[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2417-2434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2013

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), cochair of the 
Sportsmen's Caucus.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Oregon, for allowing me to 
speak in support of this legislation even though he has reserved time 
in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's 
Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013. Today's bill is the 
product of the work of members of the bipartisan Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, which I serve as cochair. The Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus is the largest caucus in Congress, boasting nearly 
300 members. The caucus seeks to advance hunting, angling, shooting, 
and trapping legislative priorities. Today's bill is comprised of eight 
individual bills that seek to promote these interests.
  Mr. Chairman, not only is hunting and fishing a great passion for 
millions of individuals like myself, it is also a major contributor to 
the U.S. economy. Mississippi, home to some of the world's finest duck, 
whitetail, and sport fishing, contributed $2.2 billion to the economy 
in 2011 alone.
  My congressional district receives scores of visitors each year, 
including some Members of this body, who come to enjoy the vast natural 
resources that the Mississippi Delta has to offer. When these 
individuals visit Mississippi, they hire local outfitters, stay in our 
hotels, eat at our restaurants, pay State hunting fees, and purchase 
hunting gear like Primos brand hunting calls, which are produced in my 
district in Flora, Mississippi. In fact, it has been estimated that 
hunting and fishing supports 33,000 jobs in Mississippi.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today makes improvements to a wide 
range of issues, including the ability to purchase duck stamps online; 
statutorily establish the Wildlife Hunting and Heritage Conservation 
Council, which was administratively formed by Secretaries Salazar and 
Vilsack in 2012. It also reduces a financial burden on States and local 
governments for target range construction and maintenance. It also 
excludes commercial ammo and fishing tackle from being classified as 
toxic substances, which the EPA has agreed. It also directs the 
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a 
permit and assess an annual fee for commercial filming crews of five 
people or fewer for activities on Federal lands and waterways 
administered by the Secretary. It also allows law-abiding citizens to 
transport firearms across Army Corps of Engineers projects like the 
hundreds of miles of levee that I have in my district. And it also 
opens up more Federal land to hunting and fishing.
  Mr. Chairman, while this bill makes tremendous strides to meet the 
needs of sportsmen, there are several other provisions that were not 
included in this bill that we must continue to push for, including an 
overhaul of the Red Snapper Management in the Gulf of Mexico, the 
ability to convert decommissioned oil rigs to fish habitat, and the 
reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to address these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 
3590.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 
3590, the Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 
2013, better known as the SHARE Act.
  I commend my friend and cochair of the Congressional Sportsmen's 
Caucus, Representative Bob Latta of Ohio, for his leadership in guiding 
this bill to the floor.
  I am also proud to join with the Sportsmen's Caucus cochairs, both 
Representative Latta and Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, 
and vice chair Representative Tim Walz of Minnesota in support of this 
important bill.

[[Page 2418]]

  As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I would also like to 
thank Chairman Doc Hastings for his work and cooperation on behalf of 
America's sportsmen to support this legislation through the committee 
process.
  As a sportsman, I am humbled to advocate for this community and help 
introduce this legislation to advance priorities for American anglers, 
hunters, and conservationists.
  This commonsense package will expand opportunities for recreation, 
support fair treatment, and modernize programs for sportsmen, and 
includes a proposal I authored to allow migratory waterfowl hunters to 
purchase their annual Federal duck stamp online.
  As vice chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I can proudly 
say that this provision is important to waterfowl hunters across the 
country. Title V, the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act, is supported 
by the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and Ducks Unlimited.
  I would also like to acknowledge Representative Ron Kind as an 
original cosponsor of the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin is a dedicated conservationist and longtime 
supporter and friend to sportsmen.
  There is no cost to taxpayers. There is broad bipartisan support for 
this innovative idea, and this convenient 21st century delivery system 
will be utilized by thousands of American sportsmen in the future.

                              {time}  1430

  Again, I would encourage my colleagues to support this important 
package, H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational 
Enhancement Act.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I just inquire as to how much time remains on 
either side?
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 19\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) has 21\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
FARR).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
legislation, and I would hope that my colleagues will read it and look 
before they leap. It is called the Sportsmen's Heritage And 
Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013. Unfortunately, this is mired in a 
muck of text in the legislation that I think does just the opposite of 
enhancement. It ought to read, ``Kill the Habitat and Wildlife and 
Enjoy a Dead Forest Act.''
  This bill diminishes the conservation measures designed to protect 
the habitat for wildlife by creating loopholes in the Wilderness Act 
and weakens the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, process.
  Title I, for example, amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to 
prohibit the EPA from regulating toxic substances contained in bullets, 
angling lures, and other hunting equipment with respect to toxic 
substances.
  It is not just people that are affected by toxic substances; so are 
animals. Here they prohibit barring lead in bullets. Now, California is 
a big hunter's State. Guess what? California State law prohibits the 
use of lead. Why? Because the Federal Government has spent millions, 
millions, and millions of dollars trying to restore the California 
condor. Does that count? Ask the Ventana and Post Ranch Inn. Post Ranch 
is $1,000 a night--nobody can afford that--but it is filled all the 
time. Why? Because you can see condors and mountain lions and sea 
otters and other things that we have protected by protecting their 
environment.
  What does a condor die from? It eats dead things. It eats things that 
have been killed by bullets. It eats that lead, and guess what? It 
kills the condor. It is done over and over again. There is no question 
about this. This is the number one cause of death in condors in 
California after we spent all this money trying to get them restored. 
This act wipes all that out.
  It is going to hurt the economy, and you know what? People call 
themselves sportsmen. The sportsmen I know don't want to kill the 
wildlife by poison or destroying the habitat. That is why the bill 
passed in California banning lead bullets. This one prohibits States 
like California from doing that.
  Even the military is moving toward pursuing a lead-free environment 
for their small arms. So it is a serious problem. This bill bans that. 
This is nuts.
  Lead poisoning from ammunition is the way you kill off wildlife, not 
by a good shot. You kill it off by the poison that is left behind. That 
is why Governor Brown signed into law a ban on lead bullets, and they 
phased it in to 2019. This follows what at least 30 other States have 
already done in regulating lead ammunition in some manner.
  So, if we really want to protect and enhance the environment, then we 
ought to do what the original conservationists did who were the hunters 
by switching to non-toxic ammunition, and allow them to continue on 
good conservation efforts, which is the heritage of hunters in this 
country.
  This legislation is a step backwards for sportsmen. I am a fisherman. 
I certainly don't want to put stuff in the ocean or in lakes that is 
toxic, and conservation practices protect our public lands, our open 
spaces, and our wilderness areas.
  So, I urge my colleagues to look before you leap. Don't jump in just 
because there are a bunch of people endorsing this bill. Look at the 
type. Look what it does. Look at the small print. I urge you to oppose 
this legislation until it can really be legislation that will be a 
Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act. As of now, it 
deserves your opposition.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield myself 2 minutes of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's 
Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013, or the SHARE Act.
  I would like to talk a little bit about title VIII of the bill, which 
is the text of a bill that I introduced, the Recreational Fishing and 
Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. Like many of my colleagues here 
in Congress, hunting and fishing are an important part of the lives of 
the constituents in my district. I grew up in north Michigan, and like 
many of my constituents, I spent my summers fishing, my Octobers 
hunting grouse in the U.P. woods.
  These traditions of spending quality time outdoors with our kids and 
grandkids are the kind of things that we must make sure are preserved 
for generations to come.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 a quarter of the United States land mass, or over 500 
million acres, are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. These lands are all 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 in the Wilderness Act has 
opened the door for numerous lawsuits over the country. Rather than 
embracing sportsmen and -women for the conservationists that they are, 
anti-hunting and environmental groups have pursued an agenda of 
eliminating heritage activities on Federal lands for years. These 
groups look for loopholes in the law to deprive our constituents the 
right to use their own Federal lands.
  Recreational anglers, hunters, and sporting organizations, many of 
whom have endorsed this bill, are supporters of the conservation 
movement and continue to provide direct support to the wildlife 
managers and enforcement officers at the State, local, and Federal 
levels. These dedicated sportsmen and -women from the shorelines of 
Lake Superior to the beaches of the Pacific Ocean deserve to know that 
the lands that they cherish will not be closed off to future 
generations.
  This is a bipartisan issue. In fact, Presidents Clinton and Bush both 
issued executive orders recognizing the value of these heritage 
activities. It is time we finally closed these loopholes, firmed up the 
language and made sure that future generations will always be able to 
enjoy the outdoors--hunting,

[[Page 2419]]

fishing, and shooting or just taking a walk in the woods.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all of my colleagues to join me today 
in supporting this important piece of commonsense legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how many more speakers does 
the gentleman have?
  Mr. BENISHEK. I have six more speakers, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I have no more speakers except myself, so I would 
suggest the gentleman go ahead.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Daines).
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3590, the 
SHARE Act.
  As a fifth-generation Montanan and as a lifelong sportsman, I know 
that hunting, fishing, motorized recreation, and hiking are simply a 
way of life for us in Montana. The outdoors is a critical aspect of our 
culture, and as 30 percent of our State is owned by the Federal 
Government, we depend on responsible stewardship and public access to 
these lands. Unfortunately, our Federal Government too often imposes 
rules and regulations that prevent responsible land use and our freedom 
to use the land that we pay for.
  Roughly 2 million acres in Montana are inaccessible to the public. 
That is the most of any State in the Nation. Many of our hunting and 
fishing opportunities are locked away. The SHARE Act is an important 
bill that will protect Montanans' access to public lands for outdoor 
recreation. Too often, the Federal Government forgets that hunters, 
anglers, outdoorsmen--those whose livelihoods and passions rely on the 
land--respect our outdoor landscape the most and are the best stewards 
of our public lands.
  Here we have the Federal Government trying to expand its authority 
over lead bullets, keeping millions of dollars spent on ammo and 
fishing tackle by hunters and anglers from being used for conservation 
and wildlife management. Like its Senate counterpart, the SPORT Act, 
this bill would protect our sportsmen and industries that manufacture 
these goods from these unnecessary regulations.
  The SHARE Act would also protect our Second Amendment rights where 
the administration has tried to constrain them. It ensures that State 
and local governments are consulted in decisions managing shooting 
ranges, and it ensures that real outdoorsmen, instead of a bunch of 
Washington bureaucrats, are advising the administration on conservation 
and sportsmen issues.
  Simply stated, the SHARE Act is an important bill to protect 
America's outdoor heritage and to ensure the responsible use of our 
public lands. I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's 
Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act, or SHARE Act.
  I have introduced this legislation on behalf of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, of which I am the cochairman with Congressman 
Bennie Thompson, whom I thank for his work. I also would like to thank 
Chairman Hastings for his support of the various bills contained in 
this sportsmen's package, as well as to thank Chairman Shuster and 
Chairman Upton. I would also like to thank all of my colleagues who 
have introduced the individual bills that make up this package 
legislation.
  As a lifelong hunter and outdoorsman, issues relating to hunting and 
conservation are extremely important to me. This legislation includes 
various pro-sportsmen's and pro-sportswomen's items that will help 
ensure our outdoor traditions are protected and advanced. H.R. 3590 
also addresses some of the most current concerns of America's hunters, 
recreational anglers, shooters, and trappers.
  Title III of the bill is legislation I introduced related to public 
lands filming. This provision directs the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary of Agriculture, for any film crew of five persons or 
fewer, to require a permit and assess an annual fee of $200 for 
commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal lands and 
waterways administered by the Secretary. This prohibits the Secretary, 
for persons holding such a permit, from assessing any additional fee 
for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in 
those areas during public hours.
  I have also introduced the language contained in title VII, which 
permanently establishes the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation 
Council Advisory Committee. This council advises the Secretaries of the 
Interior and Agriculture on wildlife and habitat conservation, 
recreational hunting, and shooting. Authorization of the council is 
vital to ensuring that hunters maintain an advisory capacity role 
across future administrations. The passage of H.R. 3590 will not only 
elevate the stature of the council, it will also provide the levels of 
certainty and stability necessary to ensure the council's ability to 
engage in assisting the government in devising and implementing the 
innovative, long-term solutions that are often necessary to address 
policy issues important to sportsmen and sportswomen.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BENISHEK. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LATTA. The passage of H.R. 3590 is important to our sportsmen and 
-women to allow open access to Federal lands, as well as to provide the 
needed certainty for the rules surrounding these activities. These 
hunters and anglers provide a tremendous economic benefit to our 
country. In 2011, they spent over $90 billion. In my home State of 
Ohio, sportsmen and sportswomen spent $2.85 billion on hunting and 
fishing. That is more than the revenues for corn, the State's top-
grossing agriculture commodity that year.
  H.R. 3590 is good for the sporting and conservation communities, and 
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) would remain on 
the floor for a moment, I would like to direct to the gentleman a 
question about the filming provision. I am curious as to what problems 
specifically have been identified regarding filming permits. The second 
question would be: Is it the gentleman's intent that they should be 
able to use mechanized filming on tracks and otherwise motorized 
filming in wilderness areas?
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first, there are a lot of smaller companies out there 
that don't have the large film crews and that don't have the large 
backups when it comes to funding in order to be able to do these types 
of activities. So I want to make sure that those individuals have that 
ability to be out there with a smaller fee so they can go ahead and 
make the films they want to make.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, as I understand the current process, 
there is not one large fee. The fees vary in terms of the agency. If it 
is a one-person crew or a four-person crew, whatever, the fees would be 
smaller. If it is a mega film coming from Hollywood, they would charge 
a larger fee, is my understanding.
  I am just wondering if there has been a specific case where someone 
has come to the gentleman and said, Gee, we are a two-person crew, and 
they want to charge us $10,000. Do we have any specific examples?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Again, what we have had has come to us from the discussions we had 
with the sporting community. Again, this is a product of multiple 
groups coming

