Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

I am pleased to be down here for this procedural issue that is before us. The question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 614? While the resolution waives all point of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order.

The waiver is prophylactic in nature. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that H.R. 4089 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. Again, Mr. Speaker, this waiver is prophylactic, and the motion from the gentlelady from Wisconsin is dilatory.

In order for the House to continue our scheduled business for today, we need to continue on with this proposal and dealing with the rule that is before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I would be happy to, but I don't control the time.

I would not dare to try and supersede my interpretation over the Speaker's interpretation. That is his responsibility. However----

Would you allow me to answer the question?

That is still the Speaker's responsibility. However, what deeming applies to is that these are for procedural considerations allowed to go forward until such time as an actual budget has indeed passed. So the answer to your question is actually both: Temporarily, yes; long term, obviously no.

At some time, the Senate has to do their work. Hopefully, they will do it soon and then this issue would be moot.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to remind the body that we are dealing with a procedural issue. We've heard a great deal of policy debate here, but what we are dealing with is a procedural issue.

The policy of the debate has been debated on this floor and will be debated in the future as well under two criteria: one, either allowing our committees to move forward with its authorization, appropriations, and reconciliation efforts, in which case certain procedural techniques must take place; or, two, actually allowing the Senate to do their work and pass a budget, going to a conference, and then moving forward in that manner. One way or the other, the procedure must go forward. This is not policy we're debating here, it's procedure.

There is precedence for what we are doing. Indeed, in the last Congress, H.R. 1500, the opposition party, the minority party, also deemed resolutions and brought them forward--actually, it's happened six times in our history. The only difference between the deeming that we have here and the deeming

that happened in the last session of Congress is that this particular budget--which will be debated again--actually went through a committee and had a vote on the floor. Unfortunately, when the Democrat Party did that a couple years ago, they had not gone through a committee, they did not have a debate on the floor or in committee or a vote on anything. Actually, the numbers that were deemed at that time were less than 1-day's notice before they were actually voted on the floor. And everyone who has spoken against this procedure voted for that particular deeming a couple of years ago in the last Congress.

There is precedence for this, and the precedence is solely a procedural issue. This is not the time to talk about the policy. There was a time before, and there will be time in the future. This is a procedural precedent, and we can only move forward in doing the work of this Congress--and I appreciate the other side for at least admitting that the Republicans are trying to move forward in the work of this Congress--if we have certain procedural issues done in advance. That's what we are attempting to do.

So, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of this day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of the consideration of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to continue on, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

The resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4089, a bill to protect the traditional rights of American sportsmen to fish and hunt on public lands free from undue and illogical bureaucratic restrictions and unwarranted and irrational limitations, and

provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually pleased to stand before this House today and support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation. Far too often decisions are made to placate certain political special interest groups who are headquartered far away from the locations they seek to dominate and control, and too often the needs of local citizens and local taxpayers who live in those areas in which the impact will occur are ignored. This asks for our consideration.

Too often local and State considerations are not taken into account. Too often there are inconsistencies within the public domain where the BLM, Fish and Wildlife, and the National Park Service will have different rules. And the difficulty, obviously, for a citizen is not knowing where one starts and where one ends. This bill tries to bring some consistency. And though I don't know how much of the debate will occur on this particular issue, it is about hunting and fishing on public lands.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

As was stated on the point of order, when we talk about deeming--a term that, obviously, most Americans have never heard--a procedural issue, we have had the policy debate, and we will have in the future the policy debate. But this point is about procedure.

So, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I'd actually like to go back to the topic of the debate we have today and the topic of the rule and, indeed, the topic of the bill, which deals with hunting and fishing. That ought to be what we are talking about in here, because that is the issue before us in the underlying bill--hunting and fishing. And it is significant because what this bill asks for those who are sportsmen in America is that hunting and fishing be recognized as a historic and traditional recreation activity and that our bureaucracy back here in Washington will support and protect those hunting and fishing rights, although we do not insist that they prioritize them.

