger, more vibrant America for future 
generations, and, I might add, we teach our children and the next 
generation the same so that the legacy that we leave is prepared for 
our future.
  Additionally, according to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, 
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, American sportsmen 
contribute roughly $90 billion in economic activity every year. These 
resources sustain thousands of American jobs and protect our Nation's 
rich outdoor heritage. They also provide many of our rural areas of 
this country with needed jobs, jobs for people who live in rural areas 
who care very much about conservation and of their local areas to keep 
them natural.
  Unfortunately, all too often the Federal Government erects 
unnecessary barriers which prevent Americans from participating in the 
many activities that also should be available on Federal lands. That is 
why H.R. 3590 is important. It streamlines government regulations to 
allow for greater access to our Nation's public lands so that all 
Americans can enjoy everything that our great outdoors have to offer.
  As a sportsman myself, I will tell you I have enjoyed our national 
parks. I have enjoyed State parks and the outdoors, and in particular, 
as a young Boy Scout growing up all of the way through being an Eagle 
Scout and an adult leader, I have utilized these resources, which has 
allowed me an opportunity to know more about America and to be able to 
pass it on to my sons and others. It is a great way to spend an 
afternoon or a weekend or a week with your family, the outdoors and 
learning more about America.
  Today I want to thank the Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc 
Hastings, who is from Washington. He understands the West, and he 
understands the outdoors. His leadership on this issue was essential, 
as well as that of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cochairmen Bob 
Latta from Ohio and Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. Both of these men 
met with me and the committee early on to make sure that we would be 
prepared for their bills that would come to the floor as a package, 
with the understanding that on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, we would 
move this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. It is 
an omnibus bill that has been cobbled together in a back room by the 
Republican leadership. While the Resources Committee has considered 
some of these bills, not every bill made it through the committee 
process. In fact, two of the measures in this bill were never reported 
out of committee, and no committee considered this omnibus bill. So 
much for regular order.
  Madam Speaker, we have a number of major time-sensitive issues that 
we should be tackling here in this Congress. We should be extending 
unemployment benefits for the 1.6 million Americans whose benefits 
expired on December 28, and the 72,000 more who lose them each week we 
fail to act. We

[[Page H1556]]

should be raising the minimum wage to help the too many Americans who 
work two jobs and still struggle to make ends meet. We should be 
finding common ground on comprehensive immigration reform to finally 
fix our broken immigration system. We should be bringing to the floor a 
clean bill to raise the debt ceiling, which yesterday Treasury 
Secretary Lew said we will hit by the end of the month. Defaulting on 
our national debt risks another downgrade of our credit rating. But we 
are not considering any of those items today.
  Instead, we have before us another cobbled-together lands bill that 
goes much further than just expanding hunting and fishing opportunities 
on public lands. It undermines a number of commonsense, longstanding 
environmental laws that protect the beautiful lands that outdoor 
enthusiasts love, and it is loaded up with an array of unrelated 
provisions, like making it easier to import polar bear trophies.
  Madam Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that 75 percent of all 
Federal lands are open to recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. 
There are ample opportunities for hunters and fishermen to pursue these 
recreational activities, and H.R. 3590 effectively overrides several 
important, commonsense conservation laws, and elevates hunting and 
shooting ahead of all other legitimate uses of land. It does so without 
including several important bipartisan reauthorizations sought by 
outdoor sportsmen and -women and conservation groups.
  Not only is the underlying bill bad policy, the process of bringing 
this bill is lousy. Despite the fact that this omnibus bill wasn't 
considered by any committee, the Rules Committee decided to close down 
the amendment process. The truth is that this rule makes in order every 
single Republican amendment, while only making in order one-third of 
the Democratic amendments. So much for openness and so much for 
fairness, Madam Speaker.
  I am particularly disappointed that last night the Rules Committee 
failed to make in order an amendment that I was proud to offer with the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and several other of my colleagues 
that would have reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund program uses royalties from oil 
and gas drilling to protect and preserve access to Federal and State 
lands. The stateside program has been especially important to the 
creation of parks and recreational facilities in my home State of 
Massachusetts. The Holt amendment reauthorizing LWCF is critical. This 
program will expire soon, and it needs to be reauthorized. The Holt 
amendment is germane and does not require any waivers, yet the 
Republican leadership blocked it, along with two-thirds of the 
amendments offered by the Democrats.

                              {time}  1230

  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3590 is a bill in search of a problem. We saw a 
similar package last year that went nowhere in the Senate. I expect a 
similar fate for this year's version, because gutting environmental 
laws is a nonstarter for so many Members.
  Madam Speaker, we should be focusing our time on the real challenges 
facing our economy. We should be extending unemployment insurance. It 
is unconscionable that we are just sitting here doing things like this, 
things that are going nowhere, while so many of our fellow Americans 
have lost their unemployment benefits. What are they to do? These are 
people looking for jobs and can't find them. We should be raising the 
minimum wage. We should be giving the American people a raise.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle complain about all these 
government social programs. Well, the fact is that in the United States 
of America you can work full time and still earn so little that you 
will require things like food stamps and other government subsidies. We 
should stop subsidizing places like McDonald's or Walmart who don't pay 
their workers a livable wage.
  We should raise the minimum wage. If you work in this country and you 
work full time, you ought not to have to live in poverty. We should fix 
our broken immigration system. We should also pass a clean extension of 
the debt ceiling so that we don't ruin this economy. These are the 
things we should be talking about. These are the things we should be 
debating. Those are the priorities facing our country and we are doing 
nothing. So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts in not only his 
arguments, many of which were made in the Rules Committee last night as 
we properly went through, I believe rather meticulously, in answers to 
what the gentleman brought up. It is important to note that three 
Democrat amendments were withdrawn. One Democrat amendment was not 
germane, and several other Democrat amendments I think we effectively 
said they will be tackled either in another piece of legislation or, 
because they are a larger bill that needs to be heard by the committee, 
updated. And, in fact, the land bill is set to be done next year, 2015, 
with its expiration. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Washington, Doc Hastings, very meticulously covered his thoughts and 
ideas about that. And he told the Rules Committee that, in fact, he did 
believe that it would need to be updated on a bipartisan basis.
  Doc Hastings, as the chairman, also stated that the majority of his 
bills that he had brought to the committee, at least under his 
chairmanship, were done on a bipartisan basis, where there was an 
agreement within the committee to move the bills, and while there may 
be disagreements about all the parts of the legislation, that they 
garnered respect from each other out of their committee. It was not the 
Republican leadership. In fact, it was the Rules Committee that made 
the decision based upon testimony that they heard upstairs, listening 
to the committee chairman, understanding the committee's thoughts and 
ideas, and then moving appropriately.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts does make other points about jobs 
bills. And I would point to a Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan 
CBO report that came out today that talks about the effects of a new 
update about the Affordable Care Act, which is known, as President 
Obama alluded to here, as ObamaCare. The word ``ObamaCare,'' when used 
in that context, will push the equivalent of about 2 million American 
workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to 
work fewer hours or to drop out altogether, according to the latest 
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
  They said that there is a major jump in the nonpartisan agency's 
projection. It suggests that the health care law's initiatives and the 
incentives in it are driving business and people to choose government-
sponsored benefits rather then work.

       CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of 
     hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the 
     period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers 
     will choose to supply less labor--given the new taxes and 
     other incentives they will face and the financial benefits 
     some will receive.

  CBO analysts wrote this in their new economic outlook.
  They further stated that the rollout problems with the Affordable 
Care Act, known as the ACA, last year will mean that only some 
estimated 6 million people will sign up through the State-based 
exchanges, rather than the 7 million that the CBO had originally said 
would sign up.
  What this means is that the laws that were passed as a result of 
President Obama, Nancy Pelosi being Speaker of the House, and Harry 
Reid being the Senate Majority Leader, they passed laws which are 
substantially reducing the number of people who actually work in 
America. There was a net some 230,000 people that lost their job this 
last month. The Affordable Care Act continues to be the number one 
reason why American businesses and small business employers do not hire 
more workers in this country.
  The gentleman is correct that the Democrat leadership as well as 
ranking members from the Ways and Means Committee and the Budget 
Committee have approached the Rules Committee and asked for us to 
extend by 1.3 million people the number of people who would be extended 
long-term benefits.

[[Page H1557]]

  I had a discussion with both Sandy Levin of the Ways and Means 
Committee and Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member at the Budget 
Committee, and told them that the Republican Party in the House of 
Representatives has, since the President initiated this action and it 
was passed in the House, that we saw where there would be millions of 
people who would lose their jobs, that we would have unemployment at 
the numbers that we have, and that there is not one unintended 
consequence in this. These were well known, they were well understood. 
They were simply ignored by Democrats and the media as a possible 
probable outcome.
  So I told both these gentlemen when they came to the Rules Committee 
that I would be very pleased to engage with them on a private basis, as 
a Member of Congress and them as a Member of Congress, on a way that we 
could add 1.3 million jobs if we were going to extend the unemployment 
compensation.
  I believe it is immoral for this country to have as a policy 
extending long-term unemployment to people rather than us working on 
the creation of jobs. A job is the most important attribute, I believe, 
in a free enterprise system of a person, a family circumstance--for a 
husband, a wife, children when they are able at the appropriate age--to 
be able to have a job, to learn to take care of themselves, to be able 
to meet their needs, to be able to become engaged in their community 
and have self-respect enough to know that jobs are important.
  I think too much time we have been hung up on--instead of the 
creation of jobs, we talk about the symptoms that are related to--
unemployment and long-term unemployment. In this case, the President of 
the United States thoughtfully articulates the need for us to make sure 
we help people, but I believe he errs on the side of not pushing jobs 
bills, coming to the table as the President--as he said he would when 
he was a candidate, as he should as President--of working with 
Republicans and Democrats on well-understood ways that you create more 
jobs.

  The President has chosen not to do this. It continues to be a 5-year 
pattern. I would note that when we had many of these same issues, or 
similar, when President Clinton was in office, he worked with 
Republicans. Granted, they were Republican ideas: balance the budget, 
welfare reform, cutting taxes, reducing rules and regulations. I do 
admit that is a complete Republican agenda. But we saw where one 
Democrat President joined with Republicans to work for a great 
opportunity for us to grow our economy, to face down other nations who 
were willing to not only grow their economies at our expense, but to 
add American workers and a brighter future for all Americans.
  The Republican Party House leadership--Speaker John Boehner and 
Majority Leader Eric Cantor--have repeatedly stood at this podium for 5 
years, and we have a constant theme, and that is: let's work together, 
not on raising taxes, not on more rules and regulations, not on job-
killing health care ideas, but, rather, initiatives that the private 
sector--CEOs, small business leaders--say will help them to understand 
better the things that they need to go employ Americans.
  Instead, the Democrat majority chose to do a bill, the Affordable 
Care Act, that at that time more than 55 percent of Americans opposed. 
We were told wait until you learn about it, you are going to love this; 
not just read it to learn what is in it, but the longer that you have 
it out there, it is going to be a real attribute.
  Well, let me tell you what. We are going to find out this October 
when, instead of 8 million Americans are going to lose their health 
care and have to make decisions, there are going to be 80 million 
people. It will be at that time, or perhaps slightly before, when the 
American people will understand it was one party, one group of people--
they are called the Republicans--who tried to warn us, who tried to 
hold some 47 individual votes on individual pieces of the Affordable 
Care Act that ruin employment, that make taxes even higher and move 
jobs overseas.
  This is why the Republican Party is here today moving this bill. We 
will be here with a water bill tomorrow on the floor, and we will 
continue down the pathway of showing the differences of what we are 
for. We are for the American worker. We are for growing jobs. We 
believe the GDP is an embarrassment, and we believe that unemployment 
is immoral and we should add jobs.
  So I am going to join my colleague Sandy Levin and my colleague Chris 
Van Hollen, and we are going to see if we can craft something that we 
would have on this floor. But it has got to net add over a million 
jobs, because that is what America needs, a real answer, not rhetoric.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, let me just say to my colleague from Texas, I think the 
Republican Party, and especially the Republican leadership of this 
House, should be ashamed of the obstructionism that has gone on to 
block every major initiative that this President has put forward to try 
to create jobs, and I think they should be ashamed of their 
indifference toward working families in this country.
  My colleague talks about the Affordable Care Act. Millions and 
millions of people now have health insurance who before did not have 
it. That is just a fact. You may not like it, but it is a fact. Being a 
woman is no longer considered a preexisting condition with regard to 
health care. That is a fact. That is a good thing. That is a good 
thing. I would like to think my Republican colleagues would cheer that. 
Millions of young people can stay on their parents' insurance while 
they are looking for a job so they have the security of health care. 
That is a good thing.
  CBO continues to say that the Affordable Care Act will reduce our 
deficit and repealing it, as my Republican friends want to do, would 
increase the deficit. That is nuts.
  I repeat. What we should be talking about on this floor is extending 
unemployment insurance for those who have lost it; 1.6 million people 
lost it on December 28 and 73,000 people have lost it each additional 
week that has passed. The fact that we don't have a sense of urgency to 
do something about that is shameful. That is what we should be talking 
about.
  My colleagues say we should have a pay-for, notwithstanding the fact 
that George Bush extended long-term unemployment benefits on a number 
of occasions and they never asked for a pay-for. But my colleague from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) came up to the Rules Committee with a pay-for 
saying we would pay for it with the savings from the farm bill. My 
friends say, well, that is not enough. I don't know what is enough.

