[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2229-2239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 619 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2406.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1616


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2406) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational 
hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Black 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, before the House today is the Sportsmen's Heritage and 
Recreational Enhancement Act of 2016, better known as the SHARE Act. It 
is a package of commonsense bills that will increase opportunities for 
hunters, recreational shooters, and anglers; eliminate unneeded 
regulatory impediments; safeguard against new regulations that impede 
outdoor sporting activities; and protect Second Amendment rights. 
Similar packages were passed with strong bipartisan support in both the 
112th and 113th Congresses.
  Outdoor sporting activities, including hunting, fishing, and 
recreational shooting, are deeply engrained in the fabric of America's 
culture and heritage. Values instilled by partaking in these activities 
are passed down from generation to generation and play a significant 
part in the lives of millions of Americans.

[[Page 2230]]

  Much of America's outdoor sporting activity occurs on our Nation's 
Federal lands. Unfortunately, Federal agencies like the U.S. Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management often prevent or impede access to 
Federal lands for outdoor sporting activities. Because lack of access 
is one of the key reasons sportsmen and -women stop participating in 
outdoor sporting activities, ensuring the public has reliable access to 
our Nation's Federal lands must remain a top priority.
  The SHARE Act does just that. One of the key provisions in the bill, 
the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, will 
increase and sustain access for hunting, fishing, and recreational 
shooting on Federal lands for generations to come. Specifically, it 
protects sportsmen and -women from arbitrary efforts by the Federal 
Government to block Federal lands from hunting and fishing activities 
by implementing an ``open until closed'' management policy.
  Another provision in the package will give State and Federal agencies 
the tools to jointly create and maintain recreational shooting ranges 
on Federal lands. In addition, the bill allows the Department of the 
Interior to designate hunting access corridors throughout our national 
parks so that sportsmen and -women can access adjacent Federal lands to 
hunt and fish.
  The package also protects Second Amendment rights and the use of 
traditional ammunition and fishing tackle. It defends law-abiding 
individuals' constitutional right to keep and bear arms on lands 
managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and ensures that hunters are not 
burdened by outdated laws preventing bows and crossbows from being 
transported across national parks.
  Finally, the package prevents the implementation of onerous 
constraints by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on lawfully possessed 
domestic ivory products and eliminates red tape associated with the 
importation of 41 lawfully harvested polar bear hunting trophies.
  This important legislation will sustain America's rich hunting and 
fishing traditions, improve access to our Federal lands for responsible 
outdoor sporting activities, and help ensure that the current and 
future generations of sportsmen and -women are able to enjoy the 
sporting activities our country has to offer and what we hold dear.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important 
election.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, 22 February 2016.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: During the week of February 22, 2016, 
     the House will be debating H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen's 
     Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015. The bill 
     was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, 
     with an additional referral to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, among other committees.
       At the request of Vice Chairman Cynthia Lummis, I ask that 
     you allow the inclusion of the text of H.R. 3279, the Open 
     Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, as passed by the House 
     of Representatives, as part of a manager's amendment to the 
     bill. Mrs. Lummis is a cosponsor of the measure and has 
     discussed this course of action with the bill's author. The 
     Senate counterpart to H.R. 2406 already includes such a 
     provision, and I believe it would be a substantial 
     improvement to the bill and bolster its purpose of increased 
     sportsmen's opportunities to hunt, fish and recreationally 
     shoot. If the amendment is adopted, this action would in no 
     way affect your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     amendment, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     amendments. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee on 
     this matter. Finally, I would be pleased to include this 
     letter and any response in the Congressional Record to 
     document our agreement.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request, and I look 
     forward to further opportunities to work with you this 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Rob Bishop,

                                                         Chairman,
     Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 2016.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bishop: I am writing with respect to H.R. 
     2406, the ``Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015,'' which the House is scheduled to debate this 
     week. As a result of your having consulted with us on the 
     inclusion of the text of H.R. 3279, the ``Open Book on Equal 
     Access to Justice Act,'' as part of your Committee's 
     manager's amendment to H.R. 2406, I agree to allow the text 
     of H.R. 3279 to be included in the amendment.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by allowing the inclusion of the text of 
     H.R. 3279 in the manager's amendment, we do not waive any 
     jurisdiction over subject matter contained in H.R. 3279 or 
     similar legislation, and that our Committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as H.R. 2406 moves 
     forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our 
     jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek 
     appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving H.R. 2406, and asks that 
     you support any such request.
       I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration of H.R. 2406.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 2016.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On December 10, 2015, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources favorably reported as amended H.R. 2406, 
     the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 
     2015.
       The reported bill contains provisions affecting import 
     bans, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 
     Committee. I ask that you not seek a sequential referral of 
     the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader 
     this week. This concession in no way affects your 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will 
     not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, 
     should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support 
     your request to have the Committee on Ways and Means 
     represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be 
     pleased to include this letter and any response in the 
     Congressional Record to document this agreement.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request, and I look 
     forward to further opportunities to work with you this 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 2016.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bishop: I am writing with respect to H.R. 
     2406, the ``Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015,'' which the Committee on Natural Resources 
     ordered reported favorably. As you note, several provisions 
     of the bill affect the establishment and operation of import 
     bans, a matter that is within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. I agree to forego action on this 
     bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor 
     for consideration.
       The Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 2406 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks 
     that you support any such request.
       I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration of H.R. 2406.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kevin Brady,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 8, 2015, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered favorably reported as amended H.R. 
     2406, the Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, among other committees. My staff 
     has shared a copy of the reported text with your staff.

[[Page 2231]]

       I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no 
     way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on Agriculture represented on the conference committee. 
     Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources to memorialize our understanding, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the 
     extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over 
     matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further 
     opportunities to work with you this Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rob Bishop,
                         Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.


     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                 Washington, DC, December 8, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review 
     H.R. 2406, the Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational 
     Enhancement Act of 2015. As you are aware, the bill was 
     primarily referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, 
     while the Agriculture Committee received an additional 
     referral.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, 
     accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 2406 from further 
     consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with 
     the understanding that by discharging the bill, the Committee 
     on Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim 
     on this or similar matters. Further, the Committee on 
     Agriculture reserves the right to seek the appointment of 
     conferees, if it should become necessary.
       I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters 
     into the Congressional Record during consideration of this 
     measure on the House floor.
       Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look 
     forward to continued cooperation between our respective 
     committees.
           Sincerely,
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
                                                         Chairman.


     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2015.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 8, 2015, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered favorably reported as amended H.R. 
     2406, the Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, among other 
     committees.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure to be discharged from further consideration of 
     the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. 
     This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the 
     subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as 
     precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a 
     conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your 
     request to have the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure represented on the conference committee. 
     Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources to memorialize our understanding, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the 
     extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over 
     matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further 
     opportunities to work with you this Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rob Bishop,
                         Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.


