Home > Legislation > 114th Congress > H.R.2406 > H.Amdt.961

H.Amdt.961 to H.R.2406114th Congress (2015-2016)

Amendment

Amends Bill:	H.R.2406 — SHARE Act
Sponsor:	Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2] (Offered 02/26/2016)
Latest Action:	02/26/2016 On agreeing to the Huffman amendment (A016) Failed by recorded vote: 176 - 227 (Roll no. 99).

Amendment Text: H.Amdt.961 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (02/26/2016)

This Amendment appears on page H981 in the following article from the Congressional Record.

[Pages H955-H991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2015

General Leave

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2406.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 619 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2406.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 0916

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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2406) to protect and enhance opportunities for
recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
February 25, 2016, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
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, recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 2406

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Sportsmen's Heritage and
Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015'' or the ``SHARE Act''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Report on economic impact.

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

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Modification of definition.
Sec. 103. Limitation on authority to regulate ammunition and fishing
tackle.

TITLE II--TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT

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

TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS ACT

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

TITLE IV--RECREATIONAL LANDS SELF-DEFENSE ACT

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Protecting Americans from violent crime.

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

Sec. 501. Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council Advisory
Committee.

TITLE VI--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE OPPORTUNITIES ACT

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Findings.
Sec. 603. Fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting.
Sec. 604. Volunteer Hunters; Reports; Closures and Restrictions.

TITLE VII--FARMER AND HUNTER PROTECTION ACT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Baiting of migratory game birds.

TITLE VIII--TRANSPORTING BOWS ACROSS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LANDS

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Bowhunting opportunity and wildlife stewardship.

TITLE IX--FEDERAL LAND TRANSACTION FACILITATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION
(FLTFA)

Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.

TITLE X--AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION AND LEGAL IVORY POSSESSION ACT

Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. References.
Sec. 1003. Limited exemption for certain African elephant ivory.
Sec. 1004. Placement of United States Fish and Wildlife Service law
enforcement officer in each African elephant range
country.
Sec. 1005. Certification for the purposes of the Fishermen's
Protective Act of 1967.
Sec. 1006. Treatment of elephant ivory.
Sec. 1007. Sport-hunted elephant trophies.
Sec. 1008. African Elephant Conservation Act financial assistance
priority and reauthorization.

TITLE XI--RESPECT FOR TREATIES AND RIGHTS

Sec. 1101. Respect for Treaties and Rights.

TITLE XII--INTEREST ON OBLIGATIONS HELD IN THE WILDLIFE RESTORATION
FUND

Sec. 1201. Interest on obligations held in the wildlife restoration
fund.

TITLE XIII--PERMITS FOR FILM CREWS OF FIVE PEOPLE OR LESS

Sec. 1301. Annual permit and fee for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.

[[Page H956]]

TITLE XIV--STATE APPROVAL OF FISHING RESTRICTION

Sec. 1401. State or Territorial Approval of Restriction of Recreational
or Commercial Fishing Access to Certain State or
Territorial Waters.

TITLE XV--HUNTING AND RECREATIONAL FISHING WITHIN CERTAIN NATIONAL
FORESTS

Sec. 1501. Definitions.
Sec. 1502. Hunting and recreational fishing within the national forest
system.

TITLE XVI--GRAND CANYON BISON MANAGEMENT ACT

Sec. 1601. Short title.
Sec. 1602. Definitions.
Sec. 1603. Bison management plan for Grand Canyon National Park.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON ECONOMIC IMPACT.

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

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

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 102. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION.

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

SEC. 103. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO REGULATE AMMUNITION AND
FISHING TACKLE.

(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in section 20.21 of
title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act, or any substantially
similar successor regulation thereto, the Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and, except as
provided by subsection (b), any bureau, service, or office of
the Department of the Interior or the Department of
Agriculture, may not regulate the use of ammunition
cartridges, ammunition components, or fishing tackle based on
the lead content thereof if such use is in compliance with
the law of the State in which the use occurs.
(b) Exception.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National
Park Service.

TITLE II--TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 202. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the use of firearms and archery equipment for target
practice and marksmanship training activities on Federal land
is allowed, except to the extent specific portions of that
land have been closed to those activities;
(2) in recent years preceding the date of enactment of this
Act, portions of Federal land have been closed to target
practice and marksmanship training for many reasons;
(3) the availability of public target ranges on non-Federal
land has been declining for a variety of reasons, including
continued population growth and development near former
ranges;
(4) providing opportunities for target practice and
marksmanship training at public target ranges on Federal and
non-Federal land can help--
(A) to promote enjoyment of shooting, recreational, and
hunting activities; and
(B) to ensure safe and convenient locations for those
activities;
(5) Federal law in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act, including the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
(16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), provides Federal support for
construction and expansion of public target ranges by making
available to States amounts that may be used for
construction, operation, and maintenance of public target
ranges; and
(6) it is in the public interest to provide increased
Federal support to facilitate the construction or expansion
of public target ranges.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to facilitate
the construction and expansion of public target ranges,
including ranges on Federal land managed by the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

SEC. 203. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC TARGET RANGE.

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

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

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

SEC. 205. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.

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

SEC. 206. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERATION.

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

TITLE III--POLAR BEAR CONSERVATION AND FAIRNESS ACT

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Polar Bear Conservation
and Fairness Act of 2015''.

[[Page H957]]

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 2015.''.

TITLE IV--RECREATIONAL LANDS SELF-DEFENSE ACT

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Recreational Lands Self-
Defense Act of 2015''.

SEC. 402. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that
``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed''.
(2) Section 327.13 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances,
``possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded
projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or
other weapons is prohibited'' at water resources development
projects administered by the Secretary of the Army.
(3) The regulations described in paragraph (2) prevent
individuals complying with Federal and State laws from
exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals
while at such water resources development projects.
(4) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second
amendment rights of an individual at a water resources
development project should not be infringed.
(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms at
Water Resources Development Projects.--The Secretary of the
Army shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that
prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, including
an assembled or functional firearm, at a water resources
development project covered under section 327.0 of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act), if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from
possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the
law of the State in which the water resources development
project is located.

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

SEC. 501. WILDLIFE AND HUNTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

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

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

``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council Advisory
Committee (in this section referred to as the `Advisory
Committee') to advise the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture on wildlife and habitat conservation, hunting,
and recreational shooting.
``(b) Continuance and Abolishment of Existing Wildlife and
Hunting Heritage Conservation Council.--The Wildlife and
Hunting Heritage Conservation Council established pursuant to
section 441 of the Revised Statutes (43 U.S.C. 1457), section
2 of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a), and
other Acts applicable to specific bureaus of the Department
of the Interior--
``(1) shall continue until the date of the first meeting of
the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council
established by the amendment made by subsection (a); and
``(2) is hereby abolished effective on that date.
``(c) Duties of the Advisory Committee.--The Advisory
Committee shall advise the Secretaries with regard to--
``(1) implementation of Executive Order No. 13443:
Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation,
which directs Federal agencies `to facilitate the expansion
and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management
of game species and their habitat';
``(2) policies or programs to conserve and restore
wetlands, agricultural lands, grasslands, forest, and
rangeland habitats;
``(3) policies or programs to promote opportunities and
access to hunting and shooting sports on Federal lands;
``(4) policies or programs to recruit and retain new
hunters and shooters;
``(5) policies or programs that increase public awareness
of the importance of wildlife conservation and the social and
economic benefits of recreational hunting and shooting; and
``(6) policies or programs that encourage coordination
among the public, the hunting and shooting sports community,
wildlife conservation groups, and States, tribes, and the
Federal Government.
``(d) Membership.--
``(1) Appointment.--
``(A) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of
no more than 16 discretionary members and 7 ex officio
members.
``(B) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members are--
``(i) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service or a designated representative of the Director;
``(ii) the Director of the Bureau of Land Management or a
designated representative of the Director;
``(iii) the Director of the National Park Service or a
designated representative of the Director;
``(iv) the Chief of the Forest Service or a designated
representative of the Chief;
``(v) the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service or a designated representative of the Chief;
``(vi) the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency or a
designated representative of the Administrator; and
``(vii) the Executive Director of the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies.
``(C) Discretionary members.--The discretionary members
shall be appointed jointly by the Secretaries from at least
one of each of the following:
``(i) State fish and wildlife agencies.
``(ii) Game bird hunting organizations.
``(iii) Wildlife conservation organizations.
``(iv) Big game hunting organizations.
``(v) Waterfowl hunting organizations.
``(vi) The tourism, outfitter, or guiding industry.
``(vii) The firearms or ammunition manufacturing industry.
``(viii) The hunting or shooting equipment retail industry.
``(ix) Tribal resource management organizations.
``(x) The agriculture industry.
``(xi) The ranching industry.
``(xii) Women's hunting and fishing advocacy, outreach, or
education organization.
``(xiii) Minority hunting and fishing advocacy, outreach,
or education organization.
``(xiv) Veterans service organization.
``(D) Eligibility.--Prior to the appointment of the
discretionary members, the Secretaries shall determine that
all individuals nominated for appointment to the Advisory
Committee, and the organization each individual represents,
actively support and promote sustainable-use hunting,
wildlife conservation, and recreational shooting.
``(2) Terms.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
members of the Advisory Committee shall be appointed for a
term of 4 years. Members shall not be appointed for more than
3 consecutive or nonconsecutive terms.
``(B) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the
Secretary at the time of appointment, of the members first
appointed--
``(i) 6 members shall be appointed for a term of 4 years;
``(ii) 5 members shall be appointed for a term of 3 years;
and
``(iii) 5 members shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.
``(3) Preservation of public advisory status.--No
individual may be appointed as a discretionary member of the
Advisory Committee while serving as an officer or employee of
the Federal Government.
``(4) Vacancy and removal.--
``(A) In general.--Any vacancy on the Advisory Committee
shall be filled in the manner in which the original
appointment was made.
``(B) Removal.--Advisory Committee members shall serve at
the discretion of the Secretaries and may be removed at any
time for good cause.
``(5) Continuation of service.--Each appointed member may
continue to serve after the expiration of the term of office
to which such member was appointed until a successor has been
appointed.
``(6) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Advisory
Committee shall be appointed for a 3-year term by the
Secretaries, jointly, from among the members of the Advisory
Committee. An individual may not be appointed as Chairperson
for more than 2 consecutive or nonconsecutive terms.
``(7) Pay and expenses.--Members of the Advisory Committee
shall serve without pay for such service, but each member of
the Advisory Committee may be reimbursed for travel and
lodging incurred through attending meetings of the Advisory
Committee approved subgroup meetings in the same amounts and
under the same conditions as Federal employees (in accordance
with section 5703 of title 5, United States Code).
``(8) Meetings.--
``(A) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at the
call of the Secretaries, the chairperson, or a majority of
the members, but not less frequently than twice annually.
``(B) Open meetings.--Each meeting of the Advisory
Committee shall be open to the public.
``(C) Prior notice of meetings.--Timely notice of each
meeting of the Advisory Committee shall be published in the
Federal Register and be submitted to trade publications and
publications of general circulation.