                              {time}  1245

  How long does this indifference have to continue?
  We need to do immigration reform. We need to raise the minimum wage 
so that when you work in this country you don't live in poverty. With 
regard to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we want to extend it 
for 5 years, not for a year at a time. We want to give communities an 
opportunity to plan--that is a good thing--and my friends have blocked 
that. It was germane, and my Republican friends said, no, you can't 
have a debate and a vote on it on the House floor.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous 
question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up H.R. 3370, the bipartisan House companion to 
the flood insurance premium increase relief bill, which the Senate has 
already passed. I also want to say to my colleagues that it is an issue 
we should be talking about now. That is more important than this bill 
that is before us and that is going nowhere.
  To discuss the urgency of passing flood insurance relief, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I would like to thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts for yielding the time.
  I also urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on 
the previous question so that we can take up and vote on the Senate-
passed bill from last week, which would provide some relief to families 
and businesses across America from these unconscionable increases in 
flood insurance rates. It

[[Page H1558]]

would also give us time to work on a bipartisan solution.
  Madam Speaker, for the past few months, I have offered on every 
single piece of legislation moving through the Rules Committee to this 
floor an amendment that would provide some relief to families and 
businesses across America on the flood insurance relief.
  Here is why it is important.
  We are dealing with the unintended consequences of a bill that 
Congress passed in 2012, which people were not aware of, that was going 
to really suck our neighbors with these high flood insurance increases, 
and FEMA did not follow through on their responsibilities. So the best 
course of action now is to pause. Kudos to the Senate. Last week, by a 
broad bipartisan vote, 67 members in the Senate passed a flood bill 
with the input of Realtors, families, businesses, and chambers of 
commerce from all across the country. It is vital that the House take 
up this bill right away.
  Let me give you a few examples from back home in the Tampa Bay Area.
  Paul Page lives in Ruskin, Florida. He says:

       My name is Paul Page. I am a retired, 30-percent disabled 
     veteran living in Ruskin, Florida. I need your help now. I 
     purchased my home in December of 2012. My flood insurance was 
     $1,400 per year, but thanks to the Biggert-Waters Act of 
     2012, my flood insurance is rising to $5,400 a year. Please 
     help me now.

  James Smith in south Tampa owns property. His premium will go from 
$2,000 per year to $9,000 per year.
  Frank and Shirley Davis in Shore Acres in St. Petersburg just listed 
their home for $175,000, but they are going to have a new annual 
premium of $4,000 that has now negated any chance they have of selling 
their home.
  This is happening all across the country.
  Madam Speaker, with this Republican majority, people have called it 
the ``do-nothing Congress.'' They are very skeptical that the 
Republican-controlled Congress can respond to middle class families and 
provide economic relief where it is needed. Here is a chance for the 
Republican majority to step up and address a very severe economic issue 
for families and businesses all across this country. The longer the 
Republican leadership puts this off, the greater economic harm it will 
cause to families and businesses across America.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the gentlewoman from Florida. 
I would like to affirm that she has come to the Rules Committee and 
that it is the Rules Committee that has been pondering these questions 
and will continue to.
  The Rules Committee, as of several weeks ago, attempted to work 
with--on a bipartisan basis--the Financial Services Committee, and 
there were not agreements that were done there on a bipartisan basis, 
so I think the committee of jurisdiction needs an opportunity to be 
able to faithfully look at it and to come up with an answer. I think a 
backstop would be as the Senate has done, which is simply to delay 
things for 4 years because of this government's inability to 
effectively do what they were tasked with doing.
  Notwithstanding, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman and her 
constant comments, not just to me but also to members of the Rules 
Committee, in order for us to understand that we do have to come up 
with an answer on this. I wish today were that answer. We will continue 
to work at it, and I appreciate the gentlewoman very much for her 
continued insistence with me. I have also told one of my and her 
colleagues--the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)--as well as 
members of the Rules Committee that, on the Republican side, we will 
continue to work on this, and I expect us to be successful.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the Rules Committee ought to 
stop pondering and maybe start acting.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  Mr. KEATING. Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Texas say--and 
I appreciate his intensity--that he believes it is a flawed insurance 
policy that is government-sponsored. If that is the case, then it 
should be delayed, and he is willing to shut down the government to do 
it. I want to talk about something that is a flawed government 
insurance plan that is scientifically proven to be wrong--no debate 
about it--and that should be delayed, too.
  I have a family in my hometown of Bourne, Massachusetts, who just 
bought a house. They bought that house for $240,000. They had a $400 
bill--the predecessors did--for flood insurance. They were shocked, and 
I was shocked: that bill has now increased to $44,000 a year. If you 
take away the value of their home, in about 2 or 3 years, with the 
payments for flood insurance at that rate, it will be the whole value 
of their home.
  I want to also tell you that it is a government taking, in effect, I 
think, to have this policy in effect because, if they go to sell that 
home and if someone has to get a mortgage to buy it, as most people 
have to do, the value of that home is going to be diminished. Someone 
is probably going to have to pay cash--maybe pay $100,000 for a 
$240,000 home. That is government reaching in, taking the value of 
their nest egg--of all of their life savings of the place they live--
away from them.
  Now, I said it is scientifically proven. I want to show you. I went 
to the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. Their coastal study 
experts there--scientists, engineers--said that what FEMA did in 
establishing the maps upon which these rates are based is flawed. In 
fact, they used the Pacific Ocean methodology on the Atlantic Ocean. 
That is how fundamental the flaws are.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KEATING. There is my county in Plymouth, which I represent. By 
taking this through the appeals process and bringing in the study that 
I was able to obtain from UMass, they took the whole county of Plymouth 
in Massachusetts, and it now has this insurance plan delayed.
  It shouldn't just be my county in Plymouth that is delayed. FEMA 
can't do this throughout the whole country, as there is not enough 
time, but it should not just be my county. It should be all of 
Massachusetts. It should be the Northeast. It should be all the coastal 
areas and all the river areas in this country. They should be treated 
with fairness.
  All we need on this is a vote. There are now 182 cosponsors, about a 
third of them Republicans. Let's get it to the floor. Let's be fair. 
When we have scientific evidence about a flawed insurance plan, let's 
make sure we get a vote on it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
  Madam Speaker and Members of Congress, we should not have to even 
debate this any further. It is outrageous that we have learned what we 
have learned about the failed implementation of FEMA with the Biggert-
Waters plan and that we will not do something about it.
  Let me just say this: I joined with Mrs. Biggert, and we tried to 
reform the National Flood Insurance Program. We went about it in a way 
that we thought would make it possible for people to be able to 
afford--to pay for--the National Flood Insurance Program and not in a 
way that would cause them to lose their homes. It passed through this 
House. It passed through the other body. It went out to FEMA. What did 
FEMA do? It did not do what we instructed it to do. First of all, we 
said: Have a study on affordability. The second thing we said was: Look 
at the way you do mapping and remap it. We encouraged them to get good 
data to be able to do this work.
  They have failed us, and they have failed the citizens of this 
country. Not only have they failed the citizens of this country, but 
middle class people in this country--homeowners--are now about to lose 
their homes. A California family is facing a flood insurance premium 
increase from $1,700 per year up to $22,000 per year--an increase of 
over

