Recreational Shooting Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 4089.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012.

This legislation protects the traditional right of American sportsmen to hunt and fish from arbitrary and unjustified bureaucratic restrictions and limitations. It will remove government roadblocks to these activities on certain public lands and guard against new regulations that threaten hunting and fishing.

This is a bipartisan bill, Madam Chairman. It has the bipartisan sponsorship of the Republican and Democrat chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Miller of Florida and Mr. Ross of Arkansas, as well as the caucus' vice chairs, Mr. Latta of Ohio and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina. This bill also has the broad support of America's recreational fishing, hunting, shooting, and wildlife conservation community.

At the appropriate time, I will include two letters, one from over 35 sportsmen's organizations and one from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, for the Record.

There are four titles to this legislation, and each reflects stand- alone bills sponsored by individual Members of the House. Mr. Benishek of Michigan, Mr. Flake of Arizona, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr. Miller of Florida all deserve credit for leadership on these important sportsmen issues. Their four bills were assembled in this package to be among the first pro-sportsmen bills considered and, I hope, passed by the House this year. I expect and anticipate further action on additional legislation in the months ahead.

This legislation is an affirmative declaration that Americans' ability to fish and hunt is not arbitrarily subject to limitation by the whim of Federal bureaucrats. It makes clear that public lands are ``open until closed'' to such recreational activities, and it makes absolutely clear, Madam Chairman, that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle. This bill is not a solution in search of a problem, but regrettably, bureaucratic threats to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are very real, thus the need for this legislation.

Title I of this bill protects sportsmen from arbitrary Federal efforts to block hunting and fishing on public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM.

It requires that these activities be supported and facilitated, but-- this is very important, Madam Chairman--it does not prioritize hunting and fishing over other multiple uses.

The vast majority of our Nation's public lands are to be open and available for multiple uses, but, regrettably, there are agency personnel and land managers who attempt to control these lands as personal fiefdoms and prevent legitimate uses and activities, including hunting and fishing. In addition, activist groups bring lawsuits to limit these activities; and in the worst situations, bureaucrats willingly roll over to such lawsuits as a convenient way to limit the use of these facilities. This bill will protect against such lawsuits and the ensuing costly paperwork associated with them.

Title II of the bill directly addresses the sudden attempt last year by the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management to limit target shooting on certain lands. An agency spokesman was cited in a news article saying that their proposed ban was being enacted in response to urbanites who ``freak out'' when they hear shooting and that the restriction wasn't rooted in public safety but, rather, to reduce ``social conflict.'' This proposed ban echos the Obama administration's attempt to impose a new classification of wildlands on Federal property in an attempt to unilaterally establish de facto wilderness.

Madam Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues once again that only Congress has the authority to establish wilderness areas.

Just as with the wildlands proposal, public outcry against the BLM's attempt to limit target and recreational shooting forced Interior Secretary Salazar to retreat from this effort, and rightfully so. However, at any point--say, right after the November election--the administration could again attempt such a ban on such activities. This is exactly why this legislation is necessary, because it would clearly provide that any closure must be specifically and publicly justified and be for reasons of national security, public safety, or to comply with Federal or State laws.

Title III of the bill would allow for the importation of certain legally taken hunting trophies from Canada that, through no fault of the sportsmen, have become trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. This is focused squarely on resolving existing situations ensnarled in red tape and does not open the door to unlimited future imports.

Finally, title IV of the bill is in response to perhaps the greatest bureaucratic threat posed, and that threat comes in the form of the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. In 1976, Congress barred the EPA from regulating firearms and ammunition. However, this has not stopped attempts to try and circumvent the law with the argument that EPA may not be able to regulate ammunition, but it can regulate components of ammunition and components of fishing tackle.

Regulating components of ammunition and fishing tackle would be a massive power grab by the EPA despite a clear lack of legal authority. Has that stopped the EPA under this administration? Sadly, it hasn't.

The EPA is an unfettered agency with an appetite for greater regulations that result in a greater stranglehold of our economy and how Americans are allowed to live their lives. But, unfortunately, the EPA is not without its allies.

In March, over 100 activist antihunting and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to ban the use of lead in hunting and fishing components. This is an overt attempt to end-run a law that has been on the books for nearly 40 years.

This legislation that the House will vote on today reiterates and clarifies existing law, leaving no question that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle.

Madam Chairman, hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are longstanding American traditions that deserve protection, which is exactly what this underlying legislation does, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. This is why the bill has received strong bipartisan support and the endorsement of dozens of sporting and wildlife organizations.

I again want to commend the sponsors for their work and encourage all of my colleagues to support and vote for this legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Lucas of the Agriculture Committee for their cooperation and assistance in helping to expedite consideration of this bill. At the appropriate time, I will again insert into the Record an exchange of letters between me and those chairmen regarding this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 8. 2012.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings: I am writing concerning H.R. 4089,

the ``Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012,'' which was ordered

reported from your committee on February 29, 2012. I wanted

to notify you that, although it received a referral on the

bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action

on H.R. 4089 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the

House floor for consideration.

