Amendment Text: H.Amdt.1009 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/17/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H1886 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1873-H1891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE ACT OF 2012


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reichert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 614 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4089.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1515


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational 
hunting, fishing and shooting, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

                              {time}  1520

  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.

[[Page H1874]]

  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.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2012.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. As you know, the 
     Committee on Natural Resources reported the bill by a 
     bipartisan vote of 27 to 16 on February 29, 2012. I recognize 
     and appreciate your desire to facilitate the consideration of 
     this legislation by the House of Representatives, and 
     accordingly, understand that the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce will forgo action on the bill.
       The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual 
     understanding that by forgoing consideration of H.R. 4089 at 
     this time, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not 
     waive any jurisdiction over Title IV of the bill or similar 
     legislation. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce represented on the conference 
     committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter 
     and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record 
     during floor consideration of H.R. 4089, to memorialize our 
     understanding.
       Thank you for your cooperation and support.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2012.
     Hon. Frank Lucas,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On February 29, 2012, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered reported H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's 
     Heritage Act of 2012, by a bipartisan vote of 27 to 16. The 
     bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on 
     Agriculture and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no 
     way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on Agriculture represented on the conference committee. 
     Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and your 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources to memorialize our understanding.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 2012.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman on Natural Resources,
     Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter dated March 
     8, 2012, I am writing regarding H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's 
     Heritage Act of 2012, which contains provisions within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture.
       Our two Committees have a history of working cooperatively 
     on matters that generally concern the jurisdiction of both 
     Committees. In order to permit floor consideration of this 
     bill, the Committee on Agriculture will forgo action with the 
     understanding that it does not prejudice the Committee with 
     respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the 
     future.
       I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank D. Lucas
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                             Association of Fish &


                                            Wildlife Agencies,

                                   Washington, DC, April 16, 2012.
       Dear Chairman Hastings: I write to reflect the support of 
     the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for HR 4089 
     with the changes as reflected in the Manager's Amendment to 
     the Rules Committee Print from Mr. Hastings of Washington. As 
     you know, the Association represents the collective 
     perspectives of the state fish and wildlife agencies, and all 
     50 state agencies are members. We appreciate the work of 
     Committee Members and staff in concluding the perfecting 
     language as reflected in the Manager's Amendment. We also 
     appreciate the enhanced opportunities for recreational 
     fishing, hunting and shooting that will be realized as a 
     result of the bill upon enactment.
       We respectfully urge you to oppose any potential floor 
     amendments that would threaten either state fish and wildlife 
     agency authority, or jeopardize the Pittman-Robertson

[[Page H1875]]

     and Dingell-Johnson laws, the most successful conservation 
     funding models of user-pay/public benefits for fish and 
     wildlife conservation and hunting, fishing and shooting 
     sports.
       As we celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the Wildlife and 
     Sportfish Restoration Funds (Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-
     Johnson), it reminds us of the need to recommit ourselves to 
     protecting the integrity of these funds and the conservation 
     decisions using these funds that are best made at the state 
     and local levels with the input of the hunting, angling and 
     shooting community. State/local decision making is one of the 
     foundational tenets of the North American Model of Wildlife 
     Conservation, and the sportsmen's funding of fish and 
     wildlife conservation through license dollars and Pittman-
     Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise taxes apportioned to the 
     states is the most successful conservation program in the 
     world.
       Thank you for your consideration of the Association's 
     perspectives.
           Sincerely,
     Jonathan W. Gassett, Ph.D.,
       President, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies and 
     Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife 
     Resources.
                                  ____

                                                   April 12, 2012.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, Longworth H.O.B., Washington, DC.
     Hon. Eric Cantor,
     House Majority Leader, Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Minority Leader, Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, and Minority 
     Leader Pelosi: The undersigned organizations from the 
     recreational fishing, hunting, shooting, and wildlife 
     conservation community would like to bring to your attention 
     our support for H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 
     2012. This legislation is basically comprised of several of 
     the approximately eight sportsmen's priority bills being 
     championed by the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's 
     Caucus. Additionally, in these fiscal times, none of the 
     provisions of H.R. 4089 score or contain any authorization 
     for funding. We understand that not all of the eight 
     sportsmen's priority bills are included within this Act; 
     however, we appreciate the need to quickly move this 
     legislation as it currently stands.
       H.R. 4089 is essential to recognizing the importance of and 
     facilitating the expansion and enhancement of hunting and 
     recreational fishing and shooting. H.R. 4089 is a compilation 
     of four different bills (H.R. 2834, H.R. 3440, H.R. 991, and 
     H.R. 1558) that promote and advance our hunting and 
     recreational fishing and shooting heritage. Summarily, the 
     bill includes language that:
       Requires hunting and recreational shooting and fishing to 
     be recognized activities on all Forest Service and Bureau of 
     Land Management lands;
       Protects recreational shooting on National Monuments under 
     the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management;
       Amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow hunters 
     who legally harvested polar bears in Canada prior to its 
     listing under the Endangered Species Act to purchase permits 
     in order to transport their trophies into the U.S.; and
       Clarifies that the Environmental Protection Agency does not 
     have the jurisdiction to regulate traditional ammunition with 
     lead components and lead fishing tackle.
       Specifically, H.R. 4089 is composed of the following 
     titles:
       TITLE I--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND 
     OPPORTUNITIES. After acknowledging that ``recreational 
     anglers and hunters have been and continue to be among the 
     foremost supporters of sound fish and wildlife management and 
     conservation in the United States'' and defining hunting and 
     recreational fishing as ``environmentally acceptable and 
     beneficial activities,'' Title I would require the Bureau of 
     Land Management and Forest Service to keep their lands open 
     to hunting, recreational fishing, and shooting and facilitate 
     the use of and access to Federal public lands and waters for 
     these activities, pursuant to reasonable exceptions. Access 
     to areas to participate in these activities is one of the top 
     reasons cited as to why sportsmen stop participating in their 
     sports. We support and endorse the perfecting language 
     designed to address potential unintended consequences, as 
     reflected in the amended H.R. 2834 as reported out of the 
     House Natural Resources Committee.
       TITLE II--RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION. This portion of 
     the bill protects the ability of Americans to enjoy 
     recreational shooting on public lands. Specifically, this 
     portion of the bill says, ``Subject to valid existing rights, 
     National Monument land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
     of Land Management shall be open to access and use for 
     recreational shooting.'' Therefore, if a Federal land agency 
     needs to close a portion of land to recreational shooting 
     they are required to ``submit to Congress a report detailing 
     the location and extent of, and evidence justifying, such a 
     closure or restriction'' and to meet other criteria designed 
     to keep all available lands open to sportsmen and 
     recreational shooters. This portion of H.R. 4089 also 
     instructs Federal land managers to manage lands ``in a manner 
     that supports, promotes and enhances recreational shooting 
     opportunities. . . .''
       TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS. This 
     portion of the legislation permits the importation of polar 
     bear trophies taken legally by hunters in Canada through an 
     amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. If this bill 
     were to be enacted, up to $41,000 would be generated for 
     polar bear conservation and research which would aid in 
     future polar bear conservation efforts.
       TITLE IV--HUNTING, FISHING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING 
     PROTECTION. This portion of the legislation amends the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act to exclude traditional ammunition with 
     lead components and lead fishing tackle from regulation by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency. Title IV covers a 
     variety of hunting and fishing components that will be exempt 
     because they are subject to a Federal excise tax which serves 
     as a revenue source for conservation efforts at the state 
     level. There is no scientific evidence to suggest the lead 
     contained in ammunition and fishing tackle is having an 
     adverse impact at the population or ecosystem level, and a 
     ban on lead in sporting equipment would unduly burden both 
     industry and sportsmen alike.
       The enactment of H.R. 4089 is an important step in the 
     advancement of America's sporting heritage. We urge you to 
     support H.R. 4089. With your support, we can help overcome 
     the obstacles facing sportsmen and women today and further 
     the sportsmen tradition so that it can be handed down for 
     generations to come.
       Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to 
     working with you to enact H.R. 4089.
           Sincerely,
         American Sportfishing Association, Archery Trade 
           Association, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting 
           Preservation Alliance, Campfire Club of America, Catch-
           A-Dream Foundation, Center for Coastal Conservation, 
           Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional 
           Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force, Dallas 
           Safari Club, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks 
           Unlimited, Houston Safari Club, International Game Fish 
           Association, International Hunter Education 
           Association, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mule 
           Deer Foundation, National Rifle Association.
         National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Trappers 
           Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, North 
           American Bear Foundation, North American Grouse 
           Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pope and Young Club, 
           Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, 
           Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, 
           Safari Club International, Shimano, Texas Wildlife 
           Association, The Bass Federation, U.S. Sportsmen's 
           Alliance, Wild Sheep Foundation, Wildlife Forever, 
           Wildlife Management Institute.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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

[[Page H1876]]

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.