What that means in simple language is if the agencies back here in the bureaucracies of Washington decide that some area of public land should be closed to public recreation, they have to have a darn good reason to do it. In fact, the bill lists some reasons to do it--fire safety, public safety, national security, or compliance with State laws or regulations, and only then and there. Indeed, in addition to having that criteria, unlike other elements when we deal with public-lands issues, there is a specific time limit on when these decisions have to be made; and if, indeed, the agency will not make those decisions in a timely fashion, it reverts back to what it was and these activities may go forward.

Do we need to do this? Of course we do. One Bureau of Land Management official implied that recreational hunting should be eliminated on public

lands because, in his words: The urbanites freak out when they hear the sound of shots being done on public lands.

I suggest to you that is not a logical reason on why hunting and fishing rights should be prohibited; and, therefore, you need this language in here to make sure those hunting and fishing rights are indeed protected.

There will be one amendment that will come forward later on that talks about recreational shooting. I want to remind this body that under the rules that we have, that includes such things as reenactments. If ever the Bureau of Land Management or the National Park Service has a reenactment, if that amendment were to be passed, you couldn't actually shoot a flintlock because it would violate some of the proposed rules here.

It also goes on to say that Congress has, for a long time, banned EPA from making rules or regulations dealing with lead ammunition or flying equipment. And yet, once again, we have a nuisance lawsuit that was filed on March of this particular year petitioning the EPA to make a decision to try and ban this particular process. There is no scientific evidence for that petition.

But we don't know necessarily what some of the agencies in here making bureaucratic regulations--in effect, making a legislative decision within the body of an executive agency--will do. Therefore, this legislation, once again, makes it crystal clear that Congress has spoken on this issue, that Congress has primacy on this issue, and that Congress' decision on this issue should, indeed, be respected.

This bill stops red tape by the bureaucracies that has stopped legal hunting trophies from coming into this country. I emphasize the word ``legal'' hunting trophies.

This bill is supported by every sportsmen's group imaginable.

Some people would say this is a Second Amendment issue. I don't necessarily want to go that far because our Second Amendment is about an individual right to self-defense. Hunting was not the purview of the Second Amendment when it was adopted. But, indeed, the ability of people to bear weapons on public lands to do hunting and fishing when it is allowable is important, and it is important for us to step forward and say that it should be protected.

In essence, what this bill does is say to those who like to recreate on public lands, and that recreation includes hunting and fishing, that is a traditional, that is a historic activity and that should be maintained, and any of those efforts by special interest groups to try and curtail that will be rejected by this Congress. That's why this bill is here, that's why this bill is significant, that's why this bill is important, and that's why this bill should be passed, including the rule to start forward in that process.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we will talk about other elements, I'm sure, that will come up, but we can do that at a later time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the concerns of some people who do not live in areas that have a vast amount of public lands owned and controlled by the Federal Government, who don't see the need for some of those situations to be modified, rectified, and secured.

For those of us who have the joy of the Federal Government as an absentee landlord, this bill is actually of significance. It's not just another gun bill; it's dealing with ways of life and recreation opportunities that should and ought to be maintained at all times.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is the deeming portion of this that happens to be there. Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, that name that goes back to my childhood, once gave a wonderful article in which he told people that if you were a Senator not to worry about the rules of the Senate because none of the Senators know what they are, so just go ahead and try what you want to. He also said that if you're a House Member, rules of the House are too complex, so just ask the Parliamentarians; don't try to learn them. There's a load of wisdom in that, because what we have in here, in this particular deeming section, is a procedural issue, something that must take place according to our rules if we, indeed, are to go forward with the work of what Congress is supposed to be.

Unlike the rhetoric that we have heard so far, this is not the debate on the policy issue. That has happened in the past. That will come again in the future. This rule is simply about the procedure if we allow Congress to move forward with our work.

I have said there is precedent for this. Six times in the history of the House these kind of deeming provisions have been written into the budget. Is it good? Of course not. No one wants to do it this way. But it has to go forward simply because of the dynamics of the two Houses that we have here right now.

As I said, this has precedent for it.