This is done with the understanding that the Committee on

Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction,

and the Committee will not be prejudiced with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 4089, and ask that a

copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in

the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on

the House floor.

Sincerely,

Fred Upton,

Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the author of one of those pieces of legislation, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek, who is also a sponsor of one of the pieces of legislation that's part of this legislation.

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, somebody who has worked on this legislation, Mr. Gosar.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me touch a bit on an issue that was brought up as to the cost of this legislation--cost that I acknowledge was scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I have to say, sometimes we have differences with those agencies. I guess that's understandable. But they suggest that there is a cost associated with this bill. Let me kind of walk through some points of this bill that I hope will point out: How can there be a cost associated with it?

Because, first of all, this bill does not create a new program. New programs would be associated with cost. This does not create a new program. It does not authorize any new spending. So because it doesn't authorize spending, how can there be a cost associated with it? It does not authorize any new personnel. So if we don't add any new personnel, how can there be a cost associated with it? Further, the bill restricts the ability of Federal land managers to oppose restrictions. Well, if they do less, one would say, logically, how could there be a cost associated with it?

I think what the reason is--and sometimes we point fingers here too much, but I mentioned in my opening statement that the Department of the Interior had some problems with this legislation, and maybe they had some problems and said that there would be new activities for people that work for them and, therefore, there would be a cost.

Let me reiterate: it doesn't create a new program. It does not authorize new spending, doesn't hire anybody. Under current law, they are required to do what they are required to do. How could that possibly cost more money? But yet that is what the CBO scored, and there's absolutely nothing we can do because that's their score.

But I will tell you, Madam Chairman, for the record, I highly doubt that if one were to walk their way through the restrictions that I have here and apply it to any other legislation, I would have to think that there would be no costs associated with that legislation. And I think that is probably the case, when you really get down to it, on this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman that has authored legislation that is part of the title of this legislation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a vice chairman of the bipartisan Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Latta, from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman. I am prepared to close, and so if he wishes to close, then I will close on my side.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let's go back and set the stage for why this legislation is needed, and let's understand that public lands were designated for multiple use which, of course, means recreation and, of course, commercial activity, unless Congress says otherwise. And the most obvious example of where Congress says otherwise is in wilderness designations. But even then, in wilderness designations, there are certain activities. But Federal lands were designed to be multiple use.

The reason for this legislation is because we are finding arbitrary decisions on the ground not for the exceptions that Congress looked at that would restrict land activity. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) pointed that out very well with his portion of this bill.

Some of the restrictions make perfectly good sense if one were to look at it hopefully logically, and sometimes we miss that point when we debate here on the floor. One of the reasons is for reasons of national security. If there should be restrictions on public lands for national security, nobody, I think, would argue with that. If there should be restrictions on public lands for public health, nobody would argue with that. Forest fires or wildfires come to mind in that situation--or if they are contrary to applicable Federal statutes. All of those things make sense.

But let's not lose the underlying principle of public lands, that they should be for multiple use. And what this legislation simply does is reiterates, reiterates that hunting and fishing have their portion-- not higher, not lower--but have their portion on use for public lands. That's what the whole intent of this legislation is.

We hear my friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is becoming top down; and yet when you look at the concerns that Members have had trying to offer amendments where they're trying to get more flexibility, you can't have it both ways. This simply reiterates what are the national standards. It should be multiple use, but particularly in this case as it relates to hunting and fishing.

With that, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this manager's amendment is a noncontroversial amendment to H.R. 4089 that makes several technical, clarifying, and harmonizing changes to the bill. It adds to the bill amendments that were adopted by the Natural Resources Committee when it considered several of the individual bills that are now separate titles of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.

In addition, although I believe the original bill never allowed extractive commercial activity or motorized travel in wilderness areas, this amendment adds language that will say so explicitly.

Finally, the amendment reduces the administrative tasks faced by the agencies with regard to the format and frequency of public notice and congressional reporting requirements.

I ask for your support for this amendment, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Holt amendment uses a blunderbuss and not a rifle to address the complex issue of the programs in national parks that involve shooting. This issue goes beyond sport or subsistence hunting, which are currently allowed in some park units.

In addition to national parks that allow traditional forms of hunting, the National Park Service has a historic weapons program that would be silenced, contrary to what my good friend and the author of this amendment, Mr. Holt, says.

In 2011, more than 600 national parks participated in some form of historic weapons demonstrations. From cannons to flintlocks, the Park Service says this program is ``undeniably popular with visitors'' and drew just less than a million visitors to various national parks around the country last year.

At Fort Vancouver National Park in Oregon and Washington, for example, both rangers and volunteers regularly fire muskets and cannons to demonstrate the historic role these weapons played in the history of the site.

One of the most popular public participation events in many parks involves the reenactment of historic battles. Thousands of reenactors participate. They use their own historically accurate weapons and costumes to re-create, on location, the great battles that took place at our Civil War sites. For many of those who participate or come to watch, these educational passions are the favorite of the national park events.

