[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 178 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8525-S8526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about 
a measure that has moved through the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. This legislation is a pretty significant bipartisan 
accomplishment and I would like to share our progress with my 
colleagues.
  On November 19, our committee reported S. 556. We refer to it as the 
Sportsmen's Act. This is a measure I have been working on, and we were 
able to report it out by voice vote. This is a bill that would benefit 
millions of sportsmen and sportswomen all across our country. It 
includes some key items within our jurisdiction that are part of a 
broader Sportsmen's package. That portion is being worked on by another 
committee. I have been working on our iteration of this bill with 
Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, and I truly appreciate his leadership, 
his support, and his guidance on this measure.
  As many Members in this Chamber are aware, the broader Sportsmen's 
bill has had a long history of bipartisan support in the Senate, but 
year after year it has failed to advance for a host of different 
reasons. It has been the victim of political brinkmanship in what for 
years was a Chamber that wasn't working, but I think this year is 
different. I outlined some of the successes yesterday when I came to 
speak on the floor and I think we are getting back to regular order. 
The committees are working hard--certainly the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee is working hard--and we are working to advance 
legislation to go to the floor, whether it is this Sportsmen's bill or 
whether it is our Energy Policy Modernization Act that we reported out 
of the committee on an 18-to-4 margin back in July.
  Our Sportsmen's Act is the latest example of a bipartisan bill that 
encompasses both good policy and good process. I think both of those 
are key. Staff from both sides of our committee--and the Sportsmen's 
Caucus, which is led by Senator Risch and Senator Manchin, worked 
diligently with outside stakeholders to improve and refine the bill. So 
I want to briefly summarize some of the contents found within the 
Sportsmen's Act.
  First, we included a congressional declaration of national policy to 
require all Federal agencies and departments to facilitate the 
expansion and the enhancement of hunting, fishing, and recreational 
shooting on Federal lands. This is our clear goal. It is a pretty clear 
and explicit direction for the executive branch.
  The next component within the bill--and this is the heart of the 
bill--is a provision we are referring to as ``open unless closed.'' 
Through these, we are setting a new national standard, and that 
standard is that our Federal lands will be open unless they are closed. 
They are going to be open unless they are closed, not closed due to 
bureaucratic inertia. What we are trying to do is pretty simple. We are 
trying to allow all Americans to be able to access and enjoy their 
public lands. Under our bill, if Federal lands are going to be closed 
even temporarily, agencies will have to notify the public and provide 
opportunities for meaningful public comment. The agencies, whether they 
are the BLM or the Forest Service, will need to justify any proposed 
closures and address issues that have been raised by the public.
  Our bill will also prevent temporary closures from becoming permanent 
by limiting any of these designations to just 180 days. Currently the 
BLM can close lands for 2 years and does not guarantee the opportunity 
for any public comment. BLM has acknowledged to us that they regularly 
implement what they call temporary closures while they prepare the 
paperwork to make them permanent. My Sportsmen's Act will allow BLM and 
the Forest Service to renew temporary closures, but they can only do it 
up to three times. Each and every time they do so, we are going to 
require them to engage in a public comment and notification process. 
What this ``open unless closed'' policy does is it reverses the 
practice of public lands being closed until opened or closed 
altogether. As a result of it, our sportsmen and sportswomen will have 
increased access to our public lands, they will have a real voice in 
decisions regarding any temporary closure, and they will also receive 
justifications for any temporary closures that are deemed necessary. So 
we are providing a more fulsome public process but also a more genuine 
opportunity for access to our public lands.
  My Sportsmen's bill also addresses concerns raised about the 
unnecessary difficulty of securing permission for commercial filming on 
our public lands. Among other steps in the bill, we require the 
publication of a single joint land use fee schedule within 180 days, 
but we also say there are small crews that shouldn't have to go through 
this big rigmarole and pay this big fee. So small film crews of three 
or fewer people will be exempt from having to pay a fee.
  I have heard a lot of stories about the horrors some of our 
outfitters or guides have experienced while they were trying to film 
some kind of promo-type material on a trip. Agencies are making them 
jump through hoops by telling them that they need a separate permit and 
have to pay additional fees. It gets to the point where you can't take 
a video or a picture on our public lands. That is just wrong. These 
folks already have a permit to be out there, and filming may be 
incidental to that.

  In this bill we ensure that small crews and businesses can film on 
public lands without having to pay to do it. That seems pretty 
reasonable and fair to me. We also protect First Amendment rights by 
preventing content from becoming a factor in issuing permits, and we 
protect free speech by clarifying that journalism is not commercial 
activity.

[[Page S8526]]