[[Page H1559]]

1,100 percent. I have traveled around the country. I was down in 
Louisiana. We have Members across the country who are representing 
Florida and New York and California, on and on and on. They are begging 
this Congress to do something about these unintended consequences.
  I was coauthor on the Biggert-Waters bill. I know what we attempted 
to do. These unintended consequences are just that. It should not be 
happening this way. This is not a partisan bill. This is a bill that 
has got support from Democrats and Republicans. You heard the previous 
speaker talk about 183 Members on this bill. The Senate passed it out 
with flying colors, and now it is on us. What are we going to do? Are 
we going to allow middle class families to lose their homes because 
FEMA has not done its job and has not done it correctly? Are we going 
to allow these families to be put out of homes that they have lived in 
for years because now, with these increased premiums, they can't sell 
them? This is unconscionable. We can do better than this. I can go on 
and on and tell you about the families and the letters we have 
received.
  It is time for the House of Representatives to consider this 
legislation. We must address this problem now before one more family 
suffers from increased premiums, depressed home prices, or the 
inability to buy or sell their homes. Bring it to the floor. I have 
talked with the chairman of our committee. I would like everybody to 
address concerns to the chairman and get this bill to the floor so that 
we can help our homeowners and our constituents.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in fact, once again, the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, 
I believe, represents a truth. We need to get this done.
  I think the committee last year, as I recall, began a process of re-
looking at it, of trying to work through this issue. It is my belief 
and hope--and I have told members of the committee--that I intend to 
stay after this, but the Financial Services Committee does have the 
jurisdiction, and we are looking for an answer rather quickly.
  I will continue to work with the gentlewoman from Los Angeles. I will 
continue to work with the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings, and I 
will continue to work with Ms. Castor from Tampa on this issue. I know 
that my dear friend from New York, Congressman Meeks, has spoken with 
me a number of times about this.
  So it is my hope that the Financial Services Committee will come with 
a recommendation--with a piece of legislation--on a bipartisan basis so 
that we can address this, and we will wait until that is accomplished. 
That is what I have told members of the committee. That is my hope, and 
I will continue to be engaged in this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say that we don't have to 
wait for the Financial Services Committee to act. The Rules Committee 
shares jurisdiction on this bill. We should bring this to the floor 
now.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, last week, I received hundreds of calls and 
emails from my constituents across the Rockaway Peninsula, Broad 
Channel, and Jamaica Bay in New York's Fifth Congressional District. 
Most had been struck hard by the devastation of Superstorm Sandy, and 
were eagerly hopeful that relief was finally underway with the Senate's 
passage of the flood insurance relief bill.
  My constituents then asked: How long will it take, and when will the 
House pass the Senate bill? Why is the House not taking up the Senate 
bill, or why is it being delayed? Let's put politics aside because, if 
there is ever an issue that should not involve politics, it is this 
issue, because this storm struck Democrats and Republicans. It struck 
everybody--rich and poor. Everybody was affected by it. So when will we 
put those differences aside so that we can get something done?

                              {time}  1300

  ``Why?'' they ask, Madam Speaker.
  It is time for us to respond to these Americans who have suffered too 
long and who need relief now. It is time we hear the voices of hundreds 
of thousands of our fellow citizens who have been devastated by the 
unintended consequences and the botched implementation of the Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Act that led to dramatic increases in the cost 
of flood insurance. It is time that we on this side of the Capitol take 
up this legislation and address the problem before one more family 
suffers from increased premiums, depressed home prices, or the 
inability to sell their home.
  I hope that, unlike what took place when we initially asked for 
relief, it is not the most extreme wing of the Republican Party that is 
blocking or stopping real relief for our Nation's homeowners and that 
we pass this important reform legislation today.
  Madam Speaker, it is time that we pass the Homeowners Flood Insurance 
Act. It is time that we get it done. We need it done today. We need it 
done right now for relief for American citizens.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, last week, the Senate passed a 
bipartisan bill to fix the National Flood Insurance Program to protect 
homeowners from unaffordable rate hikes. It is beyond time for the 
House to follow suit by passing this bipartisan bill, which will help 
millions of Americans facing steep flood insurance rate increases, 
including thousands of residents across the Palm Beaches and Treasure 
Coast.
  The bill includes additional funding for FEMA to redraw flood maps 
accurately so homeowners do not face erroneous rate hikes in my 
district and around the country. Any proposed rate hikes must be 
delayed until the affordability study gives Congress a better 
understanding of how unaffordable rate hikes would negatively impact 
the Flood Insurance Program.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can pass 
this bipartisan, commonsense solution that will provide much-needed 
relief for homeowners across America.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you to make this an urgent issue. Urgency, 
I think, is very critical here. So I rise in opposition to the previous 
question so that we can consider the Homeowner Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act.
  In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, over 74,000 National Flood Insurance 
Program claims were submitted in New Jersey from policyholders. To 
date, the NFIP has paid over $3.5 billion in Sandy claims. It has 
served as a lifeline to thousands of New Jersey residents whose lives 
were turned upside down by the storm. The funds paid out through those 
claims have helped our neighbors rebuild their homes and businesses.
  Regardless of what political affiliation or persuasion, we are all 
affected by this. Estimates indicate that the total cost of Sandy will 
be between $12 and $15 billion, making Sandy the second-costliest flood 
event after Hurricane Katrina.
  So, it is true that we need to make changes to ensure that NFIP 
remains solvent. However, the rollout of the 2012 reforms to NFIP have 
been fraught with issues.
  I am hearing from constituents in towns such as Little Ferry and 
Moonachie, particularly, which were devastated by Sandy. This is 
destroying property values and disrupting the real estate markets in 
the communities of New Jersey and across the country. That is why it is 
so crucial that we revisit flood insurance reform by passing H.R. 3370.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman.
  This legislation will prevent premium rate hikes until FEMA completes 
the affordability study called for in the original Biggert-Waters flood 
insurance reform legislation, giving FEMA a chance to implement an 
affordability framework before implementing new rates. The bill 
establishes