[[Page H958]]

``(D) Subgroups.--The Advisory Committee may establish such
workgroups or subgroups as it deems necessary for the purpose
of compiling information or conducting research. However,
such workgroups may not conduct business without the
direction of the Advisory Committee and must report in full
to the Advisory Committee.
``(9) Quorum.--Nine members of the Advisory Committee shall
constitute a quorum.
``(e) Expenses.--The expenses of the Advisory Committee
that the Secretaries determine to be reasonable and
appropriate shall be paid by the Secretaries.
``(f) Administrative Support, Technical Services, and
Advice.--A designated Federal Officer shall be jointly
appointed by the Secretaries to provide to the Advisory
Committee the administrative support, technical services, and
advice that the Secretaries determine to be reasonable and
appropriate.
``(g) Annual Report.--
``(1) Required.--Not later than September 30 of each year,
the Advisory Committee shall submit a report to the
Secretaries, the Committee on Natural Resources and the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate. If circumstances arise in which the Advisory
Committee cannot meet the September 30 deadline in any year,
the Secretaries shall advise the Chairpersons of each such
Committee of the reasons for such delay and the date on which
the submission of the report is anticipated.
``(2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
describe--
``(A) the activities of the Advisory Committee during the
preceding year;
``(B) the reports and recommendations made by the Advisory
Committee to the Secretaries during the preceding year; and
``(C) an accounting of actions taken by the Secretaries as
a result of the recommendations.
``(h) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Advisory
Committee shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.).''.

TITLE VI--RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE OPPORTUNITIES ACT

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 602. 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 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 recreational 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;
(7) safe recreational shooting is a valid use of Federal
lands, including the establishment of safe and convenient
recreational shooting ranges on such lands, and participation
in recreational shooting helps recruit and retain hunters and
contributes to wildlife conservation;
(8) opportunities to recreationally fish, hunt, and shoot
are declining, which depresses participation in these
traditional activities, and depressed participation adversely
impacts fish and wildlife conservation and funding for
important conservation efforts; and
(9) 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 land as recognized by Executive Order No.
12962, relating to recreational fisheries, and Executive
Order No. 13443, relating to facilitation of hunting heritage
and wildlife conservation.

SEC. 603. FISHING, HUNTING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means any land
or water that is owned by the United States and under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management
or the Forest Service.
(2) Federal land management officials.--The term ``Federal
land management officials'' means--
(A) the Secretary of the Interior and Director of the
Bureau of Land Management regarding Bureau of Land Management
lands and interests in lands under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management; and
(B) the Secretary of Agriculture and Chief of the Forest
Service regarding National Forest System lands.
(3) Hunting.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term ``hunting'' means use of a firearm, bow, or other
authorized means in the lawful--
(i) pursuit, shooting, capture, collection, trapping, or
killing of wildlife;
(ii) attempt to pursue, shoot, capture, collect, trap, or
kill wildlife; or
(iii) the training of hunting dogs, including field trials.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``hunting'' does not include the
use of skilled volunteers to cull excess animals (as defined
by other Federal law).
(4) Recreational fishing.--The term ``recreational
fishing'' means the lawful--
(A) pursuit, capture, collection, or killing of fish; or
(B) attempt to capture, collect, or kill fish.
(5) Recreational shooting.--The term ``recreational
shooting'' means any form of sport, training, competition, or
pastime, whether formal or informal, that involves the
discharge of a rifle, handgun, or shotgun, or the use of a
bow and arrow.
(b) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and
subsection (e), and cooperation with the respective State
fish and wildlife agency, Federal land management officials
shall exercise authority under existing law, including
provisions regarding land use planning, to facilitate use of
and access to Federal lands, including National Monuments,
Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and lands
administratively classified as wilderness eligible or
suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas, for fishing,
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
fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting on specific
Federal lands, waters, or units thereof; and
(3) discretionary limitations on fishing, hunting, and
recreational shooting determined to be necessary and
reasonable as supported by the best scientific evidence and
advanced through a transparent public process.
(c) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), Federal
land management officials shall exercise their land
management discretion--
(1) in a manner that supports and facilitates fishing,
hunting, and recreational shooting opportunities;
(2) to the extent authorized under applicable State law;
and
(3) in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(d) Planning.--
(1) Evaluation of effects on opportunities to engage in
fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting.--Planning
documents that apply to Federal lands, including land
resources management plans, resource management plans, travel
management plans, and general management plans shall include
a specific evaluation of the effects of such plans on
opportunities to engage in fishing, hunting, or recreational
shooting.
(2) Strategic growth policy for the national wildlife
refuge system.--Section 4(a)(3) of the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
``(C) the Secretary shall integrate wildlife-dependent
recreational uses in accordance with their status as priority
general public uses into proposed or existing regulations,
policies, criteria, plans, or other activities to alter or
amend the manner in which individual refuges or the National
Wildlife Refuge System (System) are managed, including, but
not limited to, any activities which target or prioritize
criteria for long and short term System acquisitions;''.
(3) No major federal action.--No action taken under this
title, or under section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), either
individually or cumulatively with other actions involving
Federal lands or lands managed by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, shall be considered to be a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, and no additional identification, analysis, or
consideration of environmental effects, including cumulative
effects, is necessary or required.
(4) Other activity not considered.--Federal land management
officials are not required to consider the existence or
availability of fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting
opportunities on adjacent or nearby public or private lands
in the planning for or determination of which Federal lands
are open for these activities or in the setting of levels of
use for these activities on Federal lands, unless the
combination or coordination of such opportunities would
enhance the fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting
opportunities available to the public.
(e) Federal Lands.--
(1) Lands open.--Lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
of Land Management and the Forest Service, including
Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, lands designated as
wilderness or administratively classified as wilderness
eligible or suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas
and National Monuments, but excluding lands on the Outer
Continental Shelf, shall be open to fishing, hunting, and
recreational shooting unless the managing Federal agency acts
to close lands to such activity. Lands may be subject to
closures or restrictions if determined by the head of the
agency to be necessary and reasonable and supported by facts
and evidence, for purposes including resource conservation,
public safety, energy or mineral production, energy
generation or transmission infrastructure, water supply
facilities, protection of other permittees, protection of
private property rights or interest, national security, or
compliance with other law.

[[Page H959]]

(2) Recreational shooting ranges.--
(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 recreational shooting ranges; and
(ii) designate specific lands under the jurisdiction of the
agency for recreational shooting activities.
(B) Limitation on liability.--Any designation under
subparagraph (A)(ii) shall not subject the United States to
any civil action or claim for monetary damages for injury or
loss of property or personal injury or death caused by any
activity occurring at or on such designated lands.
(f) Necessity in Wilderness Areas and ``Within and
Supplemental to'' Wilderness Purposes.--
(1) Minimum requirements for administration.--The provision
of opportunities for fishing, hunting, and recreational
shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to
provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on
designated Federal wilderness areas shall constitute measures
necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the
administration of the wilderness area, provided that this
determination shall not authorize or facilitate commodity
development, use, or extraction, motorized recreational
access or use that is not otherwise allowed under the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), or permanent road
construction or maintenance within designated wilderness
areas.
(2) Application of wilderness act.--Provisions of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), stipulating that
wilderness purposes are ``within and supplemental to'' the
purposes of the underlying Federal land unit are reaffirmed.
When seeking to carry out fish and wildlife conservation
programs and projects or provide fish and wildlife dependent
recreation opportunities on designated wilderness areas, each
Federal land management official shall implement these
supplemental purposes so as to facilitate, enhance, or both,
but not to impede the underlying Federal land purposes when
seeking to carry out fish and wildlife conservation programs
and projects or provide fish and wildlife dependent
recreation opportunities in designated wilderness areas,
provided that such implementation shall not authorize or
facilitate commodity development, use or extraction, or
permanent road construction or maintenance within designated
wilderness areas.
(g) No Priority.--Nothing in this section requires a
Federal land management official to give preference to
fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting over other uses of
Federal land or over land or water management priorities
established by Federal law.
(h) Consultation With Councils.--In fulfilling the duties
under this section, Federal land management officials shall
consult with respective advisory councils as established in
Executive Order Nos. 12962 and 13443.
(i) Authority of the States.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed as interfering with, diminishing, or conflicting
with the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of any
State to exercise primary management, control, or regulation
of fish and wildlife under State law (including regulations)
on land or water within the State, including on Federal land.
(j) Federal Licenses.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize a Federal land management official to
require a license, fee, or permit to fish, hunt, or trap on
land or water in a State, including on Federal land in the
States, except that this subsection 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.).

SEC. 604. VOLUNTEER HUNTERS; REPORTS; CLOSURES AND
RESTRICTIONS.

(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) Public land.--The term ``public land'' means--
(A) units of the National Park System;
(B) National Forest System lands; and
(C) land and interests in land owned by the United States
and under the administrative jurisdiction of--
(i) the Fish and Wildlife Service; or
(ii) the Bureau of Land Management.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
(A) the Secretary of the Interior and includes the Director
of the National Park Service, with regard to units of the
National Park System;
(B) the Secretary of the Interior and includes the Director
of the Fish and Wildlife Service, with regard to Fish and
Wildlife Service lands and waters;
(C) the Secretary of the Interior and includes the Director
of the Bureau of Land Management, with regard to Bureau of
Land Management lands and waters; and
(D) the Secretary of Agriculture and includes the Chief of
the Forest Service, with regard to National Forest System
lands.
(3) Volunteer from the hunting community.--The term
``volunteer from the hunting community'' means a volunteer
who holds a valid hunting license issued by a State.
(b) Volunteer Hunters.--When planning wildlife management
involving reducing the size of a wildlife population on
public land, the Secretary shall consider the use of and may
use volunteers from the hunting community as agents to assist
in carrying out wildlife management on public land. The
Secretary shall not reject the use of volunteers from the
hunting community as agents without the concurrence of the
appropriate State wildlife management authorities.
(c) Report.--Beginning on the second October 1 after the
date of the enactment of this Act and biennially on October 1
thereafter, the Secretary 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 public land administered by the Secretary that was
closed to fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting at any
time during the preceding year; and
(2) the reason for the closure.
(d) Closures or Significant Restrictions.--
(1) In general.--Other than closures established or
prescribed by land planning actions referred to in section
604(e) or emergency closures described in paragraph (2), a
permanent or temporary withdrawal, change of classification,
or change of management status of public land that
effectively closes or significantly restricts any acreage of
public land to access or use for fishing, hunting,
recreational shooting, or activities related to fishing,
hunting, or recreational shooting, or a combination of those
activities, shall take effect only if, before the date of
withdrawal or change, the Secretary--
(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) Emergency closures.--Nothing in this Act prohibits the
Secretary 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.

TITLE VII--FARMER AND HUNTER PROTECTION ACT

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 702. BAITING OF MIGRATORY GAME BIRDS.

