[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H903-H907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2406, SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE AND
RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2015
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 619
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. 2406) 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. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 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. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), 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.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. 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 Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 619, providing for consideration of
H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act, also commonly known as the sportsmen's bill.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2406 under a structured
rule, with 17 amendments made in order that are roughly evenly split
between Democratic and Republican members of this legislative body.
Mr. Speaker, the SHARE Act is an important bipartisan package of
proposals that will promote greater opportunities for hunting, fishing,
and outdoor recreation, as well as safeguard the rights of hunters,
anglers, and recreational shooters.
While similar bills have passed the House in the past two Congresses,
the Senate has failed to adopt them, making this legislation long
overdue. This is especially true when considering the current
administration's ongoing assault on the Second Amendment, as well as
their restrictions on access to Federal land. This includes restricting
hunting and shooting on Federal lands,
[[Page H904]]
where many people go to participate in these time-honored American
activities.
The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation recently stated that roughly
37 million American sportsmen and -women spend over $90 billion
annually on outdoor sport activities, highlighting the important
economic impact this legislation will have on small businesses across
the country that comprise our recreational industries.
Mr. Speaker, these outdoor activities are deeply ingrained in
America's heritage and culture, with the values they instill passed
down from generation to generation. In fact, according to a 2013
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation report, hunting, fishing, and
shooting are growing in popularity throughout the country, with almost
40 million people over the age of 16 hunting or fishing in the United
States. However, over the past 7 years, we have seen the Federal
Government continually find ways to block law-abiding Americans from
exercising this most fundamental right. People all across my State of
central Washington are avid hunters, anglers, and outdoorsmen. Many
Americans, especially in the West, look to our vast Federal lands to
hunt, fish, and shoot.
Unfortunately, over the past few years, we have seen Federal agencies
such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
prevent or impede access to Federal lands which should otherwise be
available for these purposes. Lack of access to acceptable areas to
participate in these activities is often one of the main reasons why
sportsmen and -women stop participating in these traditional American
pastimes. Ensuring the public has reliable access to our Nation's
Federal lands must remain a priority of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, we should be fostering and growing participation in
outdoor sporting activities--rather than trying to create regulatory
barriers that drive Americans away from them--which instill important
lifelong values and principles.
{time} 1230
These include responsibility, firearm safety and conservation, as
well as patience, discipline, respect for wildlife, and most of all,
appreciation of our country's rich natural heritage and beautiful
national parks, forests, and vast wilderness areas.
H.R. 2406 is critical to protecting our way of life and ensuring all
Americans have the ability to enjoy outdoor recreation and develop a
profound appreciation for our country's marvelous natural landscapes.
This legislation is comprised of a number of provisions that will
help provide future generations of Americans with access to our
country's Federal lands for outdoor recreation, sport shooting,
hunting, and fishing.
The measure will also reaffirm the Second Amendment rights of
Americans to lawfully carry firearms on Federal lands.
Additionally, it will help prevent Federal overreach, eliminate
regulatory impediments, and protect against the promulgation of new,
onerous regulations that impede access or restrict lawful activities on
Federal lands.
Sportsmen are natural stewards of public lands and greatly contribute
to habitat and wildlife conservation, so I find it difficult to
understand the rationale behind many of these Federal decisions.
Mr. Speaker, the SHARE Act also includes legislation that I
introduced, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, or FLTFA,
which authorizes the BLM to sell surplus lands to States, localities,
or private entities that can be put then to economically beneficial
use.
Since its initial enactment, FLTFA reduced Federal land ownership by
more than 9,000 acres over the course of a decade, while also enhancing
access for hunting, fishing, and shooting on these Federal lands.
This critical program brings a commonsense approach to land
transactions and helps streamline land ownership patterns, all without
spending taxpayer funds or adding to the surplus of federally owned
property.
Additionally, the bill includes the Recreational Land Self-Defense
Act, legislation that protects the ability of gun owners to exercise
their Second Amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting,
and/or fishing on property owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Like many in Central Washington, I grew up responsibly exercising the
right to bear arms, and I am a longstanding advocate for the protection
of those rights, which is why I am proud to cosponsor this bill.