[[Page H1560]]

an appeal process for remapping and creates an advocate position within 
FEMA.
  Just last week, a bipartisan majority in the Senate did approve this 
bill, as you already heard. It is time to bring this vital legislation 
to the floor.
  Again, I appeal to the chairman. This is urgent, not simply because 
we had two major storms in the last few years, but because Americans 
all over this country are affected one way or another, if not by a 
storm off the ocean, a snowstorm or even worse. So I ask you 
specifically to do what you can to put this in front of us as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey, my dear friend, who joins 
with others of his colleagues who, in fact, most politely and 
appropriately have brought this issue to the Rules Committee.
  I will tell you that there was an assertion made a minute ago that I 
was unaware of, and that was a jurisdictional issue that evidently the 
Rules Committee does have. I have tried to be forthright with this the 
whole time, and I believe it is the right thing for the men and women 
of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party who have approached 
me. I have consistently tried to invoke myself into the process with an 
answer, through the committee, which I thought was solely the committee 
of jurisdiction.
  I will look at the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman 
from New Jersey, both very dear friends, who see me every day. I am not 
trying to evade. I am not trying to obfuscate. I am not trying to pass 
the buck on this. I have indicated I will be willing to be a part of 
this compromise. I will look back at the gentleman, my friend, Mr. 
Pascrell, and tell him I am personally involved in this. I will 
continue to be involved.

  I am delighted that the Senate came up with their answer, which was a 
short-term answer, not a fix. I believe that there is a fix that is 
trying to be looked at right now--one which I think is more amenable to 
the circumstance. If that effort fails, I will continue to stay in 
touch with not only the ranking member of the committee, Ms. Slaughter, 
who has pressed me also, but also with my friends who have approached 
me today.
  I will very respectfully acknowledge that what they are doing here 
today in coming to the floor to do this is appreciated. What I would 
say to them is I don't know that voting against the rule, believing 
they are going to take this down, would get this process done. It is 
not included in the rule. But I will tell each of my friends that are 
here today that I am going to continue to work on this, and I intend to 
have an answer quickly.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, last week, the President called on Congress to embark 
on a year of action--one in which we all work together to put 
opportunity and financial security within the grasp of America's 
families.
  Just a few days later, the Senate took bipartisan action to protect 
thousands of homeowners in my home State of Florida and across the 
country from massive premium hikes on their flood insurance. These 
hikes are breaking the backs of America's families. They are bringing 
down home values at a time when our housing market is just starting to 
pick up again.
  There is no question that the financial health of the thousands of 
families who could lose their homes as a result of these premium rate 
increases has to be an urgent priority of this House. Rather than 
gutting environmental protections, let's focus on the concerns of real 
homeowners. Let's pass the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act 
so that FEMA can reform the flood insurance program and protect 
America's families at the same time.
  It is urgent that we move forward. I thank the gentleman for making 
this an urgent priority. The way to do this is to proceed with this 
today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, the Homeowner Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act overwhelmingly passed the Senate with bipartisan 
support. It needs to pass the House of Representatives. We need to 
stabilize flood insurance rates before families are further impacted by 
FEMA's poor implementation, inaccurate mapping, and incomplete data, 
which has led to unimaginable increases in premiums.
  We came together on a bipartisan basis in 2012 to reform the National 
Flood Insurance Program and put it on a path to stability, but Congress 
never intended to allow the punitive flood insurance premiums FEMA is 
now imposing on homeowners.
  A constituent of mine from Milford, Connecticut, anticipates paying a 
rate as much as 5,000 percent higher than he was paying. And yes, I 
have heard from many constituents. The Senate legislation would delay 
these increases until FEMA completes the study ensuring that new rates 
are affordable for families, as was called for in the 2012 law.
  182 Members of this body, Republicans and Democrats, support a 
similar bill. We can get this done. We need to get this done. And we 
can do it today. I call on the Speaker to stop fiddling while Rome 
burns.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Enyart).
  Mr. ENYART. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
bring the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act up for a vote.
  It is crucial that we fix the critical problems created by the rushed 
implementation of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. We cannot 
ensure the National Flood Insurance Program's long-term viability at 
the expense of homeowners and potential buyers.
  Opponents of the Senate-passed flood insurance bill say that it 
overwhelmingly benefits wealthy Americans who buy beachfront property. 
I urge those opponents to come to my southern Illinois district. My 
district borders more than 150 miles on the mighty Mississippi. The 
folks who live there are not owners of second homes or vacation 
rentals, but are middle class families in Jackson, Union, and Alexander 
Counties, and in the American Bottom in the Metro-East St. Louis area.
  Without reform, people in my district and across the U.S. will see 
their property values plummet. Many of these properties have been 
family homes for generations and have never once endured flooding.
  I urge that we pass this act now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), a cosponsor of 
the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Speaker, I will take Mr. Sessions at his word, 
and I believe him to be sincere and genuine in his desire to see this 
problem fixed.
  I would just remind Mr. Sessions and Congress that we don't have time 
to wait on this issue. Every day, there is a sale that is delayed or a 
sale that doesn't go through because the flood insurance is so high and 
the new purchaser doesn't want to pay for it. And every day, there is 
an owner short-selling a house because they have to get out of it, and 
they can't afford to wait.
  So, when we talk about home ownership, we are talking about 
responsible Americans. We are talking about 1.7 million people in this 
country that saved up to participate in the bedrock of the American 
Dream. And now, government and FEMA and Congress are turning a piece of 
the American Dream into a government-made nightmare, and we have the 
ability here today to fix this.
  Right now, we are not asking for politics. We are not trying to be 
overdramatic. We are just asking for a solution. We want to fix it. In 
fact, we are here today talking about a Republican bill that solves the 
problem. That is because, for me, this is not about politics. It is 
about people. It is about purpose. It is not about making sure that 
rich people who own riverfront, lakefront, or oceanfront property are 
taken