In 2010, indeed, there was another deeming motion that was made here on the floor in House Resolution 1500 of that particular year. The gentleman from Massachusetts was the sponsor of that on the floor, as well, in which, at that time, under Democratic control, we also deemed. There was a difference, though, in that deeming of that time. Under this time, there has been a budget that has gone through the Budget Committee and that was voted on in the Budget Committee and was debated on the floor and passed on the floor.

In 2010, there was no budget that went through a Budget Committee and did not have a vote. Indeed, the numbers were only given a day before the actual vote took place under martial law. At that time, in 2010, this House resolution was hereby adopted. We're not doing that this time. What we are simply doing is allowing the process to go forward.

Now, there are two ways of doing this: either we can pass this deeming concept for the House so that the appropriation bills and the authorization bills and the reconciliation bills within their committee can go forward with some kind of standard on what they are doing. To do so without that is like playing a baseball game without any umpires where no one is there to say what is a ball and what is a strike and if there is an out or a safe. That's what this concept would do.

There's another way of solving that same problem, and that's asking our good friends on the other side of this Chamber, the Senate, to finally pass a budget so that we can work together and move forward.

Look, the Senate has refused to pass a budget in, now, 1,081 days; 1,081 days the Senate has refused to do a budget on their side. And we should not be paralyzed because of their inaction. In 1,081 days, Henry VIII married, divorced, and beheaded his wife in less time than that.

The Senate should be willing to move forward, and if they did, if they passed the budget and we have this conference committee, we could actually move forward in that time. But without that, we have to do something else procedural so that our committees can actually pass authorization bills, appropriation bills, and reconciliation bills and bring them here to the floor in some kind of order.

We have to have a budget if you don't want to have a government shutdown. You have to have a budget if you want a reconciliation that will solve what Secretary Panetta says is that sequester meat ax that would happen to the defense of this country.

You have to have a budget because the Senate refuses to do a budget. I find it surprising that some on the other side are basically arguing not to do anything, which would actually lead to shutting down the government or draconian cuts, or basically telling us we're not supposed to do our work. That is ridiculous.

This is not a great concept. I'm not happy that we're doing this. It would be much better if the Senate would do their work and let us work together.

Or maybe there's a third option. Congressman Berger of Wisconsin, back in the 1920s, suggested that a constitutional amendment would be passed to dissolve the U.S. Senate and leave only the House. That is a third option that would solve our problems, and perhaps our friends on the other side would like that option better.

Sans that opportunity, we've got to move forward. This is a procedural issue to move us forward with precedents, having been done in the last Congress, precedents. I ask that you consider that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the former Speaker's visit to the floor, and I have a comment to make about the verbiage of deem and pass.

But first, before we get there, I'd like to actually have someone talk about the resolution itself. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) to actually go back to what it's supposed to be about, hunting and fishing.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for being here. It was exhilarating to hear someone actually talking about the bill before us. Unfortunately, it was slightly inaccurate as well, so if I could make a couple of corrections.

The trophy concept that is there is not opening it up for new elements. It is simply saying those trophies that were already legally hunted and have been denied access to this country can be accessed into this country. It doesn't expand anything. Indeed, rather than actually taking away State and local control, one of the provisions of this bill is that the rules will be attuned to State and local laws, which means State and local authorities actually have a great deal of authority under this particular bill. They have more authority than a bureaucrat sitting here in Washington.

But let me go back to what the other people wish to talk about, and that is this deeming concept again--even though that is one of the provisions and is still not the basis of the bill.

I taught debate for almost a dozen years, and I had a debate coach when I was younger who used to say when you're totally lost on an issue and you don't know what to do, just find an argument and keep drilling it in over and over again and just maybe the judge will vote for you. You've heard that happening today. No decision is being made on this procedural vote. We did actually have a debate and vote 3 weeks ago. That debate would have been appropriate, was appropriate 3 weeks ago, and will be appropriate in the future, but not necessarily. This is a procedural vote on how we move forward; it is not a policy vote on how we move forward.