     
                                  ____
         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                 Washington, DC, December 8, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bishop: I write concerning H.R. 2406, the 
     Sportmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015 
     (SHARE Act). This legislation includes matters that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       In order to expedite Floor consideration of H.R. 2406, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will forgo 
     action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill 
     does not prejudice the Committee with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional 
     claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or 
     similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X 
     jurisdiction. Should a conference on the bill be necessary, I 
     fully expect the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure to be represented on the conference committee.
       Thank you for your assistance in this matter and for 
     agreeing to include a copy of this letter in the bill report 
     filed by the Committee on Natural Resources, as well as in 
     the Congressional Record during Floor consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
                                                         Chairman.


     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 8, 2015, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered favorably reported as amended H.R. 
     2406, the Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, among other committees.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so 
     that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This 
     discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the 
     subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as 
     precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a 
     conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your 
     request to have the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be 
     pleased to include this letter and any response in the bill 
     report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources to 
     memorialize our understanding, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the 
     extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over 
     matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further 
     opportunities to work with you this Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2406, the Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015.
       As you noted, the bill was additionally referred to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I agree to the 
     discharge of the Committee from further consideration of the 
     bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This 
     discharge in no way affects the Committee's jurisdiction over 
     the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as 
     precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a 
     conference on the bill be necessary, I appreciate your 
     support for my request to have the Committee represented on 
     the conference committee.
       Finally, I appreciate the inclusion of your letter and this 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources to memorialize our understanding, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record.
       Thank you for your assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2015.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 8, 2015, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered favorably reported as amended H.R. 
     2406, the Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, among other committees.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no 
     way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee. 
     Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources to memorialize our understanding, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record.

[[Page 2232]]

       Thank you for your consideration of my request, and I look 
     forward to further opportunities to work with you this 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Rob Bishop,

                                                         Chairman,
     Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bishop: I am writing with respect to H.R. 
     2406, the ``Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement 
     Act of 2015,'' which the Committee on Natural Resources 
     recently ordered reported favorably. As a result of your 
     having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 2406 that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, I agree to discharge our Committee from further 
     consideration of this bill so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 2406 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks 
     that you support any such request.
       I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of H.R. 2406.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 2406, with great respect for my 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia. I respect very much what 
Representative Wittman and others are trying to do.
  The best I can do to describe H.R. 2406 is a missed opportunity. Many 
of the titles in the bill are inoffensive, but others would 
significantly hinder conservation efforts that benefit hunters, 
anglers, and other lovers of the outdoors.
  I myself am an avid hiker, Madam Chair. I just completed 25 miles on 
the Appalachian Trail in the snow last week in Representative 
Goodlatte's district. I am up to 1,288 miles on the Appalachian Trail. 
I would love to see conservation efforts that protect the long-term 
legacy of the Appalachian Trail like the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund.
  Simply put, this bill doesn't include the sporting community's top 
legislative priorities. The Natural Resources Committee Democrats have 
been clear from the beginning that we are open to discussions that 
could lead to compromise legislation--legislation that would indeed 
include many of the pieces of this bill, but also additional titles 
that would earn it broad bipartisan support.
  In a letter several days ago, Ranking Member Grijalva wrote to the 
chair expressing optimism that a noncontroversial outcome could still 
be achieved and requesting negotiations to produce a bill that would 
pass the House without opposition. Unfortunately, this request was 
denied.
  So I would love to have this bill on the suspension calendar, but not 
on the suspension calendar I would like to detail nine specific 
objections.
  Objection 1, this bill omits the top two priorities of the outdoors 
community, the permit reauthorization of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and the permit reauthorization of the North American 
Wetlands Conservation Act.
  LWCF has provided funding to help protect some of Virginia's most 
special places: the Rappahannock River Valley, Back Bay National 
Wildlife Refuge, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Historic District, and 
the Appalachian Trail.
  Studies have shown that for every dollar of LWCF invested, there is a 
$4 return to communities. The broader outdoor recreation conservation 
economy is responsible for more than $600 billion in consumer spending 
every year.
  This is one of the Nation's premier programs. Over the years, LWCF 
has been responsible for more than 40,000 State and local outdoor 
recreation projects: playgrounds, parks, refuges, and baseball fields. 
There is strong bipartisan support. I believe 88 percent of Americans 
want Congress to preserve it. So now is the perfect opportunity to do 
that.
  We have had hearings in the Committee on Natural Resources on 
Representative Chairman Bishop's bill. We need hearings on 
Representative Grijalva's H.R. 1814, which has more than 200 bipartisan 
cosponsors. This bill was the perfect opportunity to include that bill.
  It was also the perfect opportunity to do the North American Wetlands 
Conservation Act, NAWCA. It is a voluntary, nonregulatory conservation 
program. Farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners support the 
program, and every project is voluntary. It fosters conservation 
efforts by the non-Federal sector.
  Over the years, nearly 5,000 corporate, small business, nonprofit, 
State, and local entities have tripled NAWCA dollars by providing 
matching funds. The 50 State wildlife agencies are all active partners 
in it, and demand for NAWCA continues to exceed available funds. So 
this was debated and thoroughly vetted in the 112th and the 113th 
Congresses. It was unanimously reauthorized by Congress in 2006, and 
this was a great vehicle to do that.
  Objection 2, title X, I believe, which is the ivory title, this would 
gut the administration's proposed ivory rule. Last year, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service seized a 1-ton stockpile of illegal elephant 
ivory, most of which was seized from a Philadelphia antique dealer 
named Victor Gordon.
  For at least 9 years, Gordon imported and sold ivory from freshly 
killed African elephants in violation of U.S. law and the laws of the 
countries where the elephants were poached and the ivory was stolen. 
While a ton of ivory was confiscated, there is no way to know how much 
Gordon had sold during the previous decade or where it is now.
  How did he get away with it for so long?
  The ivory was doctored so it looked old enough to pass through a 
loophole in enforcement of the African Elephant Conservation Act, a law 
that was passed by us in 1989 to end the commercial import and export 
of ivory.
  The Obama administration's proposed ivory rule would close that 
loophole and prevent U.S. citizens from being involved--knowingly or 
unknowingly--in elephant poaching and the trafficking crisis. Ending 
the commercial ivory trade does not mean taking away the people's 
musical instruments, ivory-handled pistols, or family heirlooms. Museum 
collections, scientific specimens, and sport-hunted trophies will also 
be allowed to move freely. Neither the Fish and Wildlife Service's 
direct order nor the forthcoming Endangered Species Act rule restrict 
possession or transport within the United States, and transport into 
and out of the country will still be allowed with the appropriate 
documentation.
  Further, items up to 200 grams--7 ounces--of ivory can still be 
bought and sold, and that is more ivory than is in any piano or ivory-
gripped pistol.
  What the rule will do is stop profiteering off elephant parts in this 
country. As long as ivory has monetary value, people will kill 
elephants to get it. Eliminating value will eliminate demand, and it is 
a necessary component of the broader U.S. strategy to reduce wildlife 
poaching and trafficking.
  I am disappointed that Ranking Member Grijalva's amendment to strike 
ivory was not made in order in the Rules Committee, but I understand no 
one wanting to vote on this floor to be in favor of killing more 
elephants. Regardless, the inclusion of that provision in this bill 
before us today shows that somehow we are unaware or unconcerned with 
the fact that poachers are slaughtering nearly 100 African elephants a 
day.
  Objection 3, Madam Chair, is section 302 of SHARE Act that would 
allow polar bear trophies. It creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal 
Protection