[[Page 2420]]

together. When we looked at the cost of the fee, et cetera, they 
thought it would be appropriate at this level of $200 for the annual 
fee, again, for these very small groups out there that want to go out 
and film.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Further, the issue of mechanized filming equipment, 
motorized equipment being used in wilderness areas. And I yield to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. LATTA. That is one of the sections in the title that would permit 
that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Does the gentleman feel that we should waive the 
Wilderness Act for film crews, but not other activities?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Again, when you look at mechanized vehicles, it can be anything from 
a very small ATV. You might not be talking about a truck, or something 
like that, but something very small.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I think this is a solution in search 
of a problem. We have had no testimony before the committee and no 
specifics were provided here. I believe it is an overly broad 
provision. If we had cases where extortionate fees were being charged 
for small groups or unreasonable fees that weren't following this scale 
basis that the agency tells me they follow, then I would share the 
gentleman's concerns.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hastings for 
his support in including H.R. 322, the Hunting, Fishing, and 
Recreational Shooting Protection Act, as title I of the sportsmen's 
package.
  I also want to thank the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus colleagues 
and the leadership of Chairman Bob Latta and Bennie Thompson for their 
efforts to protect sportsmen's rights and preserve our Nation's 
heritage.
  Title I of this measure simply clarifies the existing intent of law 
regarding EPA's authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act with 
respect to traditional ammunition and fishing tackle that contain lead 
components. This legislation would prevent the EPA from expanding its 
regulatory authority under TSCA into an area where fish and wildlife 
agencies are better positioned to manage.
  What the several antihunting and antifishing groups who insist on the 
expansion fail to recognize is that the ammunition, firearms, and 
tackle industries, along with sportsmen and -women, are the ones that 
are footing the bill to manage, protect, and create the same species' 
habitat that they claim they are trying to save. There is no sound 
evidence of traditional ammo and fishing tackle with lead components 
causing harm to wildlife populations or human health that would warrant 
a complete ban.
  I would also say that one of my colleagues came to the floor earlier 
and said that this particular piece of legislation would in fact 
prevent States like California from banning lead ammunition. That is 
not true. Doing so in disregard of the intent of the law, the EPA would 
devastate countless domestic manufacturing facilities, drive up the 
cost for law enforcement and for our military, destroying thousands of 
jobs and hurting wildlife conservation funding--all at the expense of 
the taxpayer, and that is a cost that should not be borne.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman had remained on the floor 
for a moment, I was going to direct a question to him, which is: Since 
the EPA has found it does not have legal authority to regulate these 
substances, why do we need to pass a law to prevent a law from being 
passed? Which I guess is what we are trying to do here. In case we 
wanted to ever consider a law to do this, we would say, Well, we 
already passed a law to prohibit that.
  Because the EPA says they don't have the authority to do this, it is 
not going to happen. There was a petition filed. It was rejected. End 
of story.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's 
Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act.
  The bill protects the Second Amendment rights of visitors to Army 
Corps recreation lands. The Army Corps of Engineers has more outdoor 
recreation visitors than the National Park Service or the Forest 
Service lands. My district is home to many of these recreational lands, 
such as Lake Raystown or the Youghiogheny River.
  While we currently have protections for American's Second Amendment 
rights in National Park lands and forest lands, the same rights are not 
protected on Corps properties. This bill corrects that. It removes 
unnecessary firearm restrictions while maintaining the safety and 
security of Corps buildings and property.
  I urge all Members to support the Second Amendment and vote in favor 
of H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational Enhancement 
Act.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to ask the chairman a question regarding that, since 
this is under the jurisdiction of our committee and I am not aware that 
we held a hearing on this issue.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I don't believe we did this year, but I think in the 
past we did.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I have many Corps areas in my 
district, and I am not aware of restrictions, except there are 
restricted areas because a number of these projects have sensitive 
equipment that operate spillways and dams and other things, and those 
are high security areas post-9/11.
  I am wondering if the gentleman's interpretation of this is that it 
would allow people to carry sidearms into these high security areas.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. It protects people's rights, just like in the State 
forests and other properties of the Federal Government, to carry 
firearms; law-abiding citizens. I think it is something reasonable, and 
something I support. I thank the gentleman for the inquiry.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I am a strong supporter of the 
Second Amendment, a gun owner myself. I haven't had a single complaint 
about Corps restrictions in my State, and that would include areas 
where we have had tampering with machinery that relates to spillways 
and dams--potential terrorism. I wouldn't want to facilitate terrorism.
  If we are talking about general Corps areas and lands being managed, 
fine, but if we are talking about sensitive, secure areas that have to 
be protected and guarded, I don't see why we would allow civilian 
firearm carry within those sensitive protected areas, which would make 
us vulnerable to terrorism.
  Terrorists without a weapon, I suppose they could bring in a weapon 
anyway. They could violate the law, but if someone were noted bringing 
a weapon into one of those areas now, they would be asked to leave or 
apprehended.
  So I am concerned about those aspects, and I think that my committee 
and Homeland Security should have looked at this issue before it was 
brought to the floor without a hearing.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3590, the 
Sportsmen's Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013.
  I would like to speak specifically to title VI of the bill.
  The fundamental constitutional right to bear arms must be protected 
for all law-abiding citizens. Americans deserve the right to exercise 
their rights to not only enjoy recreational activities, but also 
provide self-defense for themselves and their loved ones.
  In the 111th Congress, this body passed legislation that ultimately 
became law which allows for guns to be

[[Page 2421]]

legally possessed and carried on lands within our National Parks. 
Following enactment of that legislation, the Army Corps of Engineers 
immediately issued the following release:

       Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or 
     facilities. The passage of this new law does not affect 
     application of title 36 regulations.

  The Corps administers over 11.7 million acres of land, including 400 
lakes and river projects, 90,000 campsites, and 4,000 miles of trails. 
Much of this land is remote and without quick access to emergency 
services or law enforcement, so the ability to carry a firearm in the 
case of emergency is imperative.
  This Army Corps policy preempts State regulatory frameworks for 
transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapons 
permits and other State laws that allow law-abiding citizens to 
exercise their Second Amendment rights.
  Title VI of the bill is aimed at protecting these rights by ensuring 
the right to carry at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource 
Development Projects. Specifically, this legislation prohibits the 
Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulation that prevents an 
individual from possessing firearms on these properties, thereby 
restoring the continuity to Federal law.
  Gun owners need to able to exercise their Second Amendment rights 
when they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on Army Corps 
projects.
  I would like to thank my colleague from Ohio, Representative Latta, 
for including my bill into this piece of legislation.
  I urge Members to support title VI and this legislation as a whole.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how many more speakers the 
gentleman has.
  Mr. BENISHEK. We just have one more speaker, and I will close after 
that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, and 
the committee as well, for putting in H.R. 2463, the Target Practice 
and Marksmanship Training Support Act, that Congressman Walz from 
Minnesota and myself wrote.
  Basically, what this does is allow Americans to use Federal lands 
that they pay for in order to go out and shoot for sport at target 
ranges. With fewer ranges today, providing greater flexibility to 
States for the purpose of maintaining public shooting venues will go a 
long way to restoring recreational opportunities and promoting gun 
safety.
  In San Diego, there are no public ranges that we can use. We have to 
go to an indoor range or to someone's private ranch. There are no more 
public facilities.
  The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act uses 
existing resources to allow Americans greater access to lands on which 
to safely practice recreational and competitive shooting. Shooting 
sports participants already provide significant support to conservation 
efforts through excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Public 
shooting ranges will continue to serve the interests of families and 
communities, providing a safe place for target practice and instruction 
while also sustaining jobs and supporting local businesses.
  This is a great bill. I would urge my colleagues to support it 
because shooting--and shooting well--is an American tradition. You 
shouldn't have to join the Marine Corps to learn that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would agree with the gentleman. That came out of committee 
unanimously. It is a true bipartisan proposal. I learned to shoot 
through the Y in a basement range with a .22. That is where I started. 
We have got to learn somewhere.
  The public lands is another place for families to go and learn to 
shoot. So that is one of the noncontroversial parts of the bill. In 
fact, four of the components of this bill could have been brought up 
yesterday under suspension or even, I believe, unanimous consent. 
Definitely under suspension. They definitely would have passed them. 
They have been previously considered by committee, subject to hearings, 
and the language was agreed upon. Unfortunately, the majority has 
insisted, although I also believe that the title would get unanimous 
consent in this body--it is a great title--but sometimes we attach 
provisions to great titles that aren't necessary or belie that title.
  Some of the components of this, which I have talked about--the 
potential for degradation of wetlands management, wildlife refuge 
management, intrusions into wilderness areas--are inappropriate and 
unnecessary. We can do a little political ``gotcha''--you voted against 
this bill that has this great title, so that means you are against 
sportsmen and fishing and hunters and families enjoying those 
activities.

                              {time}  1500

  I am not, and very few, if any, Members of this body are. But, be 
that as it may, we have pointed out a number of the problems in this 
legislation.
  Legislating is really a pretty difficult exercise, to do real things, 
to do things that actually would benefit our wildlife resources and 
hunting and fishing activities. One would be Congressman Daines' 
proposal to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Every day development proposals move forward that take more and more 
wildlife areas, more and more wetlands, more and more forests out of 
access to hunting and fishing and recreation in many cases. The Land 
and Water Conservation Fund has been a key in protecting those lands, 
when jeopardized, and purchasing from willing sellers to prevent that 
kind of development.
  Though we are still collecting the tax that funds the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--yes, we are collecting the tax. Even the Republicans 
haven't proposed that we do away with that tax because they are 
spending Land and Water Conservation Funds on other things; God only 
knows what. Some of the earmarks in a bill we will take up later this 
week. I don't know.
  But they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars that are 
supposed to go to benefit sportsmen and -women, hunters, fishers, 
wildlife, and protect those areas and manage them reasonably with that 
full access. They are spending that money somewhere else, so they don't 
want to take away the tax, but they don't want to reauthorize the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. That is a shame, and that would be a much 
bigger benefit than anything else that we are doing here today.
  We have a number of bipartisan wilderness proposals pending: Mr. 
Reichert, from Washington State, Alpine Lakes; Mr. Benishek, Sleeping 
Bear Dunes; and others that are pending. Those things would benefit 
since wilderness does allow hunting and fishing and does provide a 
degree of protection for those lands that is unparalleled. That would 
be an experience for horseback hunters, people who walk in on their own 
two feet. But there are plenty of places to go in a motorized way. It 
is a little more rare to have an opportunity to do that from horseback 
or hiking.
  But we are not considering those today because those are 
controversial. So instead, we have this kind of hash that we are 
calling one thing and doing a number of other things with.
  We have the proposal that we have a problem with unidentified film 
crews who have never come forward, who might be charged too much or 
need to use motorized equipment in wilderness areas and so, therefore, 
we are just going to open them up. That is kind of a heck of a way to 
legislate, really.
  We are worried that maybe some units, and definitely the dam areas of 
the Corps of Engineers, prohibit individuals carrying weapons. That is 
not exactly an intrusion. They can't carry a weapon into an airport. 
You can't carry a weapon into the Capitol. You can't carry a weapon 
into a Federal