Words do have consequences and meaning. The Speaker was kind enough to come in here and talk about how we are deeming and passing something. I have to take umbrage of that slightly. We are not deeming something and passing something. That actually took place in 2010 when Speaker Pelosi presided over House Resolution 1500 that, indeed, deemed and then passed something--passed something that had not

gone through committee, had not been discussed or voted by anybody. And with less than a day of actually looking at the numbers, that was deemed and then passed.

What we are talking about here is passing something which happened 3 weeks ago and now, so that we can go forward with the discussion in our committees, deeming it simply because the Senate, once again, in over 1,000 days has failed to allow us, in a traditional way, to move forward. That's why this is a procedural vote. This is not about policy. This is not an effort where you have to pass something to find out what's in it. This is the procedure in which we will go forward on something we have already passed out of committee, on something which is in the nature of what is going forward, which has been debated here on the floor, and now allow it to be debated further. This is procedural. This is procedural.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I appreciate that. And reclaiming the time very briefly because I know you're the next speaker and you're going to go over this issue one more time, yeah, that's exactly what--there has to be a procedure to go forward. But, once again, unlike what happened in 2010, we're not pulling the numbers out of thin air. You actually had the chance to debate that earlier in your Budget Committee and will have the chance to debate that again on the floor as well as in the committee. That's process; it's a process. If you want to, again, go across the rotunda and talk to your friends over on the other side, maybe we wouldn't have to do that. But until they're willing to do something, we have a procedural problem here.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to hearing the gentleman.

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

My old debate coach is looking down on our actions and is smiling, saying his advice was right. Just keep making the same arguments over and over again, and maybe someone will actually believe those. This, actually, still is about a sportsmen bill and about hunting and fishing rights on public property.

What the gentleman from Maryland just said is 99 percent accurate. There is one slight difference in what he said, and that is that this would be deemed until such time as there is a conference report. If there, indeed, is another avenue to go, ask the Senate to do its work, to do its job, to have a conference committee, and to actually move forward in that manner. Otherwise, we have to either do it in an improvised way, which is this, or you have to simply not do it at all.

Actually, one of the end results of what the other side is telling us to do is to simply not do anything. Do not go forward with any ideas. Do not go forward with reconciliation, and have a defense sequestration go into effect that would devastate the military that Secretary Panetta is begging you not to do. You have to do something procedurally to move forward. This vote does not implement anything. This vote allows our committees to go back and do the work that we were supposed to do. You defeat this, and we go back to a policy of doing nothing.

As I said before, there is precedent for what we are doing. I don't know why we say we are burying this in a hunting bill; but in 2010 when we did this deeming practice over another administration, it was buried in section 4 of House Resolution 1500. Once again, in going through a different process back then because no committee had ever looked at those numbers before, they were deemed and passed. This time, we actually passed a bill. We debated it in committee. We debated it on the floor. Now we are going to deem those numbers until such time as the Senate is responsible enough to do its work and have a conference committee report so that the House at least does what we are charged to do, and that is the work of the American people.

This is a procedural resolution that allows our committees to go forward to find solutions and to do it with some order to it. It doesn't presuppose what the final decision will be. That's the argument that's being made here. It does not presuppose the final decision. It is the procedure to go forward, Madam Speaker, and that is why we so desperately need to do this--so the House can do its work when the Senate refuses to do its work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would urge the gentleman to pay particular attention to some of the amendments that are proposed under this rule, one of which would actually probably prohibit those Hollywood people from making movies on public lands again if any kind of hunting and fishing action were to be required.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

With that, Madam Speaker, let me yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Rules Committee, who is here to clean up the mess I have made so far.

How many would you like me to have?

Then we will have that many, but I hope I will be the last.

Madam Speaker, there is, as I finish this, a couple of areas I want to talk about. There are children who are preparing to go to preschool today who have lived their entire lives without seeing the Senate actually pass a budget. Were that not the case, we would not be here with this particular issue, and if they actually were to pass a budget, we would go forward without this particular issue.

Once again, the merits of the budget notwithstanding, this vote does not implement anything; it allows us the procedure to go forward to implement something. The underlying bill still does talk about the ability of those of us who live in public land States to have hunting and fishing rights guaranteed and protected without the heavy hand of Washington bureaucrats stopping that concept. Indeed, State law will have to be considered before they do any kind of concept.