It was on this week, 237 years ago, that General Thomas Gage, the Royal Governor in Boston, sent his troops to confiscate the patriot weapons at Lexington and Concord. And at the Minuteman National Historic Park today, a living history event is conducted in which volunteers are permitted to bring reproductions of the flintlock muskets, pistols, and percussion cap weapons their ancestors used during the first battle for our independence.

At a time when the National Park Service is running a multibillion dollar maintenance backlog, the Holt amendment will disarm it of its real draw. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to allow the Park Service to continue the tradition of educating visitors about our proud American history.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

I beg to differ. I understand where my good friend from New Jersey is coming from. I'm sure that's what his intent is, but that's not what his amendment says. His amendment says that that activity has to be provided by statute at each facility, and that's simply not the case. We haven't done that. We blanket authority give that to the National Park System to carry on what is classified as pastimes, that sort of activity. He prohibits that unless it's provided by statute. He did not offer an amendment to say we should statutize every one of those at every one of the sites. That's the flaw in the amendment. It was brought up in Rules yesterday, and yet the amendment wasn't corrected and so here we are.

Now, I understand what he's trying to do, but the amendment does not say that. So I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, last year, the Bureau of Land Management decided that it would close a lot of the land it manages to shooting sports. The agency never explained why it wanted to do this, but one BLM official was quoted in a news article as stating, ``It's not a safety issue; it's a social conflict issue.'' He elaborated by saying that urbanites ``freak out'' when they hear shooting.

Now, after a public outcry on this, the Interior Secretary had to send out an order telling BLM to stand down on this regulation, but the question is really: For how long?

There is nothing that prevents the Obama administration from changing its mind--say, immediately after the November election--and again seeking to arbitrarily limit shooting sports. That's why this bill is necessary, to prevent such an arbitrary action by bureaucrats to limit recreational shooting, fishing, and hunting without justification.

The amendment by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is even more arbitrary. While the amendment is drafted to appear reasonable, it is most certainly not. The devil is in the clever details. It appears to permit fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting, but in reality the amendment nullifies the actual purpose of the underlying bill to protect these activities.

First, one needs to understand that you could fit a lot of eastern States in a small fraction of our land that is BLM land. BLM controls 253 million acres of land, more than one-eighth all the land in the United States.

Second, the term ``public land'' used in this amendment has an expansive meeting. Legally, public land means more than national forest and BLM land. It also includes the Outer Continental Shelf. So, under this amendment, as long as fishing is allowed in any part of the ocean, no actual land need to be open to hunting; in other words, the 20 percent requirement could be satisfied in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Who hunts in the Outer Continental Shelf, Mr. Chairman?

Again, the bill we are considering today is about public land open to American people for outdoor recreation. That is a good goal. This amendment tries to hijack the bill by sending it 180 degrees from the intent of the underlying legislation.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Arizona said that suggesting in my argument that there could be a change in direction after the November election--and I'll paraphrase. He said that's preposterous. It may be. But I would just remind my colleagues that in a situation here several weeks back when it was not supposed to be recorded, our President was talking to the President of Russia.

This was recorded on an open mike when he was talking to the President, and again I'll paraphrase. He said, After the election, I'll have more flexibility on missile defense.

Now, on that issue, keep in mind, he had already given up the missile defense in Eastern Europe. Why would he want to have more flexibility for the defense of our country? The issue there is flexibility. And the issue is, if the President is going to use flexibility in that context, couldn't you apply the same flexibility to something that he has already done this year that has been reversed?

So I don't think it is preposterous. The flexibility issue, I believe, is going to be an issue that is going to be talked about a lot between now and November, and it could apply to a great deal of policies that we could be considering in this House. This is one of them because the administration has already said that these activities should make BLM lands off limits to target shooting. I don't know why that same principle could not be applied if the President has more flexibility after the election.

So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his talk and discussion about the long history and strong local support for this traditional form of hunting in his State.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to limit unjustified Federal bureaucratic limitations and restrictions on hunting and fishing in public lands. The circumstances that he has detailed demonstrate that his amendment fits squarely within the spirit of this bill, and I therefore support the amendment.

It is important to recognize that it is the authority of States to regulate hunting and fishing. Individual Federal agency personnel should not be substituting their opinion for the laws of the State.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and I urge adoption of the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act's authorization of appropriations expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. Our Fisheries Subcommittee intends to hold hearings on the reauthorization in this Congress. I think this would be the appropriate time and place to have the discussion which is the subject of your amendment.

I understand the gentleman's concern. Believe me, we have heard other concerns on the Atlantic striped bass. If the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, I can assure him that he will get a full hearing on the content of his amendment in our committee this year.

If the gentleman will yield, I thank you very much, and we will work together on

this. This is a larger issue, and I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the section of the bill that applies to hunting and fishing was derived from the excellent bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

I have noticed that whenever a new wilderness designation bill is introduced and a subcommittee hearing is held, the sponsor testifies that his or her bill will not reduce hunting because hunting is clearly permitted in wilderness areas. And they are right. Nevertheless, when an anti-hunting group went to court recently to block hunting in the wilderness section of a national forest in Michigan, the Forest Service had to waste a great deal of time and money justifying the hunting permitted there.