[[Page 2422]]

courthouse, and you can't carry a weapon to a dam site where tampering 
with equipment could cause a massive flood or dam failure. It makes a 
little bit of sense to me, but the bill says, no, that is an 
infringement on the Second Amendment. I think it is a reasonable step 
by the government. So we are going to open that up, again, without any 
hearings identifying any problems with access.
  I have a lot of Corps projects in my State. I have never had a 
constituent call and say, gee, I want to go on to this Corps property 
and bring my gun. I have got a concealed weapons permit, and I have 
carried a gun on many Federal lands where there is no restriction, and 
I supported the park provision last year. But we are creating another 
imaginary problem so we can add yet another title to this hash of a 
bill. So I am sorry that we are having to go forward in this way.
  I did support a less controversial measure for sportsmen heritage in 
the last Congress, and even that didn't go anywhere in the Senate. This 
one already has an affirmed veto threat from the White House, and the 
Senate isn't going to take it up.
  But we can pretend we did something here today, and some people get 
excited about the fact that we did something here today that will never 
happen. We could, and it is much harder, agree on a bipartisan measure 
for reasonable measures to protect people's right to hunt and fish and 
bear arms, but we are not going to do that. So let's get on with the 
political show.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. I want to make a 
very, very broad point on what the intent of this legislation is, 
because it is aimed at uses of public lands.
  Now, I have always been of the mind that public lands, particularly 
Federal lands, unless Congress designates otherwise, then the uses of 
those lands should be for multiple purposes. Now, obviously recreation, 
i.e., hunting and fishing, would be part of that.
  So what this bill seeks to do, then, is to provide certainty into 
Federal laws that, indeed, multiple uses--in this case, hunting and 
fishing and recreational use--will be on public lands. There is nothing 
really more complicated than that.
  What has caused this legislation to be brought forward is because of 
actions of certain bureaucracies within certain parts of the Federal 
Government that have a different decision, if you will, or a different 
idea of that, and they slow down this recreational activity. So this 
seeks to put certainty in that.
  Lastly, let me just respond to the arguments that we heard about the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Mr. Chairman, that is a program. 
There are people that think it is a very, very good program. There are 
those, including me, that feel that sometimes it is not as good as it 
is simply because you acquire private land for the Federal Government. 
We can't maintain what we have. That should be a reason for, I guess, 
pause anyway.
  But the reason I think that the Rules Committee did not make that 
particular amendment in order is for a very, very good reason. We talk 
about regular order around here. The Land and Water Conservation Fund 
statute does not expire until 2015. So I know, as chairman of the House 
Natural Resources Committee, that the subcommittee in charge of that 
particular legislation is going to have hearings and we are going to go 
through the legislative process in order to reauthorize that.
  So to rail against the idea that that amendment was not made in order 
somehow continues to break the program is simply not the case. The 
program is in place until it expires in 2015, and I have no doubt that 
our committee will come up with legislation to do the proper 
reauthorization.
  So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very, very good bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, our nation's public lands have always 
required balanced management for a variety of uses for the American 
people. And while I am pleased to see a public lands bill on the Floor 
of this House that acknowledges uses beyond oil and gas drilling, I 
regret that it once again fails to meet the balance necessary to 
responsibly manage our lands for generations to come.
  I don't think there is any disagreement in the House over the 
importance of outdoor recreation on public lands. More than 75 percent 
of federal lands are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational 
shooting. However, in order to ensure that these areas are available 
for the future, all uses must be balanced with conservation. And 
today's bill would override critical environmental protections while 
depriving hunters and fisherman from offering input on land use 
decisions.
  The bill also replaces the only federal advisory committee with a 
voice for the hunting community with a new council, removing 
representation from hunting outreach and education groups and sportsmen 
and sportswomen at-large in favor of representatives from the firearms, 
ranching, and agriculture industries. Finally, it would allow for guns 
at certain Army Corps facilities, without exemption for public safety 
or national security concerns.
  I have joined with Mr. Holt and members of the House Sustainable 
Energy and Environment Caucus to offer an amendment to this bill to 
clarify that the Secretary of Interior has the authority to plan for a 
changing climate, which poses a real threat to outdoor recreation 
through sea level rise, drought, and wildfire. It will also lead to 
changes in hunting seasons, migratory patterns, and invasive species 
populations. While we should be taking action here in Congress to 
address climate change and its impacts on recreational hunting and 
fishing, this amendment ensures that we don't limit the Secretary's 
ability to plan for these developments. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  While there are parts of this bill that would get unanimous support 
from the House, it contains deeply flawed provisions that jeopardize 
the condition of public lands. I urge my colleagues to reject it and 
work on a consensus bill that guarantees recreational opportunities for 
generations of American sportsmen and -women.

  Mr. PETERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition 
to H.R. 3590, the SHARE Act of 2013. This bill contains a harmful 
provision that chips away at the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) by retroactively allowing the 
import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies as Title IV of the bill. I 
submitted an amendment to the bill which would have struck Title IV, 
however the Rules Committee denied the members of this body an 
opportunity to vote on this issue. I am disappointed this legislation 
was not brought to the floor under an open rule which would have 
allowed consideration of my amendment so members could debate this 
precedent-setting provision.
  Polar bears are protected from sport hunting in the United States, 
including the polar bear population in Alaska. In 2008 the Bush 
Administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act and the 1972 MMPA protects polar bears and other 
marine mammals. To allow American hunters to kill them for trophies in 
other countries is irresponsible and inconsistent with the bipartisan 
commitment to conserving the polar bear population.
  According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN), the polar bear is a ``vulnerable'' species based on a projected 
population reduction of more than 30 percent within three generations 
(45 years) due to a decrease in distribution and habitat quality. It is 
estimated there are fewer than 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears remaining 
in the wild.
  Title IV of this bill exempts 41 trophy hunters who had proper notice 
of the impending prohibition on import of polar bear trophies. These 41 
individuals hunted these bears after the Bush Administration proposed 
the species for listing as threatened under ESA, and all but one 
continued to hunt polar bears more than a year after the listing was 
proposed. Despite repeated warnings from hunting organizations and 
government agencies that they were hunting at their own risk because 
trophy imports were unlikely to be allowed as of the listing date, 
these individuals sport hunted polar bears anyway.
  An example of warnings regarding the prospects of importing polar 
bear trophies comes from hunting rights organization Conservation 
Force. The group wrote to hunters in December 2007: ``American hunters 
are asking us whether they should even look at polar bear hunts in 
light of the current effort by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list 
this species as threatened . . . The bottom line is, no American hunter 
should be putting hard, non-returnable money down on a polar bear hunt 
at this

[[Page 2423]]

point.'' The group also noted in January 2008: ``We feel compelled to 
tell you that American trophy hunters are likely to be barred from 
importing bears they take this season. Moreover, there is a chance that 
bears taken previous to this season may be barred as well. American 
clients with polar bear trophies still in Canada or Nunavut need to get 
those bears home.''
  Conservation Force again reminded hunters that the ESA listing ``will 
stop all imports . . . immediately'' in April 2008. Later that same 
month, Safari Club International informed hunters: ``If some or all of 
the polar bear populations are listed, the FWS has indicated that 
imports of trophies from any listed populations would be barred as of 
that date, regardless of where in the process the application is.''
  Congress should not change a law just because a few people did not 
heed clear and ample warnings. It is an affront to the millions of 
hunters and sportsmen who followed the law and observed the warning of 
government agencies and hunting organizations. The hunters that chose 
to travel to the Arctic to sport hunt polar bears should not receive 
special treatment. Doing so creates a moral hazard and establishes a 
dangerous precedent that could encourage rushes to sport hunt imperiled 
species prior to their formal listing as an endangered species. Those 
who wish to sport hunt imperiled species should understand they do so 
at their own risk and cannot rely on allies in Congress to bail them 
out with a retroactive waiver of critical conservation law.
  Congress first carved out a loophole in the MMPA and allowed for more 
than 900 sport-hunted polar bear trophies to be imported into the 
United States from Canada in 1994. In 1997, Congress amended the MMPA 
to allow imports of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada 
before April 1994, regardless of what population the bear was taken 
from, and despite the strict prohibition on trophy imports in place 
prior to 1994. In 2003, Congress amended the MMPA to allow imports of 
polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before February 
1997. This allowed imports regardless of what population the bear is 
taken from, and as long as the hunter proves that the bear is ``legally 
harvested in Canada.''
  Today with H.R. 3590, we have yet another effort to allow polar bear 
imports. This time we are asked to approve an additional 41 trophies on 
top of the more than 1,000 already Congress previously sanctioned for 
import. How many times are we going to provide these ``one-time'' 
import allowances? Doing this repeatedly undermines the restrictions on 
killing rare species.
  At a time when Congress should be working in a bipartisan basis to 
address many of the critical issues facing American families, more 
special treatment for wealthy sport hunters should not be a priority. I 
am disappointed that my amendment to strike Title IV was not made in 
order and that the House did not have an opportunity to further debate 
this matter.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment offered 
by Chairman Hastings. This important amendment includes a provision 
protecting the hunting, fishing and related treaty rights of all 
federally recognized tribes with respect to the provisions of H.R. 
3590.
  Treaties are at the foundation of the government-to-government 
relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. Throughout 
the history of this country, tribal governments signed hundreds of 
treaties with the United States, often ceding significant portions of 
their homelands. Many of these treaties included provisions in which 
the United States made solemn promises to secure and protect the 
important hunting and fishing rights as well as other rights to sustain 
Indian people. As we pass laws that affect federal lands, it is 
important that we ensure the continued treaty rights of all federally 
recognized Indian tribes.
  Rights emanating from treaties between Indian tribes and the United 
States apply to all federally recognized tribes, whether they were 
recognized by treaty, an act of Congress, administratively or through a 
court settlement. This amendment to H.R. 3590 would make it clear in 
the legislation that the treaty rights, including treaty hunting and 
fishing rights, and other rights of all federally recognized tribes are 
preserved and not affected by the other provisions of this legislation. 
I urge your support for this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Latham). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3590

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sportsmen's Heritage And 
     Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013'' or the ``SHARE Act of 
     2013''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

   TITLE I--HUNTING, FISHING AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION ACT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Modification of definition.

    TITLE II--TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings; purpose.
Sec. 203. Definition of public target range.
Sec. 204. Amendments to Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
Sec. 205. Limits on liability.
Sec. 206. Sense of Congress regarding cooperation.

                    TITLE III--PUBLIC LANDS FILMING

Sec. 301. Purpose.
Sec. 302. Annual permit and fee for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.

           TITLE IV--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS ACT

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Permits for importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport 
              hunts in Canada.

              TITLE V--PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Authority to issue electronic duck stamps.
Sec. 504. State application.
Sec. 505. State obligations and authorities.
Sec. 506. Electronic stamp requirements; recognition of electronic 
              stamp.
Sec. 507. Termination of State participation.

      TITLE VI--ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ACT

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Protecting Americans from violent crime.

TITLE VII--WILDLIFE AND HUNTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION COUNCIL ADVISORY 
                               COMMITTEE

Sec. 701. Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council Advisory 
              Committee.

TITLE VIII--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES 
                                  ACT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings.
Sec. 803. Definitions.
Sec. 804. Recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting.

   TITLE I--HUNTING, FISHING AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Hunting, Fishing, and 
     Recreational Shooting Protection Act''.

     SEC. 102. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION.

       Section 3(2)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 
     U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (v), by striking ``, and'' and inserting ``, 
     or any component of any such article including, without 
     limitation, shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, 
     and primers,'';
       (2) in clause (vi) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
       ``(vii) any sport fishing equipment (as such term is 
     defined in subsection (a) of section 4162 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986) the sale of which is subject to the tax 
     imposed by section 4161(a) of such Code (determined without 
     regard to any exemptions from such tax as provided by section 
     4162 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code), and sport 
     fishing equipment components.''.