I also want to put one other concept before you, just in closing, that illustrates the problem we have with the American people on how we waste money and, indeed, that needs to be one of the first things of our consideration.

CBO has scored this bill as potentially costing $12 million. It doesn't make a difference. There is nothing mandated in here that needs to have a review under the NEPA process of these bills. The administration said that we might have to go through this process, therefore, you should score it at $12 million.

Let's make an assumption that you actually had to go through the reprocessing of going through all of the land management plans. And I would ask the people the question: Does it make sense that it would take $12 million for the Park Service and the BLM to decide whether hunting would or would not be allowed? Could that not be done with the Secretary and a cell phone within a week if we actually were decent about what we were attempting to do?

When, indeed, we have bills like this in which the administration and the government is trying to say, well, it will cost $12 million to make the decision of whether hunting is allowed or not, it puts all of our efforts into question. It does not make sense. And it may be one of the reasons why we need to look at what we are doing internally first, and that would be an appropriate thing to take place.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate that this is still a procedural vote on a rule that is extremely fair, and it is appropriate to the underlying legislation of H.R. 4089, which does talk about fishing and hunting rights, preserving that time-honored tradition and, indeed, allowing those of us in the West to make sure that we are not precluded from those traditional areas of activity. It's a good bill and, more importantly, this is a fair rule, and I urge you to adopt it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, technically, this rule allows for consideration of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act, a patchwork quilt of four different bills that ease restrictions on guns and hunting. This bill, a sop to the gun lobby, deserves to be defeated by the House.

But that's not the most important part or most egregious part of this rule. That's because of the language slipped into this rule at the last minute by the Rules Committee--language that sets the budget numbers for the next fiscal year, and language that, Mr. Speaker, once again ends the Medicare guarantee for America's seniors.

That's right, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the Republicans on the Rules Committee pulled a switcheroo just before our vote on the rule. Now, these weren't just harmless, innocuous provisions. No, Mr. Speaker. These provisions would effectively enact the Ryan budget and require that Congress use it as a framework for the rest of the year.

The irony is that by adopting this language now, the Republican leadership is admitting that their awful budget resolution isn't going anywhere and that this so-called ``deeming resolution'' is the only way forward. It's ironic because they are using parliamentary tricks and sleight-of-hand to pretend that their budget has the force of law. Where are the Tea Party folks who used to be so outraged at this kind of abuse of regular order? Why aren't they yelling and screaming?

There hasn't been a single committee debate or markup on this language. These provisions undercut the bipartisan budget floor negotiated by President Obama and Speaker Boehner in the Budget Control Act. And worst of all, these provisions end the Medicare guarantee again.

The American people get it. They said ``no'' to the Ryan budget last year. They don't want Medicare to turn into a voucher program. They don't want to see their health care rationed or cut. They don't want Washington politicians trying to pull the rug out from underneath them after years of contributing to this important program.

We made a promise to America's seniors, Mr. Speaker. And once again, the Republican leadership is breaking their promise.

Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough that the Republican leadership doesn't want to focus on getting Americans back to work. It's bad enough that they're pushing cuts that will make hunger in America worse. That's evidenced by the fact that tomorrow in the Agriculture Committee we're going to be asked to vote on a package to cut $33 billion out of the SNAP program, increasing hunger in America if that would succeed. But their insistence on continuing to push for an end to Medicare is indescribable.

Now, I'm sure my Republican friends will deny that they want to end Medicare for America's seniors. They'll say their idea is bipartisan, even though it's not. They'll say that the detractors are exaggerating. But the truth hurts. This is not bipartisan. Yes, Senator Ron Wyden cosponsored health care legislation with Congressman Paul Ryan, but Senator Wyden has also said that he does not support the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Once again, he said he does not support the provisions in the Ryan budget with regard to Medicare. I'm sure someone will, once again, try to twist his words around, but they are very clear to me, Mr. Speaker.