Similarly, anti-hunting groups have sought to use the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, to entangle the land management agencies in NEPA's briar patch when the agencies allow hunting activity on public land.

Now I'm certain that many would agree that hunting and fishing on public land is not a new major Federal action that requires a full environmental impact statement. However, to protect sportsmen and to prevent the waste of resources that occurs when conservation dollars are diverted into defending against nuisance lawsuits, Dr. Benishek's provision gives clear statutory support to legitimacy of hunting on public land.

I believe from the beginning that the Benishek bill dealt only with hunting and fishing. It never authorized motorized travel or extractive industries, even though some environmental activist groups quickly made that accusation. But to allay any genuine concerns people may have, we worked closely with a wide variety of conservation groups and decided to include in the manager's amendment that was passed a provision that explicitly states that the relevant portions of the bill--and I quote from the amendment--``are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational access or use.''

With that very direct language I can honestly say that virtually every major conservation group that is not anti-hunting supports the bill. I don't have time to read the whole list, but it does include the NRA, the Safari Club, the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Ducks Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

I think H.R. 4089, as amended, now has the support of the entire range of sportsmen conservation groups, ranging from those considered conservative to those that are quite liberal, and do not believe that the wilderness section needs any additional changes as offered by the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment. Again, the concerns expressed by the gentleman from New Mexico in support of his amendment, in my view, are unfounded. This bill deals squarely with hunting and fishing, and does not authorize motorized travel or mining or other such activities in wilderness areas.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

It appears that the argument here is that this language that we've drafted and passed in the manager's amendment is not strong enough. Let me read the appropriate words. In the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment, he focuses on the word ``shall,'' which, of course, is strong language. But he follows it with ``construed.'' Now that raises the question: Construed by whom?

Our language says very specifically that nothing in here is intended to authorize or facilitate any use regarding extraction. We say that is the intent of the law, very specifically. When you use the word ``construed,'' I dare say, Mr. Chairman, that you are opening this wide open to litigation, and maybe that is exactly what the gentleman intended.

By focusing on ``shall,'' he doesn't focus on the operative word, which is ``construed,'' because ``construed'' can be used by anybody outside in order to sue. We say very specifically, even though we didn't think extraction was part of this underlying legislation, but we say very specifically it's not intended to reinforce it. That was the reason that provision was in the manager's amendment.

So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Heinrich amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act is used more often than not to circumvent Congress' role in setting land-use policy or to foreclose any opportunity for anyone outside the White House to participate in whatever decision they make, including the affected States.

Unlike America in 1906 when the antiquities law was first enacted, we now have an elaborate set of other laws and regulations that require deliberative processes and procedures to be followed before any significant action affecting public lands can be taken.

I think the gentlelady's amendment would improve this process, and with that, I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4089 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

This legislation is completely unnecessary. If enacted, it would actually harm hunting and fishing on our public lands.

Today, April 17, 2012, nearly 85 percent of Federal lands are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. These activities have always been an essential part of Federal land management, and they always will be.

Yes, hunting and shooting are facing ever increasing pressures from development, from pollution and habitat destruction. Areas that were once fertile and open hunting grounds are now condominiums or strip malls.

The reality is that Federal public lands and Federal land managers are the last bastion of a hunting tradition many have enjoyed for generations. While so much private property is closed to hunters, the Federal lands remain open.

But instead of recognizing the value of these lands and the expertise of these dedicated land managers, instead of recognizing the complexity of balancing the competing demands of our public lands, supporters of this bill accuse local land management professionals of opposing hunting and claim that officials here in Washington and we here in the Capitol know best how to manage wildlife thousands and thousands of miles away. The legislation and its supporters are wrong on every count.

As part of the analysis of H.R. 4089 by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO found that hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are allowed on most Federal lands under current law. The problem this bill claims to solve actually does not exist. What's worse, this

bill is not designed to improve the quality of our public lands or our public recreation, rather, it is another in a string of legislative proposals put forth by the majority intended to devalue and degrade our public resources.

Since the beginning of this Congress, Republicans have pushed for unlimited oil and gas development on Federal lands, even waiving important environmental assessments designed to make sure energy development doesn't destroy wildlife and surrounding communities.

Republicans have rejected efforts to put safeguards on offshore drilling to protect important coastal ecosystems.

Republicans have fought to sell Federal lands on the cheap or just give them away.

Republicans have tried to cut off funding for new habitat through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; they support dams and other development in and along wild and scenic recoveries; they even push for uranium mining near the Grand Canyon in my beloved State of Arizona.

Supporters of this bill will claim to love wildlife, but they attack wildlife habitats every chance they get.

At every turn, we've argued that our parks, forests, and monuments are important for recreation, for wildlife, and for water. We have argued against these development proposals because we believe that these lands provide economic benefits to the surrounding communities.