                              {time}  1530

  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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank Chairman Hastings for yielding, 
Subcommittee Chairman Bishop and all the members of the Natural 
Resources Committee for their help and support in bringing this piece 
of legislation to the floor.
  I also want to take this time to say thank you to the entire 
sportsmen's community, which has worked very hard to solidify the 
support here in Congress, including Congressmen Benishek, Flake, Young, 
and Broun, and my counterparts in the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus 
leadership, Congressmen Ross, Latta, and Shuler.
  I would be remiss not to recognize the efforts of the individuals who 
have diligently worked together with the sportsmen's community to help 
advance this very bipartisan package of legislation.
  I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that hunting, 
fishing, and other wildlife-dependent activities have always and should 
be continued on our public lands. What this legislation does is 
protects sportsmen's rights. It protects sportsmen's rights that 
preserves our Nation's heritage; and among the provisions in this 
legislation, it prevents the EPA from expanding TSCA to regulate 
traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.
  Those in opposition may suggest it is the majority's belief that lead 
shot, bullets, and other projectiles, propellants, and primers should 
not be regulated by anyone at all. But as you heard just a moment ago 
by the chairman of the full committee, State fish and wildlife agencies 
are authorized to manage most of the States' fish and wildlife 
activities and, therefore, closely monitor and address any local 
concerns about lead-based ammunition.
  Some will also falsely claim that there is significant danger to 
wildlife populations. With very limited exceptions, there is simply no 
sound evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is causing harm 
to wildlife or their populations. Others incorrectly claim that 
traditional ammunition was a threat to human health. In fact, according 
to the CDC, there has never, never been a case where lead poisoning has 
been traced to wild-game meat.
  Succumbing to the anti-hunting and anti-fishing groups at the expense 
of the taxpayer and sportsmen, it will be detrimental to the countless 
manufacturing facilities of sportsmen and recreational industry. It 
will destroy thousands of jobs and hurt wildlife conservation funding 
and efforts.
  It is the very ammunition, the firearms and the fishing tackle, along 
with sportsmen and -women that are footing the bill to manage, to 
protect, and create the habitat for the species that the very anti-
hunting and -angling interests claim that they are trying to save. That 
is why the sportsmen's conservation organizations and the State fish 
and game agencies have united with industry and Second Amendment 
interests to get behind this piece of legislation.
  While there is still much work to be done to ensure that sportsmen's 
rights continue to be protected, H.R. 4089 addresses some of the 
sportsmen's communities' most pressing concerns, and I urge passage of 
this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), who is a member of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 
2012, a bill that will protect hunting and fishing on public lands and 
preserve the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.
  I am an avid hunter and sportsman. In fact, I'm a life member of 
Safari Club International and my life member number is 17. I began 
coming to Washington, D.C., as a volunteer advocate for hunting and 
fishing rights and for gun owners' rights and responsible conservation. 
I'm also honored to be a life member of the National Rifle Association. 
I know the importance of ensuring that our hunters' and our anglers' 
rights are protected, as well as ensuring the sustainability of 
wildlife.
  This legislation is a compilation of four pro-hunting, -shooting, and 
-fishing bills offered by my friends Jeff Miller of Florida, Don Young 
of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Dr. Dan Benishek of Michigan. I 
commend all of them for their great work on this issue. I am also 
pleased to say that I cosponsored all of their legislation.
  Of note, I would like to personally thank Dr. Benishek for allowing 
me to amend his portion of the bill, the Recreational Fishing and 
Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, that we marked up in our Natural 
Resources Committee.
  In this Congress, as I have done in the past two Congresses, I 
introduced H.R. 1444, legislation that would require that hunting 
activities be considered as a land use in all management plans for 
Federal land. My amendment was complementary to Mr. Benishek's 
legislation, and it is included in this legislation that we are voting 
on today.
  Sportsmen devote their time, their money, and their efforts towards 
ensuring that our Nation's fish and wildlife are sustainable for all 
Americans to

[[Page H1877]]

enjoy. In return, I urge my colleagues to support the Sportsmen's 
Heritage Act so that future generations can continue to hunt, fish, and 
enjoy God-given natural resources.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I urge my colleagues to support the Sportsmen's 
Heritage Act so that future generations can continue to hunt, fish, and 
enjoy the God-given natural resources that were bestowed upon this 
country.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Chairman, I come before the House today as a 
cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.
  I thank my good friend, Chairman Miller, for introducing it, and I'm 
particularly pleased that title I of the bill contains the Recreational 
Fishing and Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, a bill I introduced 
last September.
  Madam Chairman, my northern Michigan district is blessed with 
abundant natural resources, including three Federal forests. Like many 
in the First District, I have enjoyed hunting and fishing since I was a 
child. These are memories I have cherished for a lifetime, and I want 
to ensure that northern Michigan's children and grandchildren will be 
able to enjoy the same.
  Today's bipartisan bill is not some sweeping or radical piece of 
legislation. It simply confirms that sportsmen will be able to access 
Federal lands to enjoy fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting. 
These pursuits are part of the tradition of American public land use, 
but regrettably they are threatened by animal rights and environmental 
groups that seek to end that tradition.
  Like many in this House, I believe these traditions are something to 
be celebrated and protected. Whether it's trout fishing in May, deer 
hunting in November, or just shooting clays with some friends, every 
person in this country has a right to enjoy these lands.
  Madam Chairman, let us make clear today that hunting, fishing, and 
recreational shooting on Federal lands must be protected. Let us make 
sure that when our grandchildren pick up their fishing rod or firearm 
for their first time and head out into America's great outdoors, they 
have the same rights and privileges that we have always known.
  I invite all my colleagues to visit northern Michigan this summer for 
some of the best trout fishing in America or visit this October or 
November for some grouse and deer hunting.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.

                              {time}  1540

  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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Arizona, somebody who has worked on this 
legislation, Mr. Gosar.
  Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 
2012. I have lived in rural America my entire life, where hunting, 
fishing, and sport shooting are more than just hobbies--they are a way 
of life.
  Unfortunately, in Arizona, where the Federal Government administers 
nearly 50 percent of our land, recreational activities are being 
restricted by ill-advised land management decisions. BLM has shut down 
nearly 72,000 acres in Agua Fria and is targeting 600,000 more at the 
Sonoran Desert and the Ironwood Forest National Monument.
  The bill we are considering today removes government roadblocks to 
these activities and guards against new regulations that threaten to 
block or limit access to hunting and fishing. Our way of life should 
not be infringed upon because of the prejudices of bureaucrats who do 
not understand the lifestyles of sportsmen in rural America.
  I urge my colleagues to protect jobs, economic growth, and the 
traditional right of American sportsmen to hunt and fish. Vote ``yes'' 
on H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 23 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Washington has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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).
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

[[Page H1878]]

  I rise in support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.
  I have appreciated the opportunity and have helped with the 
introduction of legislation that will protect and enhance opportunities 
for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. I am proud that the 
Recreational Shooting Protection Act, legislation that I introduced 
earlier this year, is a critical measure towards protecting the rights 
of recreational shooters and is included in the bill that we're 
debating today.
  As I stand here, the Bureau of Land Management is actively working to 
ban recreational shooting in both the Sonoran Desert and Ironwood 
Forest National Monument in Arizona. That's more than 600,000 acres of 
taxpayer-supported public lands that, if the administration had its 
druthers, would be closed to recreational shooting in my State of 
Arizona alone.
  Don't be confused; this isn't just an Arizona issue. In 2010 alone, 
the agency unilaterally closed more than 400,000 acres across three 
States to recreational shooting. Just as troubling as the closures 
themselves is the process by which they're coming about. The mechanism 
for these closures is just bureaucratic fiat.
  Too often, the BLM seems quick to point to the action of some bad 
actors and just as quick to ignore that many recreational shooting 
enthusiasts responsibly use their Federal lands and the existing laws 
already on the books that make disreputable actions illegal already. 
Whether it's closing a million acres of Federal lands to do mining, 
investigating costly pollution controls for a new power plant, trying 
to require costly modifications to pools, or locking up recreational 
shooting areas, you would think that the administration's arms at some 
point would get tired from overreaching.
  As a remedy in the shooting areas, the Recreational Shooting 
Protection Act portion of the bill would require congressional approval 
for existing and future recreational shooting restrictions on BLM-
managed national monument lands. It would also direct the BLM to manage 
national monument lands in a manner that enhances recreational shooting 
opportunities. I should say that that really is the instructions that 
the agencies are under now, yet they're continuing to carry forward 
with these actions.