This plan is not bipartisan. This is wholly owned by the Republicans and the Republican leadership, and I know my friends will say that this doesn't change Medicare. That, too, is a misrepresentation of their plan. But don't take my word for it. Let me read directly from the AARP's letter opposing the Ryan budget:

By creating a ``premium support'' system for future

Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal is likely to simply

increase costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare's

promise of secure health coverage.

AARP goes on to say:

The premium support method described in the proposal--

unlike private plan options that currently exist in

Medicare--would likely ``price out'' traditional Medicare as

a viable option, thus rendering the choice of traditional

Medicare as a false promise. The proposal also leaves open

the possibility for private plans to tailor their plans to

healthy beneficiaries--again, putting traditional Medicare at

risk.

Finally, AARP says:

Converting Medicare to a series of private options would

undermine the market power of Medicare and could lead to

higher costs for seniors.

That's a hard-hitting analysis from a nonpartisan group, and it shatters the myth that the Ryan Medicare plan wouldn't harm current or future seniors.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats oppose the Ryan budget because it's the wrong plan for America, and the deeming language included in this rule would force the Ryan budget on this House without a direct vote. That's right: there's no up-or-down vote on this plan. No, the rule simply ``deems'' that the Ryan budget takes effect, despite the lack of a budget resolution conference report.

Americans want us to focus on jobs and the economy, not on partisan games designed to throw red meat to the right wing of the right wing. Reject this rule and reject the Ryan Medicare plan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I can see why my good friend from Utah is so desperate not to talk about the deem-and-pass language which is included in this rule. I would remind him, and I remind others on the other side, that back in March of 2010, Speaker John Boehner said that the deem-and-pass strategy was ``one of the most outrageous things I have seen since I have been in Congress.'' That's what the current Speaker of the House said back in March of 2010. And now, astonishingly, everybody on the other side of the aisle is quiet about that.

Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. This place is becoming an institution where trivial matters get debated passionately and important ones not at all. My friend from Utah is saying this is all about the guns, the gun issue. Well, that's the least important part of what this rule does.

This rule deems the Ryan budget. It basically says that we're going to operate under those very difficult numbers that Congressman Ryan and the Republicans' Budget Committee have passed. And what it means is that we're going to end Medicare as we know it. That's more important to talk about than guns. What it means is that we're going to force more people into food insecurity and hunger because it's going to result in drastic cuts in food and nutrition programs. That's more important to talk about than guns.

The fact of the matter is this rule undercuts the social safety net in this country. This rule, if it is passed and these numbers become what the House operates under, I think will destroy the middle class and will force more people in the middle into poverty. It undercuts programs in education, and it undercuts programs in environmental protection and investments in our infrastructure and aid to cities and towns helping our police, helping our firefighters.

As I said--I cannot say this enough--this ends Medicare as we know it. If people want to end Medicare, then vote for this rule, because that's exactly what this rule will require. And I think that's outrageous. There are some things worth fighting for; and the protection of Medicare is one of those things, at least on our side of the aisle, we think is worth fighting for.

So please do not be fooled that this is some innocuous rule that would merely bring up a bill dealing with guns. This bill deems the Ryan budget as basically passed, as if it has gone through the House and the Senate, and the numbers that we're going to operate under in all of our committees.

I think that as the American people pay closer attention to what is happening here, they get more and more outraged by the activities of the Republican leadership. This is not what the American people want. They rejected this attempt to undercut Medicare last year, and they're going to reject it again.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that if this were nothing, my friends on the other side of the aisle would not be hiding this deeming language in a rule dealing with guns. We'd have a straight up- or-down-vote on the floor on the deeming provision.

The fact of the matter is that this rule magically puts the Ryan budget into effect, and what that means is an end to Medicare as we know it. And we're going to fight my friends on the other side of the aisle who want to destroy one of the most important social programs that we have in this country.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat, this rule has very little to do with sportsmen, but it has an awful lot to do with ending the Medicare guarantee as we know it.