For supporters of this legislation to come to this floor and claim they have seen the light, that all of a sudden they realize Federal public lands are valuable, is not credible.

This bill is not intended to save Federal lands or to support Federal land managers. This bill is designed to wrap them in red tape, place obstacles in their path, and intimidate them by making them seek permission from agency heads in Washington before they can do their jobs.

This bill is about scoring political points with outside groups, even if it means harming our precious public resources.

Not only is H.R. 4089 bad policy, it is an expensive piece of legislation. Again, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, forcing the Federal land management agencies to scrap decades of careful planning and then forcing them to redraft all of these current plans according to the dictates of politicians here in Washington will ultimately cost $12 million.

On a day when the majority has voted to deem the Ryan budget in place, a budget we are told is necessary, even though it will devastate our seniors, our students, our families, our environment, the majority is asking the House to vote for $12 million in new spending that is both unnecessary and harmful.

Hunting and fishing and recreational shooting are commonplace on Federal lands. The only step this Congress could take to endanger these activities is to pass H.R. 4089.

With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, just to make sure that the record is clear, as I mentioned, much of our public lands--and CBO mentioned that as well--are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

I think it's important to see how that translates into acreage:

BLM lands, 245 million acres, 95 percent open;

Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open;

Fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 57 percent open;

Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open.

The real threat to access to our public lands for hunters, anglers, and recreational shooting is the privatization of these very important public resources, degraded habitat due to lack of funding, and development that disrupts habitat and water quality.

The majority frequently laments that Federal lands dominate the West and are robbing local communities of important resources. They have promoted taking these same lands and giving it to the States, liquidating others, and intensely developing what is left. If that is the pattern of land management that the majority seeks for our public lands, then hunters, anglers, recreational and people that enjoy our open spaces and public lands will be more endangered by that public policy than by a problem that this bill attempts to address that doesn't exist.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Chairman, my State and my colleague's, Congressman Flake's, State, and my district are both blessed with Federal lands, both Forest Service Bureau of Land Management areas. The debate over access for shooting has been fierce for many, many years. We've had closures of some areas because shooting activities, in particular, using saguaro cactuses as targets, was impacting the lands, and the ironwood, which is an endangered bosque that is one of the few left in our Nation and certainly in the Southwest.

These processes by which communities go through an arbitrary, cookie- cutter approach at the national level in terms of recreational shooting robs the local community of their ability to impact and their ability to be able to negotiate compromise and draw consensus on appropriate shooting ranges and sites.

I would suggest that here in Washington, D.C., whether it's Congress or the officials here in Washington making those decisions for Arizona, for our respective districts, that the reaction from the public will not be a good one insofar as they have been robbed of the opportunity to find a workable solution for all the parties involved.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

If I may, if I could inquire from Chairman Hastings as to anymore speakers. I am prepared to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dams, derricks, distress sales--that has been the agenda of the majority until today regarding our public lands. Today, an epiphany. We need to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and access for hunters, fishermen, anglers, and recreational shooting. Promoting more hunting and fishing activities on Federal land involves ensuring the habitat is protected, acquiring new lands to expand existing habitats, funding wildlife and habitat management and continuing to ensure that our parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas remain in public hands.

So if we're going to have a discussion about access for a very wide and broad issue of hunting and fishing on our public lands, we should do that, have a

serious discussion. I invite the majority to enter into that, a serious discussion about the funding for fish and wildlife habitat, a serious discussion of land acquisition to increase access and availability for hunters and fishermen and clean water programs that would ensure that that habitat is protected.

Hunting and fishing are under attack, but they're under attack from privatization and development, not from Federal land managers.

This bill says that top-down Washington knows best, knows the best management and that that is the way to go. We support letting local land managers and local communities do their job. You can't say you trust CBO when you like the score and don't trust CBO when you don't like the score. A vote for this bill is a vote to spend $12 million. It's that simple. A vote for this bill is to continue the philosophy of dams, derricks, and distress sales of our public lands under the guise--under the guise--of solving a problem for hunters and fishermen in this country that does not exist on the public lands.

Four out of five acres is available for hunting and fishing on our public lands. I would suggest that that is not just a question of being enough; that is about access and opportunity on our public lands for those activities. Let's not jeopardize them.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4089, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we do not object to this dab of lipstick on H.R. 4089.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to emphasize the point that nearly 85 percent of

all public lands are already open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Whether we are talking about Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management--including national monuments-- National Park Service lands, or Forest Service lands, in each and every case the majority are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

My amendment would only trigger the provisions in title I and II of this legislation if less than 75 percent of Federal public lands are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. I can't think of any other use that occurs on 75 percent of our public lands.

I understand that some individuals are upset about some specific court decision or specific local closures, but we need to keep things in perspective. Right now, more than 4 out of 5 acres are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Given that, do we really need Federal employees in D.C. making decisions about which lands to close or, worse yet, have Congress make that decision?