In my district, access to Federal lands is of paramount importance,
and the SHARE Act will ensure that sportsmen, outdoorsmen, and all
Americans wishing to enjoy our treasured Federal parks and forests have
the ability to do so.
For this reason, I have also introduced an amendment to the SHARE Act
that would require the U.S. Forest Service to publish a notice in the
Federal Register, along with a justification for the closure of any
public road in our forests.
In Central Washington and across our country, the Forest Service has
closed public roads with no prior notification, preventing access to
public areas in our region's national forests. Often, these blocked
roadways have been in use for decades, and many local residents rely on
them for both everyday activities as well as for recreational purposes.
The first indication of a closure should not come when an individual
is faced with an impassable roadway, but, rather, through an adequate
public notice from the Forest Service, which my amendment would
provide.
Our country has a deep and longstanding tradition of using Federal
land for outdoor and recreational activities, and protecting the
ability of Americans to use our abundant Federal lands for these
purposes must remain one of our top priorities in Congress, which is
why I am committed to working with my colleagues in the House and in
the Senate to advance this much-needed legislation.
Mr. Speaker, for generations Americans have passed down these values
to their children and to their grandchildren, which have deeply
ingrained hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting in America's
heritage and our cultural fabric.
As I said, growing up in Central Washington, I experienced the
importance of these values firsthand, and they continue to play an
important role in my life to this very day.
The rule we consider here today provides for consideration of
legislation that will protect these values, increase opportunities for
hunters, anglers, and shooters, and ensure that future generations of
Americans have equal opportunity to access and enjoy our Nation's vast
public lands.
This is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the consideration
of a critically important measure. I support the rule's adoption, and I
urge my colleagues to support the rule as well as the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the Rules Committee, for
yielding the customary 30 minutes to me.
Mr. Speaker, for months, the Chamber's majority has been bringing
recycled bills to the floor to stall and waste time, knowing full well
these bills will not be signed into law.
The majority has introduced no budget. Our infrastructure is
crumbling. Americans are in need of new bridges, new roads, new water
systems, schools, housing, and much more.
It has been said that it costs an estimated $24 million to run the
House of Representatives for a week, money basically wasted when we do
bills like these.
As a matter of fact, I think if we were to add up all that money, we
might even be able to do high-speed rail in the United States.
Wouldn't that be a new venture?
The majority has sidestepped addressing the high cost of a college
education and the student loan debt crisis. They have put their heads
in the sand concerning the threat of the Zika virus.
We have done nothing about the century-old water pipes crisscrossing
the country, even in light of the tragedy in Flint. No wonder Americans
are so disgusted and angry. Instead of focusing on what people are
crying out for, we now bring up this whole package of bills that has no
chance of advancing.
[[Page H905]]
Today we have the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement
Act. It advances an anti-conservation agenda at odds with the decades
of longstanding tradition benefiting our uniquely American landscapes,
wildlife, and sporting community.
The SHARE Act cobbles together seven separate legislative proposals,
along with six other titles. Now, that is some seamstress work. It is a
grab bag that includes provisions that would undermine the Wilderness
Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other essential
conservation laws.
What's more, the SHARE Act would drive the extinction of domestic and
international wildlife by adding language that would block the
administration's efforts under the Endangered Species Act to stop ivory
trafficking--it basically says that you can, if you go on a safari,
bring back elephant tusks because they are not in any danger, despite
what we all hear to the contrary--and to prevent the slaughter of
American elephants, which is necessary to get those tusks.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wouldn't be able to stop the
illegal ivory trade, and the importation of polar bears would be made
possible again.
But I think one of the worst things is it brings back the traps that
captured so many of people's pets, small animals who died a very cruel
and long death. Why in the world would we do that? What is sporting
about catching an animal, sometimes a person, or a pet, in something
from which they cannot extricate themselves, and to suffer and to die?