[[Page 2233]]

Act to allow a handful of wealthy trophy hunters to import polar bear 
trophies into the U.S. in defiance of current law.
  If passed, this will be the fourth major carve-out by Congress since 
1994 for Americans who have hunted polar bears in Canada. Although the 
number of polar bears affected by this loophole will be relatively 
small, the cumulative effect of the carve-outs has been detrimental to 
an imperiled species.
  And these trophy hunters were not caught up in government bureaucracy 
or red tape. All the individuals hunted the bears after the George W. 
Bush administration proposed the species for listing as threatened 
under the Endangered Species Act despite repeated warnings from 
government agencies, hunting groups, and the conservation community 
that the trophies could face a bar on importation and that these 
hunters were hunting at their own risk.
  Granting this request would create a dangerous precedent by 
encouraging hunters to race for trophies the moment any species is 
considered for listing when such species most need protection, knowing 
they can rely on Congress later to let them import their trophies.
  Objection 4, the provision gives States the veto power on Federal 
fishing management and national marine parks, sanctuaries, and 
monuments.
  I flew to Homestead, Florida, this past spring, Madam Chair, for 
their public hearing on the Biscayne Bay, a national marine that was 
set aside by the park service. It was a small, small percentage of the 
total Federal lands and waters. About half the fishermen there were for 
it and half the fishermen were against it, but it missed the fact that 
these were not State waters and that we in Congress have a 
responsibility to the entire Nation, not just for any one county or one 
region.
  Our oceans cover more than 70 percent of the Earth, and 99 percent of 
that water is open to fishing, but in some cases science shows that we 
must protect certain areas. We all want more people to have more 
fishing opportunities, but the fish have to be there.
  I was impressed by something the director of NOAA told me a couple 
years ago, that the fishing marine reserves in the Pacific set aside by 
George W. Bush, you can now see them from space because the fish have 
recovered so quickly within those reserves, that the fishing vessels 
outline the perimeter of the reserve, which you can see from 100 miles 
away.
  Objection 5, title 15 bars the Forest Service from restricting dog 
deer hunting on certain national forest lands in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The aim is to allow for a 
continued hunting of deer with dogs, which is an extremely 
controversial practice that pits landowners against hunters.
  Landowners complained. This didn't come from overzealous 
environmentalists or Federal regulators. It came from landowner 
complaints to the Forest Service to ban deer dogging in the Louisiana 
Kisatchie National Forest.

                              {time}  1630

  Congress should let expert land managers manage land and other 
resources valued by all Americans. This decision to ban hunting deer 
with dogs was necessary to create balance among multiple users of the 
forest, and Congress should respect that.
  Objection 6 is title IV that creates the Recreational Lands Self-
Defense Act. This bill would actually prohibit the Army from developing 
or enforcing any regulation that prohibits an individual from 
possessing a firearm at recreation areas administered by the Corps of 
Engineers. It is just hard to believe that we are going to restrict the 
Army from regulating gun use on Army property. If the Army is in charge 
of lands management, it should be able to determine whether firearms 
are appropriate on a site.
  Army lands abut family homes and other sensitive sites. We should not 
lightly permit access in places where an accidental shot could wind up 
in someone's backyard or in a sensitive location. Accidental shots are 
real. A longtime family friend--a West Point graduate and a retired 
Army colonel--was sitting at his desk when a bullet, an accidental 
bullet, came through the window, hit him in the back of the neck, and 
he is a quadriplegic today.
  Objection 7 is title IX that changes a successful program, the 
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. On the Natural Resources 
Committee, we have heard much from the majority, appropriately, about 
how we need to deal with the incredible infrastructure deferred 
maintenance backlog that we have on lands that we own. Basically, that 
we shouldn't buy more until we take care of what we already have. This 
would allow the existing act to take 100 percent of the land from land 
transactions and spend it on deferred maintenance.
  This violates the whole original idea of the act: that we would sell 
Federal land to get more Federal land back. Furthermore, it makes these 
expenditures subject to appropriation. So if we bring in X million 
dollars in land sold, we don't have to buy or even use that X million 
dollars on new deferred maintenance. It could just go to--wherever.
  I am disappointed that the bipartisan land-for-land FLTFA version 
that sportsmen in 165 groups have championed for a decade isn't 
included in the SHARE Act today.
  Objection 8 is title VI. Currently over 75 percent of all Federal 
land is open to hunting and fishing, but title VI deems all Bureau of 
Land Management and Forest Service land open for hunting unless it is 
closed by the head of the agency through a long closure process. Right 
now, they can be closed by local land managers.
  Once again, I find this a little ironic because so much of the theme 
from the majority, which I respect, is to move decisionmaking back 
close to the communities that are actually affected. In this case, they 
are moving it away from the communities and to Washington, D.C., to 
close these lands. It also undermines the Wilderness Act, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act.
  Finally, Madam Chair, objection 9 is trapping. The SHARE Act would 
dramatically expand the use of body-gripping traps on Federal public 
lands, including in sensitive wilderness areas. The provision takes the 
step, unprecedented in Federal law, of adding trapping to the 
definition of hunting, then creating a presumption that all these 
Federal public lands are open. Millions of acres of land would be open 
to trapping.
  Even under current law, roughly 6 million targeted animals are killed 
in traps every year, according to Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies. Held in a painful leghold trap, a beaver, a bobcat, a fox, 
will try desperately to break free in the hours or days until they 
succumb to dehydration, predators, or death at the hands of trappers. 
Traps are dangerous and they are indiscriminate in snaring not only 
targeted areas, but threaten endangered species, pets, or even 
unsuspecting children and adults.
  Leghold traps have already been prohibited or severely restricted in 
nine U.S. States in over 80 countries. Congress should be acting to 
protect the public, endangered species, and pets from dangerous and 
indiscriminate body-gripping traps, not expanding their use into 
additional areas. Really, how can trapping be described as 
sportsmanlike?
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his work on behalf of American sportsmen.
  Madam Chair, three overarching goals should guide our Federal land 
policy. First, to restore public access to the public lands; second, to 
restore sound and proven scientific management to the public lands; and 
finally, to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to the 
local communities impacted by the public lands.