  For generations, the Federal Government has recognized recreational 
shooting as a traditional and legitimate activity on public lands. 
Nowhere is this more relevant than in the Western States, like Arizona, 
where communities are often and literally surrounded by Federal lands.
  To be clear, all this provision advocates is an additional layer of 
supervision and oversight of the process. It does not prevent the 
closure of BLM lands to recreational shooting, it does not 
unconditionally reverse existing closures, and it does not grant 
recreational shooters carte blanche on national monument lands. It also 
does not authorized any new spending.
  I believe the Recreational Shooting Protection Act affords Congress 
the necessary oversight to prevent unnecessary recreational shooting 
bans, and I urge its adoption.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.
  I should mention that as a diverse package of critical natural 
resource bills, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act is poised to protect and 
enhance opportunities for sportsmen across the Nation. I urge its 
passage.
  Again, I thank the chairman for bringing this forward, and those 
who've worked on the broader piece of legislation. It's a good piece of 
legislation. It ought to be passed.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to a vice chairman of the bipartisan Sportsmen's 
Caucus, Mr. Latta, from Ohio.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's 
Heritage Act of 2012. This important legislation for sportsmen and -
women protect their rights to hunt and fish while limiting restrictions 
in regards to these activities. As a lifelong hunter and Ohio hunter 
education instructor and current vice chairman of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, these issues are not only important to me but to my 
constituents, as well as individuals across this Nation.
  I strongly support H.R. 4089 and will discuss a provision of the bill 
relating to the importance of having access to public lands for our 
sportsmen and -women. This portion of the bill would ensure that 
Federal land management agencies, primarily the Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management, act to protect and foster hunting, fishing, 
and shooting traditions on Federal public lands by directing these 
Federal agencies to exercise their land management discretion to 
facilitate sportsmen's and -women's activities.
  One of my priorities has been to ensure our youth have the 
opportunities to access to become involved in hunting, fishing, and 
other shooting sports. One of the main reasons cited as to why 
sportsmen and -women stop participating in these activities is the 
limitation and access of land. By having more access to Federal lands, 
it helps current users and facilitates that next generation of hunters, 
anglers, and shooters.
  In my home State of Ohio, only 3 percent of the land is publicly 
owned, whereas in some of our Western States, the majority of the land 
is publicly owned, as just mentioned by my friend. For example, in 
Nevada, approximately 80 percent of the land is Federal land, and in 
Wyoming, it's almost 50 percent. Again, if these lands in these States 
with large tracts of Federal lands are restricted, hunters and 
recreational fishermen and -women will not be able to participate in 
those outdoor activities. And, again, it will impede our youth from 
being able to participate in the future because, again, they rely on 
those adults to get them out.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4089, and I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, if I could inquire from Chairman Hastings as 
to anymore speakers. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman. I am prepared to 
close, and so if he wishes to close, then I will close on my side.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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

[[Page H1879]]

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. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of the time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for up to 6 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, this so-called ``Sportsmen's Heritage 
Act'' is an amalgam of four separate bills that have more to do with 
undermining conservation laws than hunting, fishing or recreational 
shooting.
  Like many Americans and most Members of this House, I don't have a 
problem with hunting, fishing or recreational shooting on federal land 
where appropriate. As a practical matter, over 75% of all federal lands 
are already open to hunting and fishing--and more than 85% of all 
national monuments are open for recreational shooting. But as a matter 
of common sense, these recreational activities need to be balanced 
against the health and safety of other park users and uses, as well as 
the proper management of wildlife and wildfire risk. And at the end of 
the day, these kinds of decisions are best made by local land managers, 
not an agency head in Washington, D.C.
  This legislation is further encumbered by a regulatory earmark 
benefitting an estimated 41 trophy hunters at the expense of our 
endangered species laws, and a provision banning the EPA from doing 
something it has already publicly said it isn't going to do.
  Accordingly, I urge a no vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Chair, as an avid outdoorsman and member 
of the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am grateful for 
the opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's 
Heritage Act. This legislation clarifies federal policies for the 
management of sporting activities on public lands and protects 
opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. I 
commend the House Committee on Natural Resources for their commitment 
to preserving the legacy of conservation and upholding Second Amendment 
rights, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important 
legislation.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 19. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4089

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

  TITLE I--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Definition.
Sec. 104. Recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting.

               TITLE II--RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Recreational shooting.

            TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Permits for importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport 
              hunts in Canada.

    TITLE IV--HUNTING, FISHING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Modification of definition.

  TITLE I--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) recreational fishing and hunting are important and 
     traditional activities in which millions of Americans 
     participate;
       (2) recreational anglers and hunters have been and continue 
     to be among the foremost supporters of sound fish and 
     wildlife management and conservation in the United States;
       (3) recreational fishing and hunting are environmentally 
     acceptable and beneficial activities that occur and can be 
     provided on Federal public lands and waters without adverse 
     effects on other uses or users;
       (4) recreational anglers, hunters, and sporting 
     organizations provide direct assistance to fish and wildlife 
     managers and enforcement officers of the Federal Government 
     as well as State and local governments by investing volunteer 
     time and effort to fish and wildlife conservation;
       (5) recreational anglers, hunters, and the associated 
     industries have generated billions of dollars of critical 
     funding for fish and wildlife conservation, research, and 
     management by providing revenues from purchases of fishing 
     and hunting licenses, permits, and stamps, as well as excise 
     taxes on fishing, hunting, and shooting equipment that have 
     generated billions of dollars of critical funding for fish 
     and wildlife conservation, research, and management;
       (6) recreational shooting is also an important and 
     traditional activity in which millions of Americans 
     participate, safe recreational shooting is a valid use of 
     Federal public lands, and participation in recreational 
     shooting helps recruit and retain hunters and contributes to 
     wildlife conservation;
       (7) opportunities to recreationally fish, hunt, and shoot 
     are declining, which depresses participation in these 
     traditional activities, and depressed participation adversely 
     impacts fish and

[[Page H1880]]

     wildlife conservation and funding for important conservation 
     efforts; and
       (8) the public interest would be served, and our citizens' 
     fish and wildlife resources benefitted, by action to ensure 
     that opportunities are facilitated to engage in fishing and 
     hunting on Federal public land as recognized by Executive 
     Order 12962, relating to recreational fisheries, and 
     Executive Order 13443, relating to facilitation of hunting 
     heritage and wildlife conservation.

     SEC. 103. DEFINITION.

       In this title:
       (1) Federal public land.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``Federal public land'' means any land or water that 
     is--
       (i) owned by the United States; and
       (ii) managed by a Federal agency (including the Department 
     of the Interior and the Forest Service) for purposes that 
     include the conservation of natural resources.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``Federal public land'' does not 
     include any land or water held in trust for the benefit of 
     Indians or other Native Americans.
       (2) Hunting.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``hunting'' means use of a firearm, bow, or other 
     authorized means in the lawful--
       (i) pursuit, shooting, capture, collection, trapping, or 
     killing of wildlife; or
       (ii) attempt to pursue, shoot, capture, collect, trap, or 
     kill wildlife.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``hunting'' does not include the 
     use of skilled volunteers to cull excess animals (as defined 
     by other Federal law, including laws applicable to the 
     National Park System).
       (3) Recreational fishing.--The term ``recreational 
     fishing'' means the lawful--
       (A) pursuit, capture, collection, or killing of fish; or
       (B) attempt to capture, collect, or kill fish.
       (4) Recreational shooting.--The term ``recreational 
     shooting'' means any form of sport, training, competition, or 
     pastime, whether formal or informal, that involves the 
     discharge of a rifle, handgun, or shotgun, or the use of a 
     bow and arrow.

     SEC. 104. RECREATIONAL FISHING, HUNTING, AND SHOOTING.