My State and my district are both blessed with Federal lands. Debates occur all the time about shooting ranges, and they have been very fierce, as I mentioned earlier. Local land managers have worked with local groups and communities to come up with solutions, including providing access on other Federal lands. Unless we see significant closures across the landscape, I think we should allow local managers to make local decisions based on local input.

The problem this bill claims to solve does not exist, but this amendment would allow the provisions of the bill to kick in if this problem ever actually developed.

I would urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the argument that nothing to do with hunting and shooting has happened yet but there may be a secret plan to do so after the election, that's as preposterous as it is ridiculous. The problem does not exist, and this bill would do real harm.

The example that my good friend, the chairman, used about urban encroachment and development speaks to the point that we have been trying to make in this legislation, that the greatest threat to hunting and fishing and recreational shooting is exactly that--development, privatization, and unregulated extraction--as we were talking about around the Grand Canyon and uranium mining. Those threats to our public lands are the threats and the trends and the public policy that is being promoted by the majority that will limit and deny access to public lands to hunters, fishermen, and recreational shooters.

Right now, as we stand, BLM, 245 million acres, 95 percent open to those activities; Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open to those activities; fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 50 percent open to those activities; Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open to those activities, ``those activities'' being hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

If we want to protect access and protect the opportunities for hunters and fishermen in our public lands, I would urge the approval of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fleming amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a few points that I really believe need to be made. The decision to eliminate dog deer hunting in this forest was made only after more than half a dozen public meetings, a comment period that resulted in a 1,000 comments which were thoroughly reviewed. In fact, the policy has been amended in response to those specific local concerns.

The justification for this policy is not only to prevent trespassing, though this is one reason it is necessary. The forest has a checkerboard pattern of non-Federal lands mixed in with Federal lands. Dog deer hunting results in deer running over long distances and hunters pursuing them and at times discharging firearms on the run. In an area with private homes, the Forest Service determined that this was simply too dangerous.

The Forest Service has collected input from local residents and not hunters who fear for their safety during dog deer hunting season. To be clear, while the decision was ultimately approved by the region in Atlanta, the policy was developed by the local Forest Service staff who work on the forest.

Lastly, this amendment is redundant and wasteful because a rule already in place meets the requirements of the proposed amendment. The current rule already covers the smallest portion of forest possible because with the checkerboard lands the rule must cover the entire forest to be effective.

While public safety is the primary justification for this rule, preventing trespass is another reason for the rule and why it was put in place.

The Fleming amendment would throw out the current rule and then require a new rule that meets the exact same requirements. This is redundant, a waste of time and money.

Finally, according to the Forest Service, the State of Louisiana already prohibits dog deer hunting on State lands, so this is simply consistent with State policy. This amendment should be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will close. The contradiction is very important.

The majority talks about local control, local control. In this instance, you have the State of Louisiana that has prevented this, that has prohibited this type of hunting on its lands, and that is a local decision to be honored, but it is okay to honor that decision, but on Federal lands we want to make an exception and set a precedent.

I would suggest that the contradiction in this amendment merits its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Thank you.

I rise in strong opposition to the Foxx amendment and in strong support of National Monuments and the Antiquities Act.

Following in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the Antiquities Act to protect the Grand Canyon, and Franklin Roosevelt, who used it to protect the Grand Tetons, 16 Presidents--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have used the Antiquities Act to designate approximately 130 national monuments. In more recent history, President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to designate the largest national monument in history. Most recently, President Obama used the act to preserve an enormously popular Fort Monroe in Virginia.

These special places might have been lost to development or destruction had the 59th Congress not authorized Presidents to use the Antiquities Act to

move quickly to protect Federal lands. And that is worth repeating: the Antiquities Act allows designation of national monuments on Federal land only. This land is already owned by the Federal Government, and the claim that there is some kind of land grab going on is totally false.

Our national monuments are valuable, popular tourism designations that serve as powerful economic engines. Headwaters Economics studied 17 large national monuments in 11 Western States and found positive impacts to the local economies and employment.

The Antiquities Act has served present and future generations well for more than a century, and there is no need for this amendment. National monuments do not harm private property rights, and they improve the quality of life in surrounding communities while saving historic, cultural, and scenic resources for our children and our grandchildren.

The Foxx amendment will hobble the Antiquities Act by giving States a veto over Federal designations on Federal land, and it would do so based on criticisms of the act and of national monuments that are patently false. The Foxx amendment should be defeated, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As an active sportsman, I am proud to introduce this amendment today. It's likely that you have heard claims from some of my colleagues across the aisle that the manager's amendment will resolve the concerns that I have raised today, thus making this amendment redundant or duplicative.

Mr. Chairman, that is simply not the case. While I appreciate the intent of my colleagues to resolve my concerns, their language is still far too vague and needs additional clarification. As an avid hunter, I strongly support increasing access to public lands for hunting and fishing, but we can achieve that goal without eliminating the very wilderness protections that have protected some of the best wildlife habitat and, I would add, some of the best backcountry hunting opportunities in our Nation.

The bill under consideration today would eliminate long-standing protections against logging, oil and gas drilling, and motor vehicle use in wilderness areas. It would create a loophole in the Wilderness Act for anything that would provide ``opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.''