[[Page 2234]]

  This measure does all three. It removes the arbitrary and capricious 
restrictions that are increasingly imposed on hunting and fishing by 
various Federal agencies; it enlists sportsmen in the long-neglected 
management of overpopulated species; and it gives more funds to States 
for recreational activities on public lands while encouraging greater 
participation by the public in developing these policies.
  Outdoor sporting activities, including hunting and fishing and 
recreational shooting, are deeply engrained in the fabric of America's 
culture and heritage that are now under attack by the radical left.
  In 2011, over 37 million Americans hunted or fished across the 
country. These traditional outdoor activities contributed over $90 
billion to the U.S. economy in 2011, much of it in the gateway 
communities to our public lands. Unfortunately, Federal agencies like 
the Forest Service and the BLM often prevent or impede public access 
for outdoor sporting activities. This is a large and growing class of 
complaints that my office fields in a district that includes five 
national forests in the Sierra Nevada of California.
  One of the key provisions of this bill will increase and sustain 
access for hunting and fishing and recreational shooting on public 
lands by implementing an ``open until closed'' management policy. It 
also requires Federal agencies to report to Congress on any closures of 
Federal lands to these pursuits. Another provision would provide State 
and Federal coordination to create and maintain recreational shooting 
ranges on the Federal lands.
  This bill protects the property rights of those who have acquired 
ivory products and other trophies over generations, long before any of 
this hunting was banned, and often passed on down through the 
generations within a family. It does absolutely nothing to imperil the 
protected species under current laws.
  The purpose of the public lands can be found in the original Yosemite 
Grant Act of 1864: public use, resort, and recreation for all time. The 
SHARE Act recognizes our Nation's hunting and fishing heritage; it 
strengthens the fundamental right of public use; it secures the vital 
role that recreational hunting and fishing play in resource management; 
and it guarantees the freedom to sustain that heritage for the many 
generations of Americans to come.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2406. This bill is 
being described as a simple package to support hunting and fishing on 
Federal lands.
  For fishing and hunting to be sustained, it must be done with a mind 
toward conservation. Unfortunately, this bill fails to achieve this 
need, and it threatens the very environment that supports the animals. 
Of course, by doing so, it endangers the sustainability and long-term 
viability of hunting and fishing, also.
  Furthermore, this bill ignores scientifically based best practices, 
leaving these lands at risk. While there are numerous bad provisions in 
the bill, including allowing ill-advised ivory and polar bear 
importation and actually preventing scientifically based regulations, 
this bill is particularly troubling because it limits Federal 
management, lead ammunition, and fishing tackle.
  We hear every day about the dangers of lead. The devastating impacts 
of lead poisoning are not just restricted to people. I have seen these 
dangers firsthand, as they are extremely apparent in my district on the 
central coast of California.
  As anyone from California knows, the California condor, the largest 
North American land bird and an iconic species along the central coast, 
was on the brink of extinction, in large part due to lead poisoning. A 
looming threat to this species remains, so we must stay vigilant. In 
fact, this danger is so imminent that published research shows that the 
species is unlikely to survive unless we continue to substantially 
reduce the threat of lead in the environment.
  The source of this lead is not a mystery. It is in large part the 
result of lead from hunting and fishing equipment. Lead poisoning is a 
terrible and cruel way for any animal to die. While the risk to condors 
is immediate, this risk is not limited in any way to this one species.
  Continuing to pollute our lands and waters with lead ammunition and 
fishing tackle makes absolutely no sense. But the bill before us would 
keep the Federal Government from doing anything to address this issue. 
It is so dangerous and shortsighted.
  That is why I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee which would 
have removed this dangerous language from the bill; but unfortunately, 
we will not be able to fix this problem on the floor because my 
amendment has been blocked from a vote. Despite its name, the SHARE Act 
would do little good and a great deal of harm. This is a bad bill.
  I urge my colleagues strenuously to oppose it.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend from Virginia for 
yielding and for his leadership in bringing the SHARE Act forward.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation that protects the rights 
of sportsmen and protects the rights of gun owners.
  Madam Chair, I am proud to come from Louisiana, which is called the 
Sportsman's Paradise. We have great traditions of hunting and fishing 
throughout our State.
  If you look at the barrage of regulations that have come out from 
this administration over the years, it has attacked so many different 
fundamental aspects of our society, so many things that make our 
country great. Of course, the right to hunt and fish is something that 
is not only a fundamental right for people, but it is actually 
something that brings families together. It is one of the great 
traditions that we love to share with our children. Our parents brought 
us hunting and fishing.
  Yet if you look at some of the regulations coming out of these 
Federal agencies today, it is actually undermining those rights. What 
this bill is targeted at is restoring those rights, to make sure, for 
example, when you have got agencies like the Corps of Engineers that 
are trying to arbitrarily shut off lands for the ability of people to 
go hunt, they shouldn't be able to do that. In fact, under this 
legislation, they won't be able to continue doing that. No unelected 
bureaucrat should be able to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.
  Something else we have seen, Madam Chair, is the Environmental 
Protection Agency, unfortunately an agency we hear a lot about around 
this town, that is out there threatening jobs, taking away the ability 
for people to do things that are important to their everyday lives.
  The EPA has been threatening to ban lead ammo and tackle. In this 
bill, we block the EPA from being able to ban lead ammo. Again, this is 
something that is fundamental to our rights as sportsmen, as hunters 
and fishermen, to be able to enjoy the fruits of our land.
  There are over 50 sports organizations that are supporting this 
legislation. I just want to read from the National Rifle Association's 
Institute for Legislative Action: ``The SHARE Act would give law-
abiding gun owners more access to carry firearms on land managed by the 
Army Corps of Engineers, protect lead-based ammunition, and promote the 
construction and maintenance of public target ranges.''
  Madam Chair, it is important legislation. I encourage all of our 
colleagues to support it and pass it over to the Senate.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I rise in support of the SHARE Act and the Sportsmen's Heritage and 
Recreational Enhancement Act.
  I thank my co-chair on the Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Wittman, for his

[[Page 2235]]

work on this bill. Like so many you have heard here today, we, as a 
Nation, are blessed with an abundance of opportunities in the outdoors. 
Like so many, I take advantage of them: hiking, biking, hunting, and 
fishing.
  For those who do participate in hunting and fishing, it truly is a 
passion, it is a way of life, and it is a heritage that we share with 
our parents. I don't think there is one of us who participated in it 
who doesn't remember a crisp autumn morning, waking up with our father, 
cooking breakfast, and going out to the field with the dew on the grass 
and the Sun coming up. To this day, I don't remember if we necessarily 
got a pheasant, but I remember my dad, and I remember talking about it.
  It was on those trips that I think we understood that hunting and 
fishing, as a way of life, is not in a vacuum.
  Hunting and fishing in Minnesota, 1.7 million Minnesotans participate 
in hunting and fishing. That contributes $3 billion to our economy and 
creates 48,000 direct jobs. If you take that across the Nation, it is 
$90 billion a year to our economy. That is not in a vacuum either, 
because we have a really unique system of conservation in this country: 
user pays and public benefits. Every shell and cartridge that is 
purchased and every fishing rod and boat that is purchased has an 
excise tax in it that goes back into the very conservation.