  Some might say: What is this issue all about? Think about it. If you 
have an agency that doesn't want to have filming or pictures in a 
certain part of a wilderness area or certain part of public land 
because a different story might be told that doesn't fit with the 
agency's view, that is not right. This bill will ensure that we are not 
going to regulate content in terms of whether or not a permit is 
issued.
  I will give a specific example of why this is needed. Back in 2014, a 
producer for Oregon Public Broadcasting wanted to film a piece in the 
Willamette National Forest to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 
Wilderness Act. To ensure that the piece had the ``primary purpose of 
dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of 
wilderness,'' officials from the Forest Service asked to review the 
script. They wanted to look at the script before issuing a permit. That 
was not right. I believe giving Federal officials veto power over 
content can have a very chilling effect on journalism.
  The final title of the Sportsmen's Act--this is a new title we came 
up with in committee--provides for reforms in the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--LWCF. The reforms in the bill do not go as far as I 
would like to see them go, but they do reflect what our committee could 
agree on.
  We also agreed to reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund and to 
create a fund to address the maintenance backlog at the National Park 
Service. This is the same language we included in the broad, bipartisan 
Energy bill back in July--the same language now incorporated as part of 
the sportsmen's bill.
  As I said before, my own proposal to reauthorize LWCF would look 
different from what our committee reported. When LWCF was created 
decades ago, monies were to be allocated each year so that Federal 
agencies would receive no less than 40 percent. States were to receive 
60 percent. But what has happened in the ensuing years is that now 
nearly 85 percent of LWCF dollars have gone to Federal land 
acquisition, and we are not seeing the original congressional intent 
being met. Again, keep in mind that when LWCF was first created, it was 
going to be so that Federal agencies would get about 40 percent and 
States would get about 60 percent. We have now turned that on its head.
  What our LWCF title does is recognize that States are leaders on 
recreation and conservation. Our reforms are trying to restore balance 
to the State-Federal split by ensuring that at least 40 percent of LWCF 
dollars are allocated to States for the State-based programs, including 
the traditional stateside program. This is an improvement, in my mind, 
but doesn't go far enough to restore the original congressional intent.
  The title also recognizes the importance of accessing existing 
Federal lands and sets aside the greater of 1.5 percent or $10 million 
per year to improve access for sportsmen. This is an important 
provision for our sports men and women.
  Like many western Members, I remain concerned about Federal 
acquisition. In Alaska, close to 63 percent of our lands are already 
controlled by the Federal Government. To begin to address the issue, 
the LWCF title also emphasizes conservation easements. This will keep 
lands in private ownership as working lands and will require agencies 
to take into account certain considerations when acquiring lands, 
including whether the acquisition would result in management 
efficiencies and cost savings.
  To prioritize the backlog of deferred maintenance needs, this title 
establishes a National Park Service Maintenance and Revitalization 
Conservation Fund. This fund will help shift our focus to a more 
appropriate place, which is taking care of the lands we already have 
rather than an endless acquisition of new acreage.
  Our country is fortunate to have an abundance of lands that are 
designated for recreation, conservation, and preservation. It is time 
we reached a consensus on how to care for and how to manage them. I 
believe we can do that best by allocating more than 40 percent of the 
LWCF to State-based programs.
  People on the ground, who see what is happening day in and day out, 
provide the greatest insight into management, and we should recognize 
that. We should pair increased funding for State-based programs with 
increased authority for States to manage public lands. And we should 
consider giving Governors a say on Federal land acquisitions. After 
all, these are their States we are talking about--and opportunities for 
all sorts of activities on their land--are often affected by these 
decisions.
  The LWCF reforms in the sportsmen's bill are a step in the right 
direction. I believe they provide a greater framework for further 
discussion. If we work hard and work together, we can agree on 
additional reforms to make LWCF even more effective in the years to 
come.
  Those of us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have now 
completed our work on the Sportsmen's Act, and that brings us to the 
next step, which will be taken by our friends on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. They are now considering a separate bill, S. 
659, with provisions that are jurisdictional to them. I think it is 
fair to say that EPW's portion of the sportsmen's bill is also quite 
vital.
  As I wrap up, there is one provision I would like to call attention 
to briefly, and that is the reauthorization of the North American 
Wetlands Conservation Act. The NAWCA program helps conserve waterfowl, 
fish, and wildlife through partnerships involving governments, 
nonprofits, and community groups. In Alaska, we are not in any danger 
of running out of wetlands and this program has funded a lot of good 
wetlands projects in my State. For example, on the Kenai Peninsula, 
partners in the private sector provided $1.6 million to match and 
exceed an $800,000 grant provided through NAWCA. Those funds were then 
used to implement habitat protection for over 300 acres of land along 
the Kenai River.
  I think it is important that we reauthorize this program and provide 
funding to it so we can see important work like this continue, 
particularly in States that have fewer wetlands and thus have greater 
need for conservation.
  NAWCA is just one of the provisions the EPW Committee can and 
hopefully will report in the future. Once their work is complete, all 
who support America's sportsmen and sportswomen and all of us here in 
the Senate who are sports men and women ourselves, should look forward 
to considering the full Sportsmen's Act here on the floor next year.
  I am pleased that we are on a better track for this legislation in 
the 114th Congress. I again thank the many Members who have worked with 
us to get S. 556 to where it is today. As a result of this good work, 
millions of hunters, fishermen, recreational shooters, and other 
outdoor enthusiasts will soon have greater access and greater 
opportunities on our public lands and Federal lands, and I think that 
is something we should all be proud to support.
  Mr. President, I see that my colleague from New Jersey is here. I 
think my time has expired. I do have a further statement about a truly 
mighty Alaskan leader who has been known throughout the education 
community in the State of Alaska who passed just yesterday at the age 
of 100. The death of Sidney Huntington in Galena, AK, is news that has 
brought great sadness to us all.
  In deference to my colleague from New Jersey and in recognizing his 
time, I would like to come back to the floor later this afternoon and 
provide tribute to a great man who provided so much in terms of 
leadership and direction to so many, whether they be Alaskan Native 
children in the small, remote, rural communities or in our urban 
centers. It is fair to say that as of yesterday, we have lost a great 
Alaskan, and our hearts go out to him and his family. I look forward to 
coming back to the floor later to provide greater tribute to the great 
Sidney Huntington.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________