Under the Wilderness Act, land managers are allowed to act in ways that are otherwise not allowed in wilderness areas if the action is necessary for ``the minimum requirements necessary'' for the administration of the area. In practice, the minimum requirements necessary language and standard means that land managers can use motorized vehicles, chainsaws, even helicopters in extreme emergencies, to fight fires, rescue stranded hikers, or remove downed trees from trails that threaten human safety.

This bill would extend that kind of exemption to any action that would ``provide an opportunity for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.'' This means that activities otherwise not allowed in a wilderness area, like motor vehicle use, would now have to be permitted if it could be used to facilitate everyday activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

Now, the manager's amendment includes language intended to address these concerns by providing that these provisions ``are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motor recreational access or use.''

Whether or not that's the bill's intention, the language in the bill allows for that possibility, and saying that wasn't the intent doesn't change what the language allows.

In contrast, my amendment provides that nothing in this bill ``shall be construed to allow'' these otherwise prohibited activities in wilderness areas.

``Intended'' versus ``shall''; there's a very powerful legal difference. And sportsmen across the country recognize this difference and support my amendment. In the last few hours, I've heard from countless supporters in my own State, including the New Mexico Wildlife Federation; the New Mexico chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers; Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen; the High Desert Sportsmen; and the Sportsmen Concerned of Northeast New Mexico, just to name a few. And nationally, we've heard from groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and TU.

As the bill's sponsors say that they are not trying to create sweeping exemptions to the Wilderness Act, I have no doubt that they'll support my amendment, as it clearly eliminates these loopholes that were unintentionally included. As a back-country hunter, I know how valuable wilderness is to hunters and anglers, and I hope my colleagues will continue to support protecting wildlife habitat in wilderness areas and vote for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague and a sportsman from northern New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, for more than a century, the Antiquities Act has given American Presidents the authority to protect some of our Nation's most important and threatened places. Across my State of New Mexico, we see the benefit of the Antiquities Act.

Bandelier National Monument, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, White Sands National Monument, and El Morro National Monument were all originally protected through the Antiquities Act.

Research done last year by the New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce shows that New Mexico's 10 national monuments established through the Antiquities Act account for 1.3 million annual tourist visits and $54 million in annual tourist spending supporting over 1,000 New Mexico jobs. In the last few weeks, countless New Mexicans, including sportsmen like myself, have asked President Obama to designate a new national monument to protect the Organ Mountains outside of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

We are calling on our President to protect our vulnerable natural and cultural resources in southern New Mexico through the Antiquities Act. This amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina would take that power away from the President and give State legislatures the power to make decisions about public lands that belong to all Americans.

The Antiquities Act was specifically designed to allow Presidents to respond quickly to protect places in the national interest. Had the Antiquities Act been written with the language of this amendment, the Grand Canyon could have been overrun by sprawl, ancient cliff dwellings and the Petrified Forest National Park might have been looted, and the Arches National Park wouldn't even exist.

An additional concern is that several State legislatures only meet for a limited number of days each year and can't respond to urgent threats to public lands. In my State, we only meet for 60 days in odd years and 30 days in even years.

The Foxx amendment would prevent archeological, cultural, and historical sites from receiving the urgent protections they need. It also doesn't recognize that the United States has vast areas of unincorporated territory that is not under the jurisdiction of any State legislature.

President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to protect lands and waters in unincorporated Federal areas, including the Marianas Trench Marine and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments.

National monuments should not be a partisan issue. After being signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, 16 Presidents of both parties--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have used this act to protect federally owned lands and waters to better protect America's treasures for future generations. And by attaching this divisive issue to this bill, the chances of a Presidential veto are greatly increased. I hope that we would refrain from endangering the pro-sportsmen portions of this bill with controversial issues like this one. As an active sportsman, I strongly support the Antiquities Act, and I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4089 deems all Federal land open for hunting and recreational shooting unless a closure is made by the head of the agency here in Washington. The authors of the legislation intended to exempt from the bill lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. I'm sure, I have it on good authority from them, from the authors, that this was their intention. However, as written, the bill only exempts national parks and national monuments. My amendment is a simple, technical correction that ensures all units of the National Park Service are included in the exemption.

The exemption language in title I is, I believe, unintentionally broad and not clear. The National Park System includes units that have a variety of designations--national seashores, national scenic trails, national battle fields, among others. The National Park System has units in urban areas, in rural areas, in suburban communities, in the East, in the West, in the center of our country.

And without this amendment, H.R. 4089 could potentially open for hunting the Paterson, New Jersey, Great Falls National Historic Park in the heart of Paterson, the third-largest city in my State. The bill could, as written, potentially allow hunting within Antietam or Manassas National Battlefields.

All units of the National Park System, like our national battlefields and military parks, are sacred ground and should be reserved for solemn contemplation of the sacrifices of our ancestors. My amendment would ensure

that the policies of the National Park Service involving firearms in areas controlled by the National Park Service stay in place.