                              {time}  1645

  The people who are out hunting and fishing understand as well as 
anyone, if you don't have the proper habitat, you don't have the 
pheasants.
  An organization like I belong to, Pheasants Forever, has literally 
put in all of the money and has leveraged this in order to turn tens of 
thousands of acres of the prairie back to virgin prairie, which are now 
abundant with game for people to take advantage of. Those are the types 
of things that make sense.
  I understand the concerns that the gentleman expressed, and I 
understand that this is not a perfect bill. But I can tell you that it 
has been worked on for a long time and that it is a starting point.
  There is a realization and an understanding that we have to 
compromise on issues. We are going to have to work with the Senate, and 
we are going to get this in front of the President.
  Yet, I think most of us agree that our goal with this is to allow 
Americans to continue to have their constitutional rights and their 
abilities to do those activities they want, whether that be hiking, 
whether that be mountain biking, whether that be hunting, or whether 
that be fishing and, at the same time, to make sure that there is an 
economic engine in it that contributes to the ability to keep those 
lands up.
  I ask my friends to approach it with an open mind and to understand 
that this is truly deeply engrained in this culture. There are 
commonalities here. We have the same goals, to make sure these are 
available for our children.
  If we can come together and work on this, we have to take this first 
step. We are becoming a more populated country, and there are fewer 
opportunities for people to get out there. Many people are not 
landowners themselves; so, the public lands are the only places at 
which these activities can take place.
  There is enough out there. If we manage it right, we can share the 
land, as the act says, and we can do those activities that mean a lot 
to us and continue them for future generations.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Wittman and Mr. Walz for 
working with our committee to bring this bipartisan bill together to 
protect hunting and shooting heritages.
  One of the things that I, as well as many of my colleagues, hear 
repeatedly from our constituents is the complaint that land management 
agencies have blocked access to Federal lands. That especially goes for 
hunters and anglers and target shooters.
  Our national monuments alone have already closed 928,000 acres to 
hunting and recreational shooting. Most of those areas are, 
unfortunately, easily accessible. You don't have to walk miles to try 
and get to them.
  There are some who condemn this by saying that the vast majority of 
public lands is still open for hunting and shooting. The problem is the 
proximity.
  The ones that are being closed are those that are easily accessible 
to especially those people who live in urban areas who don't have to go 
miles and miles to do it.
  In addition to that, the problem is that the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Forest Service make no assessment on the impact of 
closing lands to shooters or to anglers.
  They don't identify where the displaced recreationalists are being 
able to go, how far they have to travel, or what kind of access would 
be available to them. At a minimum, this bill forces them to take that 
into consideration.
  I wish it were tougher language that would force them to make some 
kind of accommodations. But at least for the first time they are 
actually going to consider those issues, because hunting and fishing 
and shooting are part of the multiple-use mandate for our public lands. 
There is no question about it.
  I also want to make a couple of points very clear in that the 
language in title IV that deals with this bill, that deals with the 
Army Corps lands, allows law-abiding American citizens to carry 
firearms on Army Corps recreational lands.
  The Army Corps is not the Army. There is a difference between the 
two. We are not talking about military lands, but recreational lands.
  What this does is make these recreational lands that are owned by the 
Army Corps of Engineers compliant and parallel to the laws we have for 
the Forest Service as well as for the BLM and the Park Service, as it 
deals with carrying weapons as long as they are in compliance with 
State and Federal law.
  Many Members think this is, basically, a hunting issue. It is not. 
The primary reason for this language has to do with the fundamental 
right of self-defense, and it does make it consistent.
  I want to make two final points here.
  The Natural Resources Committee strongly encourages the Bureau of 
Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to develop agency-wide 
policies, in consultation with the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage 
Conservation Council and the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership 
Council, that reflect the intent of this act. These policies should 
ensure that there is more access to America's Federal lands for 
hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.
  These councils represent the interests and needs of sportsmen and -
women who depend on having access to Federal lands for outdoor sporting 
activities.
  I will also be reaching out to the Bureau of Land Management and to 
the Forest Service for regular updates on the progress being made in 
developing these policies within 30 days of each respective council 
meeting.
  I appreciate the gentleman's compliance and understanding.
  Vote for what is good about this bill, not for what is not there.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague and good friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this bill.
  Madam Chair, I, too, am a passionate advocate of public spaces, of 
outdoor recreation, and I understand the importance of protecting some 
of our Nation's most pristine places.
  My constituents enjoy hunting and fishing and are involved in 
exploring the great outdoors. That is why it is unfortunate that what 
we have before us today is a piece of legislation that is unduly 
partisan and special-interest-oriented and is not speaking in terms of 
things that could have brought us together in something that could have 
been a lovefest.
  Why aren't we making a permanent reauthorization of the Land and 
Water

[[Page 2236]]