       (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     subsection (g), and cooperation with the respective State and 
     fish and wildlife agency, Federal public land management 
     officials shall exercise their authority under existing law, 
     including provisions regarding land use planning, to 
     facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands and 
     waters for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting 
     except as limited by--
       (1) statutory authority that authorizes action or 
     withholding action for reasons of national security, public 
     safety, or resource conservation;
       (2) any other Federal statute that specifically precludes 
     recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting on specific 
     Federal public lands, waters, or units thereof; and
       (3) discretionary limitations on recreational fishing, 
     hunting, and shooting determined to be necessary and 
     reasonable as supported by the best scientific evidence and 
     advanced through a transparent public process.
       (b) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), the head 
     of each Federal public land management agency shall exercise 
     its land management discretion--
       (1) in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational 
     fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities;
       (2) to the extent authorized under applicable State law; 
     and
       (3) in accordance with applicable Federal law.
       (c) Planning.--
       (1) Effects of plans and activities.--
       (A) Evaluation of effects on opportunities to engage in 
     recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting.--Federal public 
     land planning documents, including land resources management 
     plans, resource management plans, travel management plans, 
     general management plans, and comprehensive conservation 
     plans, shall include a specific evaluation of the effects of 
     such plans on opportunities to engage in recreational 
     fishing, hunting, or shooting.
       (B) Not major federal action.--No action taken under this 
     title, or under section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), either 
     individually or cumulatively with other actions involving 
     Federal public lands, shall be considered to be a major 
     Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 
     human environment, and no additional identification, 
     analysis, or consideration of environmental effects, 
     including cumulative effects, is necessary or required.
       (C) Other activity not considered.--The fact that 
     recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting occurs on adjacent 
     or nearby public or private lands shall not be considered in 
     determining which Federal public lands are open for these 
     activities or for setting levels of use for these activities.
       (2) Use of volunteers.--If hunting is prohibited by law, 
     all Federal public land planning documents of listed in 
     paragraph (1)(A) of an agency shall, after appropriate 
     coordination with State fish and wildlife agency, allow the 
     participation of skilled volunteers in the culling and other 
     management of wildlife populations on Federal public lands 
     unless the head of the agency demonstrates, based on the best 
     scientific data available or applicable Federal statutes, why 
     skilled volunteers shall not be used to control 
     overpopulations of wildlife on the land that is the subject 
     of the planning documents.
       (d) Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Lands.--
       (1) Lands open.--Lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
     of Land Management and the Forest Service, including lands 
     designated as wilderness or administratively classified as 
     wilderness eligible or suitable and primitive or semi-
     primitive areas but excluding lands on the Outer Continental 
     Shelf, shall be open to recreational fishing, hunting, and 
     shooting unless the managing Federal agency acts to close 
     lands to such activity. Lands may be subject to closures or 
     restrictions if determined by the head of the agency to be 
     necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence, 
     for purposes including resource conservation, public safety, 
     energy or mineral production, energy generation or 
     transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities, 
     protection of other permittees, protection of private 
     property rights or interests, national security, or 
     compliance with other law. The head of the agency shall 
     publish public notice of such closure or restriction before 
     it is effective, unless the closure or restriction is 
     mandated by other law.
       (2) Shooting ranges.--
       (A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency--
       (i) may lease its lands for shooting ranges; and
       (ii) may designate specific lands for recreational shooting 
     activities.
       (B) Limitation on liability.--Any designation under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall not subject the United States to 
     any civil action or claim for monetary damages for injury or 
     loss of property or personal injury or death caused by any 
     activity occurring at or on such designated lands.
       (e) Necessity in Wilderness Areas.--
       (1) The provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing and 
     recreational shooting, and the conservation of fish and 
     wildlife to provide sustainable use recreational 
     opportunities on designated wilderness areas on Federal 
     public lands shall constitute measures necessary to meet the 
     minimum requirements for the administration of the wilderness 
     area.
       (2) The ``within and supplemental to'' Wilderness purposes, 
     as provided in Public Law 88 577, section 4(c), means that 
     any requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented 
     only insofar as they facilitate or enhance the original or 
     primary purpose or purposes for which the Federal public 
     lands or Federal public land unit was established and do not 
     materially interfere with or hinder such purpose or purposes.
       (f) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the 
     head of each Federal agency who has authority to manage 
     Federal public land on which fishing, hunting, or 
     recreational shooting occurs shall publish in the Federal 
     Register and submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate a report that describes--
       (A) any Federal public land administered by the agency head 
     that was closed to recreational fishing, sport hunting, or 
     shooting at any time during the preceding year; and
       (B) the reason for the closure.
       (2) Closures or significant restrictions of 640 or more 
     acres.--
       (A) In general.--Other than closures under subsection (c), 
     the withdrawal, any change of classification, or any change 
     of management status that effectively closes or significantly 
     restricts 640 or more contiguous acres of Federal public land 
     or water to access or use for fishing or hunting or 
     activities related to fishing and hunting (or both) shall 
     take effect only if, before the date of withdrawal or change, 
     the head of the Federal agency that has jurisdiction over the 
     Federal public land or water--
       (i) publishes notice of the closure, withdrawal, or 
     significant restriction;
       (ii) demonstrates that coordination has occurred with a 
     State fish and wildlife agency; and
       (iii) submits to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate written notice of the 
     withdrawal, change, or significant restriction.
       (B) Aggregate or cumulative effects.--If the aggregate or 
     cumulative effect of small closures or significant 
     restrictions affects 640 or more acres, such small closures 
     or significant restrictions shall be subject to these 
     requirements.
       (g) Areas Not Affected.--Nothing in this title requires the 
     opening of national park or national monuments under the 
     jurisdiction of the National Park Service to hunting or 
     recreational shooting.
       (h) No Priority.--Nothing in this title requires a Federal 
     agency to give preference to recreational fishing, hunting, 
     or shooting over other uses of Federal public land or over 
     land or water management priorities established by Federal 
     law.
       (i) Consultation With Councils.--In fulfilling the duties 
     set forth in this title, the heads of Federal agencies shall 
     consult with respective advisory councils as established in 
     Executive Orders 12962 and 13443.
       (j) Authority of the States.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     as interfering with, diminishing, or conflicting with the 
     authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of any State to 
     manage, control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State 
     law (including regulations) on land or water within the 
     State, including on Federal public land.
       (2) Federal licenses.--Nothing in this title authorizes the 
     head of a Federal agency head to require a license or permit 
     to fish, hunt, or trap on land or water in a State, including 
     on Federal public land in the States, except that this 
     paragraph shall not affect the Migratory Bird Stamp 
     requirement set forth in the Migratory Bird Hunting and 
     Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718 et seq.).

[[Page H1881]]

               TITLE II--RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Shooting 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Bureau of Land Management.
       (2) National monument land.--The term ``National Monument 
     land'' has the meaning given that term in the Act of June 8, 
     1908 (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act''; 16 U.S.C. 
     431 et seq.).
       (3) Recreational shooting.--The term ``recreational 
     shooting'' includes any form of sport, training, competition, 
     or pastime, whether formal or informal, that involves the 
     discharge of a rifle, handgun, or shotgun, or the use of a 
     bow and arrow.

     SEC. 203. RECREATIONAL SHOOTING.

       (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, National 
     Monument land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
     Management shall be open to access and use for recreational 
     shooting, except such closures and restrictions determined by 
     the Director to be necessary and reasonable and supported by 
     facts and evidence for one or more of the following:
       (1) Reasons of national security.
       (2) Reasons of public safety.
       (3) To comply with an applicable Federal statute.
       (4) To comply with a law (including regulations) of the 
     State in which the National Monument land is located that is 
     applicable to recreational shooting.
       (b) Notice; Report.--
       (1) Requirement.--Except as set forth in paragraph (2)(B), 
     before a restriction or closure under subsection (a) is made 
     effective, the Director shall--
       (A) publish public notice of such closure or restriction in 
     a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the 
     closure or restriction will be carried out; and
       (B) submit to Congress a report detailing the location and 
     extent of, and evidence justifying, such a closure or 
     restriction.
       (2) Timing.--The Director shall issue the notice and report 
     required under paragraph (1)--
       (A) before the closure if practicable without risking 
     national security or public safety; and
       (B) in cases where such issuance is not practicable for 
     reasons of national security or public safety, not later than 
     30 days after the closure.
       (c) Cessation of Closure or Restriction.--A closure or 
     restriction under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) 
     shall cease to be effective--
       (1) effective on the day after the last day of the six-
     month period beginning on the date on which the Director 
     submitted the report to Congress under subsection (b)(2) 
     regarding the closure or restriction, unless the closure or 
     restriction has been approved by Federal law; and
       (2) 30 days after the date of the enactment of a Federal 
     law disapproving the closure or restriction.
       (d) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), the 
     Director shall manage National Monument land under the 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management--
       (1) in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances 
     recreational shooting opportunities;
       (2) to the extent authorized under State law (including 
     regulations); and
       (3) in accordance with applicable Federal law (including 
     regulations).
       (e) Limitation on Duplicative Closures or Restrictions.--
     Unless supported by criteria under subsection (a) as a result 
     of a change in circumstances, the Director may not issue a 
     closure or restriction under subsection (a) that is 
     substantially similar to closure or restriction previously 
     issued that was not approved by Federal law.
       (f) Effective Date for Prior Closures and Restrictions.--On 
     the date that is six months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, this title shall apply to closures and 
     restrictions in place on the date of the enactment of this 
     title that relate to access and use for recreational shooting 
     on National Monument land under the jurisdiction of the 
     Bureau of Land Management.
       (g) Annual Report.--Not later than October 1 of each year, 
     the Director shall submit to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that 
     describes--
       (1) any National Monument land under the jurisdiction of 
     the Bureau of Land Management that was closed to recreational 
     shooting or on which recreational shooting was restricted at 
     any time during the preceding year; and
       (2) the reason for the closure.
       (h) No Priority.--Nothing in this title requires the 
     Director to give preference to recreational shooting over 
     other uses of Federal public land or over land or water 
     management priorities established by Federal law.
       (i) Authority of the States.--
       (1) Savings.--Nothing in this title affects the authority, 
     jurisdiction, or responsibility of a State to manage, 
     control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State law 
     (including regulations) on land or water in the State, 
     including Federal public land.
       (2) Federal licenses.--Nothing in this title authorizes the 
     Director to require a license for recreational shooting on 
     land or water in a State, including on Federal public land in 
     the State.

            TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Polar Bear Conservation 
     and Fairness Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 302. PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TROPHIES 
                   TAKEN IN SPORT HUNTS IN CANADA.

       Section 104(c)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D)(i) The Secretary of the Interior shall, expeditiously 
     after the expiration of the applicable 30-day period under 
     subsection (d)(2), issue a permit for the importation of any 
     polar bear part (other than an internal organ) from a polar 
     bear taken in a sport hunt in Canada to any person--
       ``(I) who submits, with the permit application, proof that 
     the polar bear was legally harvested by the person before 
     February 18, 1997; or
       ``(II) who has submitted, in support of a permit 
     application submitted before May 15, 2008, proof that the 
     polar bear was legally harvested by the person before May 15, 
     2008, from a polar bear population from which a sport-hunted 
     trophy could be imported before that date in accordance with 
     section 18.30(i) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(ii) The Secretary shall issue permits under clause 
     (i)(I) without regard to subparagraphs (A) and (C)(ii) of 
     this paragraph, subsection (d)(3), and sections 101 and 102. 
     Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the 
     importation of any polar bear part authorized by a permit 
     issued under clause (i)(I). This clause shall not apply to 
     polar bear parts that were imported before June 12, 1997.
       ``(iii) The Secretary shall issue permits under clause 
     (i)(II) without regard to subparagraph (C)(ii) of this 
     paragraph or subsection (d)(3). Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 
     102(b)(3) shall not apply to the importation of any polar 
     bear part authorized by a permit issued under clause (i)(II). 
     This clause shall not apply to polar bear parts that were 
     imported before the date of enactment of the Polar Bear 
     Conservation and Fairness Act of 2012.''.