    TITLE II--TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Target Practice and 
     Marksmanship Training Support Act''.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the use of firearms and archery equipment for target 
     practice and marksmanship training activities on Federal land 
     is allowed, except to the extent specific portions of that 
     land have been closed to those activities;
       (2) in recent years preceding the date of enactment of this 
     Act, portions of Federal land have been closed to target 
     practice and marksmanship training for many reasons;
       (3) the availability of public target ranges on non-Federal 
     land has been declining for a variety of reasons, including 
     continued population growth and development near former 
     ranges;
       (4) providing opportunities for target practice and 
     marksmanship training at public target ranges on Federal and 
     non-Federal land can help--
       (A) to promote enjoyment of shooting, recreational, and 
     hunting activities; and

[[Page 2424]]

       (B) to ensure safe and convenient locations for those 
     activities;
       (5) Federal law in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, including the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), provides Federal support for 
     construction and expansion of public target ranges by making 
     available to States amounts that may be used for 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of public target 
     ranges; and
       (6) it is in the public interest to provide increased 
     Federal support to facilitate the construction or expansion 
     of public target ranges.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to facilitate 
     the construction and expansion of public target ranges, 
     including ranges on Federal land managed by the Forest 
     Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC TARGET RANGE.

       In this title, the term ``public target range'' means a 
     specific location that--
       (1) is identified by a governmental agency for recreational 
     shooting;
       (2) is open to the public;
       (3) may be supervised; and
       (4) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun 
     shooting.

     SEC. 204. AMENDMENTS TO PITTMAN-ROBERTSON WILDLIFE 
                   RESTORATION ACT.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (9), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) the term `public target range' means a specific 
     location that--
       ``(A) is identified by a governmental agency for 
     recreational shooting;
       ``(B) is open to the public;
       ``(C) may be supervised; and
       ``(D) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or shotgun 
     shooting;''.
       (b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and 
     Resources.--Section 8(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) Each State'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Expenditures for Management of Wildlife Areas and 
     Resources.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     each State'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking 
     ``construction, operation,'' and inserting ``operation'';
       (3) in the second sentence, by striking ``The non-Federal 
     share'' and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share'';
       (4) in the third sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary''; and
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection) the following:
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding the limitation described 
     in paragraph (1), a State may pay up to 90 percent of the 
     cost of acquiring land for, expanding, or constructing a 
     public target range.''.
       (c) Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program 
     Grants.--Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Allocation of additional amounts.--Of the amount 
     apportioned to a State for any fiscal year under section 
     4(b), the State may elect to allocate not more than 10 
     percent, to be combined with the amount apportioned to the 
     State under paragraph (1) for that fiscal year, for acquiring 
     land for, expanding, or constructing a public target 
     range.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out using a 
     grant under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the 
     total cost of the activity.
       ``(2) Public target range construction or expansion.--The 
     Federal share of the cost of acquiring land for, expanding, 
     or constructing a public target range in a State on Federal 
     or non-Federal land pursuant to this section or section 8(b) 
     shall not exceed 90 percent of the cost of the activity.''; 
     and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Amounts made'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     amounts made''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Exception.--Amounts provided for acquiring land for, 
     constructing, or expanding a public target range shall remain 
     available for expenditure and obligation during the 5-fiscal-
     year period beginning on October 1 of the first fiscal year 
     for which the amounts are made available.''.

     SEC. 205. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.

       (a) Discretionary Function.--For purposes of chapter 171 of 
     title 28, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     ``Federal Tort Claims Act''), any action by an agent or 
     employee of the United States to manage or allow the use of 
     Federal land for purposes of target practice or marksmanship 
     training by a member of the public shall be considered to be 
     the exercise or performance of a discretionary function.
       (b) Civil Action or Claims.--Except to the extent provided 
     in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the United 
     States shall not be subject to any civil action or claim for 
     money damages for any injury to or loss of property, personal 
     injury, or death caused by an activity occurring at a public 
     target range that is--
       (1) funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government 
     pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.); or
       (2) located on Federal land.

     SEC. 206. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATION.

       It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with 
     applicable laws and regulations, the Chief of the Forest 
     Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management 
     should cooperate with State and local authorities and other 
     entities to carry out waste removal and other activities on 
     any Federal land used as a public target range to encourage 
     continued use of that land for target practice or 
     marksmanship training.

                    TITLE III--PUBLIC LANDS FILMING

     SEC. 301. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to provide commercial film 
     crews of 5 persons or fewer access to film in areas 
     designated for public use during public hours on Federal 
     lands and waterways.

     SEC. 302. ANNUAL PERMIT AND FEE FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS 
                   OR FEWER.

       (a) In General.--Section (1)(a) of Public Law 106-206 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
       (1) redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
       (2) striking ``The Secretary of the Interior'' and 
     inserting ``(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph 
     (3), the Secretary of the Interior'';
       (3) inserting ``(2) Other considerations.--'' before ``The 
     Secretary may include other factors''; and
       (4) adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rules for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.--
       ``(A) For any film crew of 5 persons or fewer, the 
     Secretary shall require a permit and assess an annual fee of 
     $200 for commercial filming activities or similar projects on 
     Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary. 
     The permit shall be valid for commercial filming activities 
     or similar projects that occur in areas designated for public 
     use during public hours on all Federal lands waterways 
     administered by the Secretary for a 12-month period beginning 
     on the date of issuance of the permit.
       ``(B) For persons holding a permit described in this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall not assess, during the 
     effective period of the permit, any additional fee for 
     commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur 
     in areas designated for public use during public hours on 
     Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary.
       ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `film crew' includes all 
     persons present on Federal land under the Secretary's 
     jurisdiction who are associated with the production of a 
     certain film.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall not prohibit, as a motorized 
     vehicle or under any other purposes, use of cameras or 
     related equipment used for the purpose of commercial filming 
     activities or similar projects in accordance with this 
     paragraph on Federal lands and waterways administered by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Recovery of Costs.--Section (1)(b) of Public Law 106-
     206 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``collect any costs'' and inserting ``recover 
     any costs''; and
       (2) striking ``similar project'' and inserting ``similar 
     projects''.

           TITLE IV--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS ACT

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Polar Bear Conservation 
     and Fairness Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 402. PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TROPHIES 
                   TAKEN IN SPORT HUNTS IN CANADA.

       Section 104(c)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D)(i) The Secretary of the Interior shall, expeditiously 
     after the expiration of the applicable 30-day period under 
     subsection (d)(2), issue a permit for the importation of any 
     polar bear part (other than an internal organ) from a polar 
     bear taken in a sport hunt in Canada to any person--
       ``(I) who submits, with the permit application, proof that 
     the polar bear was legally harvested by the person before 
     February 18, 1997; or
       ``(II) who has submitted, in support of a permit 
     application submitted before May 15, 2008, proof that the 
     polar bear was legally harvested by the person before May 15, 
     2008, from a polar bear population from which a sport-hunted 
     trophy could be imported before that date in accordance with 
     section 18.30(i) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations.

[[Page 2425]]

       ``(ii) The Secretary shall issue permits under clause 
     (i)(I) without regard to subparagraphs (A) and (C)(ii) of 
     this paragraph, subsection (d)(3), and sections 101 and 102. 
     Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the 
     importation of any polar bear part authorized by a permit 
     issued under clause (i)(I). This clause shall not apply to 
     polar bear parts that were imported before June 12, 1997.
       ``(iii) The Secretary shall issue permits under clause 
     (i)(II) without regard to subparagraph (C)(ii) of this 
     paragraph or subsection (d)(3). Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 
     102(b)(3) shall not apply to the importation of any polar 
     bear part authorized by a permit issued under clause (i)(II). 
     This clause shall not apply to polar bear parts that were 
     imported before the date of enactment of the Polar Bear 
     Conservation and Fairness Act of 2013.''.

              TITLE V--PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Permanent Electronic Duck 
     Stamp Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Actual stamp.--The term ``actual stamp'' means a 
     Federal migratory-bird hunting and conservation stamp 
     required under the Act of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718a et 
     seq.) (popularly known as the ``Duck Stamp Act''), that is 
     printed on paper and sold through the means established by 
     the authority of the Secretary immediately before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Automated licensing system.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``automated licensing system'' 
     means an electronic, computerized licensing system used by a 
     State fish and wildlife agency to issue hunting, fishing, and 
     other associated licenses and products.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``automated licensing system'' 
     includes a point-of-sale, Internet, telephonic system, or 
     other electronic applications used for a purpose described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (3) Electronic stamp.--The term ``electronic stamp'' means 
     an electronic version of an actual stamp that--
       (A) is a unique identifier for the individual to whom it is 
     issued;
       (B) can be printed on paper or produced through an 
     electronic application with the same indicators as the State 
     endorsement provides;
       (C) is issued through a State automated licensing system 
     that is authorized, under State law and by the Secretary 
     under this title, to issue electronic stamps;
       (D) is compatible with the hunting licensing system of the 
     State that issues the electronic stamp; and
       (E) is described in the State application approved by the 
     Secretary under section 504(b).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 503. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMPS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may authorize any State to 
     issue electronic stamps in accordance with this title.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall implement this 
     section in consultation with State management agencies.

     SEC. 504. STATE APPLICATION.

       (a) Approval of Application Required.--The Secretary may 
     not authorize a State to issue electronic stamps under this 
     title unless the Secretary has received and approved an 
     application submitted by the State in accordance with this 
     section. The Secretary may determine the number of new States 
     per year to participate in the electronic stamp program.
       (b) Contents of Application.--The Secretary may not approve 
     a State application unless the application contains--
       (1) a description of the format of the electronic stamp 
     that the State will issue under this title, including 
     identifying features of the licensee that will be specified 
     on the stamp;
       (2) a description of any fee the State will charge for 
     issuance of an electronic stamp;
       (3) a description of the process the State will use to 
     account for and transfer to the Secretary the amounts 
     collected by the State that are required to be transferred to 
     the Secretary under the program;
       (4) the manner by which the State will transmit electronic 
     stamp customer data to the Secretary;
       (5) the manner by which actual stamps will be delivered;
       (6) the policies and procedures under which the State will 
     issue duplicate electronic stamps; and
       (7) such other policies, procedures, and information as may 
     be reasonably required by the Secretary.
       (c) Publication of Deadlines, Eligibility Requirements, and 
     Selection Criteria.--Not later than 30 days before the date 
     on which the Secretary begins accepting applications under 
     this section, the Secretary shall publish--
       (1) deadlines for submission of applications;
       (2) eligibility requirements for submitting applications; 
     and
       (3) criteria for approving applications.

     SEC. 505. STATE OBLIGATIONS AND AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Delivery of Actual Stamp.--The Secretary shall require 
     that each individual to whom a State sells an electronic 
     stamp under this title shall receive an actual stamp--
       (1) by not later than the date on which the electronic 
     stamp expires under section 506(c); and
       (2) in a manner agreed upon by the State and Secretary.
       (b) Collection and Transfer of Electronic Stamp Revenue and 
     Customer Information.--
       (1) Requirement to transmit.--The Secretary shall require 
     each State authorized to issue electronic stamps to collect 
     and submit to the Secretary in accordance with this section--
       (A) the first name, last name, and complete mailing address 
     of each individual that purchases an electronic stamp from 
     the State;
       (B) the face value amount of each electronic stamp sold by 
     the State; and
       (C) the amount of the Federal portion of any fee required 
     by the agreement for each stamp sold.
       (2) Time of transmittal.--The Secretary shall require the 
     submission under paragraph (1) to be made with respect to 
     sales of electronic stamps by a State according to the 
     written agreement between the Secretary and the State agency.
       (3) Additional fees not affected.--This section shall not 
     apply to the State portion of any fee collected by a State 
     under subsection (c).
       (c) Electronic Stamp Issuance Fee.--A State authorized to 
     issue electronic stamps may charge a reasonable fee to cover 
     costs incurred by the State and the Department of the 
     Interior in issuing electronic stamps under this title, 
     including costs of delivery of actual stamps.
       (d) Duplicate Electronic Stamps.--A State authorized to 
     issue electronic stamps may issue a duplicate electronic 
     stamp to replace an electronic stamp issued by the State that 
     is lost or damaged.
       (e) Limitation on Authority To Require Purchase of State 
     License.--A State may not require that an individual purchase 
     a State hunting license as a condition of issuing an 
     electronic stamp under this title.

     SEC. 506. ELECTRONIC STAMP REQUIREMENTS; RECOGNITION OF 
                   ELECTRONIC STAMP.

       (a) Stamp Requirements.--The Secretary shall require an 
     electronic stamp issued by a State under this title--
       (1) to have the same format as any other license, 
     validation, or privilege the State issues under the automated 
     licensing system of the State; and
       (2) to specify identifying features of the licensee that 
     are adequate to enable Federal, State, and other law 
     enforcement officers to identify the holder.
       (b) Recognition of Electronic Stamp.--Any electronic stamp 
     issued by a State under this title shall, during the 
     effective period of the electronic stamp--
       (1) bestow upon the licensee the same privileges as are 
     bestowed by an actual stamp;
       (2) be recognized nationally as a valid Federal migratory 
     bird hunting and conservation stamp; and
       (3) authorize the licensee to hunt migratory waterfowl in 
     any other State, in accordance with the laws of the other 
     State governing that hunting.
       (c) Duration.--An electronic stamp issued by a State shall 
     be valid for a period agreed to by the State and the 
     Secretary, which shall not exceed 45 days.