Conservation Fund and making sure that it is funded?
  Yesterday we had hundreds and hundreds of women from the Federated 
Garden Club of America, just one more group adding its voice to 
something that is supported by people who hunt, people who fish, people 
who hike, people who enjoy the opportunity of what the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund represents.
  Instead, we are veering off. We are in the process now of having 
legislation in this bill that does pose serious problems in terms of 
environmental protections. I will give one specific example in terms of 
what is happening in the area of ivory.
  Voters in Washington recently voted overwhelmingly to ban on a State 
level traffic in ivory. You are going to see this fall in my State of 
Oregon that an initiative is going to be approved that is going to 
close loopholes in terms of allowing trade in my State for ivory.
  This has nothing to do with grandma's antique piano or somebody who 
has an ivory-handled pistol that has been in the family for years. We 
have a thriving international trade in ivory that is resulting in the 
destruction of a species. We are losing 100 elephants a day.
  At the rate we are going, by the end of the decade--within 10 years--
there will be no more wild African elephants. The trade in ivory fuels 
some of the most heinous acts by some of the most vicious people in the 
world.
  Terrorists use these funds for their horrific activities, 
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, poisoning wells so that the animals 
are dying by the dozens, hacking off the tusks at that site.
  We have to stop the trade in ivory. The United States is the second 
largest destination. We have China that is finally stepping up and 
working with us. We should not make it harder for the United States to 
crack down on the ivory trade.
  There is no reason for a civilized society to continue trading in 
things like ivory tusks and products. It enables this black market to 
continue. People will find their way into it, and we will continue to 
slaughter elephants every single day.
  What we should be doing is not restricting what the Federal 
Government is doing. We should be tightening it further like we will do 
in the State of Oregon.
  I find it a little frustrating that people are talking about 
protecting traditional ammunition and fishing lure. I mean, there are 
some people who might say, in Flint, Michigan, using lead in the pipes 
is a traditional way of plumbing, but we figured out that that 
traditional mechanism is actually poisoning people.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. There are, in fact, alternatives if what you want to 
do is kill animals with guns. We don't need to do lead-based 
ammunition, which ends up in the environment. It ends up not just in 
what you are killing. It doesn't go away. It persists and adds to lead 
pollution.
  There is no reason that we can't make changes in these policies that 
we know are destructive, that we know there are viable alternatives to 
that actually protect the environment.
  As people work through this legislation and hear from animal welfare 
groups, sports people, and environmentalists and as they look at the 
problems that are associated with it, it is not a consensus, bipartisan 
bill.
  It is an approach that actually leads us in the wrong direction. It 
is not rational. It is not popular. It is not based in sound policy. I 
strongly urge its rejection.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like respond just briefly to the gentleman's remarks 
concerning ivory.
  If you look at the current state of regulatory efforts by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, for those nations that have sustainable 
elephant populations, it would actually make it much, much more 
difficult to manage them and it would actually encourage more poaching.
  We want to make sure that we allow the legal trade of legally 
harvested elephants. In doing that, that makes sure that African 
nations can put in place sustainable programs for the harvesting of 
elephants, where there are overpopulations, to make sure that they have 
the wherewithal to put people on the ground to stop poaching.
  This is a sustainable effort, I believe, that is critical, and these 
regulations will actually stop that.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the 
Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015, or the 
SHARE Act.
  This legislation is vital in ensuring that Federal agencies like the 
U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management can no longer 
continue to prevent or deny full access to Federal lands for activities 
like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.
  Access to public, Federal lands for these heritage activities is not 
only an important part of our shared American value, it is also a 
significant contributor to national, State, and local economies.
  In 2011, in the State of Michigan alone, over 1.9 million hunters and 
anglers spent over $4.8 billion in hunting and fishing. To put this in 
perspective, spending by sportsmen and -women in Michigan generates 
over $576 million in State and local taxes each year. That is enough to 
support the average salaries of over 10,000 police officers.
  Madam Chair, when I was a kid, my family owned a small hotel and bar. 
I worked by making beds, by filling ice buckets, and by hauling beer in 
order to save for college. Our business depended on hunters in the fall 
and winter and on fishermen in the summer. Without those sportsmen, we 
would have had no small business.
  There are small businesses like this all over northern Michigan and 
across America today. There are also grandparents, parents, and 
children all across the country who are excited for their next hunting 
and fishing adventures.
  That is why we must make sure that we do everything possible to 
ensure access to public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational 
shooting for all Americans, including for future generations to come.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the SHARE Act.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) for 
his leadership and for the service that he has given to this Congress. 
We are so delighted to have him join us. I thank the manager as well, 
his colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Madam Chair, in coming from Texas and knowing many of those who seek 
recreational hunting, fishing, and participation on lands, private and 
Federal, one wonders whether or not we could have found a way to deal 
with the concerns of our friends of whom I support: environmental 
groups and the Humane Society and just a litany of individuals from the 
Atlantis, the Alaska Wilderness League, the Alliance of the Wild 
Rockies, the Humane Society International, the Endangered Species 
Coalition, the Environmental Investigation Agency, the National Audubon 
Society, the Kentucky Heartwood, and just a whole array of individuals, 
the names of whom I will offer into the Record at another time.

                              {time}  1700

  This bill comes and specifically interferes with what I believe is 
the important protection, if you will, of items that impact our 
wilderness.
  This bill undermines the NEPA Wilderness Act and the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to solve a problem that does 
not exist. It blocks the administration's rule to restrict trade in 
African elephant ivory and protects African elephants from being 
slaughtered for their tusks. It adds indiscriminate and inhumane 
trapping practices to the legal definition of hunting and does not 
include a long-term reauthorization of the Land

[[Page 2237]]

and Water Conservation Fund, a high priority for hunters and anglers.
  My simple question is: Couldn't we have found some common ground and 
not be supporting legislation that, for one, my amendment on polar 
bears will, in fact, impact; that the wealthy trophy hunters who shot 
bears had full knowledge of the pending rule? This is an issue that 
occurred when 41 polar bears were killed as the Fish and Wildlife 
Service finalized a rule listing them as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  The polar bears are vulnerable. They are not yet under the Endangered 
Species Act, but they are vulnerable. So we have individuals who want 
to take advantage and seek to utilize the loophole. That is my 
opposition to this legislation, that it does not find a balance.
  What it does do is it puts our animals in jeopardy, animals that make 
for the ecosystem in a positive way.
  So I would ask my colleagues really to go back to the drawing board 
and come forward with a bill that actually protects animals, allows 
sport but does not undermine the whole ecosystem, undermine the 
structure of protecting animals, and certainly, in the memory of 
Cecil--although a lion--continue to kill our vulnerable species of 
polar bears just to have trophies.
  I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen's 
Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015 (SHARE Act).
  While several of the proposals are non-controversial, the bill 
includes provisions that would seriously undermine the Wilderness Act, 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act, 
and fails to include important, bipartisan program reauthorizations 
sought by outdoor enthusiasts.
  There are many reasons for opposing this bill but I list just a few:
  More than 75 percent of all federal lands are already open to 
recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, making the bulk of this 
legislation unnecessary.
  Undermines NEPA, the Wilderness Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act to solve a problem that does not exist.
  Blocks efforts to crack down on poachers and protect elephants from 
being slaughtered for their tusks.
  Adds indiscriminate and inhumane trapping practices to the legal 
definition of hunting.
  Does not include a long-term reauthorization of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, a high priority program for hunters and anglers.
  Does not include important, bipartisan program reauthorizations that 
would provide critical funding for wetlands conservation and expanding 
hunting and fishing access; programs supported by hunters and anglers.
  Exempts ammunition and sports fishing equipment from the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) despite the fact that EPA has no plans to 
regulate this equipment under the Act.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 2406 simply patches together a slew of legislative 
proposals, allegedly to enhance access to federal lands for hunting, 
fishing and recreational shooting.
  The bill is opposed by virtually every leading environmental 
organization and the President has announced that it will be vetoed if 
presented to him for signature.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this unwise and 
unnecessary legislation.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the 
Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act; specifically, 
title IV of the bill, which includes the Recreational Lands Self-
Defense Act. This legislation is vital to preserving and expanding the 
Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
  In 2010, legislation was enacted that allows campers, hikers, and 
sportsmen who are legally allowed to possess a firearm to protect 
themselves and their families on land operated by the National Park 
Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, this law left 
millions of acres overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers closed 
to those who want to legally arm and protect themselves.
  Every year, millions of Americans camp, hunt, and hike on Federal 
lands. They are often in remote locations with no easy access to 
emergency services or law enforcement. These Americans deserve to have 
peace of mind and the ability to protect themselves while recreating.
  The Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of the law preempts State 
firearms laws; thus, preventing Americans from exercising their Second 
Amendment rights. Even if someone is permitted by the State to carry a 
firearm, they cannot do so while on the Corps' 11.7 million acres or 
camping at one of the Corps' 90,000 campsites.
  Title IV will prevent the Corps from prohibiting law-abiding American 
citizens from carrying a firearm as long as they are not prohibited 
from owning a firearm and the possession of the firearm is in 
compliance with the State they are located in.
  This title in the SHARE Act will provide uniformity and clarity for 
hunters, campers, and hikers who want to merely protect themselves, and 
it will preserve the right to bear arms on recreational Federal lands.
  I want to thank Congressman Wittman for introducing this legislation 
and including the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act in the underlying 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the SHARE Act.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I inquire how much time the minority side has 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the 
SHARE Act. Passage of this bill will increase opportunities and reduce 
regulatory burdens for all sportsmen and sportswomen.
  I want to highlight two specific provisions in the SHARE Act that I 
sponsored. This legislation will authorize the Wildlife and Hunting 
Heritage Conservation Council, which will serve as an official advisory 
board to the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture on policies that benefit recreational hunting and wildlife 
resources. Authorization of the council is vital to ensuring that 
hunters maintain an advisory role in future administrations. This 
legislation will provide levels of certainty and stability necessary to 
ensure the council's ability to engage in assisting the Federal 
Government in devising and implementing long-term solutions that are 
necessary to address policy issues important to sportsmen and 
sportswomen.
  The legislation also directs the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture to create a new permit that authorizes a crew 
of five or fewer people to film for commercial or similar purposes on 
Federal lands and waterways at an annual cost of $200. Aside from this 
set fee, no additional fees may be added during their time filming and 
photographing.
  We want to rectify disparity in application and approval regulations 
between smaller crews and their larger, well-funded counterparts while 
filming on public lands. The financial burden is often too great and 
unfairly limits their ability to access our national parks and 
waterways.
  As the former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and 
a cosponsor of the SHARE Act, I believe this legislation will serve to 
the betterment of current and future generations of hunters and 
outdoorsmen and -women.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his work on this legislation, 
and I urge the passage of the SHARE Act.
  Mr. BEYER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, I would like to thank the co-chairs of the 
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Wittman and Mr. Walz, for putting 
this together.
  I clearly resist the idea that our opposition comes from the radical 
left. The 37 million hunters and fishermen out there are not Democrats. 
They are not Republicans. They are both. They are not conservative or 
liberal. They represent all Americans.
  Representative McClintock and Chairman Bishop talked about the 
928,000 acres, BLM and Forest Service,