Section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704)
is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Prohibition of Baiting.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Baited area.--
``(i) In general.--The term `baited area' means--

``(I) any area on which salt, grain, or other feed has been
placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if the
salt, grain, or feed could lure or attract migratory game
birds; and
``(II) in the case of waterfowl, cranes (family Gruidae),
and coots (family Rallidae), a standing, unharvested crop
that has been manipulated through activities such as mowing,
discing, or rolling, unless the activities are normal
agricultural practices.

``(ii) Exclusions.--An area shall not be considered to be a
`baited area' if the area--

``(I) has been treated with a normal agricultural practice;
``(II) has standing crops that have not been manipulated;
or
``(III) has standing crops that have been or are flooded.

``(B) Baiting.--The term `baiting' means the direct or
indirect placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or
scattering of salt, grain, or other feed that could lure or
attract migratory game birds to, on, or over any areas on
which a hunter is attempting to take migratory game birds.
``(C) Migratory game bird.--The term `migratory game bird'
means migratory bird species--
``(i) that are within the taxonomic families of Anatidae,
Columbidae, Gruidae, Rallidae, and Scolopacidae; and
``(ii) for which open seasons are prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior.
``(D) Normal agricultural practice.--
``(i) In general.--The term `normal agricultural practice'
means any practice in 1 annual growing season that--

``(I) is carried out in order to produce a marketable crop,
including planting, harvest, postharvest, or soil
conservation practices; and
``(II) is recommended for the successful harvest of a given
crop by the applicable State office of the Cooperative
Extension System of the Department of Agriculture, in
consultation with, and if requested, the concurrence of, the
head of the applicable State department of fish and wildlife.

``(ii) Inclusions.--

``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), the term
`normal agricultural practice' includes the destruction of a
crop in accordance with practices required by the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation for agricultural producers to
obtain crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) on land on which a crop during the
current or immediately preceding crop year was not
harvestable due to a natural disaster (including any
hurricane, storm, tornado, flood, high water, wind-driven
water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption,
landslide, mudslide, drought, fire, snowstorm, or other
catastrophe that is declared a major disaster by the
President in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5170)).
``(II) Limitations.--The term `normal agricultural
practice' only includes a crop described in subclause (I)
that has been destroyed or manipulated through activities
that include (but are not limited to) mowing, discing, or
rolling if the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation certifies
that flooding was not an acceptable method of destruction to
obtain crop insurance under the

[[Page H960]]

Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

``(E) Waterfowl.--The term `waterfowl' means native species
of the family Anatidae.
``(2) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
``(A) to take any migratory game bird by baiting or on or
over any baited area, if the person knows or reasonably
should know that the area is a baited area; or
``(B) to place or direct the placement of bait on or
adjacent to an area for the purpose of causing, inducing, or
allowing any person to take or attempt to take any migratory
game bird by baiting or on or over the baited area.
``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Interior may
promulgate regulations to implement this subsection.
``(4) Reports.--Annually, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall submit to the Secretary of the Interior a report that
describes any changes to normal agricultural practices across
the range of crops grown by agricultural producers in each
region of the United States in which the recommendations are
provided to agricultural producers.''.

TITLE VIII--TRANSPORTING BOWS ACROSS NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LANDS

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Hunter Access Corridors
Act''.

SEC. 802. BOWHUNTING OPPORTUNITY AND WILDLIFE STEWARDSHIP.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 1015 of title 54,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 101513. Hunter access corridors

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Not ready for immediate use.--The term `not ready for
immediate use' means--
``(A) a bow or crossbow, the arrows of which are secured or
stowed in a quiver or other arrow transport case; and
``(B) with respect to a crossbow, uncocked.
``(2) Valid hunting license.--The term `valid hunting
license' means a State-issued hunting license that authorizes
an individual to hunt on private or public land adjacent to
the System unit in which the individual is located while in
possession of a bow or crossbow that is not ready for
immediate use.
``(b) Transportation Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall not require a permit
for, or promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits
an individual from transporting bows and crossbows that are
not ready for immediate use across any System unit if--
``(A) in the case of an individual traversing the System
unit on foot--
``(i) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law
from possessing the bows and crossbows;
``(ii) the bows or crossbows are not ready for immediate
use throughout the period during which the bows or crossbows
are transported across the System unit;
``(iii) the possession of the bows and crossbows is in
compliance with the law of the State in which the System unit
is located; and
``(iv)(I) the individual possesses a valid hunting license;
``(II) the individual is traversing the System unit en
route to a hunting access corridor established under
subsection (c)(1); or
``(III) the individual is traversing the System unit in
compliance with any other applicable regulations or policies;
or
``(B) the bows or crossbows are not ready for immediate use
and remain inside a vehicle.
``(2) Enforcement.--Nothing in this subsection limits the
authority of the Director to enforce laws (including
regulations) prohibiting hunting or the taking of wildlife in
any System unit.
``(c) Establishment of Hunter Access Corridors.--
``(1) In general.--On a determination by the Director under
paragraph (2), the Director may establish and publish (in
accordance with section 1.5 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation)), on a publicly
available map, hunter access corridors across System units
that are used to access public land that is--
``(A) contiguous to a System unit; and
``(B) open to hunting.
``(2) Determination by director.--The determination
referred to in paragraph (1) is a determination that the
hunter access corridor would provide wildlife management or
visitor experience benefits within the boundary of the System
unit in which the hunter access corridor is located.
``(3) Hunting season.--The hunter access corridors shall be
open for use during hunting seasons.
``(4) Exception.--The Director may establish limited
periods during which access through the hunter access
corridors is closed for reasons of public safety,
administration, or compliance with applicable law.
``(5) Identification of corridors.--The Director shall--
``(A) make information regarding hunter access corridors
available on the individual website of the applicable System
unit; and
``(B) provide information regarding any processes
established by the Director for transporting legally taken
game through individual hunter access corridors.
``(6) Registration; transportation of game.--The Director
may--
``(A) provide registration boxes to be located at the
trailhead of each hunter access corridor for self-
registration;
``(B) provide a process for online self-registration; and
``(C) allow nonmotorized conveyances to transport legally
taken game through a hunter access corridor established under
this subsection, including game carts and sleds.
``(7) Consultation with states.--The Director shall consult
with each applicable State wildlife agency to identify
appropriate hunter access corridors.
``(d) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
``(1) diminishes, enlarges, or modifies any Federal or
State authority with respect to recreational hunting,
recreational shooting, or any other recreational activities
within the boundaries of a System unit; or
``(2) authorizes--
``(A) the establishment of new trails in System units; or
``(B) authorizes individuals to access areas in System
units, on foot or otherwise, that are not open to such
access.
``(e) No Major Federal Action.--
``(1) In general.--Any action taken under this section
shall not be considered a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
``(2) No additional action required.--No additional
identification, analyses, or consideration of environmental
effects (including cumulative environmental effects) is
necessary or required with respect to an action taken under
this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for title
54, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 101512 the following:

``101513. Hunter access corridors.''.

TITLE IX--FEDERAL LAND TRANSACTION FACILITATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION
(FLTFA)

SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act Reauthorization of 2015''.

SEC. 902. FEDERAL LAND TRANSACTION FACILITATION ACT.

The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act is amended--
(1) in section 203(1) (43 U.S.C. 2302(1)), by striking
``cultural, or'' and inserting ``cultural, recreational
access and use, or other'';
(2) in section 203(2) in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``on the date of enactment of this Act was''
and inserting ``is'';
(3) in section 205 (43 U.S.C. 2304)--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 206'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting the following:
``section 206--
``(1) to complete appraisals and satisfy other legal
requirements for the sale or exchange of public land
identified for disposal under approved land use plans under
section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712);
``(2) not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
Reauthorization of 2015, to establish and make available to
the public, on the website of the Department of the Interior,
a database containing a comprehensive list of all the land
referred to in paragraph (1); and
``(3) to maintain the database referred to in paragraph
(2).''; and
(B) in subsection (d), by striking ``11'' and inserting
``22'';
(4) by amending section 206(c)(1) (43 U.S.C. 2305(c)(1)) to
read as follows:
``(1) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Funds in the Federal Land Disposal
Account shall be expended in accordance with this subsection.
``(B) Purposes.--Except as authorized under paragraph (2),
funds in the Federal Land Disposal Account shall be used for
one or more of the following purposes:
``(i) To purchase lands or interests therein that are
otherwise authorized by law to be acquired and are one or
more of the following:

``(I) Inholdings.
``(II) Adjacent to federally designated areas and contain
exceptional resources.
``(III) Provide opportunities for hunting, recreational
fishing, recreational shooting, and other recreational
activities.
``(IV) Likely to aid in the performance of deferred
maintenance or the reduction of operation and maintenance
costs or other deferred costs.

``(ii) To perform deferred maintenance or other maintenance
activities that enhance opportunities for recreational
access.'';
(5) in section 206(c)(2) (43 U.S.C. 2305(c)(2))--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A);
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
(C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated by this
paragraph)--
(i) by striking ``purchases'' and inserting ``land
purchases and performance of deferred maintenance
activities'';
(ii) by striking ``subparagraph (C)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (B)''; and
(iii) by inserting ``for the activities outlined in
paragraph (2)'' after ``generated''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Any funds made available under subparagraph (C) that
are not obligated or expended by the end of the fourth full
fiscal year after the date of the sale or exchange of land
that generated the funds may be expended in any State.'';
(6) in section 206(c)(3) (43 U.S.C. 2305(c)(3))--
(A) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) the extent to which the acquisition of the land or
interest therein will increase the public availability of
resources for, and facilitate public access to, hunting,
fishing, and other recreational activities;''; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D);

[[Page H961]]

(7) in section 206(f) (43 U.S.C. 2305(f)), by amending
paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) any remaining balance in the account shall be
deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction,
except that in the case of a fiscal year for which there is
no Federal budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to
reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of
the Treasury considers appropriate).''; and
(8) in section 207(b) (43 U.S.C. 2306(b))--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``96-568'' and inserting ``96-586''; and
(ii) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``Public Law 105-263;'' before ``112
Stat.''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432; 120 Stat. 3028);
``(4) the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-424; 118 Stat. 2403);
``(5) subtitle F of title I of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 111-
11);
``(6) subtitle O of title I of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 460www note, 1132 note;
Public Law 111-11);
``(7) section 2601 of the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1108); or
``(8) section 2606 of the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1121).''.

TITLE X--AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION AND LEGAL IVORY POSSESSION ACT

SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``African Elephant
Conservation and Legal Ivory Possession Act of 2015''.

SEC. 1002. REFERENCES.

Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a provision, the reference shall
be considered to be made to a provision of the African
Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.).

SEC. 1003. LIMITED EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN AFRICAN ELEPHANT
IVORY.