     SEC. 507. TERMINATION OF STATE PARTICIPATION.

       The authority of a State to issue electronic stamps under 
     this title may be terminated--
       (1) by the Secretary, if the Secretary--
       (A) finds that the State has violated any of the terms of 
     the application of the State approved by the Secretary under 
     section 504; and
       (B) provides to the State written notice of the termination 
     by not later than the date that is 30 days before the date of 
     termination; or
       (2) by the State, by providing written notice to the 
     Secretary by not later than the date that is 30 days before 
     the termination date.

      TITLE VI--ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ACT

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Lands Self-
     Defense Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 602. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that 
     ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
     infringed''.
       (2) Section 327.13 of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, 
     ``possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded 
     projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or 
     other weapons is prohibited'' at water resources development 
     projects administered by the Secretary of the Army.

[[Page 2426]]

       (3) The regulations described in paragraph (2) prevent 
     individuals complying with Federal and State laws from 
     exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals 
     while at such water resources development projects.
       (4) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second 
     amendment rights of an individual at a water resources 
     development project should not be infringed.
       (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms at 
     Water Resources Development Projects.--The Secretary of the 
     Army shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that 
     prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including 
     an assembled or functional firearm at a water resources 
     development project covered under section 327.0 of title 36, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act), if--
       (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
     possessing the firearm; and
       (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
     law of the State in which the water resources development 
     project is located.

TITLE VII--WILDLIFE AND HUNTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION COUNCIL ADVISORY 
                               COMMITTEE

     SEC. 701. WILDLIFE AND HUNTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 10. WILDLIFE AND HUNTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 
                   ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the 
     Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council Advisory 
     Committee (in this section referred to as the `Advisory 
     Committee') to advise the Secretaries of the Interior and 
     Agriculture on wildlife and habitat conservation, hunting, 
     and recreational shooting.
       ``(b) Duties of the Advisory Committee.--The Advisory 
     Committee shall advise the Secretaries with regard to--
       ``(1) implementation of Executive Order No. 13443: 
     Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, 
     which directs Federal agencies `to facilitate the expansion 
     and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management 
     of game species and their habitat';
       ``(2) policies or programs to conserve and restore 
     wetlands, agricultural lands, grasslands, forest, and 
     rangeland habitats;
       ``(3) policies or programs to promote opportunities and 
     access to hunting and shooting sports on Federal lands;
       ``(4) policies or programs to recruit and retain new 
     hunters and shooters;
       ``(5) policies or programs that increase public awareness 
     of the importance of wildlife conservation and the social and 
     economic benefits of recreational hunting and shooting; and
       ``(6) policies or programs that encourage coordination 
     among the public, the hunting and shooting sports community, 
     wildlife conservation groups, and States, tribes, and the 
     Federal Government.
       ``(c) Membership.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 
     no more than 16 discretionary members and 7 ex officio 
     members.
       ``(B) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members are--
       ``(i) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service or a designated representative of the Director;
       ``(ii) the Director of the Bureau of Land Management or a 
     designated representative of the Director;
       ``(iii) the Director of the National Park Service or a 
     designated representative of the Director;
       ``(iv) the Chief of the Forest Service or a designated 
     representative of the Chief;
       ``(v) the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service or a designated representative of the Chief;
       ``(vi) the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency or a 
     designated representative of the Administrator; and
       ``(vii) the Executive Director of the Association of Fish 
     and Wildlife Agencies.
       ``(C) Discretionary members.--The discretionary members 
     shall be appointed jointly by the Secretaries from at least 
     one of each of the following:
       ``(i) State fish and wildlife agencies.
       ``(ii) Game bird hunting organizations.
       ``(iii) Wildlife conservation organizations.
       ``(iv) Big game hunting organizations.
       ``(v) Waterfowl hunting organizations.
       ``(vi) The tourism, outfitter, or guiding industry.
       ``(vii) The firearms or ammunition manufacturing industry.
       ``(viii) The hunting or shooting equipment retail industry.
       ``(ix) Hunting and shooting sports outreach and education 
     organizations.
       ``(x) Tribal resource management organizations.
       ``(xi) The agriculture industry.
       ``(xii) The ranching industry.
       ``(D) Eligibility.--Prior to the appointment of the 
     discretionary members, the Secretaries shall determine that 
     all individuals nominated for appointment to the Advisory 
     Committee, and the organization each individual represents, 
     actively support and promote sustainable-use hunting, 
     wildlife conservation, and recreational shooting.
       ``(2) Terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     members of the Advisory Committee shall be appointed for a 
     term of 4 years. Members shall not be appointed for more than 
     3 consecutive or nonconsecutive terms.
       ``(B) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the 
     Secretary at the time of appointment, of the members first 
     appointed--
       ``(i) 6 members shall be appointed for a term of 4 years;
       ``(ii) 5 members shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; 
     and
       ``(iii) 5 members shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.
       ``(3) Preservation of public advisory status.--No 
     individual may be appointed as a discretionary member of the 
     Advisory Committee while serving as an officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government.
       ``(4) Vacancy and removal.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any vacancy on the Advisory Committee 
     shall be filled in the manner in which the original 
     appointment was made.
       ``(B) Removal.--Advisory Committee members shall serve at 
     the discretion of the Secretaries and may be removed at any 
     time for good cause.
       ``(5) Continuation of service.--Each appointed member may 
     continue to serve after the expiration of the term of office 
     to which such member was appointed until a successor has been 
     appointed.
       ``(6) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Advisory 
     Committee shall be appointed for a 3-year term by the 
     Secretaries, jointly, from among the members of the Advisory 
     Committee. An individual may not be appointed as Chairperson 
     for more than 2 consecutive or nonconsecutive terms.
       ``(7) Pay and expenses.--Members of the Advisory Committee 
     shall serve without pay for such service, but each member of 
     the Advisory Committee shall be reimbursed for travel and 
     lodging incurred through attending meetings of the Advisory 
     Committee approved subgroup meetings in the same amounts and 
     under the same conditions as Federal employees (in accordance 
     with section 5703 of title 5, United States Code).
       ``(8) Meetings.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at the 
     call of the Secretaries, the chairperson, or a majority of 
     the members, but not less frequently than twice annually.
       ``(B) Open meetings.--Each meeting of the Advisory 
     Committee shall be open to the public.
       ``(C) Prior notice of meetings.--Timely notice of each 
     meeting of the Advisory Committee shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and be submitted to trade publications and 
     publications of general circulation.
       ``(D) Subgroups.--The Advisory Committee may establish such 
     workgroups or subgroups as it deems necessary for the purpose 
     of compiling information or conducting research. However, 
     such workgroups may not conduct business without the 
     direction of the Advisory Committee and must report in full 
     to the Advisory Committee.
       ``(9) Quorum.--Nine members of the Advisory Committee shall 
     constitute a quorum.
       ``(d) Expenses.--The expenses of the Advisory Committee 
     that the Secretaries determine to be reasonable and 
     appropriate shall be paid by the Secretaries.
       ``(e) Administrative Support, Technical Services, and 
     Advice.--A designated Federal Officer shall be jointly 
     appointed by the Secretaries to provide to the Advisory 
     Committee the administrative support, technical services, and 
     advice that the Secretaries determine to be reasonable and 
     appropriate.
       ``(f) Annual Report.--
       ``(1) Required.--Not later than September 30 of each year, 
     the Advisory Committee shall submit a report to the 
     Secretaries, the Committee on Natural Resources and the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate. If circumstances arise in which the Advisory 
     Committee cannot meet the September 30 deadline in any year, 
     the Secretaries shall advise the Chairpersons of each such 
     Committee of the reasons for such delay and the date on which 
     the submission of the report is anticipated.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     describe--
       ``(A) the activities of the Advisory Committee during the 
     preceding year;
       ``(B) the reports and recommendations made by the Advisory 
     Committee to the Secretaries during the preceding year; and
       ``(C) an accounting of actions taken by the Secretaries as 
     a result of the recommendations.
       ``(g) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Advisory 
     Committee shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       ``(h) Abolishment of the Existing Wildlife and Hunting 
     Heritage Conservation

[[Page 2427]]

     Council Advisory Committee.--Effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage 
     Conservation Council formed in furtherance of section 441 of 
     the Revised Statutes (43 U.S.C. 1457), the Fish and Wildlife 
     Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a), and other Acts applicable to 
     specific bureaus of the Department of the Interior is hereby 
     abolished.''.

TITLE VIII--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES 
                                  ACT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Fishing and 
     Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act''.

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) recreational fishing and hunting are important and 
     traditional activities in which millions of Americans 
     participate;
       (2) recreational anglers and hunters have been and continue 
     to be among the foremost supporters of sound fish and 
     wildlife management and conservation in the United States;
       (3) recreational fishing and hunting are environmentally 
     acceptable and beneficial activities that occur and can be 
     provided on Federal public lands and waters without adverse 
     effects on other uses or users;
       (4) recreational anglers, hunters, and sporting 
     organizations provide direct assistance to fish and wildlife 
     managers and enforcement officers of the Federal Government 
     as well as State and local governments by investing volunteer 
     time and effort to fish and wildlife conservation;
       (5) recreational anglers, hunters, and the associated 
     industries have generated billions of dollars of critical 
     funding for fish and wildlife conservation, research, and 
     management by providing revenues from purchases of fishing 
     and hunting licenses, permits, and stamps, as well as excise 
     taxes on fishing, hunting, and shooting equipment that have 
     generated billions of dollars of critical funding for fish 
     and wildlife conservation, research, and management;
       (6) recreational shooting is also an important and 
     traditional activity in which millions of Americans 
     participate, safe recreational shooting is a valid use of 
     Federal public lands, including the establishment of safe and 
     convenient shooting ranges on such lands, and participation 
     in recreational shooting helps recruit and retain hunters and 
     contributes to wildlife conservation;
       (7) opportunities to recreationally fish, hunt, and shoot 
     are declining, which depresses participation in these 
     traditional activities, and depressed participation adversely 
     impacts fish and wildlife conservation and funding for 
     important conservation efforts; and
       (8) the public interest would be served, and our citizens' 
     fish and wildlife resources benefitted, by action to ensure 
     that opportunities are facilitated to engage in fishing and 
     hunting on Federal public land as recognized by Executive 
     Order No. 12962, relating to recreational fisheries, and 
     Executive Order No. 13443, relating to facilitation of 
     hunting heritage and wildlife conservation.

     SEC. 803. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Federal public land.--The term ``Federal public land'' 
     means any land or water that is owned and managed by the 
     Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service.
       (2) Federal public land management officials.--The term 
     ``Federal public land management officials'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of the Interior and Director of Bureau of 
     Land Management regarding Bureau of Land Management lands and 
     waters; and
       (B) the Secretary of Agriculture and Chief of the Forest 
     Service regarding the National Forest System.
       (3) Hunting.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``hunting'' means use of a firearm, bow, or other 
     authorized means in the lawful--
       (i) pursuit, shooting, capture, collection, trapping, or 
     killing of wildlife;
       (ii) attempt to pursue, shoot, capture, collect, trap, or 
     kill wildlife; or
       (iii) the training of hunting dogs, including field trials.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``hunting'' does not include the 
     use of skilled volunteers to cull excess animals (as defined 
     by other Federal law).
       (4) Recreational fishing.--The term ``recreational 
     fishing'' means the lawful--
       (A) pursuit, capture, collection, or killing of fish; or
       (B) attempt to capture, collect, or kill fish.
       (5) Recreational shooting.--The term ``recreational 
     shooting'' means any form of sport, training, competition, or 
     pastime, whether formal or informal, that involves the 
     discharge of a rifle, handgun, or shotgun, or the use of a 
     bow and arrow.

     SEC. 804. RECREATIONAL FISHING, HUNTING, AND SHOOTING.