Let's be clear. This bill undermines bedrock conservation laws. It
won't benefit the average hunter or angler. People going on safaris
might get something more out of it, like elephant tusks, but it will
destroy years of work done by animal protection advocates and
conservationists. The delicate balance at work in our ecosystem's food
chain is not to be trifled with, and we disrupt it at our own peril.
Aside from rolling back decades of work conserving our majestic
natural resources, the bill is a distraction from what we should be
doing.
May I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of a piece
of wisdom from Teddy Roosevelt, America's favorite outdoorsman and
actually the person who is responsible for the wonderful national parks
that we have.
He said, and I quote: ``We are prone to speak of the resources of
this country as inexhaustible; this is not so.''
If he had this worry that we have today here, 100 years ago, I can
only imagine what he would think of this state of affairs.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond that certainly there are many issues facing
Congress today, many important things that we have to consider in many
issue areas, but that should not preclude us from addressing a very
important issue, and that is access to our national, our Federal lands
by sportsmen, by hunters, by fishers.
Protecting the ability of Americans to enjoy our natural abundance of
Federal lands, I think, is something that our President Roosevelt, who
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York quoted, would be very much
in favor of. Certainly he was a proponent of enjoying those same
Federal lands.
Any efforts that we can put forth to make sure that we can continue
those strong traditions of Americans being exposed to the great
outdoors in this country is something that we should do all we can to
preserve.
I might note, too, that this is a bipartisan-led effort in the House
of Representatives. Passed in the last two Congresses, many of the
provisions of this bill have enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support,
and this year we do have a clear path forward, as the committees in the
other body across the rotunda are already marking up very similar
legislation in their work on this important issue.
So I feel very positive about the direction we are taking, about the
bipartisan nature of the effort that we have here before us today, and
I think it is an important thing that we need to address, as well as
many of the other things that the gentlewoman from New York discussed.
But certainly this is something that we can and should move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up a resolution that will require the
majority to stop the partisan games and hold hearings on the
President's budget proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
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
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, just out of courtesy to the gentlewoman
from New York, I do have one Member who would like to speak on this
bill, if that is okay with you.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Of course.
{time} 1245
Mr. NEWHOUSE. So, with that, I would be very happy to yield such time
as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the
Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015, or the
SHARE Act.
The SHARE Act has 13 important provisions that will work to expand
opportunities for sportsmen and -women to enjoy their favorite outdoor
activities around the country.
Title II of this bill, which I authored, is the Recreational Fishing
and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. I grew up in northern
Michigan and, like many of my constituents, spent my summers fishing
and the fall hunting grouse in the UP woods.
These traditions--spending quality time outdoors with our kids and
grandkids--are the kinds of things we must make sure are preserved for
generations to come.
This portion of the SHARE Act seeks to create an open until closed
policy for sportsmen's use of Federal lands.
As you know, nearly one-quarter of the United States landmass, or
over 500 million acres, are Federal lands that are owned by all
Americans. It is important that the right to fully utilize these lands
is ensured for future generations.
Over the years, legislative ambiguity has allowed antihunting groups
to pursue an antihunting agenda that has eliminated opportunities for
many of these activities on our Federal lands. Groups like these are
taking advantage of loopholes in the law to deprive our constituents of
the right to fully use Federal lands.
Recreational anglers, hunters, and sporting organizations, many of
whom have endorsed this bill, are passionate supporters of the
conservation movement. These dedicated sportsmen and -women deserve to
know that the land they cherish will not be closed off to hunting,
fishing, and shooting for future generations.
This is a bipartisan issue. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush issued
executive orders recognizing the value of these heritage activities. It
is time we finally close the loopholes, firm up the language, and make
sure that future generations will always be able to enjoy the outdoors,
hunting, fishing, shooting, or just taking a walk in the woods.