Section 2203 (16 U.S.C. 4223) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before the first
sentence;
(2) by inserting ``and subsection (b) of this section''
after ``2202(e)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Exemption.--Nothing in this Act or subsection (a) or
(d) of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1538) shall be construed to prohibit importation or
exportation, or to require permission of the Secretary for
importation or exportation, of--
``(1) any raw ivory or worked ivory--
``(A) imported solely for purposes of becoming part of a
museum's permanent collection, return to a lending museum, or
display in a museum; or
``(B) exported solely for purposes of--
``(i) display in a foreign museum; or
``(ii) return to a foreign person who lent such ivory to a
museum in the United States;
``(2) any raw ivory or worked ivory that was lawfully
importable into the United States on February 24, 2014,
regardless of when acquired; or
``(3) any worked ivory that was previously lawfully
possessed in the United States.''.

SEC. 1004. PLACEMENT OF UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN EACH AFRICAN
ELEPHANT RANGE COUNTRY.

Part I (16 U.S.C. 4211 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``SEC. 2105. PLACEMENT OF UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN EACH AFRICAN
ELEPHANT RANGE COUNTRY.

``The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, may station one United States Fish and Wildlife
Service law enforcement officer in the primary United States
diplomatic or consular post in each African country that has
a significant population of African elephants, who shall
assist local wildlife rangers in the protection of African
elephants and facilitate the apprehension of individuals who
illegally kill, or assist the illegal killing of, African
elephants.''.

SEC. 1005. CERTIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FISHERMEN'S
PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967.

Section 2202 (16 U.S.C. 4222) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Certification.--When the Secretary of the Interior
finds that a country, directly or indirectly, is a
significant transit or destination point for illegal ivory
trade, the Secretary shall certify such fact to the President
with respect to the country for the purposes of section 8(a)
of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C.
1978(a)).''.

SEC. 1006. TREATMENT OF ELEPHANT IVORY.

Section 2203 (16 U.S.C. 4223) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(c) Treatment of Elephant Ivory.--Nothing in this Act or
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1538) shall be
construed--
``(1) to prohibit, or to authorize prohibiting, the
possession, sale, delivery, receipt, shipment, or
transportation of African elephant ivory, or any product
containing African elephant ivory, that has been lawfully
imported or crafted in the United States; or
``(2) to authorize using any means of determining for
purposes of this Act or the Endangered Species Act of 1973
whether African elephant ivory has been lawfully imported,
including any presumption or burden of proof applied in such
determination, other than such means used by the Secretary as
of February 24, 2014.''.

SEC. 1007. SPORT-HUNTED ELEPHANT TROPHIES.

Section 2203 (16 U.S.C. 4223) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) Sport-Hunted Elephant Trophies.--Nothing in this Act
or subsection (a) or (d) of section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1538) shall be construed to
prohibit any citizen or legal resident of the United States,
or an agent of such an individual, from importing a sport-
hunted African elephant trophy under section 2202(e) of this
Act, if the country in which the elephant was taken had an
elephant population on Appendix II of CITES at the time the
trophy elephant was taken.
``(e) Relationship to the Convention.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as modifying or repealing the
Secretary's duties to implement CITES and the appendices
thereto, or as modifying or repealing section 8A or 9(c) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1537a and
1538(c)).''.

SEC. 1008. AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE PRIORITY AND REAUTHORIZATION.

(a) Financial Assistance Priority.--Section 2101 (16 U.S.C.
4211) is amended by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as
subsections (f) and (g), respectively, and by inserting after
subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Priority.--In providing financial assistance under
this section, the Secretary shall give priority to projects
designed to facilitate the acquisition of equipment and
training of wildlife officials in ivory producing countries
to be used in anti-poaching efforts.''.
(b) Reauthorization.--Section 2306(a) (16 U.S.C. 4245(a))
is amended by striking ``2007 through 2012'' and inserting
``2016 through 2020''.

TITLE XI--RESPECT FOR TREATIES AND RIGHTS

SEC. 1101. RESPECT FOR TREATIES AND RIGHTS.

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

TITLE XII--INTEREST ON OBLIGATIONS HELD IN THE WILDLIFE RESTORATION
FUND

SEC. 1201. INTEREST ON OBLIGATIONS HELD IN THE WILDLIFE
RESTORATION FUND.

Section 3(b)(2)(C) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(b)(2)(C)) is amended by
striking ``2016'' and inserting ``2026''.

TITLE XIII--PERMITS FOR FILM CREWS OF FIVE PEOPLE OR LESS

SEC. 1301. ANNUAL PERMIT AND FEE FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS
OR FEWER.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
commercial film crews of 5 persons or fewer access to film in
areas designated for public use during public hours on
Federal land and waterways.
(b) National Park System Land.--Section 100905 of title 54,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Secretary'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Special rules for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.--
``(A) Definition of film crew.--In this paragraph, the term
`film crew' means any persons present on Federal land or
waterways under the jurisdiction of the Secretary who are
associated with the production of a film.
``(B) Required permit and fee.--For any film crew of 5
persons or fewer, the Secretary shall require a permit and
assess an annual fee of $200 for commercial filming
activities or similar projects on Federal land and waterways
administered by the Secretary.
``(C) Commercial filming activities.--A permit issued under
subparagraph (B) shall be valid for commercial filming
activities or similar projects that occur in areas designated
for public use during public hours on all Federal land and
waterways administered by the Secretary for a 1-year period
beginning on the date of issuance of the permit.
``(D) No additional fees.--For persons holding a permit
issued under this paragraph, during the effective period of
the permit, the Secretary shall not assess any fees in
addition to the fee assessed under subparagraph (B).
``(E) Use of cameras.--The Secretary shall not prohibit, as
a mechanized apparatus or under any other purposes, use of
cameras or related equipment used for the purpose of
commercial filming activities or similar projects in
accordance with this paragraph on Federal land and waterways
administered by the Secretary.
``(F) Notification required.--A film crew of 5 persons or
fewer subject to a permit issued under this paragraph shall
notify the applicable land management agency with
jurisdiction over the Federal land at least 48 hours before
entering the Federal land.
``(G) Denial of access.--The head of the applicable land
management agency may deny access to a film crew under this
paragraph if--
``(i) there is a likelihood of resource damage that cannot
be mitigated;
``(ii) there would be an unreasonable disruption of the use
and enjoyment of the site by the public;
``(iii) the activity poses health or safety risks to the
public; or
``(iv) the filming includes the use of models or props that
are not part of the natural or cultural resources or
administrative facilities of the Federal land.''; and

[[Page H962]]

(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking
``collect any costs'' and inserting ``recover any costs''.
(c) Other Federal Land.--Section 1 of Public Law 106-206
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Secretary'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Special rules for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.--
``(A) Definition of film crew.--In this paragraph, the term
`film crew' means any persons present on Federal land or
waterways under the jurisdiction of the Secretary who are
associated with the production of a film.
``(B) Required permit and fee.--For any film crew of 5
persons or fewer, the Secretary shall require a permit and
assess an annual fee of $200 for commercial filming
activities or similar projects on Federal land and waterways
administered by the Secretary.
``(C) Commercial filming activities.--A permit issued under
subparagraph (B) shall be valid for commercial filming
activities or similar projects that occur in areas designated
for public use during public hours on all Federal land and
waterways administered by the Secretary for a 1-year period
beginning on the date of issuance of the permit.
``(D) No additional fees.--For persons holding a permit
issued under this paragraph, during the effective period of
the permit, the Secretary shall not assess any fees in
addition to the fee assessed under subparagraph (B).
``(E) Use of cameras.--The Secretary shall not prohibit, as
a mechanized apparatus or under any other purposes, use of
cameras or related equipment used for the purpose of
commercial filming activities or similar projects in
accordance with this paragraph on Federal land and waterways
administered by the Secretary.
``(F) Notification required.--A film crew of 5 persons or
fewer subject to a permit issued under this paragraph shall
notify the applicable land management agency with
jurisdiction over the Federal land at least 48 hours before
entering the Federal land.
``(G) Denial of access.--The head of the applicable land
management agency may deny access to a film crew under this
paragraph if--
``(i) there is a likelihood of resource damage that cannot
be mitigated;
``(ii) there would be an unreasonable disruption of the use
and enjoyment of the site by the public;
``(iii) the activity poses health or safety risks to the
public; or
``(iv) the filming includes the use of models or props that
are not part of the natural or cultural resources or
administrative facilities of the Federal land.''; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``collect any costs'' and inserting
``recover any costs''; and
(B) by striking ``similar project'' and inserting ``similar
projects''.

TITLE XIV--STATE APPROVAL OF FISHING RESTRICTION

SEC. 1401. STATE OR TERRITORIAL APPROVAL OF RESTRICTION OF
RECREATIONAL OR COMMERCIAL FISHING ACCESS TO
CERTAIN STATE OR TERRITORIAL WATERS.

(a) Approval Required.--The Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Commerce shall not restrict recreational or
commercial fishing access to any State or territorial marine
waters or Great Lakes waters within the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service or the Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries, respectively, unless those restrictions are
developed in coordination with, and approved by, the fish and
wildlife management agency of the State or territory that has
fisheries management authority over those waters.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``marine
waters'' includes coastal waters and estuaries.

TITLE XV--HUNTING AND RECREATIONAL FISHING WITHIN CERTAIN NATIONAL
FORESTS

SEC. 1501. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Hunting.--The term ``hunting'' means use of a firearm,
bow, or other authorized means in the lawful pursuit,
shooting, capture, collection, trapping, or killing of
wildlife; attempt to pursue, shoot, capture, collect, trap,
or kill wildlife; or the training and use of hunting dogs,
including field trials.
(2) Recreational fishing.--The term ``recreational
fishing'' means the lawful pursuit, capture, collection, or
killing of fish; or attempt to capture, collect, or kill
fish.
(3) Forest plan.--The term ``forest plan'' means a land and
resource management plan prepared by the Forest Service for a
unit of the National Forest System pursuant to section 6 of
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
(4) National forest system.--The term ``National Forest
System'' has the meaning given that term in section 11(a) of
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))

SEC. 1502. HUNTING AND RECREATIONAL FISHING WITHIN THE
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM.

(a) Prohibition of Restrictions.--The Secretary of
Agriculture or Chief of the Forest Service may not establish
policies, directives, or regulations that restrict the type,
season, or method of hunting or recreational fishing on lands
within the National Forest System that are otherwise open to
those activities and are consistent with the applicable
forest plan.
(b) Prior Restrictions Void.--Any restrictions imposed by
the Secretary of Agriculture or Chief of the Forest Service
regarding the type, season, or method of hunting or
recreational fishing on lands within the National Forest
System that are otherwise open to those activities in force
on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be void and
have no force or effect.
(c) Applicability.--This section shall apply only to the
Kisatchie National Forest in the State of Louisiana, the De
Soto National Forest in the State of Mississippi, and the
Ozark National Forest, the St. Francis National Forest and
the Ouachita National Forest in the States of Arkansas and
Oklahoma.
(d) State Authority.--Nothing in this section, section 1 of
the Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551), or section 32 of the
Act of July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1011) shall affect the
authority of States to manage hunting or recreational fishing
on lands within the National Forest System.

TITLE XVI--GRAND CANYON BISON MANAGEMENT ACT

SEC. 1601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Grand Canyon Bison
Management Act''.