    TITLE IV--HUNTING, FISHING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 402. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION.

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

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112 
444. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.

                              {time}  1600


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112 444.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 15, after ``of Federal public lands,'' insert 
     ``including the establishment of safe and convenient shooting 
     ranges on such lands,''.
       Page 5, line 4, strike ``; or'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 5, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       Page 5, after line 6, insert the following:
       (iii) the training of hunting dogs, including field trials.
       Page 6, line 5, strike ``and waters'' and insert ``, 
     including Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or lands 
     administratively classified as wilderness eligible or 
     suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas,''.
       Page 7, line 20, after ``(16 U.S.C. 668dd),'' insert ``as 
     amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
     Act of 1997,''.
       Page 8, strike lines 4 through 10 and insert the following:
       (C) Other activity not considered.--Federal public land 
     management officials are not required to consider the 
     existence or availability of recreational fishing, hunting, 
     or shooting opportunities on adjacent or nearby public or 
     private lands in the planning for or determination of which 
     Federal public lands are open for these activities or in the 
     setting of levels of use for these activities on Federal 
     public lands, unless the

[[Page H1882]]

     combination or coordination of such opportunities would 
     enhance the recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting 
     opportunities available to the public.
       Page 8, line 13, strike ``of' '' the first place it 
     appears.
       Page 8, line 15, strike ``agency'' and insert ``agencies''
       Page 9, line 3, after ``Forest Service, including'' insert 
     ``Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas,''.
       Page 9, beginning at line 18, strike ``The head'' and all 
     that follows through line 21.
       Page 9, strike lines 23 through page 10, line 4 and insert 
     the following:
       (A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency shall use 
     his or her authorities in a manner consistent with this Act 
     and other applicable law, to--
       (i) lease or permit use of lands under the jurisdiction of 
     the agency for shooting ranges; and
       (ii) designate specific lands under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency for recreational shooting activities.
       Page 10, strike line 12 and all that follows through page 
     11, line 3, and insert the following:
       (e) Necessity in Wilderness Areas and ``Within and 
     Supplemental to'' Wilderness Purposes.--
       (1) Minimum requirements for administration.--The provision 
     of opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational 
     shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to 
     provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on 
     designated wilderness areas on Federal public lands shall 
     constitute measures necessary to meet the minimum 
     requirements for the administration of the wilderness area.
       (2) The term ``within and supplemental to'' Wilderness 
     purposes in section 4(a) of Public Law 88 577, means that any 
     requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented only 
     insofar as they do not prevent Federal public land management 
     officials and State fish and wildlife officials from carrying 
     out their wildlife conservation responsibilities or providing 
     recreational opportunities on the Federal public lands 
     subject to a wilderness designation.
       (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are not intended to authorize or 
     facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or 
     motorized recreational access or use.
       Page 11, strike line 4 and all that follows through line 6, 
     and insert the following:
       (f) Report.--Not later than October 1 of every other year, 
     beginning with the second October 1 after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the head of each Federal agency who 
     has
       Page 11, line 9, strike ``publish in the Federal Register 
     and''.
       Page 11, lines 14 through 18, redesignate subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively (and conform 
     the margins accordingly).
       Page 11, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 
     12, line 23, and insert the following (and redesignate the 
     subsequent subsections accordingly):
       (g) Closures or Significant Restrictions of 640 or More 
     Acres.--
       (1) In general.--Other than closures established or 
     prescribed by land planning actions referred to in subsection 
     (d) or emergency closures described in paragraph (3) of this 
     subsection, a permanent or temporary withdrawal, change of 
     classification, or change of management status of Federal 
     public land that effectively closes or significantly 
     restricts 640 or more contiguous acres of Federal public land 
     to access or use for fishing or hunting or activities related 
     to fishing and hunting (or both) shall take effect only if, 
     before the date of withdrawal or change, the head of the 
     Federal agency that has jurisdiction over the Federal public 
     land--
       (A) publishes appropriate notice of the withdrawal or 
     change, respectively;
       (B) demonstrates that coordination has occurred with a 
     State fish and wildlife agency; and
       (C) submits to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate written notice of the 
     withdrawal or change, respectively.
       (2) Aggregate or cumulative effects.--If the aggregate or 
     cumulative effect of separate withdrawals or changes 
     effectively closes or significantly restricts 1280 or more 
     acres of land or water, such withdrawals and changes shall be 
     treated as a single withdrawal or change for purposes of 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Emergency closures.--Nothing in this Act prohibits a 
     Federal land management agency from establishing or 
     implementing emergency closures or restrictions of the 
     smallest practicable area to provide for public safety, 
     resource conservation, national security, or other purposes 
     authorized by law. Such an emergency closure shall terminate 
     after a reasonable period of time unless converted to a 
     permanent closure consistent with this Act.
       Page 12, after line 23, insert the following:
       (3) National wildlife refuge system.--Nothing in this Act 
     is intended to amend or modify the provisions of the National 
     Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 
     668dd et seq.), except as expressly provided herein.
       Page 13, line 22, after ``license'' insert ``, fee,''.
       Page 18, after line 18, insert the following:
       (j) Controlling Provisions.--In any instance when one or 
     more provisions in title I and in this title may be construed 
     to apply in an inconsistent manner to National Monument land, 
     the provisions in this title shall take precedence and apply.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we do not object to this dab of lipstick 
on H.R. 4089.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112 444.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 
     13, line 2 and insert the following:
       (g) Areas Not Affected.--Nothing in this title requires the 
     opening to hunting or recreational shooting of--
       (1) a national park or national monument under the 
     jurisdiction of the National Park Service; or
       (2) a unit of the National Park System (that is not a 
     national park or national monument) unless specifically 
     provided by statute that such unit be open to hunting or 
     recreational shooting.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4089 deems all Federal land open for 
hunting and recreational shooting unless a closure is made by the head 
of the agency here in Washington. The authors of the legislation 
intended to exempt from the bill lands under the jurisdiction of the 
National Park Service. I'm sure, I have it on good authority from them, 
from the authors, that this was their intention. However, as written, 
the bill only exempts national parks and national monuments. My 
amendment is a simple, technical correction that ensures all units of 
the National Park Service are included in the exemption.
  The exemption language in title I is, I believe, unintentionally 
broad and not clear. The National Park System includes units that have 
a variety of designations--national seashores, national scenic trails, 
national battle fields, among others. The National Park System has 
units in urban areas, in rural areas, in suburban communities, in the 
East, in the West, in the center of our country.
  And without this amendment, H.R. 4089 could potentially open for 
hunting the Paterson, New Jersey, Great Falls National Historic Park in 
the heart of Paterson, the third-largest city in my State. The bill 
could, as written, potentially allow hunting within Antietam or 
Manassas National Battlefields.
  All units of the National Park System, like our national battlefields 
and military parks, are sacred ground and should be reserved for solemn 
contemplation of the sacrifices of our ancestors. My amendment would 
ensure

[[Page H1883]]

that the policies of the National Park Service involving firearms in 
areas controlled by the National Park Service stay in place.
  Now, some have suggested that the historic battle reenactments 
constitute recreational shooting, and this, my amendment, would, they 
say, prevent reenacting on battlefields. Maybe my good friend from Utah 
doesn't know the National Park Service policy.
  It's important to note that current National Park Service policy, 
right now, prohibits ``battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle 
tactics that involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines or any 
other form of simulated warfare.'' I'm not aware of any problems that 
this sensible policy has caused.
  It's important to note that there are National Park System units like 
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in Washington State, I say to 
my friend, the chairman, or Craters of the Moon National Preserve in 
Idaho that allow hunting and recreational shooting. My amendment would 
not affect those policies. The hunting and recreational shooting could 
continue in those places.
  I just want to emphasize, this is a technical amendment. I'm not 
getting at the merits for or against the bill overall. But should this 
bill proceed, it would be a big mistake to say that the hunting, the 
recreational shooting could take place in Gettysburg and Chincoteague 
and any number of other places that aren't intended.
  Let's ensure that, in the hurry to open all Federal lands to hunting 
and recreational shooting, we don't carelessly open up to gunfire 
consecrated grounds like the Civil War battlefields, like the parks and 
beaches and forests of our national recreation areas.
  I urge my colleagues to support this technical correction to the 
bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the remaining time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. My amendment simply ensures that nothing in this act would 
force hunting in the National Park Service. I really don't understand 
what the chairman is talking about here, because where it is allowed, 
it would be allowed. Where it's not allowed, it would not be allowed. 
It is policy of the National Park Service not to allow reenactment of 
battles.