       (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     subsection (g), and cooperation with the respective State 
     fish and wildlife agency, Federal public land management 
     officials shall exercise authority under existing law, 
     including provisions regarding land use planning, to 
     facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands, 
     including National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness 
     Study Areas, and lands administratively classified as 
     wilderness eligible or suitable and primitive or semi-
     primitive areas, for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational 
     shooting, except as limited by--
       (1) statutory authority that authorizes action or 
     withholding action for reasons of national security, public 
     safety, or resource conservation;
       (2) any other Federal statute that specifically precludes 
     recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting on specific 
     Federal public lands, waters, or units thereof; and
       (3) discretionary limitations on recreational fishing, 
     hunting, and shooting determined to be necessary and 
     reasonable as supported by the best scientific evidence and 
     advanced through a transparent public process.
       (b) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), the head 
     of each Federal public land management agency shall exercise 
     its land management discretion--
       (1) in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational 
     fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities;
       (2) to the extent authorized under applicable State law; 
     and
       (3) in accordance with applicable Federal law.
       (c) Planning.--
       (1) Evaluation of effects on opportunities to engage in 
     recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting.--Federal public 
     land planning documents, including land resources management 
     plans, resource management plans, and comprehensive 
     conservation plans, shall include a specific evaluation of 
     the effects of such plans on opportunities to engage in 
     recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting.
       (2) No major federal action.--No action taken under this 
     title, or under section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), either 
     individually or cumulatively with other actions involving 
     Federal public lands or lands managed by the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be considered to be a major 
     Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 
     human environment, and no additional identification, 
     analysis, or consideration of environmental effects, 
     including cumulative effects, is necessary or required.
       (3) Other activity not considered.--Federal public land 
     management officials are not required to consider the 
     existence or availability of recreational fishing, hunting, 
     or shooting opportunities on adjacent or nearby public or 
     private lands in the planning for or determination of which 
     Federal public lands are open for these activities or in the 
     setting of levels of use for these activities on Federal 
     public lands, unless the combination or coordination of such 
     opportunities would enhance the recreational fishing, 
     hunting, or shooting opportunities available to the public.
       (d) Federal Public Lands.--
       (1) Lands open.--Lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
     of Land Management and the Forest Service, including 
     Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, lands designated as 
     wilderness or administratively classified as wilderness 
     eligible or suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas 
     and National Monuments, but excluding lands on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, shall be open to recreational fishing, 
     hunting, and shooting unless the managing Federal agency acts 
     to close lands to such activity. Lands may be subject to 
     closures or restrictions if determined by the head of the 
     agency to be necessary and reasonable and supported by facts 
     and evidence, for purposes including resource conservation, 
     public safety, energy or mineral production, energy 
     generation or transmission infrastructure, water supply 
     facilities, protection of other permittees, protection of 
     private property rights or interest, national security, or 
     compliance with other law.
       (2) Shooting ranges.--
       (A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency shall use 
     his or her authorities in a manner consistent with this title 
     and other applicable law, to--
       (i) lease or permit use of lands under the jurisdiction of 
     the agency for shooting ranges; and
       (ii) designate specific lands under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency for recreational shooting activities.
       (B) Limitation on liability.--Any designation under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall not subject the United States to 
     any civil action or claim for monetary damages for injury or 
     loss of property or personal injury or death caused by any 
     activity occurring at or on such designated lands.
       (e) Necessity in Wilderness Areas and ``Within and 
     Supplemental to'' Wilderness Purposes.--
       (1) Minimum requirements for administration.--The provision 
     of opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational 
     shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to 
     provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on 
     designated Federal wilderness areas shall constitute measures 
     necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the 
     administration of the wilderness area, provided that this 
     determination shall not authorize or facilitate commodity 
     development, use, or extraction, motorized recreational 
     access or use that is not otherwise allowed under the

[[Page 2428]]

     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), or permanent road 
     construction or maintenance within designated wilderness 
     areas.
       (2) Application of wilderness act.--Provisions of the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), stipulating that 
     wilderness purposes are ``within and supplemental to'' the 
     purposes of the underlying Federal land unit are reaffirmed. 
     When seeking to carry out fish and wildlife conservation 
     programs and projects or provide fish and wildlife dependent 
     recreation opportunities on designated wilderness areas, the 
     head of each Federal agency shall implement these 
     supplemental purposes so as to facilitate, enhance, or both, 
     but not to impede the underlying Federal land purposes when 
     seeking to carry out fish and wildlife conservation programs 
     and projects or provide fish and wildlife dependent 
     recreation opportunities in designated wilderness areas, 
     provided that such implementation shall not authorize or 
     facilitate commodity development, use or extraction, or 
     permanent road construction or use within designated 
     wilderness areas.
       (f) Report.--Beginning on the second October 1 after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and biennially on October 1 
     thereafter, the head of each Federal agency who has authority 
     to manage Federal public land on which fishing, hunting, or 
     recreational shooting occurs shall submit to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a 
     report that describes--
       (1) any Federal public land administered by the agency head 
     that was closed to recreational fishing, sport hunting, or 
     shooting at any time during the preceding year; and
       (2) the reason for the closure.
       (g) Closures or Significant Restrictions of 640 or More 
     Acres.--
       (1) In general.--Other than closures established or 
     prescribed by land planning actions referred to in subsection 
     (d) or emergency closures described in paragraph (3) of this 
     subsection, a permanent or temporary withdrawal, change of 
     classification, or change of management status of Federal 
     public land that effectively closes or significantly 
     restricts 640 or more contiguous acres of Federal public land 
     to access or use for fishing or hunting or activities related 
     to fishing, hunting, or both, shall take effect only if, 
     before the date of withdrawal or change, the head of the 
     Federal agency that has jurisdiction over the Federal public 
     land--
       (A) publishes appropriate notice of the withdrawal or 
     change, respectively;
       (B) demonstrates that coordination has occurred with a 
     State fish and wildlife agency; and
       (C) submits to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate written notice of the 
     withdrawal or change, respectively.
       (2) Aggregate or cumulative effects.--If the aggregate or 
     cumulative effect of separate withdrawals or changes 
     effectively closes or significantly restricts 1,280 or more 
     acres of land or water, such withdrawals and changes shall be 
     treated as a single withdrawal or change for purposes of 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Emergency closures.--Nothing in this title prohibits a 
     Federal land management agency from establishing or 
     implementing emergency closures or restrictions of the 
     smallest practicable area to provide for public safety, 
     resource conservation, national security, or other purposes 
     authorized by law. Such an emergency closure shall terminate 
     after a reasonable period of time unless converted to a 
     permanent closure consistent with this title.
       (h) National Park Service Units Not Affected.--Nothing in 
     this title shall affect or modify management or use of units 
     of the National Park System.
       (i) No Priority.--Nothing in this title requires a Federal 
     land management agency to give preference to recreational 
     fishing, hunting, or shooting over other uses of Federal 
     public land or over land or water management priorities 
     established by Federal law.
       (j) Consultation With Councils.--In fulfilling the duties 
     set forth in this title, the heads of Federal agencies shall 
     consult with respective advisory councils as established in 
     Executive Order Nos. 12962 and 13443.
       (k) Authority of the States.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     as interfering with, diminishing, or conflicting with the 
     authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of any State to 
     exercise primary management, control, or regulation of fish 
     and wildlife under State law (including regulations) on land 
     or water within the State, including on Federal public land.
       (2) Federal licenses.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to authorize the head of a Federal agency head to 
     require a license, fee, or permit to fish, hunt, or trap on 
     land or water in a State, including on Federal public land in 
     the States, except that this paragraph shall not affect the 
     Migratory Bird Stamp requirement set forth in the Migratory 
     Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718 et 
     seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those 
printed in House Report 113-339. Each such amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, lines 5 and 6, strike ``of 2013''.
       Page 13, line 10, strike ``of 2013''.
       Page 15, line 2, strike ``of 2013''.
       Page 15, line 7, strike ``of 2013''.
       Page 22, line 12, strike ``of 2013''.
       Page 27, strike lines 13 and 14 and redesignate the 
     remaining clauses accordingly.
       Page 29, line 20, strike ``shall'' and insert ``may''.
       Page 32, line 13, strike ``Effective'' and all that follows 
     through line 19, and insert the following: ``Upon publication 
     of the first notice required under section 8(c) of the 
     Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council formed in 
     furtherance of section 441 of the Revised Statutes (43 U.S.C. 
     1457), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a), 
     and other Acts applicable to specific bureaus of the 
     Department of the Interior is hereby abolished.''.
       Page 41, lines 17 and 18, strike ``this determination'' and 
     insert ``the provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing, 
     and recreational shooting under the authority of this 
     title''.
       Page 41, line 20, insert ``, road construction or 
     maintenance,'' after ``access''.
       Page 41, lines 22 and 23, strike ``, or permanent road 
     construction or maintenance''.
       Page 42, line 14, strike ``such implementation'' and insert 
     ``the provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing, and 
     recreational shooting under the authority of this title''.
       Page 42, line 16, strike ``or permanent road construction 
     or use'' and insert ``motorized recreational access, road 
     construction or maintenance, or use that is not otherwise 
     allowed under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)''.
       Page 45, line 18, strike ``head''.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

               TITLE IX--RESPECT FOR TREATIES AND RIGHTS

     SEC. 901. RESPECT FOR TREATIES AND RIGHTS.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be construed to affect or modify any treaty or other 
     right of any federally recognized Indian tribe.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes several technical and clarifying 
changes to the bill, and conforms the bill text to that which was 
favorably reported from the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Let me cite just some of the small changes in the amendment:
  It includes a savings position regarding the effect of the act on 
Indian tribes' treaty or other recognized rights. It clarifies that.
  It also provides clearer language that the provision of opportunities 
to hunt, fish, and shoot on certain Federal lands ``shall not authorize 
or facilitate commodity development, use other extraction, motorized 
vehicle access, road construction or maintenance or use not otherwise 
allowed under the Wilderness Act.'' That clarifies that.
  It also incorporates an amendment filed by our colleague, the sponsor 
of the legislation, Mr. Latta, to title VII of the bill to correct a 
sunset date for the existing advisory council.
  So as I understand, the manager's amendment is something that has 
been vetted, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I appreciate there are some clarifications in this 
amendment

[[Page 2429]]

which we do support, but there are a few remaining oversights.
  There was an amendment by DelBene and Kilmer from Washington State 
that specified that tribal jurisdiction is not to be infringed upon, 
where this blanket language in the Hastings amendment protecting tribal 
rights could well not be read. Supposedly, in a number of places here 
we are chasing chimeras, you know, illusions, threats, with some of the 
provisions about the film permitting and that.
  But this might be real, which this does not deal with the potential 
for disputes between tribes and neighboring landowners or between 
tribes; and so, therefore, it would have been better to have the 
broader language of DelBene and Kilmer, which specified treaty-
protected rights of the individual tribal members are protected, 
whereas this amendment only protects the rights of the tribe itself. So 
I worry that we are creating a loophole here that doesn't adequately 
protect the sovereignty of tribes and all of their members.
  The amendment does attempt to address some of the wilderness issues 
in title VII, the so-called Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage 
Act, which fails to address the wilderness issues in title III, filming 
on public lands. We have already had extensive discussion of that. No 
identified problem, no hearing, nobody has ever said we need this, but 
it is in there. We are going to allow mechanized film crews into 
wilderness areas.
  Then title VII creates a loophole that will allow motorized equipment 
and vehicles into Federal wilderness areas--now, not with permanent 
roads, with only temporary roads or driving off-road--to facilitate 
hunting in wilderness areas or otherwise restricted areas, wildlife 
refuges and that. And we still find that very problematic.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hanna

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, before line 1, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON ECONOMIC IMPACT.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Interior shall submit a report to 
     Congress that assesses expected economic impacts of the Act. 
     Such report shall include--
       (1) a review of any expected increases in recreational 
     hunting, fishing, shooting, and conservation activities;
       (2) an estimate of any jobs created in each industry 
     expected to support such activities described in paragraph 
     (1), including in the supply, manufacturing, distribution, 
     and retail sectors;
       (3) an estimate of wages related to jobs described in 
     paragraph (2); and
       (4) an estimate of anticipated new local, State, and 
     Federal revenue related to jobs described in paragraph (2).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hanna) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the SHARE 
Act and am pleased to be a sponsor of this bill.
  The SHARE Act allows more Americans to enjoy outdoor hobbies such as 
hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on public lands. Not only 
do those activities provide our constituents with enjoyable hobbies and 
pastimes, they also contribute to our communities by creating and 
supporting diverse jobs in every congressional district.
  When families travel and actively enjoy the outdoors, they spur 
demand for outdoor products and services and create jobs in the 
manufacturing, outfitting, retail, lodging, and hospitality industries.