SEC. 1602. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan published under section 1603(a).
(2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Grand Canyon
National Park.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Skilled public volunteer.--The term ``skilled public
volunteer'' means an individual who possesses--
(A) a valid hunting license issued by the State of Arizona;
and
(B) such other qualifications as the Secretary may require,
after consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

SEC. 1603. BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GRAND CANYON NATIONAL
PARK.

(a) Publication of Plan.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a
management plan to reduce, through humane lethal culling by
skilled public volunteers and by other nonlethal means, the
population of bison in the Park that the Secretary determines
are detrimental to the use of the Park.
(b) Removal of Animal.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a skilled public volunteer may remove a full bison
harvested from the Park.
(c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the
Arizona Game and Fish Commission regarding the development
and implementation of the management plan.
(d) NEPA Compliance.--In developing the management plan,
the Secretary shall comply with all applicable Federal
environmental laws (including regulations), including the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(e) Limitation.--Nothing in this title applies to the
taking of wildlife in the Park for any purpose other than the
implementation of the management plan.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House
Report 114-429. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Wittman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. WITTMAN. 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 53, line 18, insert ``, subject to appropriation,''
after ``expended''.
Page 63, strike lines 1 through 8.
Strike ``of 2015'' each place it appears.
At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE XVII--OPEN BOOK ON EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE

SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Open Book on Equal Access
to Justice Act''.

SEC. 1702. MODIFICATION OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE
PROVISIONS.

(a) Agency Proceedings.--Section 504 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``, United States
Code'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (i); and
(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e)(1) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of
the United States, after consultation with the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, shall
report to the Congress, not later than March 31 of each year
through the 6th calendar year beginning after the initial
report under this subsection is submitted, on the amount of
fees and other expenses awarded during the preceding fiscal
year pursuant to this section. The report shall describe the
number, nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved
in the controversy, and any other relevant information that
may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of
such awards. The report shall be made available to the public
online.

[[Page H963]]

``(2)(A) The report required by paragraph (1) shall account
for all payments of fees and other expenses awarded under
this section that are made pursuant to a settlement
agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is
sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions.
``(B) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required
under subparagraph (A) does not affect any other information
that is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement
agreement.
``(f) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall
create and maintain, during the period beginning on the date
the initial report under subsection (e) is submitted and
ending one year after the date on which the final report
under that subsection is submitted, online a searchable
database containing the following information with respect to
each award of fees and other expenses under this section:
``(1) The case name and number of the adversary
adjudication, if available.
``(2) The name of the agency involved in the adversary
adjudication.
``(3) A description of the claims in the adversary
adjudication.
``(4) The name of each party to whom the award was made, as
such party is identified in the order or other agency
document making the award.
``(5) The amount of the award.
``(6) The basis for the finding that the position of the
agency concerned was not substantially justified.
``(g) The online searchable database described in
subsection (f) may not reveal any information the disclosure
of which is prohibited by law or court order.
``(h) The head of each agency shall provide to the Chairman
of the Administrative Conference in a timely manner all
information requested by the Chairman to comply with the
requirements of subsections (e), (f), and (g).''.
(b) Court Cases.--Section 2412(d) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of
the United States shall submit to the Congress, not later
than March 31 of each year through the 6th calendar year
beginning after the initial report under this paragraph is
submitted, a report on the amount of fees and other expenses
awarded during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to this
subsection. The report shall describe the number, nature, and
amount of the awards, the claims involved in each
controversy, and any other relevant information that may aid
the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such
awards. The report shall be made available to the public
online.
``(B)(i) The report required by subparagraph (A) shall
account for all payments of fees and other expenses awarded
under this subsection that are made pursuant to a settlement
agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is
sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions.
``(ii) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required
under clause (i) does not affect any other information that
is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement
agreement.
``(C) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall
include and clearly identify in the annual report under
subparagraph (A), for each case in which an award of fees and
other expenses is included in the report--
``(i) any amounts paid from section 1304 of title 31 for a
judgment in the case;
``(ii) the amount of the award of fees and other expenses;
and
``(iii) the statute under which the plaintiff filed suit.
``(6) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall
create and maintain, during the period beginning on the date
the initial report under paragraph (5) is submitted and
ending one year after the date on which the final report
under that paragraph is submitted, online a searchable
database containing the following information with respect to
each award of fees and other expenses under this subsection:
``(A) The case name and number.
``(B) The name of the agency involved in the case.
``(C) The name of each party to whom the award was made, as
such party is identified in the order or other court document
making the award.
``(D) A description of the claims in the case.
``(E) The amount of the award.
``(F) The basis for the finding that the position of the
agency concerned was not substantially justified.
``(7) The online searchable database described in paragraph
(6) may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is
prohibited by law or court order.
``(8) The head of each agency (including the Attorney
General of the United States) shall provide to the Chairman
of the Administrative Conference of the United States in a
timely manner all information requested by the Chairman to
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (5), (6), and
(7).''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--Section 2412 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``United States
Code,''; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``of section 2412 of title 28, United
States Code,'' and inserting ``of this section''; and
(B) by striking ``of such title'' and inserting ``of this
title''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and
(b) shall first apply with respect to awards of fees and
other expenses that are made on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Initial reports.--The first reports required by section
504(e) of title 5, United States Code, and section 2412(d)(5)
of title 28, United States Code, shall be submitted not later
than March 31 of the calendar year following the first
calendar year in which a fiscal year begins after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(3) Online databases.--The online databases required by
section 504(f) of title 5, United States Code, and section
2412(d)(6) of title 28, United States Code, shall be
established as soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, but in no case later than the date on
which the first reports under section 504(e) of title 5,
United States Code, and section 2412(d)(5) of title 28,
United States Code, are required to be submitted under
paragraph (2) of this subsection.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes technical
changes to the underlying bill, makes expenditures under the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act subject to appropriation, and
eliminates the Pittman-Robertson interest on obligations language,
title XII, which was signed into law last year.
The manager's amendment also adds an important new title to the bill,
the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, which makes that law more
transparent. The Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA, was originally
passed in 1980 as a social safety net program for seniors, veterans,
and small businesses.
It was designed to pay back these little guys for the cost of suing
the Federal Government in a once-in-a-lifetime event. However, special
interest groups have used EAJA as a way to be reimbursed for lawsuits
when they can't be reimbursed under the Nation's environmental laws.
These illegitimate reimbursements not only cost taxpayers money, but
they tie up our land management agencies, chasing procedural lawsuits
instead of doing their actual job.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's
amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I simply take a minute. Since we have no
amendments on leaded bullets or lead in fishing, this may be the only
time it is germane to clear up an issue from our debate yesterday
evening.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my good friend, mentioned
about at shooting ranges, especially, bullets often end up back in the
ground.
I just wanted to clarify, and let me quote from the Science and
Environmental Health Network, that in the environment many chemicals
are degraded by sunlight, destroyed through reactions with other
environmental substances or metabolized by naturally occurring
bacteria. Some chemicals, however, have features that enable them to
resist environmental degradation. They are classified as persistent and
can accumulate in soils and aquatic environments. Metals such as lead,
mercury, and arsenic are always persistent since they are basic
elements and cannot be further broken down and destroyed in the
environment. Lead contamination of air, soil, or drinking water can
ultimately result in significant exposures in fetuses, infants, and
children, resulting in impaired brain development.
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to get that on the record that the lead is
not going to degrade once it hits the soil during hunting or fishing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 114-429.

[[Page H964]]

Mr. BEYER. 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 9, strike ``and'' after the semicolon at line 14,
strike the period at line 16 and insert ``; and'', and after
line 16 insert the following:
(5) prohibits use of the location by any individual who is
prohibited from purchasing a firearm by section 922(g) of
title 18, United States Code.
Page 10, strike ``and'' after the semicolon at line 6,
strike the closing quotation marks and period at line 8 and
insert ``and'', and after line 8 insert the following:
``(E) prohibits use of the location by any individual who
is prohibited from purchasing a firearm by section 922(g) of
title 18, United States Code.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2406 would increase Federal assistance
made available in the Pittman-Robertson Act for construction,
operations, and maintenance of recreational shooting ranges on public
lands.
I, myself, am an avid outdoorsman and a big proponent of recreational
activities, and I understand the value of recreational shooting.
However, I believe that with these privileges come certain
responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to ensure that we
are not creating a situation where dangerous people are allowed to hone
their shooting skills on the taxpayers' dime.
My amendment today simply says, if you operate a public shooting
range and if you receive Federal assistance by way of this act, then
you must have a policy, a notice of some sort in place stating that no
person who is prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm is
allowed to use the shooting range.
Nothing in this amendment creates new gun laws. Nothing in this
amendment would infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners.
Nothing in this amendment is onerous in any way. We are simply saying
that the Federal Government should not be in the business of
subsidizing dangerous people improving their marksmanship or creating
spaces around guns where convicted felons feel like they can operate
outside the law and endanger law-abiding sportsmen and -women. The
Federal Government has an obligation to keep people safe.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amends the definition of public
target ranges in title II and the definition of public target range as
used for Pittman-Robertson funding.
This amendment is unnecessary, as it prohibits behavior which is
already against the law. This amendment is also impractical.
Administrators at public ranges would have no way of knowing who is
prohibited and who is not. Public target ranges are not equipped to run
background checks, and requiring them to do so would largely undermine
the other purposes of the bill, like expanding access to ranges.
This amendment does not distinguish between public target ranges that
allow only archery versus those that allow firearm use. The amendment
would prohibit, without justification, certain persons from taking
advantage of otherwise lawful and harmless recreational archery.
Access to the national background check screening data base is
strictly limited by law and cannot be used to screen people just
because they want to use a target range. The National Rifle
Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Safari Club
International oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, with respect for my friend from Virginia, there
is nothing in the amendment that suggests or requires background checks
for people wanting to use public shooting ranges--in fact, just the
opposite. All we are asking is that there be a policy or a notice
saying, if you are otherwise prohibited from using weapons under
Federal law, that you can't practice, hone your shooting skills on
these ranges.
Mr. Wittman and I both come from Virginia, where we have six target
ranges managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
Those six public target ranges have 17 rules. These rules include: use
paper targets only; organized competitive shooting is prohibited; use
of unauthorized target materials, such as cans, bottles, clay birds is
prohibited. None of these is onerous. All we are asking is for an 18th
rule that says, if you are otherwise prohibited from using a gun under
Federal law, then you can't use it at the target range.
We are not trying to extend background checks to everyone. That is
not what this says. All we are trying to do is make sure that people
who can't otherwise have possession of a gun don't go to a target
range, rent one, and practice.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman from Virginia--we
all have an interest in shooting sports--that there is no evidence to
suggest that there is an issue right now with felons using this
opportunity to perpetrate crimes at public shooting ranges, so I think
it is a solution in search of a problem. We want to make sure that
there is a balance there and that, indeed, people have access to these
ranges.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, Federal law prohibits certain criminals
from possessing firearms. This amendment assumes that a criminal who is
forbidden from possessing a firearm, who then breaks that law and
possesses one anyway, will then obey a law that says he can't bring the
illegally possessed gun to a shooting range.
I have news for the author of this amendment. The last place a
criminal wants to be is on a shooting range where he is surrounded by
law-abiding and armed citizens. Criminals prefer gun-free zones where
decent people can't fight back.
So what is the real purpose of this amendment? I think it is twofold.
The first is to imply that gun ranges are brimming with criminals who
are honing their skills to go on rampages. That is an insult to the
many millions of Americans who own guns and who use shooting ranges.
Second, and more disturbing, it is to put the owners and managers of
shooting ranges in an impossible legal position. How are they supposed
to comply with this law? The gentleman says, well, they don't need to
do background checks of every consumer, but what else are they then
supposed to do in order to abide by this law? Require a 2-week waiting
period to make reservations? How long before leftist legal firms begin
suing these gun ranges for failing to do due diligence in thoroughly
probing the backgrounds of their customers?
We have many laws on the books to prohibit the illegal use of
firearms and to prohibit criminals from possessing them. That is the
problem with criminals: they just don't obey our laws. But instead of
putting them behind bars, where they can't hurt anyone, the left seeks
to make it increasingly difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend
themselves.
It shouldn't surprise us that the sum total of these laws is more gun
violence and not less. I urge the House to defeat this amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, all I need is just a few seconds to point out
to my friend from California that many of the things that he objects to
are irrelevant and not germane to this amendment.