                              {time}  1610

  The battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that 
involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines, the taking of 
casualties, hand-to-hand combat, et cetera, are prohibited in all 
parks. Park Service employees can conduct demonstrations as part of 
their living history program. That's done now. It would be continued 
under this.
  What this says is, under this legislation, were it to become law, a 
person who wants to hunt in Gettysburg Park can't do that unless the 
National Park Service policy allows it. That's all this says. It 
extends it to all facilities of the National Park Service, not just 
what was specified in the bill parks and monuments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112 444.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 105. APPLICABILITY CONDITION.

       This title shall be in effect and apply only when less than 
     75 percent of Federal public land is available for hunting, 
     fishing, or recreation shooting, as determined by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       Page 18, after line 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 204. APPLICABILITY CONDITION.

       This title shall be in effect and apply only when less than 
     75 percent of Federal public land (as defined section 103) is 
     available for hunting, fishing, or recreation shooting, as 
     determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to 
emphasize the point that nearly 85 percent of

[[Page H1884]]

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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

                              {time}  1620

  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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112 444.

[[Page H1885]]

  Mr. PETERS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike title III.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to support my amendment, which strikes a bailout that 
was slipped into this bill for 41 wealthy sport hunters who want to 
import polar bear trophies taken during hunts in Canada.
  Polar bears were listed as threatened in May of 2008 by the Bush 
administration's Fish and Wildlife Service, which prohibited their 
importation as trophies. This protection was not implemented overnight. 
Trophy hunters were warned. They were warned by Federal agencies and 
hunting associations for more than a year that the final listing would 
cut off imports immediately. The Hunting Report told its readers in 
2007:
  The bottom line is, no American hunter should be putting hard, non-
returnable money down on a polar bear hunt at this point.
  These individuals knowingly assumed the risk that their trophies 
might not be approved for importation, and they decided to hunt and to 
kill these beautiful, threatened creatures anyway.
  While it is too late to save these bears, passing this bill creates a 
perverse incentive for trophy hunters to rush to hunt any species soon 
to be protected under the Endangered Species Act because their friends 
in Congress will simply bail them out after the fact. We cannot allow 
that, and that's why I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  I am deeply surprised the gentleman from Michigan would, in fact, 
propose the amendment. He has one of these bears from his State, and a 
lot of hunters are not wealthy. This is a legal activity in Canada. 
They hunted these bears prior to 2008 and even prior to 2007. These are 
dead bears, and they are sitting in Canada. When the hunters hunted 
legally, the Canadian Government gave them the proper authority to do 
so, and it helped the native villages. Right now, there are more bears 
in Canada than there ever has been in history.
  Hunting is a vital process of the management of game, and these 
people included two wounded veterans. They were in Iraq, in that heated 
area, and the one dream they had when they got back was to be able to 
go and hunt a polar bear. I can understand that. They shot their 
trophies legally and with the blessing of the Canadian Government and 
the local province, and then they expected to be able to return those 
bears, those hides--and yes, even sometimes the bodies--back home for 
the proper display of their hunts. To say now you can't import 
something when a bear was declared threatened by, yes, the Bush 
administration--and wrongfully so--the bears are not threatened. There 
are more bears now than there were in 1964. I'm probably the only 
individual on this floor who had ever shot a polar bear in '64, and I'm 
certainly not rich.
  I am suggesting that this amendment is ill-placed, poorly thought 
out, and improper. I want those people who did things legally by the 
nation of our neighbors and blessed by the province to be able to bring 
those trophies back home, as they have the right to do. Yet the act of 
a Secretary of the Interior took that away from them arbitrarily.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. I rise in strong support of the Peters amendment. Without 
this amendment, the bill will undermine the protections currently in 
place for wild species under the Endangered Species Act and under the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  In this case, the hunters who chose to kill these polar bears knew 
they were taking a risk. They had good information that polar bears 
would be listed as an endangered, threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act, and they acted contrary to it. They were 
repeatedly warned by Federal agencies and hunting associations that the 
final listing would cut off imports immediately, and they had well over 
a year's notice. Despite this knowledge, hunters still chose to shoot 
and kill polar bears at a time when the species faced severe hardship 
and when legal protections were imminent.
  We should not encourage a small group of people to take conscious 
risks and then turn around and ask Congress for relief. If we pass this 
bill without the Peters amendment, we are, in effect, telling hunters 
that, when species are likely candidates for the endangered or 
threatened lists, kill them as soon as you can, and then Congress will 
give you special treatment and exempt you from the law.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Peters amendment. Don't 
destroy the long-term conservation efforts for the special interests of 
a few trophy hunters who are hoping for home decor and bragging rights. 
I will strongly oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am surprised by my good friend from 
California. He has a lot of polar bears in California. It's really 
amazing to me. He doesn't know squat about the population of polar 
bears. Then to imply that these are rich people who are going to hunt, 
now isn't that class warfare? It's exactly a Democrat position, the 
idea that now this is wrong when they did it legally. These bears 
weren't all killed in 2008, and they weren't all warned in 2008. I want 
to see the documentation of that. You know there's no documentation. 
That's the same propaganda you get out of the same groups of people 
that are anti-gun and anti-hunting.
  Yes, step up to the plate. That's what you are. I know that. Yet to 
take that right away from an American citizen, especially from a 
wounded veteran--two of them--is wrong. It is wrong when this is 
legally taking species arbitrarily by a Secretary of the Interior who 
is saying now they're threatened. By the way, the administration does 
not oppose this bill. That's amazing. The Fish and Wildlife Service 
actually supports this bill now because we made some changes that they 
wanted, and we gave them, specifically recognizing that it does not 
encourage hunting.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Notwithstanding the statement of my very good friend from 
Alaska, I rise in support of Mr. Peters's amendment. It would remove a 
provision that would allow for the importation of polar bears killed in 
Canada, but the provision only benefits 41 big game hunters who shot 
bears in Canada prior to their listing as a species threatened with 
extinction.

                              {time}  1630

  These hunters were on notice that the trophies would likely not be 
allowed into the United States, but rushed to hunt the bears anyway. 
Now they're asking for Congress to bail them out by creating an 
exemption in the law so they can bring their trophies into the country.
  It's not about the number of polar bears. It is about the underlying 
principle that decisions related to the protection of threatened and 
endangered animals should be based upon science and subject to 
consistent enforcement, not dependent upon the whims of Congress. Polar 
bears are already threatened, and the last thing they need is more 
trophy hunters chasing them down and shooting them. But that's exactly 
what will happen if this Congress demonstrates that it is fully willing 
to retroactively change the law in this manner to accommodate the 
wishes of a very small minority. It's only 41 big-game hunters but 
we're changing the law on their account?
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a Federal court have rejected 
previous requests to import trophies after 2008. That should be the 
final word on the subject.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Peters amendment.

[[Page H1886]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired. The gentleman from Alaska has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman from Virginia has lots of polar 
bears in Virginia. I know it's springtime, but I don't think there's 
many polar bears in Virginia.
  It's strange that all three of them have said endangered species. 
This has nothing to do with endangered species. This is about marine 
mammals. Endangered species, in fact, are still imported to the United 
States. Hartmann's mountain zebras, yes; the African elephants, yes. We 
can still import those. This has to do with marine mammals.
  I really can't understand because the government warns you--it's not 
against the law, but they warn you and you better follow it because 
we're warning you. That's not law. These people may have been notified 
there's a possibility, but they hunted under existing law, under 
existing permits and paid for. To take that away from them--I don't 
care if it's one person or 500 people or 41 people. When the law is 
followed and we don't follow through with it, then shame on us. These 
people did what was right, and legally. Now you're trying to take that 
right away from them.
  I urge a strong resounding ``no'' on this amendment and vote for the 
people of America to have a right under the Constitution as long as 
they follow the law to do something that's correct and they've done 
that. They did everything by the law and to say now to have an 
amendment and say you don't have a right when they followed it 
correctly is shame on you.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Fleming

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112 444.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that has been made in 
order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

             TITLE V--HUNTING IN KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST

     SEC. 501. HUNTING IN KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) In General.--Consistent with the Act of June 4, 1897 
     (16 U.S.C. 551), the Secretary of Agriculture may not 
     restrict the use of dogs in deer hunting activities in 
     Kisatchie National Forest, unless such restrictions--
       (1) apply to the smallest practicable portions of such 
     unit; and
       (2) are necessary to reduce or control trespass onto land 
     adjacent to such unit.
       (b) Prior Restrictions Void.--Any restrictions regarding 
     the use of dogs in deer hunting activities in Kisatchie 
     National Forest in force on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act shall be void and have no force or effect.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment today maintains the State of Louisiana's ability to 
regulate hunting within its borders. In a decision announced March 1, 
2012, the Forest Service Regional Forester located way over in Atlanta, 
Georgia, went over the heads of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries 
Commission to forever prohibit the use of dogs to hunt deer in 
Kisatchie National Forest.
  Deer hunting has a long and important cultural history within the 
State of Louisiana. When French settlers first came to Louisiana in the 
18th century, Louisiana was covered by thickets and dense timber. Most 
of these settlers had companion dogs with them, but the most treasured 
were the deerhounds. The use of dogs would help the hunter drive the 
deer out of the forest because deer were so plentiful and provided 
exciting races that provided sound nourishment.
  Hunting in many forms has been for decades, and continues to be, a 
compatible activity on the 600,000-acre Kisatchie National Forest. 
Oddly enough, the Regional Forester does not prohibit the use of dogs 
for hunting raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, and game birds.
  In 2011, the Kisatchie dog deer season was only 9 days and only 
applies to certain ranger districts. According to communication with 
the Forest Service, seven southern States allow hunting on national 
forests within their borders. They include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina; but in this case, not 
Louisiana. However, this is the first time the Forest Service has 
issued a ban on dog deer hunting, or hunting deer with dogs, within a 
specific State.
  According to the Forest Service itself, they indicate that revenue 
generated on dog deer hunting, including expenses to care for dogs, 
contributes to approximately 18 to 29 direct jobs and results in 
roughly $890,000 to $1.4 million of income. By their own assessment, it 
is likely that some economic benefits will be lost depending on whether 
hunting with dogs for deer leave the area to pursue the sport 
elsewhere. Now this is about to kill even more jobs in Louisiana.
  I would also like to emphasize that the State of Louisiana, the NRA, 
and the Safari Club all support my amendment; and I urge support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLEMING. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fleming 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.