                              {time}  1515

  I am proud that the village of Ilion in my congressional district is 
home to our Nation's oldest continually operating manufacturing 
company, Remington Arms. Remington manufactures firearms for hunting 
and recreational shooting and sustains more than 1,400 well-paying 
union jobs in New York's Mohawk Valley.
  Legislators in Washington and in Albany should take concrete steps to 
support these private sector jobs, not threaten them, and I am pleased 
the House is taking this action today. By opening new lands for 
recreational use and by making the joys of the outdoors more accessible 
to average Americans, we can assist important sectors of our economy 
without spending taxpayer dollars.
  My amendment would simply quantify the economic impacts of this act 
by detailing how the new recreational opportunities it provides will 
create jobs, boost wages, and generate new local, State, and Federal 
revenue. It is my hope that by highlighting the connection between 
sportsmen-friendly Federal policy and growth in outdoor industries, 
future Congresses will take additional steps to not only provide our 
constituents with greater access to hunting, fishing, shooting, and 
conservation pursuits but also help grow jobs in the private sector and 
support these American traditions.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANNA. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to congratulate the gentleman on 
offering this amendment. I think putting this aspect into this bill 
will help quantify how important hunting and fishing is if you put an 
economic component to it. So I congratulate the gentleman.
  I plan to support the amendment.
  Mr. HANNA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I believe that the information on the economic impacts 
of conservation is important. It is something that we don't quantify 
very well.
  As we have pointed out earlier, some of the provisions of this act, 
unfortunately, will fly in the face of conservation, the benefits of 
hunting and fishing activities on public lands.
  So I think, actually, on balance, the gentleman's requirement here 
would be very useful information in the future to help land managers 
who have to make decisions between opening up lands to mining or to oil 
and gas development versus the benefits the community could realize or 
has been realizing or will continue to realize from the recreational 
hunting and fishing.
  Federal lands had become essentially a reservoir, a place where these 
activities are protected, for the most part, from development, with the 
exceptions of what I had mentioned earlier. They are some of the 
premiere destinations for hunting and fishing in the country.
  Again, the chairman and I disagree over the merits of acquiring some 
of these lands which are now in private ownership from willing sellers 
that potentially will otherwise be slated for development, using the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. I believe that addressing the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund proactively would have been useful.
  For certain, given the objections to that--because it has not yet 
quite expired, even though we are underutilizing it and using the tax 
dollars somewhere else--the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 
has expired. The Dingell-Wittman amendment was proposed to reauthorize 
that critical program, and that was not allowed. So that would also be 
something that would show a measurable benefit.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANNA. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to qualify 
and

[[Page 2430]]

quantify the economic impact of the SHARE Act, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Castro of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 27, after line 18, insert the following:
       ``(xiii) Women's hunting and fishing advocacy, outreach, or 
     education organization.
       ``(xiv) Minority hunting and fishing advocacy, outreach, or 
     education organization.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Castro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member 
DeFazio for considering this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment concerns the composition of the Hunting 
Heritage Conservation Council Committee, which will advise the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior on policies and programs 
related to hunting and recreational activities on Federal lands. More 
specifically, the amendment adds a requirement that women and minority 
hunting and fishing advocacy, outreach or education organizations are 
included as discretionary committee members. Examples of such groups 
include the Women's Hunting and Sporting Foundation, Hispanics Enjoying 
Camping, Hunting, and Outdoors organization, and the African American 
Hunting Organization.
  This will bring the number of groups in that discretionary committee 
group to 14 from 12.
  The groups that I am adding with this amendment were originally 
included in the committee's charter. This amendment simply codifies 
their inclusion. I am proud to offer the amendment to reflect a more 
diverse perspective on America's land use.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this 
amendment. I think that his amendment, since the idea of the whole 
underlying legislation is to expand as much as we can to those that 
want to enjoy that, I think his amendment adds to the legislation, and 
I am prepared to support it.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman, and I want to congratulate him on 
his diligence and on his foresight here to propose this amendment. It 
was an oversight in replacing the current council with a new 
membership. I am not exactly certain why we need to do that because we 
haven't heard particular complaints.
  In any case, this is an improvement upon the newly recommended 
council to include minorities and women fully engaged, since I see a 
lot of those folks out in the back country in my State, and I am sure 
you do in Texas, too.
  So I am pleased that for one brief moment here, we have a bipartisan 
consensus. With that, I congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I thank both gentlemen and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does anyone seek time in opposition?
  Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gallego

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 27, after line 18, insert the following:
       ``(xiii) Veterans service organization.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gallego) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their work on this legislation.
  I can think of nothing more important that all of us, I think, can 
agree on than the importance of taking care of our veterans and our 
veterans' community, especially now that we have so many wounded 
warriors coming back. So many groups have taken to outdoor activities 
as part of the therapy for wounded warriors, making sure that we really 
approach making them whole again in a very real way, and nature is a 
huge part of that.
  Last night, in fact, this Chamber held a moment of silence to honor 
veterans in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are folks who have put their 
country above all else. And what this amendment specifically would do 
would be to essentially correct what I believe also was an oversight in 
ensuring that veterans are also included in this Wildlife and Hunting 
Heritage Conservation Council Advisory Committee. Again, it is because 
so many veterans groups now in so many places are popping up where the 
outdoors is a great part of that therapy and a very important part of 
the therapy that many of our wounded warriors are receiving.
  This advisory committee, as they give their advice to the 
administration, it is important that they do so with a veteran at the 
table. It is important that veterans have that voice, and they look at 
it with the perspective from a wounded warrior or a veteran, someone 
who has served our country in uniform. What is it that we can be doing 
to make this experience more meaningful for them?
  Again, I appreciate the opportunity very much to offer the amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GALLEGO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to say that this amendment, I believe, also will add to the 
underlying legislation, which, of course, would expand the experience 
of hunting and fishing. So the remarks I made to his colleague from 
Texas I think are applicable also to this.
  So I endorse this amendment and would tell my friend from Oregon, the 
ranking member, that is two for two now.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GALLEGO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Texas is batting .100 here today.
  I would like to thank the gentleman for improving the proposed 
composition of the council. I thought your points about the healing 
that can come from wounded warriors being in these precious natural 
areas in our country is very well taken, and I appreciate that.
  Not to create any discord at the moment, but there was another 
amendment that wasn't allowed by the Rules Committee, offered by the 
gentleman from California, Representative Ruiz, which is in the purview 
of the gentleman whose bill is on the floor today, which would have 
waived recreation fees for veterans with disabilities, and I hope we 
can revisit that issue in the future.
  I congratulate the gentleman on his improvement and his recognition 
of our veterans.
  Mr. GALLEGO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does anyone seek time in opposition?
  Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).
  The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 2431]]

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report of 113-339.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Ellison, who is 
detained at the White House, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 38, strike line 20 through page 39, line 6.
       Page 39, line 7, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I want to applaud the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Congressman Ellison, for bringing this amendment to the 
attention of the House.
  We have had endless debate about the appropriate role of the National 
Environmental Policy Act in both the Natural Resources Committee as 
well as the House Committee on Transportation.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 3590, includes language which would 
eliminate the need for the Fish and Wildlife Service to disclose, 
analyze, and take comments on decisions related to management decisions 
in national wildlife refuges.

                              {time}  1530

  I repeat that. They would not have to analyze or take comments from 
either side on decisions that relate to management decisions in 
national wildlife refuges. Never has there been a case made here during 
the lead-up to this bill, such as there was, and during the debate why 
we need this very broad NEPA exception which would, if they want to 
increase hunting, no NEPA analysis, if they want to decrease hunting, 
no NEPA analysis, no opportunity for the public to be involved in the 
process.
  As we learned during the shutdown, the wildlife refuge system 
provides a tremendous opportunity--some of it very ephemeral in terms 
of seasons--for duck hunters, fishermen, and other sportsmen and -women 
across the country. In some densely populated areas like in Congressman 
Thompson's district, wildlife refuges are some of the only hunting 
areas open to the public, and especially the disabled public.
  Why do we need to cut the public out, including disabled Americans, 
veterans, anybody, regarding these special places and their management 
when no evidence has been presented that NEPA is in any way an 
impediment to refuge management? It is just the standard boilerplate: 
repeal NEPA anywhere, everywhere, all the time, and maybe sooner or 
later it might stick. But it won't, given the veto threat on this bill 
and the fact that the Senate isn't going to act on it. But, anyway, it 
is in here.
  There was an amendment to be offered by Congressman Broun from 
Georgia--which I was going to strongly support--which would have fixed 
the bill and probably brought a fair number of votes across the aisle 
by stripping these extraneous provisions regarding NEPA, wilderness, 
and everything that is under attack in this bill that doesn't need to 
be under attack in this bill. But I guess somehow, even though it was 
made in order, the Republican side has convinced him not to offer the 
amendment because it would have passed, and it would have made the bill 
better.
  So at this point, at least we could support the Ellison amendment as 
it relates to national wildlife refuges.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stewart). The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess all good things come to an end because I 
rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I oppose this 
amendment because it undermines what I consider to be a fundamental 
purpose of the law. The fundamental purpose that we are here for today 
is to protect our hunting and fishing traditions on Federal lands. We 
are making a clear statement that hunting and fishing are an important 
use of our multiple-use Federal lands.
  This bill establishes a clear policy that Federal lands should be 
open for hunting and fishing unless specifically closed by a 
transparent and open Federal process. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman, 
that Federal lands should be open for hunting and fishing unless 
specifically closed by a transparent and open Federal process.
  NEPA requires preparation of an environmental impact statement when a 
Federal agency proposes to take major Federal action. When H.R. 3590 is 
enacted in law, there will be no need for a costly and bureaucratic 
process currently necessary to make lands available for hunting and 
fishing. That process won't be necessary because it will be the law. 
Congress has spoken as to what the law is.
  Again, this bill is designed to set out an open--unless specifically 
closed--process on BLM and Forest Service lands. As a result, no major 
Federal action would be needed or would take place to keep these lands 
open to these traditional important uses of our shared Federal lands.
  If there is no administrative action, there is no need for an EIS or 
NEPA review. However, H.R. 3590 confirms an established understanding 
of the law that, should an agency move to close Federal lands, the 
agency should then undertake an open and public process before having 
the lands closed to our traditional uses.
  Now, we know that these provisions are important because they fix a 
court-created problem regarding the implementation of the 1997 National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. We have seen the clear track 
record that antihunter groups will use to tie up hunting and fishing 
access to Federal lands with endless lawsuits. This bill reverses this 
trend and makes our lands open for hunting and fishing. Again, Mr. 
Chairman, we are making the policy statement that this will be what the 
law of the land is.
  H.R. 3590 directs that our conservation dollars be spent on 
conservation activities in the field rather than on redundant paperwork 
and, of course, endless lawsuits. That is the goal of the bill that 
this amendment would undercut and which would undercut our goal of 
promoting hunting and fishing.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge defeat of the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 44, line 22, strike ``Nothing'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided by subsection (l), nothing''.
       Page 45, after line 24, insert the following:
       (l) Motorized Vessels in the Ozark National Scenic 
     Riverways.--The Secretary of the Interior--
       (1) shall manage the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to 
     allow the use of motorized vessels in a manner that is not 
     more restrictive