[[Page 2238]]

which are closed now. I very much respect that that seems like a big 
number and that perhaps there should be movement on that.
  I think the question is: Should those decisions be made by State and 
local land managers or moved to Washington, D.C., to the head of the 
Forest Service, to the head of BLM? I think it is weird that, in this 
body, we are talking about moving things to Washington for the decision 
to be made.
  In fact, in the hearing we had on Chairman Bishop's Land and Water 
Conservation Fund reauthorization, much of it was about moving the 
decisionmaking back to States and local governments. Perhaps there is a 
way to think about opening up these 928,000 acres with more input from 
State and local governments in the time to come.
  On ivory and trafficking, Representative Wittman and I had a good 
conversation about how we really don't want it to address heirlooms 
that have been in the family for generations. That is not what the 
Obama rule is trying to do. We are looking at preventing trafficking.
  Every 15 minutes every day, an elephant is killed. I would love to 
explore the economic argument that somehow this ivory rule will make 
African elephants more endangered. What we are trying to do is cut off 
demand.
  Finally, Majority Whip Scalise talked about being hostile to hunting 
and fishing. I do think it is probably silly to think of the Army Corps 
of Engineers as a radical leftist organization. We want them to open 
the lands appropriately, but this is probably not the legislation to do 
it.
  I think many of these provisions will likely be dead on arrival in 
the Senate. If it passes, as it is likely to do with the majority, I am 
looking forward to working with Representative Wittman, Representative 
Walz, and others to get a good, bipartisan bill at the end of the day 
that we can all support for the hunters and fishermen of the United 
States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
his perspectives on this and for the good conversation we have had in 
trying to find common ground to make sure that we are, indeed, 
supporting the great outdoors and the sportsmen and -women that enjoy 
the great outdoors. I thank him for his efforts there and look forward 
to continuing to work with him.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wittman 
for his leadership on this issue. As a vice chair of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, I commend the caucus co-chairs, Chairman Wittman 
and Tim Walz, as well as my fellow vice chair, Gene Green, for the 
great work they have done to contribute to the SHARE Act's Sportsmen's 
package on the floor today.
  The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus is the largest bipartisan caucus 
in Congress. By offering commonsense policy solutions that expand the 
joys of hunting, angling, as well as shooting sports and, really, 
access to public lands and all the great outdoors, our goal is to be 
the voice of millions of American sportsmen and -women who treasure 
this unique feature of American heritage.
  The SHARE Act is supported by the Nation's leading hunting and 
fishing conservation organizations, making it a bipartisan win for the 
sportsmen and -women of America. It includes the Recreational Fishing 
and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act; the Hunting, Fishing, and 
Recreational Shooting Protection Act; the Target Practice and 
Marksmanship Training Support Act; and the Hunter and Farmer Protection 
Act. These, along with many other hunting and fishing conservation 
provisions, will strengthen America's bond to the blessings given to 
our great country.
  Most important to our role as leaders of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus is to promote policies that bring more potential 
hunters, anglers, and recreational shooters into the sportsmen's 
community. Sportsmen and -women are leading contributors to the 
conservation of the great American outdoors.
  As a sidebar, I would just ask folks to really research the 
contribution that hunters make in the whole African elephant goal, 
because the lack of the hunter in that equation means there is more 
poaching; and I think, ultimately, that will be detrimental to the 
African elephant and detrimental to the goals of those who want to 
protect that.
  In conclusion, I request your support for this bill to ensure that we 
can protect this sacred institution of American heritage.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership as vice 
chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.
  We have heard a lot of, I think, good efforts today in wanting to 
ensure that our sportsmen and our sportswomen have access to Federal 
properties, to make sure they can enjoy outdoor sports. I think that is 
absolutely critical. That is what this bill is about. It is about 
clarifying to make sure that it is the legislative body that does the 
directing, not the bureaucrats. I want to make sure there is a balance 
there because we hear each and every day from our constituents about 
what they feel needs to happen with their land.
  We must remember this land belongs to the taxpayers, and we must find 
responsible ways to make sure that there is access to that land for 
everyone. I want to make sure that we do that. I believe that this bill 
achieves that.
  I understand, too, that we want to make sure that their voices are 
heard. Many times from the side of these agencies, they will consider 
comments, but many times the comments aren't included. This ensures 
that Congress has a role in defining what those opportunities are. I 
want to make sure those voices are heard. I can't help but believe that 
everyone here is in favor of making sure that their voices are heard 
and that opportunities exist across all these Federal lands for our 
outdoorsmen, our sportsmen and -women of this Nation.
  I want to make sure, too, that we are clear that all of us are 
against stopping the illegal trafficking of ivory. All of us here want 
to make sure that stops. I think there are reasonable and thoughtful 
ways that do that that don't inhibit the sportsmen who want to go there 
to be part of the legal process to harvest an elephant in the areas 
where there is an overpopulation. The dollars there are used to support 
local populations in that area, villages.
  None of that animal is wasted. Every bit of it is used. The fees that 
are collected for hunters are put into stopping the poaching effort 
there. I think those are sustainable models to make sure that elephant 
populations continue in those areas and that we, indeed, have the 
ability and resources in Africa to stop those efforts by poachers.