[[Page H1887]]

  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.

                              {time}  1640

  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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I would like to respond to some of the statements that were made.
  I received a petition of thousands of hunters from Louisiana and 
several States who wanted this to continue. The State, not the Federal 
Government, is in the best position to make this determination. By 
October 6, 2009, the Forest Service had received 1,237 responses to its 
2009 request for comments. Of these, 320 agreed with the proposed 
prohibition, but 917 were against it. That's a 77 percent majority of 
these respondents who were actually from central Louisiana where this 
Kisatchie National Forest exists. During October 2011, the Forest 
Service received over 1,300 more comments on the original proposal and 
environmental analysis. All but five letters--all but five letters, Mr. 
Chairman--were opposed to the proposed prohibition.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. I just want to respond, again, the people of Louisiana, 
the State of Louisiana has full support of doing away with this 
prohibition. This was a decision made by somebody in Atlanta, a Federal 
person, that has to do with what is really a local issue. This is a 
tradition that goes back 300 years, and I think it's pretty obvious 
that the people of Louisiana support the continuance of hunting deer 
with dogs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112 444.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

 TITLE V--RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS IN THE BLOCK 
                       ISLAND SOUND TRANSIT ZONE

     SEC. 501. RECREATIONAL FISHING FOR ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS IN 
                   THE BLOCK ISLAND SOUND TRANSIT ZONE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall not prohibit fishing for Atlantic Striped 
     Bass in the Block Island Sound transit zone.
       (b) Exception.--This subsection does not limit the 
     authority of the Secretary to establish seasonal or other 
     temporary limitations on fishing that are specifically 
     necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic 
     striped bass.
       (c) Block Island Sound Transit Zone Defined.--In this 
     subsection the term ``Block Island Sound transit zone'' means 
     the area of the exclusive economic zone within Block Island 
     Sound, north of a line connecting Montauk Light, Montauk 
     Point, New York, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block 
     Island, Rhode Island; and west of a line connecting Point 
     Judith Light, Point Judith, Rhode Island, and Block Island 
     Southeast Light, Block Island, Rhode Island.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The purpose of my amendment is straightforward. It opens an area off 
the coast of my congressional district to recreational striped bass 
fishing. Striped bass is a popular game fish in New York, and it has 
long been an important catch for recreational fishermen.
  The formation of an exclusive economic zone creates a small area of 
Federal water in the Block Island Sound between Montauk Point, Block 
Island, and Point Judith, Rhode Island. In most cases, when you hit the 
3-mile point off the coast of the United States, you have nothing but 
Federal waters in front of you. This is not always the case for New 
York fishermen. Because of this geographic anomaly, when the ban on 
striped bass fishing in the EEZ went into effect, it closed off 60 
percent of New York's traditional striped bass recreation areas from 
fishing, according to the Montauk Boatmen and Captains Association in 
my district.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service recognized this unique area by 
designating it as a transit area where it was permissible for fishermen 
to possess striped bass on their boats as long as no fishing takes 
place while in the EEZ and the boat is in continuous transit.
  My amendment goes one step further and opens this relatively small 
area to recreational fishing. Mindful of the need for reasonable 
conservation, my amendment also provides the ability to take necessary 
action for conservation purposes.
  Fishermen and charter captains on Long Island know these waters 
better than anybody in Washington, D.C. Our friends on the other side 
of the aisle talk about government regulation stifling the economic 
recovery. After all, fishermen are job creators, both directly and 
indirectly. They hire crews, they have their boats maintained by 
mechanics, and they sell their catch to restaurants where Americans go 
out to eat.
  I support fisheries management that is designed to promote robust 
health of fish stocks; but as the representative for the oldest fishing 
ports in New York State, I also support sensible efforts to ensure our 
fishermen can fish and earn their livelihood.
  Opening this area would once again give recreational fishermen access 
to fruitful striped bass fishing grounds. Charter boats will benefit, 
as will the ports they depart from as people come to the east end of 
Long Island for great fishing. This will promote job growth and 
tourism, which is the goal of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I very much appreciate that offer, Mr. 
Chairman. Based on your assurance that this issue will receive a full 
hearing in your committee or in the appropriate subcommittee, I will 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, I thank you 
very much, and we will work together on

[[Page H1888]]

this. This is a larger issue, and I certainly understand the 
gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I appreciate that.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Heinrich

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112 444.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

  TITLE V--ACTIVITIES WITHIN WILDERNESS OR LAND MANAGED AS WILDERNESS

     SEC. 501. ACTIVITIES WITHIN WILDERNESS OR LAND MANAGED AS 
                   WILDERNESS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow oil and gas 
     development, mining, logging, or motorized activity on 
     Federal public land (as defined in section 103) designated or 
     managed as wilderness.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As an active sportsman, I am proud to introduce this amendment today. 
It's likely that you have heard claims from some of my colleagues 
across the aisle that the manager's amendment will resolve the concerns 
that I have raised today, thus making this amendment redundant or 
duplicative.
  Mr. Chairman, that is simply not the case. While I appreciate the 
intent of my colleagues to resolve my concerns, their language is still 
far too vague and needs additional clarification. As an avid hunter, I 
strongly support increasing access to public lands for hunting and 
fishing, but we can achieve that goal without eliminating the very 
wilderness protections that have protected some of the best wildlife 
habitat and, I would add, some of the best backcountry hunting 
opportunities in our Nation.
  The bill under consideration today would eliminate long-standing 
protections against logging, oil and gas drilling, and motor vehicle 
use in wilderness areas. It would create a loophole in the Wilderness 
Act for anything that would provide ``opportunities for hunting, 
fishing, and recreational shooting.''
  Under the Wilderness Act, land managers are allowed to act in ways 
that are otherwise not allowed in wilderness areas if the action is 
necessary for ``the minimum requirements necessary'' for the 
administration of the area. In practice, the minimum requirements 
necessary language and standard means that land managers can use 
motorized vehicles, chainsaws, even helicopters in extreme emergencies, 
to fight fires, rescue stranded hikers, or remove downed trees from 
trails that threaten human safety.
  This bill would extend that kind of exemption to any action that 
would ``provide an opportunity for hunting, fishing, and recreational 
shooting.'' This means that activities otherwise not allowed in a 
wilderness area, like motor vehicle use, would now have to be permitted 
if it could be used to facilitate everyday activities like hunting, 
fishing, and recreational shooting.
  Now, the manager's amendment includes language intended to address 
these concerns by providing that these provisions ``are not intended to 
authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or 
motor recreational access or use.''

                              {time}  1650

  Whether or not that's the bill's intention, the language in the bill 
allows for that possibility, and saying that wasn't the intent doesn't 
change what the language allows.
  In contrast, my amendment provides that nothing in this bill ``shall 
be construed to allow'' these otherwise prohibited activities in 
wilderness areas.
  ``Intended'' versus ``shall''; there's a very powerful legal 
difference. And sportsmen across the country recognize this difference 
and support my amendment. In the last few hours, I've heard from 
countless supporters in my own State, including the New Mexico Wildlife 
Federation; the New Mexico chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers; 
Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen; the High Desert Sportsmen; and 
the Sportsmen Concerned of Northeast New Mexico, just to name a few. 
And nationally, we've heard from groups like the Theodore Roosevelt 
Conservation Partnership and TU.
  As the bill's sponsors say that they are not trying to create 
sweeping exemptions to the Wilderness Act, I have no doubt that they'll 
support my amendment, as it clearly eliminates these loopholes that 
were unintentionally included. As a back-country hunter, I know how 
valuable wilderness is to hunters and anglers, and I hope my colleagues 
will continue to support protecting wildlife habitat in wilderness 
areas and vote for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

[[Page H1889]]

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend and colleague and a sportsman from northern 
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Heinrich amendment. 
I want to thank my friend from New Mexico for offering this amendment 
to ensure protection of our wilderness areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm from the western United States. I'm a supporter of 
the Second Amendment. I'm a hunter and a fisherman. My family raised 
sheep and cattle on allotments in the area where I was raised. Like 
many other States in the West, we New Mexicans value our access to 
public lands for hunting, fishing, shooting, and recreational 
enjoyment.
  I want to make sure that everyone understands that I'm not opposed to 
everything in this bill, but I do have specific concerns with language 
that would create a loophole in the Wilderness Act. This loophole would 
undermine one of the defining laws that protects public lands and 
enables us to have pristine areas to hunt and fish--critical areas that 
should be preserved for future generations to enjoy. But this bill, as 
written, walks a dangerous line.
  I had concerns in the committee markup of this bill, and today I 
reiterate these concerns--specifically, language in section 104(e), 
which opens up for interpretation to allow motorized vehicles in 
sensitive areas, completely undermining the effort to protect these 
lands. Although the majority has indicated that they have clarified 
this problem in the manager's amendment, a CRS memorandum issued on 
April 13, 2012, on section 104(e) of H.R. 4089 has confirmed my concern 
that section 104(e) ``could lead to motorized use and inappropriate 
commercial activities in congressionally designated wilderness areas.''