[[Page H1561]]

care of. It is about our seniors who want a home on Main Street or 
smack dab in our communities. They saved. They sacrificed. They did 
everything right. They played by all the rules. And now FEMA has come 
and decided they are going to create new flood maps.
  The sad part about it is, if you are a community and you built levees 
and increased flood protection and you did it with your own money, FEMA 
does not even count it, because they didn't pay for it. So communities 
have saved money to help themselves, like we do in America. If we have 
a problem, we fix it. My community, which put up millions of dollars to 
build levees, doesn't even get that recognized because the government 
didn't pay for it.
  Madam Speaker, I would just ask all my colleagues, let's do what is 
right. Let's help people, and let's put people over politics.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman from Louisiana is most accurate when he describes the 
problems which are associated with the way FEMA has initiated this 
process.

                              {time}  1315

  I will not sit here and beat anyone up over what they did or did not 
do. I recognize that I have disagreements myself. I have disagreements 
with myself, as a Member of Congress from Dallas, Texas.
  What I would say to the gentleman--and he is sitting right next to 
the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee--these are 
issues that have to be resolved, and they are larger, I believe.
  What you have heard me say today, I think they are trying to look at 
solving more than just the extension problem. They are trying to solve 
some problems. I could be wrong about that. I am not in the 
negotiation; I am around the negotiation.
  But the gentleman, most assuredly, has come to the floor today for 
the right reason, I believe, with a pretty good message. Everybody is 
impacted that lives in these areas. We don't need to say one group of 
people or another or people that live in high-rises or low-rises.
  What we do need to say is--and acknowledge, and I do--that each of my 
colleagues--I have been approached by colleagues on the Republican side 
and the Democrat side. I intend to stay after this issue, and I respect 
the gentleman for the way he approached it today, and I owe him. I am 
looking at him right in the eye. I owe him an answer on this too. I am 
part of the problem, just as he is, and we have got to find a solution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, we have a crisis, a crisis in 
Florida and across this Nation where our constituents are facing 
skyrocketing jumps in flood insurance premiums, making homeownership 
unaffordable.
  Madam Speaker, floods are not partisan, and homeownership makes 
communities safer, more secure, and more economically vibrant.
  Madam Speaker, let's fix this crisis now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), my colleague.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so this 
House can bring the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act up for 
a vote.
  This bipartisan legislation will provide critical relief for families 
who have been devastated by outrageous flood insurance increases 
required by recent changes to the Flood Insurance Program.
  FEMA's insistence on moving forward with these extreme rate hikes, 
without first completing an affordability study and certifying that 
their mapping techniques are accurate, as required by Congress in the 
Biggert-Waters Act, has created a crisis for working families who can't 
afford to pay 5 or 10 times more for flood insurance.
  Before we ask the American taxpayer to pay 1 cent more in premiums, 
we need to ensure that FEMA is implementing the Flood Insurance Program 
in a fair and lawful way.
  Now, we are not asking to repeal that law. We are just asking for a 
timeout while we figure this out, and we are asking that we do an 
affordability study so that we don't force people out of their homes. 
There is no sense doing it after the people are gone. We need this done 
in the right way.
  We can help middle class homeowners across the country by voting 
``no'' on the previous question and bringing up the Homeowner 
Protection Act.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am here with the ranking member of the 
Financial Services Committee. She and I represent a city built in the 
desert suffering from a drought. We interrupted our rain prayer meeting 
to come here and to talk about how flood insurance is critical to the 
national interest.
  We should not burden our economy with a situation in which people 
can't buy their home, sell a home, live in their home. It is time for 
us to defeat the previous question motion and take up on the floor of 
this House a bill that had overwhelming bipartisan support in the 
Senate, that has 182 cosponsors here in the House.
  It is time to stop partisan wrangling and deal with bipartisan 
legislation critical to homeowners from one coast to the other, and 
yes, a few in Los Angeles as well.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, with great respect to the gentleman, I would, once 
again, offer an explanation, and that is that what they are talking 
about with this motion to recommit is not germane to the bill and would 
not go back to the committee of jurisdiction and so, by voting against 
what would be the rule or for a motion to recommit, would not 
accomplish what the gentleman is trying to do.
  That is why I have tried to take, Madam Speaker, as I have tried 
meticulously, with speaker after speaker, my friends, my colleagues 
that have a strong opinion about this, I have tried to say to them that 
I do recognize that, while I don't believe I have the jurisdictional 
elements within the Rules Committee, that I will continue to work on 
this, and believe that there can be an answer.
  So I would respond back to the gentleman from Los Angeles and tell 
him, thank you for coming to the floor, but an answer for this really 
needs to come from the committee, that we need to then work through the 
Rules Committee and get it on the floor. I am committed to that entire 
process and will continue to do that.
  I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles, my friend, for him taking 
time to come down, but I don't want him to believe that, by winning a 
vote on the motion to recommit, that it will have any impact on that 
endeavor.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I 
will ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. I have no further requests for 
speakers either.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee 
expressing his willingness to ponder and reflect and consider and 
contemplate and speculate on this legislation. But, look, time is of 
the essence here.