[[Page 2432]]

     than the use restrictions in effect on November 21, 2013; and
       (2) may manage the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to allow 
     the use of motorized vessels in a manner that is less 
     restrictive than the use restrictions in effect on November 
     21, 2013.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 
present this amendment to H.R. 3590 today, the Sportsmen's Heritage And 
Recreational Enhancement Act.
  As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I couldn't be prouder 
of the work that we have done to continue to protect our sportsmen's 
ability to enjoy the outdoors. As such, I am honored to offer my 
amendment that would ensure that sportsmen will continue to be able to 
use motorized vessels in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, a 
national park contained wholly within my congressional district in 
southern Missouri.
  The Ozark National Scenic Riverways is a popular destination in 
Missouri for fishing, gigging, and trapping. These activities have 
traditionally been undertaken by individuals and families for 
generations. An economy has arisen in my district selling boats, 
motors, and other products to folks who want to gig, fish, and trap 
within the rivers.
  Recently, the National Park Service has been discussing closing down 
areas of the park to motorized vessels and further limiting the 
horsepower of these vessels in other areas. The reduction of boat motor 
horsepower would limit the number of folks who could be on a boat and 
restrict access to families. Banning motorized vessels from areas of 
the park where they are currently allowed would further restrict the 
public's use and enjoyment of the park.
  Banning motorized vessels would also exclude groups from using the 
rivers that simply have no other options, like the elderly and disabled 
veterans. Why would the Park Service resort to such drastic measures to 
block activities that are currently allowed? One explanation is that 
they don't want folks to be able to utilize the river as they have for 
the past decades.
  My amendment would simply preserve the current park regulations as 
they are now and how they have been for the last five decades, 
preventing the Park Service from regulating sportsmen off the river. 
The Ozark National Scenic Riverways was created for the enjoyment of 
the public, and it should stay with the public.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is in the spirit of the 
underlying legislation, which is to make sure that there is access for 
hunting and fishing. And here we have, as I said in my opening 
statement, the potential of bureaucratic malaise, I guess, slowing down 
access to this particular area that the gentleman from Missouri 
recommends. I think his amendment adds a great deal to this 
legislation, and I intend to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I certainly am not an expert on the 
gentleman's district and what the exact issue is here; however, I do 
know that there has been a proposed management plan that has been out 
for comment since November 8. It will close on Friday. I would hope 
that the gentleman and concerned parties on either side of the issue 
have all weighed in to comment because what we are doing here today in 
this bill will not become law. It is already guaranteed a veto threat. 
The addition of this to the bill will not help resolve what is a local 
issue where the Park Service has to weigh comments from motorized users 
and nonmotorized users and then come to a conclusion weighing those 
comments and put forward a new management plan. That is the way this is 
going to get done.
  It shouldn't be done from Washington, D.C. We shouldn't be dictating. 
If we get into every individual land use or access decision being made 
by every unit of the Park Service, every unit of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and their refuges and every unit of the Forest Service and 
every unit of the BLM, we are going to be pretty busy and be embroiled 
in a lot of local controversy.
  So this, I believe, is premature in that the comment period closes 
this week and the process will come to a conclusion. Comments will be 
weighed and a decision will be put out for final comment. It is also, 
at this point, being added to a bill that is going nowhere.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to clarify something, Mr. Chairman, that has been said 
here by my friend, the ranking member, that the administration has 
issued a veto threat. They have not issued a veto threat. They have 
said, and I will just read the last line of their Statement of 
Administration Policy. It says:

       The administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     to enact sportsmen and recreation legislation that addresses 
     the concerns raised with certain provisions of H.R. 3590.

  Now, in the letter they do say they have problems with four of the 
eight titles. But to simply suggest that the administration has issued 
a veto threat on this is simply not correct. And I ask--well, I will 
let it go.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Crawford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

TITLE __--EXEMPTIONS FOR TAKING MIGRATORY BIRDS ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL 
                                  LAND

     SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Hunter and Farmer 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. _02. EXEMPTIONS ON CERTAIN LAND.

       Section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Exemptions on Certain Land.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section prohibits the 
     taking of any migratory game bird, including waterfowl, 
     coots, and cranes, on or over land that--
       ``(A) contains--
       ``(i) a standing crop or flooded standing crop, including 
     an aquatic crop;
       ``(ii) standing, flooded, or manipulated natural 
     vegetation;
       ``(iii) flooded harvested cropland; or
       ``(iv) an area in a State on which seed or grain has been 
     scattered solely as the result of an agricultural planting, 
     harvesting, or post-harvest manipulation practice, or a soil 
     stabilization practice, that the head of the State office of 
     the Cooperative Extension System of the Department of 
     Agriculture has determined in accordance with paragraph (2) 
     to be a normal practice in that State; and
       ``(B) is not otherwise a baited area.
       ``(2) State determinations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The head of a State office of the 
     Cooperative Extension System may make a determination for 
     purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(iv) upon the request of the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(B) Revisions.--The head of a State office of the 
     Cooperative Extension System may revise a determination under 
     subparagraph (A) as the head of a State office determines to 
     be necessary to reflect changing agricultural practices.
       ``(C) Concurrence required.--A determination or revision 
     under this paragraph shall not be effective for purposes of 
     this subsection unless the head of the State department of 
     fish and wildlife concurs therein.''.


[[Page 2433]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  My amendment will provide a limited exemption related to the taking 
of migratory game birds over farm fields. In short, it clarifies a 
recent interpretation by the Fish and Wildlife Service about what 
constitutes a ``baited field.''
  In 2012, the agency warned rice growers that some of their fields 
that had been rolled--as farmer often do after the harvest to prepare 
the field to be planted the next spring--could be off limits to 
waterfowl hunting. That summer's drought led to an early rice harvest 
in several parts of the country, and heavy rainfall then caused a rare 
secondary ``ratoon'' crop to sprout. The Fish and Wildlife Service 
cautioned that should rice heads emerge in those fields, their 
guidelines stated that any field work, such as rolling, would make it a 
baited field where waterfowl hunting would be unlawful.
  Waterfowl hunting is a vital industry in my State. Hunters come from 
the world over to Arkansas' First District, and farmers, small 
businesses, and the rural communities that dot the delta all rely on 
the millions of dollars hunters bring with them every year.
  My amendment is a commonsense solution that simply states that a 
field may not be considered baited as the result of normal agricultural 
practices, as determined by the State Office of the Cooperative 
Extension Service at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, with 
concurrence from that State's Fish and Wildlife Service.
  I ask for your support for this important amendment that will protect 
farmers from being punished for simply carrying out long-recognized and 
responsible agricultural practices.
  With that, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
plan to support his amendment.
  This is something that it seems like we wrestle with all the time 
here on the Federal level. There is uniqueness when you are on the 
ground, but yet we write rules and regulations on the one size fits 
all. This is clearly a unique situation, and I think the gentleman's 
amendment clarifies that very well.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, we often have conflicts in Oregon. We had a 
very substantial conflict relating to geese in terms of farmers' 
fields. The resolution was that the birds protected by the Migratory 
Bird Act would continue to be protected, but farmers would be able to 
hunt with the State license--and I don't know about the gentleman's 
State whether or not a State license would be required--the birds that 
were not migratory that were becoming pests and were resident in order 
to protect their crops.

                              {time}  1545

  This substantially resolved the problem.
  I don't know if a similar fix would work here, but an amendment that 
gives an open license on the Migratory Bird Act, which has 
international implications, the migratory bird treaty, seems to me to 
be an extreme measure in this case. Therefore, we would oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Fleming

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 113-339.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill, add the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 805. RESTRICTIONS ON HUNTING IN KISATCHIE NATIONAL 
                   FOREST.

       (a) Hunting in Kisatchie National Forest.--Consistent with 
     the Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may not restrict the use of dogs in deer hunting 
     activities in Kisatchie National Forest, unless such 
     restrictions--
       (1) apply to the smallest practicable portions of such 
     unit; and
       (2) are necessary to reduce or control trespass onto land 
     adjacent to such unit.
       (b) Prior Restrictions Void.--Any restrictions regarding 
     the use of dogs in deer hunting activities in Kisatchie 
     National Forest in force on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act shall be void and have no force or effect.
       (c) Adjacent Landowners.--Landowners whose property abuts a 
     unit of the Kisatchie National Forest may petition the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the use of dogs in deer 
     hunting activities that take place on such unit which abut 
     their property. If the Secretary of Agriculture receives a 
     petition from an adjacent landowner, the Secretary, after 
     notice and opportunity for a hearing, may impose restrictions 
     on the use of dogs in deer hunting--
       (1) limited to those units of the Kisatchie National Forest 
     within 300 yards of the boundary of the petitioning 
     landowner's property; and
       (2) consistent with subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment today maintains the State of Louisiana's ability to 
regulate hunting within its borders. In a decision announced March 1, 
2012, the Forest Service Regional Forester located way over in Atlanta, 
Georgia, went over the heads of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife 
and Fisheries and the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission to 
forever prohibit the use of dogs to hunt deer in Kisatchie National 
Forest.
  Deer hunting has a long and important cultural history within the 
State of Louisiana. When French settlers first came to Louisiana in the 
18th century, thickets and dense timber covered the area. Most of these 
settlers had companion dogs with them, and the most treasured 
companions were the deerhounds. The use of dogs helped hunters drive 
the deer from the woods onto trails, and the plentiful herds provided 
exciting sport and sound nourishment.
  The 600-acre Kisatchie National Forest has provided diverse hunting 
opportunities for decades, including the use of dogs in hunting a 
variety of animals. Oddly enough, the Regional Forester does not 
prohibit the use of dogs for hunting raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, and 
game birds. The dog deer season in Louisiana has been severely 
restricted in recent years, down from 15 days to 7 days in 2012, and 
dog deer hunting in the Kisatchie has been limited to certain ranger 
districts.
  According to communication with the Forest Service, seven Southern 
States allow hunting in the national forest within their borders. They 
include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Louisiana. However, this is the first time the Forest 
Service has issued a ban on dog deer hunting or hunting deer with dogs 
within a specific State.
  According to the Forest Service documents, the revenue generated from 
dog deer hunting, including the care of animals, contributes 
approximately 18 to 29 direct jobs and results in roughly $890,000 to 
$1.4 million of income from hunting tourism and related activities. By 
the Forest Service's own assessment, it is likely that economic 
benefits are currently being lost as hunters leave the area to pursue 
the sport elsewhere. This is having a tangible economic impact on our 
State, robbing it of even more jobs.
  I would like to emphasize that the State of Louisiana, the Kennel 
Club, and Safari Club International support my amendment, and a similar 
amendment was accepted by the House with a voice vote last Congress.

[[Page 2434]]

  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLEMING. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
think this is a good amendment, and I support the amendment. The 
primary purpose of this legislation is to limit unjustified Federal 
bureaucratic limitations on hunting and fishing.
  I also want to make a point here that it is important to recognize 
that the authority of States to regulate hunting and fishing should be 
paramount over the Federal Government. Individual Federal agencies 
should not preempt State laws, and it sounds to me like that is what 
the gentleman is talking about in his case.
  I think the amendment is a good amendment, and I support it.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have talked about major problems 
confronting this Congress, and here we are now trying to resolve yet 
another local conflict.
  After considerable complaints by private property owners about 
hunters encroaching on their land to retrieve their dogs that have 
gotten lost, driving on their land and that, the Forest Service decided 
because of the intermingled ownership to prohibit dog deer hunting.
  Now comes the gentleman who says, well, we are going to reopen it. We 
will countermand the locally made decision, but we will have a new 
process where the private landowners can petition the secretary to re-
close certain areas of the area that are now closed that he is 
reopening because of conflicts with their private property. However, 
these private property owners' petitions will have to go through the 
dreaded NEPA process, and that is, for deciding something as minor as 
that, kind of problematic.
  You know, I guess maybe we should have a special day here, and I have 
some beefs with some Federal agencies ongoing that I would like to 
settle with legislation, too. Maybe we should have an open amendment 
process some day where every little local issue we have been dealing 
with with a Federal agency which is contentious between conflicting 
users will be decided by the United States Congress in Washington, 
D.C., not at the local level. That is what we are doing here. It is 
pretty extraordinary.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the issues brought 
up here.
  First of all, the gentleman said there were multiple complaints. This 
was studied considerably. There was 1,237 responses to a request in 
2009, and by October 6, we found that there were 77 percent, a clear 
majority of the respondents, who were actually in favor of continuing 
the practice of dog deer hunting. This was requested again in 2011, and 
there were over 1,300 respondents, and all but 16 were in favor of dog 
deer hunting and against the Forest Service proposed ban.
  The other thing I would like to address, Mr. Chairman, is this was 
not a locally made decision. This was made in Atlanta. This is the 
problem. This has been going on for 300 years in the State of 
Louisiana. It is a big part of our heritage, and somebody over in 
Georgia, in Atlanta, representing the Federal Government, made this 
decision, not locally. There was no decision locally. The State 
supports this. The local residents support it by a vast majority.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to just say that 
the people of Louisiana want to see this Forest Service ban overturned. 
This was a decision made outside of our borders. In effect, if you 
will, even though the people of Louisiana were asked and they gave the 
correct answer, it was ignored, and the decision was made by someone 
outside of our borders. This was a decision made by somebody in 
Atlanta, a Federal employee, interfering with a local issue.
  This is a tradition that goes back 300 years, and I think it is 
pretty obvious that the people of Louisiana support the continuance of 
hunting deer with dogs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Holding) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________