We are not asking for background checks. We are certainly not setting
up a structure where lawyers can sue. We are simply asking for a policy
or notice

[[Page H965]]

to be in place, as many other policies and notices are in place at gun
shooting ranges around the country, that recognize that Federal law
prohibits certain people, some dangerous people from possessing or
using firearms in the United States, and especially the public shooting
range that is being funded by the Federal Government under Pittman-
Robertson.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind folks, too, that the law
already prohibits certain individuals from possessing a firearm, from
using it at a public range. The acquisition or possession of a firearm
by a person subject to 18 U.S. Code 922, section (g), under any
circumstances for any purpose is already a Federal felony. I think the
law already covers that as far as who can and cannot own a firearm.
Having the additional effort of saying you can't access a public
range is secondary to the primary violation of the law. I think that
that is already covered if you are looking at making sure that guns
aren't put in the hands of those folks who are convicted of these
crimes.
Again, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I encourage my
colleagues to do the same, to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

{time} 0930

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 114-429.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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:

Beginning at page 14, line 3, strike title III.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the Rules
Committee for making my amendment in order. Let me also thank Mr.
Wittman and Mr. Beyer for their leadership on this issue.
Let me state for the record that I am from Texas, where there are
many fishermen, many hunters, and many sportsmen and -women, but we are
also a people that understand unto whom much is given, much is
expected. My amendment speaks to that very issue.
My amendment No. 3 strikes title III of the underlying bill that
creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act that would allow
a handful of hunters to import polar bear trophies into the United
States.
Let me provide for my colleagues a simple bit of information. Most
people do not know, but polar bears are officially classified as marine
mammals and, as such, are included under the 1972 Marine Mammal
Protection Act. They are also listed under the U.S. Endangered Species
Act, affording the iconic animals further protection against hunting,
trapping, and capturing.
Over the last few years, these laws did not stop a handful of wealthy
individuals from flying up to Canada to bag a trophy polar bear for
their collection back home, even though they were warned that U.S. law
would prohibit the importation of skins, heads, and other products from
bears that they were hunting.
In 1994, well-funded hunting interests convinced Congress to amend
the act, allowing a limited number of bears from trophy hunts, but only
if the animal came from a designated population that could withstand
the loss. Then in 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a proposed
rule to list the polar bear as threatened. This continues.
In the Humane Society letter that supports my amendment, it is
indicated that, in fact, we may lose two-thirds of the polar bear
population by 2070.
My amendment is smart, it is right, it is humane. It responds to the
conscience and the rightness of this country.
I am saddened to see these lovely animals--if I can call them that--
become trophies to make someone else feel good. I ask my colleagues to
recognize the importance of taking care of what God has given us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes a provision of the
SHARE Act that will allow the importation of 41 polar bears legally
harvested from sustainable populations in Canada before the polar bear
was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it always interests me when some people try to undo
something that has already occurred legally.
Legally, these bears were taken under license of the Canadian
Government. Legally, they should have been allowed to be imported. And
then, Secretary Kempthorne listed the polar bear as a threatened
species. They are not endangered. In fact, we have a study now that the
polar bear population has increased, not decreased.
The point is, these are 41 hides that were shot legally by individual
hunters under the auspices of the Canadian law with proper guiding
facilities, proper taxidermy facilities, and these bears are dead.
By the way, as these dead bears come to the United States, they
create money to take and help conserve the rest of the live bears. If I
was out buying something or it was given to me and it was declared
illegal later on, I can't keep it? This is silliness.
This is a good part of this bill. It rectifies something that was
done legally for hunters that did their hunting legally. Now we are
saying that for human purposes, for the protection of the polar bear,
we are not going to allow those 41 hides to come back into the United
States that were shot legally?
We are not going to collect the money we used to save polar bears
from these legally shot bears. This is not about the future. And by the
way, Fish and Wildlife sort of likes this program.
I am always amazed that somebody is going to save a species that is
not endangered--in fact, is not threatened--because they are going to
save dead bears from coming into the United States that were shot
legally.
I oppose this amendment. It is a mischievous amendment.
This amendment was backed by the Humane Society. Of course they are
going to support her amendment, but the fact is they were shot legally.
They should be allowed to be brought back in the country, as they were
shot under the Government of Canada's auspices.
So let's reject this amendment. Let's stick to the facts, not
emotions.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia also has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Humane
Society that I will include in the Record, along with an article
regarding polar bear hunting.

The Humane Society

of the United States,

February 24, 2016
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Jackson Lee: The Humane Society of the United
States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, and Humane Society
International strongly support your amendment to H.R. 2406,
the so-called ``Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational
Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015.'' This harmful legislation
contains a variety of provisions that threaten wildlife,
including one that would allow U.S. trophy hunters to import
the heads and hides of threatened polar bears from Canada.
Your amendment to strike this

[[Page H966]]

language sends a strong message that our country should be
protecting vulnerable species, not carving out exceptions for
the small fraction of the hunting public that travels the
globe to kill its most majestic creatures.
Title III of H.R. 2406 would weaken the Marine Mammal
Protection Act by permitting the importation of trophies from
41 polar bears killed as the Fish and Wildlife Service
finalized a rule listing them as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act. The wealthy trophy hunters that shot
these bears had full knowledge of the pending rule, and knew
that U.S. law would likely prohibit them from bringing back
their kill. We should not give these hunters a free pass to
exploit a regulatory loophole.
This is just the latest in a recent series of import
allowances by Congress. It would send a message that
politically-connected trophy hunters can kill endangered and
threatened species around the globe, put the trophies in
storage, and wait around for their congressional allies to
get them permission to bring the heads and hides into the
country for display over mantles in living rooms. The
provision does not help rank-and-file hunters and sportsmen,
who would never dream of traveling to the Arctic to shoot a
polar bear, or to Africa to shoot a lion.
Scientists estimate that we may lose two-thirds of the
polar bear population by 2050. Congress should do all it can
/ to protect such vanishing species from extinction instead
of incentivizing trophy hunters to kill as many as possible
in advance of pending ESA listings. This is a critical
measure to ensure the long-term viability of imperiled
animals around the globe.
When Cecil, the beloved African lion, was killed by an
American dentist it shined a light on the shameful subculture
of trophy hunters, who spend their fortunes traveling the
globe to kill the rarest and most majestic species on earth.
We applaud your amendment, which provides real protections
for endangered and threatened species.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle,
President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United States.
Michael Markarian,
President, Humane Society Legislative Fund.
____

[From TakePart.com, May 5, 2013]

Polar Bear Trophy Hunters: Kill Now, Get Permission Later

(By David Kirby)