                              {time}  1715

  I think sustainable hunting is a way to do that. In any way impeding 
the flow of ivory back into the United States from legal hunting 
operations doesn't allow us to do that. Making sure, too, that it is 
simple and straightforward for owners of ivory to continue to own that, 
especially those pieces that are family heirlooms, and not have to go 
through a long, drawn-out bureaucratic process to prove that something 
is yours that has been passed down through family history where you may 
not have documentation to do that.
  These efforts that U.S. Fish and Wildlife agencies are putting 
forward would make it in many instances very, very difficult for 
individuals and families to demonstrate that. Let's make this process 
easy and let's get at the issue, and that is the illegally harvested 
ivory that is coming out of Africa to the United States.
  We talked, too, about access elements. We heard the number used that 
99 percent of our ocean waters are open to fishing, to recreational 
fishing. But remember that the entire ocean is different in its 
habitats. So fish live in certain areas. I would argue that the 1 
percent that is being closed off many times is the most productive area 
for

[[Page 2239]]

fishermen. It is where the habitat rests. It is where the fish are.
  So if you were to say, don't worry about it, you can hunt the entire 
Sahara Desert, that wouldn't mean much to sportsmen. The same that you 
are saying if you are allowed to fish these other areas that don't hold 
the habitat that allow fish to live in those areas also doesn't keep in 
mind making sure that recreational fishermen have access to the place 
where fish live. So I want to make sure that that is clear when we talk 
about these numbers, 99 percent versus the 1 percent.
  Remember, this bill is not about what is not included. It is about 
really making those opportunities available for those men and women who 
hunt, fish, and use the outdoors. I am in full support of LWCF. I am in 
full support of NAWCA. I do believe that we ought to reauthorize those 
pieces of legislation, and I do believe that there are mechanisms to do 
that. I believe that the vast majority of folks on our Committee on 
Natural Resources, as well as in Congress, want to see those things 
happening.
  The difficulty always is in taking one bill and adding a bunch of 
different elements to it. I think those bills are important enough that 
they deserve their own level of debate and own level of attention about 
what we do in reauthorizing those bills.
  I think folks outside the 90 square miles of Washington look at us 
and say, you know, why are you putting all these other elements into a 
bill rather than debating them individually?
  I think we can put too much into a piece of legislation where it 
becomes confusing and it doesn't get after the true purpose behind the 
original bill. We tried to put together pieces that were similar in 
scope but didn't include other areas that really deserve their own 
level of debate.
  So that is the reason that LWCF and NAWCA was left out of this, not 
by any intention to say we shouldn't address those, but by 
understanding that we have a responsibility to try to keep these 
packages of bills as simple and straightforward as we can.
  Also, when we talk about lead, remember that the lead we talk about 
is in things like fishing sinkers. Remember, fishing sinkers are used 
in water. The gentlewoman from California talked about the issue with 
California condors. Well, California condors are not an aquatic bird, 
so I don't think we have to worry about them swimming in water and 
getting hold of these fishing sinkers.
  The same way with bullets. I understand there are a few instances 
where they might have found a bullet associated with ingestion with a 
California condor, but the vast majority of shooting sports are put 
forth in legal ranges where the lead ends up in the ground. It ends up 
in the ground at a shooting range. Remember, that is the exact area 
where the lead came from. So returning it to the ground where we know 
eventually through the years it does indeed decay, it does indeed break 
down, those things are legal and I think environmentally responsible 
ways that lead is used in both hunting and fishing. Let's not stop 
those efforts. I want to make sure that those things happen.
  If there are specific issues related to the California condor, I 
think we ought to address that, but these carte blanche one-size-fits-
all efforts to say let's ban lead across the spectrum in the shooting 
sports, for hunting, and for fishing doesn't get at those root issues 
and it creates unnecessary burdens on folks who are using those in a 
legal way and in a way that doesn't affect our fish and wildlife 
populations. So I want to make sure that those things continue.
  I do believe that there are many more areas of agreement than 
disagreement on this bill. I think that we have talked to folks on many 
aspects of this. It is different in its scope with the Senate bill, and 
I look forward to its successful passage out of this House and for our 
ability to bring it to a conference committee in the Senate and to work 
through those particular differences between the House and the Senate 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2406, 
the SHARE Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I support H.R. 2406, the 
Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act or SHARE Act.
  Recreational hunting and fishing are some of the oldest traditions in 
America. I went on my first hunting trip in the early 70's and have 
loved gaming ever since. The sport was a great way to bond with my 
father-in-law and a great tradition to pass on to my own son.
  I am not alone in enjoying this great tradition. Sportsmen and women 
contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, support thousands 
of jobs and enrich our culture. Texas is home to 2,713,000 hunters and 
anglers, making it the second biggest state for sportsmen and women in 
the nation.
  H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act, is supported by more than 50 of the 
nation's leading conservation groups and includes provisions that will 
expand access for hunters and anglers and protect the environment 
through conservation efforts.
  The SHARE Act will protect access to BLM and U.S. Forest Service land 
for hunting and fishing, reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction 
Facilitation Act and allows fish and wildlife agencies added 
flexibility to construct public shooting ranges.
  Ensuring future generations of Americans have access to these great 
traditions must be our priority going forward.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2406, the SHARE 
Act. This legislation would protect 2nd Amendment rights and prevent 
unnecessary federal regulations from limiting access to outdoor 
sporting activities.
  Activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting 
contribute billions of dollars to our economy. But, it's impossible to 
put a dollar value on what they mean to millions of American families.
  For many Texans--myself included--hunting and fishing are more than 
simple hobbies. They are family traditions that get passed down through 
generations. These traditions bring us together and teach invaluable 
lessons about gun safety and environmental responsibility.
  Passing the SHARE Act will protect 2nd Amendment rights and help 
ensure that our sporting traditions can continue for generations to 
come.
  I call on all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hill) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2406) to 
protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, 
and shooting, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________