At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, again, I want to make it clear to everybody who's watching this that this rule is about a lot more than a gun bill. This rule is about how we're going to proceed with the appropriations for the various committees. So, again, if this wasn't so controversial, my Republican friends would have brought up this deeming language on its own; but instead, they're hiding it in this gun bill, and they're trying not to talk about what this means. What this means is an end to the Medicare guarantee, among other things. It means an end to the social safety net in this country.

I think this is a horrible, horrible way to proceed. I think the budget that was passed by the House is horrible. But to move forward in this manner I think is very, very disruptive.

People need to understand that this is not just a rule that allows a gun bill to come to the floor and, oh, by the way, there's a few little minor procedural things that are contained in this rule. This is a big deal, this is a huge deal, and my colleagues need to know that.

At this point, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just remind my colleagues that, by deeming these numbers, what my colleagues will be doing if they vote for this rule will be to give the Republican leadership the green light to go ahead and dismantle Medicare, to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens.

It will be a green light to go after anti-hunger and nutrition programs. It's the green light to go after education programs. As the ranking member on the Budget Committee said very clearly, we all want to balance the budget, we all understand we need to deal with our debt. But the way my friends on the other side of the aisle have outlined their plan, it is so one-sided. The burden is all on middle-income families, all on those who are poor.

Their way of balancing the budget is to lower the quality of life for the middle class in this country. And there are other choices to be made. For example, making sure that Donald Trump pays his fair share or that we close some of these corporate tax loopholes or go after some of these subsidies for the big oil companies. Instead, all of the plans that have been put forward by my Republican friends are all aimed at those in the middle and those struggling to get into the middle. That is why we are so outraged here today. We believe in Medicare. We don't want to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member from the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.

Madam Speaker, I just want to respond to something that my distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said. You know, he implied that when my colleague from Massachusetts said that the Republican budget plans would literally take the food out of the mouths of children, that somehow we were engaged in hyperbole or some kind of empty rhetoric.

I don't know whether my chairman knows that tomorrow in the House Agriculture Committee, under the direction of the Republican leadership, that they are going to cut $33 billion out of the SNAP program.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

But $33 billion in cuts will reduce benefits to people. It will take, literally, food off the table for many families and a lot of working families, too.

Under the Republican leadership's direction, the Agriculture Committee is not going after excessive subsidies and big agri- businesses. It's going after SNAP, food stamps. I am going to have an amendment in the Rules Committee today, when we bring up the transportation bill I think for, like, the 15th time I have offered it, to go after the billions of dollars that we give to oil companies in subsidies. Taxpayers subsidize these programs. We never get an opportunity to vote on the House floor.

But the Republican leadership is not only not allowing me to do that, they are not saying we should go after and trim this corporate welfare. What they are saying is $33 billion in cuts to SNAP. That is outrageous.

I will yield to the gentleman in 1 second.

I know these are difficult budgetary times. I mean, you know, to not ask the Donald Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more and rather, instead, to cut $33 billion in SNAP, or to not insist that we pay for these wars that seem to go on forever, and let that add to our debt, but go after poor people who are on SNAP, that's where the outrage is. I can't believe that that's the first place we are turning.

I yield to the gentleman.

May I inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many more speakers he has?

As many as you want.

Madam Speaker, I will close for our side.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that Republicans can't use so-called reconciliation procedures to force through the elimination of Medicare as we know it or force through cuts to Medicare benefits for seniors or people with disabilities.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, we have a choice here. We can either balance our budget and deal with our deficit and our debt in a fair and balanced manner, or we can do it in the way that the Republican leadership has proposed, which is to basically put the burden on middle-income families and those struggling to get into the middle, and to put an added burden on our senior citizens.

Make no mistake about it: if you vote for this rule, you are voting to end the Medicare guarantee. That is their plan, and that is what they have said. There is no question about it.

I think it is outrageous. I think when Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary there is something wrong with our tax system. When corporations get all these special loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes but middle-income families have to, there is something wrong with this system. We need some balance.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 614 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in the underlying bill, H.R. 4089.

But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The rule clearly states, ``Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the House, shall have the force and effect in the House as though Congress had adopted such concurrent resolution.''

Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed H. Con. Res. 112?