Most people don't know it, but polar bears are officially
classified as marine mammals, and as such are included under
the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act. They are also listed
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, affording the iconic
animals further protection against hunting, trapping and
capturing.
But over the past few years, those laws did not stop a
handful of wealthy individuals from flying up to Canada to
bag a ``trophy'' polar bear for their collection back home,
even though they were warned that U.S. law would prohibit the
importation of skins, heads and other products from the bears
they were hunting.
Those trophy hunters have in the past managed to secure an
exemption from Congress, allowing some of the trophy bears to
enter the United States.
Now the trophy hunters and their friends in D.C. are at it
again. Last week, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) introduced a new bill
in the house, ``To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 to allow the importation of polar bear trophies taken in
sport hunts in Canada.''
On the Senate side, Mike Crapo (R-ID) offered a similar
though slightly more restrictive bill, the ``Polar Bear
Conservation and Fairness Act of 2013.''
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 outlawed the sport
hunting of all polar bears in the United States and banned
the import of any marine mammal product into the country.
But in 1994, well-funded hunting interests convinced
Congress to amend the act, allowing in a limited number of
bears from trophy hunts, but only if the animal came from a
designated population that could withstand the loss.
Then, in January 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
issued a proposed rule to list the polar bear as
``threatened'' on the endangered species list, which meant no
bears from any populations could be imported.
FWS had until January 2008 to issue its final ruling. But
the deadline came and went and there was still no listing of
the bears. A federal court intervened, ordering the agency to
publish the rule by May 15, 2008, adding that the new rule
would take effect immediately.
By law, then, no polar bear killed from any population
could be imported after May 15, 2008, into the U.S.,
regardless of when the permit had been issued.
Trophy hunters were given repeated warnings from hunting
organizations and government agencies that trophy bears
killed in 2008 would not be allowed into the United States:
They were hunting at their own risk.
Even pro-trophy-hunting groups such as Conservation Force
issued repeated and dire warnings to its members, including
one in a December 2007 newsletter that stated, ``American
hunters are asking us whether they should even look at polar
bear hunts in light of the current effort by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service to list this species as threatened; [t]he
bottom line is, no American hunter should be putting hard,
non-returnable money down on a polar bear hunt at this
point.''
And, the newsletter continued, ``We feel compelled to tell
you that American trophy hunters are likely to be barred from
importing bears they take this season. Moreover, there is a
chance that bears taken previous to this season may be barred
as well. American clients with polar bear trophies still in
Canada or Nunavut need to get those bears home.''
The warning was not heeded by everyone. At least 40
Canadian polar bears were killed by U.S. trophy hunters from
March until May of 2008--when they were cautioned that the
Endangered Species Act would be in effect, disallowing any
imports of trophy polar bears.
Now, those polar bear carcasses are collecting dust in
refrigerated storage in Canada at great cost to the hunters,
who desperately want to bring their trophies back stateside.
``We are disheartened to see this type of legislation
introduced in Congress. We have seen it time and time
again,'' says Lena Spadacene, policy manager for wildlife
protection at the Humane Society of the United States, which
has spearheaded the fight against importing polar bear
products.
A similar bill was introduced in the last session of
Congress, Spadacene said, but was defeated by a coalition of
conservation groups. ``We worked diligently on that issue and
pulled together one of the most comprehensive reports on
trophy hunting and exemptions,'' she says.
``The law should be consistently applied, and we should not
have a special carve-out for a few trophy hunters who shot
polar bears in Canada, knowing full well that they may not be
able to import the trophies under U.S. law,'' the report
stated.
``While some argue this is just a small number of trophies,
it encourages hunters to continue killing protected species
in other countries, store the trophies in warehouses, and
simply wait for their allies in Congress to get them a waiver
on the imports,'' the report said. ``It sets a
dangerous precedent, and encourages more killing of
threatened species and protected marine mammals, which
flies in the face of the Endangered Species Act and Marine
Mammal Protection Act.''
``We don't want to reward bad behavior.'' Spadacene says.
When the trophy hunters learned that polar bears would be
listed as threatened, ``they rushed to Canada to bag
themselves a trophy, but some of them did not make it in
time. Now they are paying money every month for refrigeration
until they can lobby their friends in Congress.''
It's a worrying pattern, Spadacene says, and it could
easily affect other species in the future.
Once it becomes known that a species is about to be put on
the endangered list, it motivates some hunters to go out and
kill while they still can. And if they miss the deadline,
then they hope they can just win an exemption from
Washington.
``Passing this legislation now is only going to entice and
incentivize the bad behavior even more,'' Spadacene says.
She adds, ``Whenever our elected officials grant special
exemptions for trophy hunting, it undermines conservation
policy. Shooting an iconic species for display or bragging
rights and then crying to Congress for a bailout is simply
bad form and should not be tolerated.''
Spadacene explains the trophy hunters ``were warned of the
law and they shot polar bears anyway. If we allow this
exemption to happen, we can predict it will happen again with
other species, or potentially with polar bears again.''
Then there is the question of priorities in Congress. With
so many problems vexing the country, is the fate of 40 dead
bears really so important that Capitol Hill should vote on
this bill?
``The last session was what many considered to be the most
ineffective and incompetent legislature in the history of
democracy, exactly because they were working on legislation
like this,'' Spadacene says. ``It's this kind of special-
interest legislation that makes Americans frustrated with
Congress. It's so self-serving for a small group of wealthy
trophy hunters, and does nothing for the American people or
conservation.''
Judd Deere, a spokesman for Senator Crapo, has the opposite
take on the matter.
``There is nothing more frustrating for the American people
than regulations that make no sense,'' Deere says. ``It's
frustrating for these hunters, and it's unfortunately
requiring Congress to act. This legislation was a commitment
that my boss made in the last Congress. We got really close
last time. I hope we can get it done this time.''
It is sure to be a bitter battle.
The polar bear legislation ``is being cast as a private
relief measure to help a few hunters bring in a handful of
personal trophies,'' the HSUS report said. ``But in reality
it would provide incentive for still more killing of polar
bears in Canada, by providing more hope to would-be bear
slayers they can convince Congress to amend the law just one
more time.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, scientists estimate, as I indicated,
that we may lose two-thirds of the polar bear population by 2050.
Therefore, we, as custodians of these very precious

[[Page H967]]

animals, should do all that we can to protect a vanishing species from
extinction instead of incentivizing trophy hunters to kill as many as
possible in advance of pending ESA listings. This is a critical measure
to assure the long-term viability of imperiled animals.
Let me also cite for the record that the appeals court upholds
Endangered Species Act protections for polar bears.
Let me suggest to my colleagues that we saw an unfortunate
circumstance just a few months ago when Cecil the lion was killed out
of mistake or I don't know what, but this giant of an animal, this
reflection of the idea of the importance of the animal kingdom, was
killed.
I introduced H.R. 3448, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened
Species Act. It is similar to the amendment I have today. I ask my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chair, let me express my appreciation to Chairman Bishop and
Ranking Member Grijalva for their leadership and commitment to working
to maintain and preserve America's natural resources and wildlife
habitat.
I also wish to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and
members of the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee
Amendment No. 3.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3 is an important revision to the SHARE Act
because it serves to preserve the original intent of Congress under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, as well as the Endangered Species Act.
Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment strikes Title III of the
underlying bill that creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection
Act which would allow a handful of hunters to import polar bear
trophies into the United States in contravention of current law.
While H.R. 2406 purports to enhance recreational outdoor
opportunities and does in fact have some favorable provisions, Title
III, as well as many other harmful provisions make clear, that this
legislation would in reality jeopardize already fragile ecosystems and
negatively impact animal welfare and wildlife.
As a longstanding member of the Congressional Animal Rights Caucus
and champion of wildlife preservation and protection of animals, I am
deeply concerned about the harmful provisions of H.R. 2406 and the
impact this legislation will have on endangered and threatened
populations.
Title III of the SHARE Act is particularly concerning, because it
creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) allowing
for a special class of hunters to import polar bear trophies into the
United States in contravention of the law.
The MMPA was set up because it was recognized that many marine mammal
stocks, including polar bears, were in danger of becoming endangered or
extinct.
The sole, most important, objective of the MMPA is to help maintain
the health and stability of the ecosystem.
The polar bears for which these hunters seek permits for were hunted
in Canada after the species was proposed for listing as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act and was done so with full knowledge
and warning that U.S. law would prohibit their eventual importation.
Enacting Title III of the SHARE Act would threaten this imperiled
species by encouraging hunters to race for trophies the moment a
species is considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act,
store them abroad and then seek waivers from Congress to import their
trophies later.
Granting such a waiver sets a dangerous precedent and sends signals
to trophy hunters that they can flout the law--effectively rewarding
hunters who raced to kill polar bears for trophies before their listing
under the Endangered Species Act.
Alternately, removal of this language will help ensure that hunters
are not encouraged to seek bad faith waivers from Congress to import
threatened and endangered species at a later time.
These bears were knowingly hunted in Canada after the species was
proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The survival and protection of the polar bear habitat is an urgent
issue for wildlife experts and those who treasure our natural habitat.
H.R. 2406, as it stands, is opposed by virtually every leading
environmental organization in the nation.
The Humane Society of the United States, the Humane Society
Legislative Fund, and the Humane Society International, as well as
several others including the Animal Welfare Institute, Center for
Biological Diversity, and Born Free USA have all submitted letters in
strong support my Jackson Lee Amendment as a necessary provision to
provide real protections for endangered and threatened species.
Earlier this year, I also introduced H.R. 3448, the Cecil the Lion
Endangered and Threatened Species Act in response to the tragic killing
of Cecil the Lion and the impermeable need for greater protections to
shield all threatened and endangered species from trophy-hunting.
You have no doubt heard about the recent tragic illegal killing of
Cecil the Lion, a 13-year-old lion, dominant male of his pride, and one
of Zimbabwe's most beloved symbols of wildlife and important driver of
tourism.
The hunter, along with hired professionals, lured Cecil out of Hwange
National Park and shot him, allegedly without a permit, and collected
the head and skin.
Beyond Cecil, over two thirds of the world's cat species are
recognized as species in need of protection under federal or
international law.
My legislation to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973, would
prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered or threatened
species as a trophy into the United States.
Currently, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not protect the vast
majority of wild animals killed and imported by American hunters.
While the ESA allows for the importation of endangered and threatened
species for scientific research, propagation or survival of the
species, hunters are abusing this limited exception to murder and
transport protected wildlife for sport.
As a result of the ESA loophole, tens of thousands of wild animals
are killed every year by American trophy hunters and transported into
the United States.
In particular, Africa's lion population has declined 90 percent in
the past 75 years.
The conservation of rare and threatened species is critically
important to the sustainability of our ecosystem and wildlife as we
know it.
Polar bears, like African lions, currently face unprecedented threats
by humans on two fronts: sport hunting and loss of habitat.
The polar bear and African lion are vulnerable species sitting at the
top of the food chain. The health of these animals is an indicator and
foundation for the health of the ecosystem as a whole, and by
protecting the sustainability of these specific umbrella species, we
can have tremendous impacts on entire ecosystems.
The International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has ``Red
Listed'' polar bears as a ``Vulnerable'' species--thus, meeting
criteria as a threatened species facing a high risk of extinction in
the wild.
While Canada is the only country that allows for sport hunting of
polar bears, it is unfortunate that what was once a necessity of life
for indigenous Inuit communities in Canada, killing polar bears has now
become a bloody sport for profit and prestige.
It is estimated there are 20,000-25,000 polar bears left in the wild
a number that has only been sustainable through federal protection.
Mr. Chairman, the SHARE Act of 2015, if enacted would continue to
threaten the sustainability of one our most vulnerable species as well
as the critical preservation of our wildlife.
Scaling back protections on vulnerable and threatened species in the
face of legislation aimed to do otherwise will have substantial adverse
impacts on wildlife and conservation efforts, as well as policy
implications rewarding those who failed to comply with federal law.
We simply cannot afford to let threatened and endangered species die
needlessly for sport or profit.
The Jackson Lee Amendment would protect polar bears while at the same
time preserving Congress's intent under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and the Endangered Species Act.
I urge all members to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate something that
Mr. Young said. There is a thousand-dollar importation fee that is
assessed on all 41 of those trophies. Those dollars go to polar bear
conservation and research. So we are looking to use these efforts to
continue the promulgation of this species. We want to make sure polar
bear populations continue to grow.
Hunters provide, I believe, the largest measure of conservation of
any group out there that is looking to preserve polar bears. It is in
everyone's interest to make sure these things happen.
We have a number of groups out there that are in support of this
bill: the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Rifle
Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Safari Club
International, and the Boone and Crockett Club. All those organizations
are deeply committed to

[[Page H968]]

making sure that we continue and grow these species.
We want to make sure we understand that, but hunters are the best
conservationists on the planet because they are involved in making sure
the species continue. They use their resources to put into species
continuation. They want to make sure these species are properly managed
and that we have good science in managing those species. I believe that
this is what we want. We want to make sure that we are encouraging
that.
This amendment does not allow us to do that. It strikes those
provisions. I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, there are a litany of organizations
that are supporting this amendment: the League of Conservation Voters,
the Alaskan Wilderness League, Animal Welfare League, Born Free USA.
With respect to lions, let me recite that over the last 75 years, we
have lost 90 percent of African lions because we did not have the
restraints. I would make the argument that we should not do that in
this case.
When we let go and let free, we will find out that they will go
beyond the 41. They will be calling after polar bears for trophies. We
need to ban this in our legislation to ensure the protection of all of
those.
Let me ask my colleagues to take into consideration the importance of
our responsibilities of preservation.
Trophies? Money?
I can assure you that there are a bounty of humane organizations that
will provide any amount of dollars to do the research that is necessary
to protect this vulnerable population. They are listed on the
Endangered Species Act. They are vulnerable.
These trophies should not be an indication to the American people
that they can bring in polar bears--who may themselves become extinct--
because we believe that trophies are more important than studying the
species and growing the species to the extent that scientists and
others can restrain them and make sure that we do have a population
within the realm and reason of supporting the ecosystem that we need.
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate polar bears are not
endangered. They are not on the endangered species list.
I want to remind folks, too, these 41 trophies were harvested in
Canada. Canada has a world-class management program for polar bears.
They have used the best science.
Remember, these polar bears were taken in 2008, based upon the
science Canada was using to manage the program. The polar bears in
Canada, both at the time and now, are increasing in population. Canada
does a great job in managing this.
This is just a situation where polar bears legally harvested under
the best management programs available should be allowed to come back
into the United States. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Costa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), I offer amendment No. 4.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 20, line 19, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 20, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 20, after line 21, insert the following:
``(viii) Administrator of the Small Business Administration
or designated representative.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Costa