  If the majority states through the manager's amendment that their 
intention is not to open up these areas for motorized vehicles, then 
let's make absolutely sure that this won't happen. I'm glad to see that 
they see that there's a problem as well, which they've attempted to 
address. But sadly, the loosely worded amendment won't accomplish that.
  Let's work together to support the Heinrich amendment and make sure 
that we don't combine motorized vehicles with Second Amendment issues 
in our backyards. I think we can work together, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico has 
expired. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 112 444.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     TITLE V--DESIGNATION OF AND RESTRICTIONS ON NATIONAL MONUMENTS

     SEC. 501. DESIGNATION OF AND RESTRICTIONS ON NATIONAL 
                   MONUMENTS.

       (a) Designation.--No national monument designated by 
     presidential proclamation shall be valid until the Governor 
     and the legislature of each State within the boundaries of 
     the proposed national monument have approved of such 
     designation.
       (b) Restrictions.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not 
     implement any restrictions on the public use of a national 
     monument until the expiration of an appropriate review period 
     (determined by the Secretary of the Interior) providing for 
     public input.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 614, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  As a supporter of H.R. 4089, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would add another positive element to the underlying bill. As we all 
know, the Antiquities Act of 1906 authorized the President to designate 
national monuments on Federal lands that contain historical landmark 
structures or other objects of scientific interest. This authority has 
been used 129 times by Presidents of both parties to designate such 
national treasures as the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, and the Statute of 
Liberty.
  As someone who has enjoyed and appreciated some of the abundance of 
national and historic treasures throughout this great country, I 
greatly appreciate the importance of protecting these great blessings.
  Currently, a National Monument designation allows for the President 
to impose unilaterally further restrictions on the use of Federal 
lands.

                              {time}  1700

  Since State authorities are more aware of the local circumstances 
affecting land restrictions, I've offered a standalone bill, H.R. 302, 
the Preserve Land Freedom for Americans Act of 2011, which is the model 
for the amendment I'm now offering. This amendment provides for 
accountability to the process by requiring the approval of the 
legislatures and Governors of the States where monuments are proposed 
to be located.
  With the Federal Government currently owning such a large percentage 
of land throughout the country, particularly in Western States, it's 
important to respect and allow State policymakers to weigh in on 
proposed Federal land restrictions within their borders.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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

[[Page H1890]]

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.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 40 seconds to the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Hastings.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 
2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, for more than a century, the Antiquities 
Act has given American Presidents the authority to protect some of our 
Nation's most important and threatened places. Across my State of New 
Mexico, we see the benefit of the Antiquities Act.
  Bandelier National Monument, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, White 
Sands National Monument, and El Morro National Monument were all 
originally protected through the Antiquities Act.
  Research done last year by the New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce 
shows that New Mexico's 10 national monuments established through the 
Antiquities Act account for 1.3 million annual tourist visits and $54 
million in annual tourist spending supporting over 1,000 New Mexico 
jobs. In the last few weeks, countless New Mexicans, including 
sportsmen like myself, have asked President Obama to designate a new 
national monument to protect the Organ Mountains outside of Las Cruces, 
New Mexico.
  We are calling on our President to protect our vulnerable natural and 
cultural resources in southern New Mexico through the Antiquities Act. 
This amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina would take 
that power away from the President and give State legislatures the 
power to make decisions about public lands that belong to all 
Americans.
  The Antiquities Act was specifically designed to allow Presidents to 
respond quickly to protect places in the national interest. Had the 
Antiquities Act been written with the language of this amendment, the 
Grand Canyon could have been overrun by sprawl, ancient cliff dwellings 
and the Petrified Forest National Park might have been looted, and the 
Arches National Park wouldn't even exist.
  An additional concern is that several State legislatures only meet 
for a limited number of days each year and can't respond to urgent 
threats to public lands. In my State, we only meet for 60 days in odd 
years and 30 days in even years.
  The Foxx amendment would prevent archeological, cultural, and 
historical sites from receiving the urgent protections they need. It 
also doesn't recognize that the United States has vast areas of 
unincorporated territory that is not under the jurisdiction of any 
State legislature.
  President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to protect lands 
and waters in unincorporated Federal areas, including the Marianas 
Trench Marine and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments.
  National monuments should not be a partisan issue. After being signed 
into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, 16 Presidents of both 
parties--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have used this act to 
protect federally owned lands and waters to better protect America's 
treasures for future generations. And by attaching this divisive issue 
to this bill, the chances of a Presidential veto are greatly increased. 
I hope that we would refrain from endangering the pro-sportsmen 
portions of this bill with controversial issues like this one. As an 
active sportsman, I strongly support the Antiquities Act, and I ask for 
a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The Antiquities Act, which allows the President 
to designate land, is a legislative function that the legislature gave 
to the executive branch in Teddy Roosevelt's time. Whether it is good 
or not, it is wrong for Congress to give its authority away to the 
executive branch. At the time, it was thought it would be okay because 
there were specific restrictions placed on it. You had to have a 
specific something geological, historical that you were going to 
preserve, it was in imminent danger, and it was going be on the 
smallest area possible in the debate that was going to be over a couple 
hundred acres.
  The unfortunate thing is Presidents since that time have used this 
monument designation power for political purposes in areas quite bigger 
than that. The last monument that was created in my State was not a 
couple of hundred acres. It was bigger than the States of Connecticut, 
Delaware, and Rhode Island combined. It was done at 9 a.m. after the 
Governor of the State was told about it at 2 a.m., after having been 
told earlier that day that nothing was going to happen in this kind of 
an area.
  Earlier this year, the Antiquities Act was used at Fort Monroe when 
the entire delegation and the local community were in favor of it. When 
ours was done, as well as many of the other Antiquity Act monuments 
were done, the local delegation was not in favor of it, and the 
Governor was not in favor of it. Everyone was not in favor of it. What 
the Foxx amendment tries to do is simply say, look, if you're going to 
keep this power with the President, at least get a check-and-balance 
system somewhere. Let's make sure that the local people, the State 
people are fine with this designation before the President does 
something arbitrarily, capriciously and, unfortunately too often, for 
political reason.
  Keep the legislative power where it should be, with the legislature, 
but at least if you're not going to do that, at least put some kind of 
logical check and balance on the system.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I want to thank my two colleagues who spoke on behalf of my amendment 
and tell them how much I appreciate their comments. And I want to say 
to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if designating an area as 
a national monument would be such a good idea, there shouldn't be any 
problem with gaining approval from the legislatures and the Governor, 
and it takes no power away from the President but allows the States to 
be part of the process.
  I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Foxx Amendment that 
seeks to gut the Antiquities Act and add unnecessary bureaucracy.

[[Page H1891]]

  The Antiquities Act is the best tool in the tool box for saving 
America's heritage--cultural and natural--to respect what our ancestors 
set aside for us and to inspire, educate, and enlighten future 
generations.
  The Antiquities Act has a long bipartisan tradition. After being 
signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, sixteen presidents of 
both parties--8 Republicans and 8 Democrats--have used this Act to 
protect federally-owned lands and waters to better protect America's 
treasures for future generations.
  The Antiquities Act protects our national heritage. Sites like the 
Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, and the World War II Valor in the 
Pacific National Monument and in my Congressional District the 
Pinnacles National Monument have been protected through the Antiquities 
Act.
  The Foxx Amendment seeks to gut the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities 
Act was specifically designed to allow presidents to respond quickly to 
protect places in the national interest.
  Had the Antiquities Act been written with Rep. Foxx's language, the 
Grand Canyon would be overrun by sprawl, ancient cliff dwellings and 
the Petrified Forest National Park would have been looted, and Arches 
National Park wouldn't even exist.
  The Foxx Amendment is poorly conceived. Several state legislatures 
only meet every other year and are ill-equipped to respond to urgent 
threats to public lands.
  The Foxx Amendment would prevent archaeological, cultural and 
historical sites from receiving the urgent protections they need from 
looting, vandalism or other threats.
  The Foxx Amendment also doesn't recognize that the United States has 
vast areas of unincorporated territory that is not under the 
jurisdiction of a state legislature.
  President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to protect lands 
and waters in unincorporated federal areas including the Marianas 
Trench Marine and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments.
  Stand up for our National Parks and our national heritage. Vote 
against the Foxx Amendment to H.R. 4089.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Foxx) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4089) to 
protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and 
shooting, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________