[[Page H1562]]

  If the House votes to defeat the previous question, you know, we can 
bring this up. There is no reason why we can't bring this up. The Rules 
Committee has jurisdiction over this issue too, and if there are any 
glitches here, quite frankly, the Rules Committee can meet immediately 
and waive all the rules, because that is what my friends do on so many 
other bills.
  One of the frustrations that we have on our side of the aisle is that 
my friends in the majority keep on bringing bills to the floor that 
mean nothing, that are going nowhere.
  This issue of flood insurance is a big deal. You have heard from 
Members from all across the country. They want action now, not sometime 
in the future. They want it now. By voting to defeat the previous 
question, we can bring this up, we can deal with this, we can actually 
help some people in this country for a change and do the right thing.
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if they 
don't defeat the previous question, defeat the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I will, once again, do the very best that I can and, 
with great respect and appreciation to my very dear friend from 
Massachusetts--who has been a part of, since I recall at least early 
December, the discussion in the Rules Committee with the gentleman, his 
colleague, my colleague, from Florida (Mr. Hastings)--Judge Hastings 
pushed this issue appropriately. The members of the committee from 
Florida have graciously pushed that issue forward.
  The bottom line is that I believe the gentleman and I need to meet to 
speak about the jurisdiction that he refers to. The jurisdiction that I 
believe that the Rules Committee has is not related to the policy. The 
policy, which is what the provisions that are contained within the 
problems that we are talking about today, the policy issues are within 
the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee.
  Today, we are on the floor of the House of Representatives with a 
rule with the jurisdiction to the Natural Resources Committee. The 
motion to recommit is not germane to the Natural Resources Committee.
  So voting, or believing that you could, through a motion to recommit, 
winning that, and getting this bill on the floor through the previous 
question is simply not something that I believe is realistic, or 
something that we should even suggest to people that would happen.
  What we are talking about today is a bill with the jurisdiction 
through the Natural Resources Committee, and I would like to confine my 
remarks now on the bill that is before the House.
  Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of growing up as a lifelong 
Texan but had the opportunity to visit and live in other States in our 
great United States.
  I have had an opportunity to visit national parks, national lands, 
land that is owned by all the American people. As an active Eagle 
Scout, and the father of two Eagle Scouts--and my father is an Eagle 
Scout--we have been in national parks all over this country.
  That is what this legislation is about today. It is about national 
parks and the use therein. Some number of bills that have been cobbled 
together, yes, they were cobbled together so that we could come up with 
a policy, a policy that is trying to be worked on through a group of 
men and women here in the United States House of Representatives on a 
bipartisan basis, as well as a bicameral basis.
  We had an understanding that we would try and do this about this week 
early last year. So I want you to know that what we are doing is 
bringing forth a bill which is important to people in how they deal 
with their families' recreation, as well as the importance of vital 
economic help to various areas of the United States.
  I have witnessed the educational and recreational opportunities that 
we are talking about today, and they possess near limitless 
opportunities for not only my generation but the next generation of 
Americans who want to enjoy America.
  I think that we, today, by this bill, have given us a refreshed new 
opportunity, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, to address that issue. 
That is why I support increasing access to public lands for hunting, 
fishing, and recreational shooting, so others may have this same 
opportunity.
  So I am a ``yes'' and would encourage my colleagues to be ``yes'' on 
what the legislation is about today, not something that is not germane 
and another issue, which I have tried to appropriately address here 
today. It is urgent, but that is not what we are doing right here right 
now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the 
underlying legislation, and to be a part of moving this bill to the 
Senate, then on to the President's desk.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 470 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3370) to delay the implementation of certain provisions of 
     the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3370.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee

[[Page H1563]]

     on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of this resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 193, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bishop (GA)
     Cassidy
     Gosar
     Johnson (GA)
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman

                              {time}  1354

  Mr. POLIS and Mses. HANABUSA and BASS changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 185, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               AYES--234

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions

[[Page H1564]]


     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--185

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Amodei
     Andrews
     Brownley (CA)
     Cassidy
     Gosar
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman

                              {time}  1404

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, last night, on rollcall Nos. 32 and 33 for 
H.R. 1791 and H.R. 357, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.
  Today, on rollcall Nos. 34 and 35 for the Rule on H.R. 3590 and H. 
Res. 470, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay'' on both.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3590.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 470 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. 3590.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1406


                     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. 3590) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational 
hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes, with Mr. Nugent 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational Enhancement 
Act, H.R. 3590, is a package of eight bills that protect the right of 
American sportsmen to fish and hunt from arbitrary and unjustified 
bureaucratic restrictions and limitations. It will remove government 
roadblocks to those activities on certain public lands and guard 
against new regulations that threaten hunting and fishing.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill. It is cosponsored by the 
Republican and Democrat chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, 
Mr. Latta of Ohio and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, and the caucus vice 
chairs, Mr. Wittman of Virginia and Mr. Walz of Minnesota. In addition, 
Mr. Benishek of Michigan, Mr. Hunter of California, Mr. Miller of 
Florida, Mr. Young of Alaska all deserve credit for leadership on these 
important issues.
  This legislation ensures that Americans' ability to fish and hunt 
will not be arbitrarily limited by the whim of Federal bureaucrats.
  Title I of this bill directly responds to bureaucratic threats posed 
by the EPA. In 1976, Congress barred the Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA, from regulating firearms and ammunition. However, this has 
not stopped attempts to circumvent the law by claiming that, while EPA 
may not be able to regulate ammunition, it can regulate components of 
ammunition and fishing tackle. This would be a massive power grab by 
the EPA despite a clear lack of legal authority.
  Banning lead bullets and tackle would increase costs for hunters, 
sports shooters, and fishermen, and cause economic harm to outdoor 
sportsmen and the recreation industry. This legislation ensures that 
the EPA does not--does not, Mr. Chairman--have the authority to 
regulate ammunition and fishing tackle.
  Title II of this bill makes more funding available to States for a 
longer period of time to create and maintain shooting ranges, which 
preserves American tradition.
  Title III would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to 
allow, with a permit, commercial filming on Federal lands for crews of 
five or fewer. This permit would ensure a fair return to the taxpayer 
in exchange for use of their lands.
  Title IV of this bill would allow for the importation of legally 
taken polar bear 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 permits snarled in red tape and 
does not open the door to any future imports.
  The next two titles of the bill would allow sportsmen across the 
country to more easily obtain a Federal duck stamp by making them 
available for purchase online and would protect law-abiding 
individuals' constitutional right to bear arms on lands owned by the 
Army Corps of Engineers.
  Title VII establishes a Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation 
Council Advisory Committee in order to protect the rights of sportsmen 
while finding a balance with commonsense conservation.
  The last title of the bill requires Federal land managers to support 
and facilitate use and access for hunting, fishing, and recreational 
shooting on Forest Service and BLM land. It protects sportsmen from 
arbitrary efforts by the Federal Government to block public lands from 
hunting and fishing activities by implementing an ``open until closed'' 
management policy. However, it does not prioritize hunting and fishing 
over other multiple uses of public lands.
  Hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are longstanding American 
traditions that deserve our protection. This important legislation is 
not a solution in search of a problem. Regrettably, bureaucratic 
threats to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are very real. 
That is why this bill has

[[Page H1565]]

broad bipartisan support and the endorsement of over 36 sportsmen's 
organizations. So I again commend the bipartisan sponsors of this 
package of bills, and I encourage my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In the past, I have voted for a number of the sportsmen promotion and 
protection packages. Unfortunately, it seems this one, with a number of 
extraneous and detrimental provisions to wilderness, wildlife refuges, 
and other areas, seems designed to turn what in the past has been a 
bipartisan consensus in favor of sportsmen's issues into a partisan 
issue, which is what we do with most everything around here these days, 
and that is unfortunate because we would be happy to address real 
problems as they are identified.