Now, some have suggested that the historic battle reenactments constitute recreational shooting, and this, my amendment, would, they say, prevent reenacting on battlefields. Maybe my good friend from Utah doesn't know the National Park Service policy.

It's important to note that current National Park Service policy, right now, prohibits ``battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines or any other form of simulated warfare.'' I'm not aware of any problems that this sensible policy has caused.

It's important to note that there are National Park System units like Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in Washington State, I say to my friend, the chairman, or Craters of the Moon National Preserve in Idaho that allow hunting and recreational shooting. My amendment would not affect those policies. The hunting and recreational shooting could continue in those places.

I just want to emphasize, this is a technical amendment. I'm not getting at the merits for or against the bill overall. But should this bill proceed, it would be a big mistake to say that the hunting, the recreational shooting could take place in Gettysburg and Chincoteague and any number of other places that aren't intended.

Let's ensure that, in the hurry to open all Federal lands to hunting and recreational shooting, we don't carelessly open up to gunfire consecrated grounds like the Civil War battlefields, like the parks and beaches and forests of our national recreation areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this technical correction to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the remaining time?

My amendment simply ensures that nothing in this act would force hunting in the National Park Service. I really don't understand what the chairman is talking about here, because where it is allowed, it would be allowed. Where it's not allowed, it would not be allowed. It is policy of the National Park Service not to allow reenactment of battles.

The battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines, the taking of casualties, hand-to-hand combat, et cetera, are prohibited in all parks. Park Service employees can conduct demonstrations as part of their living history program. That's done now. It would be continued under this.

What this says is, under this legislation, were it to become law, a person who wants to hunt in Gettysburg Park can't do that unless the National Park Service policy allows it. That's all this says. It extends it to all facilities of the National Park Service, not just what was specified in the bill parks and monuments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.

I am deeply surprised the gentleman from Michigan would, in fact, propose the amendment. He has one of these bears from his State, and a lot of hunters are not wealthy. This is a legal activity in Canada. They hunted these bears prior to 2008 and even prior to 2007. These are dead bears, and they are sitting in Canada. When the hunters hunted legally, the Canadian Government gave them the proper authority to do so, and it helped the native villages. Right now, there are more bears in Canada than there ever has been in history.

Hunting is a vital process of the management of game, and these people included two wounded veterans. They were in Iraq, in that heated area, and the one dream they had when they got back was to be able to go and hunt a polar bear. I can understand that. They shot their trophies legally and with the blessing of the Canadian Government and the local province, and then they expected to be able to return those bears, those hides--and yes, even sometimes the bodies--back home for the proper display of their hunts. To say now you can't import something when a bear was declared threatened by, yes, the Bush administration--and wrongfully so--the bears are not threatened. There are more bears now than there were in 1964. I'm probably the only individual on this floor who had ever shot a polar bear in '64, and I'm certainly not rich.

I am suggesting that this amendment is ill-placed, poorly thought out, and improper. I want those people who did things legally by the nation of our neighbors and blessed by the province to be able to bring those trophies back home, as they have the right to do. Yet the act of a Secretary of the Interior took that away from them arbitrarily.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am surprised by my good friend from California. He has a lot of polar bears in California. It's really amazing to me. He doesn't know squat about the population of polar bears. Then to imply that these are rich people who are going to hunt, now isn't that class warfare? It's exactly a Democrat position, the idea that now this is wrong when they did it legally. These bears weren't all killed in 2008, and they weren't all warned in 2008. I want to see the documentation of that. You know there's no documentation. That's the same propaganda you get out of the same groups of people that are anti-gun and anti-hunting.

Yes, step up to the plate. That's what you are. I know that. Yet to take that right away from an American citizen, especially from a wounded veteran--two of them--is wrong. It is wrong when this is legally taking species arbitrarily by a Secretary of the Interior who is saying now they're threatened. By the way, the administration does not oppose this bill. That's amazing. The Fish and Wildlife Service actually supports this bill now because we made some changes that they wanted, and we gave them, specifically recognizing that it does not encourage hunting.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Virginia has lots of polar bears in Virginia. I know it's springtime, but I don't think there's many polar bears in Virginia.

It's strange that all three of them have said endangered species. This has nothing to do with endangered species. This is about marine mammals. Endangered species, in fact, are still imported to the United States. Hartmann's mountain zebras, yes; the African elephants, yes. We can still import those. This has to do with marine mammals.

I really can't understand because the government warns you--it's not against the law, but they warn you and you better follow it because we're warning you. That's not law. These people may have been notified there's a possibility, but they hunted under existing law, under existing permits and paid for. To take that away from them--I don't care if it's one person or 500 people or 41 people. When the law is followed and we don't follow through with it, then shame on us. These people did what was right, and legally. Now you're trying to take that right away from them.

I urge a strong resounding ``no'' on this amendment and vote for the people of America to have a right under the Constitution as long as they follow the law to do something that's correct and they've done that. They did everything by the law and to say now to have an amendment and say you don't have a right when they followed it correctly is shame on you.