Okay. We will have to debate this. The language, as I have construed it, says it shall have force and effect in the House as though Congress, which would include the Senate, had adopted such concurrent resolution. That is subject to debate.

So I want the House to be really clear here that, given this language, there is a real--it seems probable and likely that if we vote ``yes'' for House Concurrent Resolution 112, the Republican budget, which ends Medicare for a voucher system, ends the entitlement under Medicaid, cuts food support, cuts funds by $134 billion over 10 years, that we could be deeming this to be passed.

I am raising again, Mr. Speaker, the question about that use of ``Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution,'' meaning also the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your lack of clarity.

I raise this point of order because it's important to uncover whether or not the underlying rule for this Natural Resources bill--it's a Natural Resources bill--also deems the Republican budget plan to end Medicare as we know it, slash funding for SNAP.

When it comes to the Republican budget, my Democratic colleagues are most definitely not asleep at the wheel. And we want to take this moment to shed light on what's going on here.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of that prestigious committee, the House Committee on the Budget, and a long-time advocate for sound budgetary policy. I recognize the importance of tackling our deficit and debt head-on, carefully balancing both the spending and revenue-raising sides of our ledger.

But House Republicans, led by my dear colleague from Wisconsin, have put out a budget that is neither sound nor balanced. This budget finds a jaw-dropping 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve the most vulnerable of our society, the poor, and I might add in the most vulnerable, women and children, since we've just recently established in this last week that women were very important in our economy.

In addition to the sheer magnitude of these raw numbers, I want to make it clear that the Republican budget contains major departures from current policy. This budget heralds welfare reform as a vital victory and plots the next chapter of so-called ``reforms'' for other areas of the safety net.

Our core programs are not spared by this budgetary trick. This budget takes an aim at Medicare. We're told that by stripping Medicare of its entitled status, cutting $30 billion out of Medicare, that we're going to save it. We're going to save Medicare by subtracting $30 billion. That's not the kind of math I learned at North Division High.

And we're going to set seniors adrift in the private market. Now, this budget does nothing to cut the cost of health care in the private market. It only passes those costs on to seniors.

The cuts to the SNAP program have not gotten as much attention as the Medicare cuts, even though they are cause for collective alarm. As we know, over half of our citizens in the United States, working people, many of them, found themselves with no other income. They had no job. We played phony baloney with the unemployment insurance. They had nothing except SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

And so they had no other income other than the food stamp program,

SNAP, but yet we're going to cut $134 million out of this program and convert it again to a block grant and handcuff SNAP's ability to respond to its increased need.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask you how much time I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and neighbor from the great State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear what the opponents to my point of order have to say.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would yield to a question.

I would yield my time for the purpose of your answering my question.

The Speaker has declined to answer my parliamentary query and said that that would be settled during the debate. So is it your understanding that passage of this resolution will or will not deem the Republican budget to have been passed in all of the Congress?

I yield to the gentleman.

No, no, no. He said it would be determined during debate.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time from the point at which I said I was reclaiming my time. And I ask that he be taxed for that extra time because he already gave me his answer--that, yes, it would be deemed to be passed.

I just want to remind people, in this week when we have learned how important it is to have a stable, good budget for women, that this program slashes funding for Medicaid--two-thirds of adults are women who depend on it. It slashes Medicare--two-thirds of the recipients are women. And 85 percent of Medicare recipients that are older than 85 depend on it.

It cuts support for key programs like childcare, which are important to women, and job training. It cuts core programs like food stamps. Our Presidential candidate said that 93 percent of women lost jobs during the recession. Why would we want to take away the safety net of food stamps when women put food on the table every day trying to feed their babies?

Mr. Speaker, this program--which will be deemed to be passed--needs more review, and I would ask you to find my point of order in order.

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

I want to thank the gentleman for a vigorous debate--at least on my part--and I would ask my colleagues to take a closer look.

This is the Congress of the United States of America. We are supposed to do things very carefully. This is the budget that we're setting out, the moral document for how this country is to be run, and we should not be deeming it as passed, as this resolution calls for.

I would ask all my colleagues to support my point of order and ask them to vote against this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.