                              {time}  1415

  In this bill, we are going to essentially amend or override the 
Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Refuge 
System Administration Act. These are all bedrock environmental 
provisions which protect public lands and wildlife and have not caused 
conflicts for sportsmen, hunters, fishers, and others.
  Also, we have the throwaway little political thing. The EPA has 
already said: We don't have the authority to regulate land, and that is 
the end of it. But we are going to pass a law to say they don't have 
the authority that they don't have to regulate the land. Okay. 
Whatever. That is fine.
  So then we also have a very broad agreement that hunting, fishing, 
and other wildlife-dependent activities can and should and have and 
will, ongoing, take place in wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. In 
fact, there is so much agreement on this point that existing law 
clearly supports such activities. As a result, hunting and fishing are 
popular and commonplace, pursued on public lands, the vast majority of 
which, outside of national parks in the lower 48, are open to hunting 
and fishing.
  Now, reasonable legislation seeking simply to emphasize the 
importance of these activities would have been noncontroversial, 
whatever minor adjustments we might need to make. But to have a blanket 
exemption for operations in the National Wildlife Refuge System from 
all environmental planning under NEPA, the purpose of such a broad 
waiver is unclear, the motivation is unclear. It is definitely and 
potentially, or at least probably, very--I can't say ``definitely.'' 
But it could well undermine management in refuges in ways that will 
actually degrade habitat, which will mean less hunting and fishing 
opportunities, and degrade water, which means less hunting and fishing 
opportunities. That seems contradictory to the meritorious title of the 
bill, which doesn't seem to be reflected in the various parts, some of 
which have been through hearings, some of which haven't.
  Now, the filming on public lands, I haven't heard of the controversy. 
There are some who purport that there might be some kind of problem for 
people who want to do hunting and fishing videos, films--I have seen 
quite a few of them--on public lands. There is no example of a problem 
that has occurred, but the new authority with a fixed rate of a maximum 
of $200 for a permit, no matter how much the impact might be of the 
film crew, and further, to open the door for the use of motorized 
equipment in wilderness areas for these filming activities is very, 
very problematic, objectionable, and unnecessary at this point. Again, 
there has been nothing brought up in a hearing about a credible 
complaint from a film company that couldn't do its wildlife film or its 
hunting film because of restrictions that were placed upon them.
  It also would allow the construction of temporary roads. Now, I 
appreciate the fact the manager's amendment is going to prohibit 
permanent roads within wilderness areas that are designated necessary 
for access to hunting and fishing, but even temporary roads in 
wilderness areas for hunting and fishing are a clear and unnecessary 
degradation, a violation, of the existing Wilderness Act. And many 
horseback hunters or hunters who access on foot in my State, I have 
never been petitioned by them to open up roads into wilderness areas so 
they can better hunt. They are concerned about the ongoing review and 
closure of roads by the Forest Service, and I have been actively 
involved in that.
  But in this case, we are saying no. Now we can have temporary roads 
into wilderness areas, something that no one has ever asked me nor made 
a case that is necessary for hunting. So it is slightly improved from 
the early versions, but we are still concerned about temporary roads 
and that is not something we want in our wilderness areas. I don't 
think that weakening or changing the definition of ``wilderness'' helps 
expand access for hunting and fishing nor the opportunities in those 
areas.
  Also, the bill has some pretty glaring omissions that actually would 
tremendously benefit the sportsmen's communities. That would be 
programs that support wetlands conservation, the preservation of 
outdoor recreation facilities, North American Wetlands Conservation 
Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which are key in 
expanding opportunities or protecting continued opportunities to hunt 
and fish as we see more and more urban encroachment onto traditional 
hunting and fishing areas. We could use those tools. We need those 
tools--they are both expired--and they are not allowed to be part of 
this package.
  There were various other amendments offered that we will get to later 
in the discussion that were not allowed that could have improved this 
package. We will go through the amendment process and try to deal with 
some of the concerns, but at this point, as written and introduced, I 
would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), my colleague.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I am interested in title IV in this 
legislation, which is a good piece of legislation. The provision in 
title IV of H.R. 3590 has the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the President of the United States. This provision is the 
Polar Bear Conservation and Fairness Act. It is a bipartisan measure 
that would make a very limited fix to an issue that affects a number of 
hunters nationwide.
  Prior to the threatened listing of the worldwide polar bear 
population on May 15, 2008, there were a number of hunters that took 
hunting trips to Canada under Canadian law and United States law. These 
hunters followed all the rules at the time and were prevented from 
bringing in their polar bear trophy due to the threatened listing 
triggering an importation ban under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  My legislation, H.R. 3590, will allow the Secretary of the Interior 
to issue permits to only those qualified hunters with legally taken 
polar bear trophies prior to the May listing date. This legislation 
will allow up to 41 hunters to import their trophies from Canada.
  As a result, roughly $41,000 would be available to the United States-
Russia Polar Bear Conservation Fund to support conservation activities 
for the shared polar bear population. This is a provision that would 
bring in revenue for conservation activities that otherwise would not 
be funded.
  As a result, I urge Members to support this legislation and keep in 
fact these are dead polar bears in storage hunted legally under the 
premise of Canadian law and United States law. This is a good part of 
this bill.
  By the way, speaking of this bill, it is a good bill. From the State 
of Alaska are more parks and more refuges than any other State. The 
Refuge Department doesn't allow us to hunt on refuges in many areas. 
The Park Service definitely doesn't allow us to hunt. I am arguing that 
the park and refuge areas are set aside for the refuge managers 
themselves and not for the people of America, let alone the people of 
Alaska.
  This legislation is the right way to go. Let's think about public 
lands, not the king's lands, not the administration's lands, but the 
lands of the people. This bill is a good bill. I urge the passage of 
this legislation.

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Daines) assumed the chair.

[[Page H1566]]



                          ____________________