I encourage all my colleagues today to join me in supporting this
piece of commonsense legislation.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) for an opportunity to respond, since she already
yielded back her time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is very kind of the gentleman, but I continue to
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I do have one more speaker who would like
to say a few words on this issue.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the
sponsor of the bill.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support today's rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with Sportsmen's Caucus Co-chair Tim
Walz
[[Page H906]]
and Caucus Vice Chairs Jeff Duncan and Gene Green in introducing H.R.
2406, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, better
known as the SHARE Act.
This bipartisan package of legislation protects and advances hunting,
angling, and recreational shooting traditions and also promotes fish
and wildlife conservation efforts.
The SHARE Act passed the House of Representatives in both the 113th
and 112th Congress with bipartisan support, and in October 2015 the
Natural Resources Committee voted 21-15 in favor of the bill.
In addition, H.R. 2406 is supported by the Nation's leading hunting
and fishing conservation organizations, which represent millions of
sportsmen and -women across the Nation.
This commonsense proposal will expand opportunities for hunting and
fishing and promote conservation across the United States, particularly
on Federal lands. In many parts of the country, American sportsmen and
-women rely on access to Federal lands to hunt, fish, and
recreationally shoot.
This bill would expand access to these lands by requiring the Bureau
of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to keep lands open for
hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting unless there is a specific
reason to close them.
The bill also requires the National Park Service or Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries to consult with State fish and wildlife
agencies prior to closing areas to fishing, and allows State fish and
wildlife agencies the added flexibility needed to construct public
shooting ranges.
The SHARE Act also protects Second Amendment rights. It ensures the
rights of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms on lands and waters
managed by the United States Corps of Engineers, which is consistent
with rights afforded on other Federal public lands. The bill also
prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from unnecessarily
regulating ammunition and fishing tackle.
As an avid sportsman, I am humbled to advocate for this commonsense
legislation. I am proud, also, to introduce it in order to advance the
priorities of American sportsmen and -women.
I encourage my colleagues to ensure that America's hunting and
fishing heritage remains a top priority for the Federal Government for
years to come and to pass this critical legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support
H.R. 2406.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me first say I very much appreciate the
distinguished gentlewoman's indulgence on allowing folks to speak on
this issue. As you can tell, it is very important to a lot of people.
So I thank her very much for her polite indulgence.
Mr. Speaker, the debate that we have had here today underscores the
importance of the legislation that is considered under this rule.
I believe we must take a firm stand against executive overreach on
the infringement of Americans' constitutional rights to keep and bear
arms by protecting the Second Amendment as well as protecting the
public's access to Federal lands for the purposes of hunting, fishing,
and sports shooting.
People all across the country are avid hunters, anglers, and
outdoorsmen, often utilizing public lands for those purposes, and the
SHARE Act will ensure that the Federal Government does not restrict
their ability to participate in these activities.
Federal lands represent an important and precious national resource
for many mixed-use purposes. We must not tolerate efforts by Federal
agencies such as the Forest Service or the BLM to restrict, impede, or
prevent access to Federal lands that should otherwise be available for
use by our country's outdoor enthusiasts as well as sportsmen and -
women.
By adopting this rule, providing for consideration of the underlying
bill, the House will be taking an important step toward resolving many
of the long overdue issues facing our country's outdoor recreational
community.
The SHARE Act will allow the values instilled by hunting, fishing,
and recreational shooting to be passed down to future generations of
Americans, just as our parents passed them to many of us.
This is particularly important to me because, as a farmer, I consider
myself a conservationist, a steward of our resources, and believe we
have a responsibility to use our natural resources wisely and with
care, preserving them for those who come after.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule allowing for
consideration of a long overdue piece of legislation that ensures
future generations have access to our country's Federal lands for
outdoor recreation and sporting activities.
I have certainly appreciated the discussion here today, which
underscores the importance of this issue to so many people. I believe
this rule and the underlying bill are strong measures that are
important to preserving our Nation's cultural heritage.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 619 and
the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 619 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 624)
Directing the Committee on the Budget to hold a public
hearing on the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as a
witness. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the resolution specified in section 2 of
this resolution.
____
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 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
[[Page H907]]
for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and
allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer
an alternative plan.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________