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4
be printed in House Report 114-429 and be modified in the form that I
have placed at the desk.
The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Costa:

Page 19, line 24, strike ``7'' and insert ``8''.
Page 20, line 19, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 20, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 20, after line 21, insert the following:
``(viii) Administrator of the Small Business Administration
or designated representative.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, Representative Bustos and I would like to
thank Congressmen Beyer and Wittman and the Rules Committee for
allowing us to present this amendment on the floor.
This amendment would help ensure that the interests of small
businesses that rely on wildlife conservation and recreational hunting
continue to thrive.
As established by this bill, the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage
Conservation Council Advisory Committee's duties would include advising
the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture on policies and programs
that help increase the participation in hunting and wildlife
conservation activities and promote awareness of the importance of both
wildlife conservation and the economic benefits of recreational
hunting.
There is no question that recreational hunting has economic benefits.
In 2011, hunters put $38.3 billion into our economy. The small
businesses across the country that cater to the needs of these hunters
and wildlife watchers--be they stores, hotels, trail guides--are
bedrocks of our local economies that are near our public lands. We know
that.

{time} 0945

As is, however, none of the governmental bodies set to serve on this
advisory committee that is being proposed as a part of this legislation
represent the perspective or the needs of these small businesses.
Small businesses are the economic engine that is driving our economy.
We know that. It has been that way for years. They should not be left
behind or be left out of this.
This amendment would simply add the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to be listed as an ex-officio member of this
advisory committee.
Having a representative from the Small Business Administration or
their designee will strengthen the voice of small businesses that rely
on tourism associated with hunting or shooting or sports or
recreational or wildlife activities that this legislation intends to
promote.
So my colleague, Representative Bustos, and I ask that you join us in
supporting this small-business amendment ensuring that they have a seat
at the table by supporting this effort.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 114-429.

[[Page H969]]

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 49, line 20, after the period, insert ``Such closures
shall be clearly marked with signs and dates of closures, and
shall not include gates, chains, walls, or other barriers on
the hunter access corridor.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
numerous hunters in my district who have called me, very frustrated,
every hunting season that the National Forest Service, with no cause,
no rationale, and no reason, closes down their access to hunt in the
Mark Twain National Forest. With gates, locks and chains, they limit
the residents of central and southeast Missouri.
I have been contacted by numerous folks in my district about not
having proper postings of corridors within the National Park System
whenever they decide to change its random gates. What this amendment
would do is it would require the National Forest Service to publish
signs of any hunting corridors that they decide to close.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that we support this
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Meng

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 114-429.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 59, line 10, strike ``officer'' and insert
``officers''.
Page 59, beginning at line 16, strike ``officer'' and
insert ``officers''.
Page 59, line 20, strike ``one''.
Page 59, line 21, strike ``officer'' and insert
``officers''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service law enforcement officers to be placed in diplomatic
posts abroad in an effort to combat the illegal killing of African
elephants.
Honestly, this is an activity in which the Fish and Wildlife Service
already engages. What the underlying bill does in section 1004,
however, which I think is commendable, is explicitly authorizes this
activity in law for the first time.
Unfortunately, I feel the authorization is overly narrow because it
allows only one FWS officer to be placed in a single country at a time.
I think this was likely a drafting oversight and simply wish to allow
more than one FWS officer to be assigned to a foreign country at a
time.
Let me be clear. This amendment does not mandate that multiple
officers be sent abroad. It does not authorize any additional funds for
these activities. It does not require an increase in any way on the
number of FWS officers placed abroad. It simply allows more than one
FWS officer to be placed in a single country at any given time.
In reality, this amendment could, should we wish it, result in a net
decrease in the number of FWS law enforcement agents placed abroad,
resulting in lowered costs to the U.S. Government for these activities.
Imagine a scenario in which elephant poaching and ivory trafficking
was running rampant in 20 different nations and we wished to assist in
the combating of these activities by leveraging the expertise and
experience of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officers.
As written, we would only be allowed to place one officer in each
country, for a total of 20 total officers deployed internationally.
What if the Secretary of the Interior determined, however, that
formulating a task force of five specialists, who would be deployed
jointly, as needed, would be the best possible course of action to
combat the poaching of African elephants?
As written, the SHARE Act would force this task force to be split up
and housed in five different African nations. The amendment before us,
however, would permit the entire task force to be housed under one
roof.
At the end of the day, housing the entire task force in a single
location could be much more effective strategically and could result in
significant savings to the U.S. Government if it is housed in the
nation with the lowest cost of living.
Mr. Chair, no matter how one may feel about the broader bill before
us, I feel that section 1004 of the bill is a worthwhile section. I
hope you will support my amendment seeking to improve it.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Huffman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. HUFFMAN. 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 title X add the following:

SEC. __ GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study examining the effects of a ban of the trade
in of fossilized ivory from mammoths and mastodons on the
illegal importation and trade of African and Asian elephant
ivory within the United States, with the exception of
importation or trade thereof related to museum exhibitions or
scientific research, and report to Congress the findings of
such study.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to the
SHARE Act to direct the Government Accountability Office to delve
deeper into an important issue, and that is the ivory trade, which has
sparked international concern.
Last year my home State of California became the third State in the
country to approve tougher restrictions on the intrastate ivory trade,
joining New York and New Jersey in that regard.
The new California law, AB 96, closes a loophole that had allowed the
import of ivory harvested from animals killed before 1977.
Now, this loophole made a ban of the import of elephant ivory nearly
impossible to enforce because distinguishing between pre- and post-1977
ivory products would require very expensive isotope testing.
The California law also included a ban on the growing trade in
mammoth ivory--this is ivory discovered in Siberia and elsewhere--
ironically made easier because of warming weather and melting tundra
due to the impacts of climate change.
There is growing concern that Chinese ivory traders are passing off
illegal elephant tusks as mammoth ivory in order to avoid international
elephant ivory bans.
But distinguishing between mammoth ivory and elephant ivory requires
technical testing, which makes, again, enforcement of an elephant ivory
ban very difficult unless the mammoth ivory trade is also addressed.
Now, some argue that, despite this difficulty, legal mammoth ivory
can reduce the market for illegal elephant ivory. Although I don't
agree with that, I do understand the concerns.
That is why, with this amendment, we are simply asking the GAO to
study

[[Page H970]]

the issue, to look at what various experts have to say, and give us
some advice.
To make smart policy decisions, we need that kind of information on
how a ban on the trade of fossilized ivory from mammoths would affect
the illegal importation and trade of elephant ivory within the United
States.
So I respectfully request your support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would request an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. BEYER. 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:

Beginning at page 69, line 1, strike title XIV.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, title XIV of this bill would give States and
territories the authority to override Federal fishing rules in coastal
waters of national parks, national marine sanctuaries, and some marine
national monuments. This is simply not right.
Places like Biscayne National Park, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
National Marine Sanctuary, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monument
belong to all Americans, not just to the fishing interests in Florida,
Hawaii, and American Samoa.
Protection of these special ocean places has overwhelming public
support and is recognized by the scientific community as critical to
making fisheries more productive.
What is more, most of these areas do not even preclude fishing.
California's national marine sanctuaries generate more than $140
million a year in economic impact from commercial fishing.
Recreational anglers spend more than $100 million a year on fishing
in the Florida Keys.
I attended the public hearing in Homestead, Florida, last year on
closing a very small part--less than 6 percent--of Biscayne National
Bay for a marine national monument simply to bring the fish back, many
fish that fishermen there hadn't seen in years.
But fishing is not the only important use of these waters. Whale
watching, snorkeling, scuba diving, and scientific research all
generate enormous benefits, not to mention the impact that protecting
coral reefs and other diverse productive habitats has on stabilizing
our oceans and our fisheries in the face of global warming.
Sometimes it is necessary to protect certain areas of the ocean,
particularly those that have been over-fished in the past or are
particularly sensitive to fishing impacts, if we want to support a wide
variety of uses and keep our oceans healthy. Science shows that this
benefits fishermen in the long run as well.
My amendment is simple. It strikes title XIV of H.R. 2406 and leaves
fishery management decisions in the waters of marine parks,
sanctuaries, and monuments up to the Federal agencies charged with
managing these resources in trust for all Americans.
We would never think of allowing Wyoming to set hunting rules for
Yellowstone, but without this amendment, this bill would allow the same
thing to happen for our ocean parks that are every bit as magnificent.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1000

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I noted that one of our
principal objectives of the Federal lands policy must be to restore the
Federal Government as a good neighbor to the communities impacted by
the Federal lands.
Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the Forest Service, advised his
foresters to find out in advance what the public will stand for. If it
is right and they won't stand for it, postpone action and educate them.
That is essentially what this bill does. It says that the Federal
Government needs to listen to States and territories before imposing
fishing regulations in State waters.
This amendment would strip this language and say, in effect: We don't
care what local communities think. We know what is best.
It speaks volumes about why States and communities are openly
revolting against Federal lands policy.
Pinchot also advised us to get rid of an attitude of personal
arrogance or pride of attainment of superior knowledge. I would commend
that advice to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague and friend from
California, I don't think that is the way the system works.
In fact, right now fishing limitations are developed in coordination
with their respective States and territories. They are just not given
final, blanket veto power. The Park Service and the States benefit from
cooperative fisheries research and management and full participation.
My only personal experience is with the Biscayne Bay where there were
many, many public hearings. The public was fully involved. The
fishermen, pro and con, were fully involved in it.
The idea is not to eliminate the close coordination of partnership
with the States and with the territories, but, rather, to avoid giving
the States and territories the ultimate veto power over what
essentially are national decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Now, we know the Natural Resources Committee is a rowdy one to
manage, with lots of difficult decisions and inflamed passions.
But I thank Chairman Bishop and the great subcommittee chairmen and
all of the members for doing a great job in ensuring that the American
people are the ultimate beneficiaries of our amazing public lands and
waters.
This title XIV language that would be stripped out of the underlying
bill by this amendment was taken from my bill, the Preserving Public
Access to Public Waters Act, which has 36 bipartisan cosponsors,
including nearly two-thirds of the Florida delegation.
Floridians understand the importance of balancing environmental,
recreational, and economic considerations along our coast because our
State is the fishing capital of the world.
With that balance in mind, we worked to carefully develop and tailor
this language so that it would only apply to a very small area of near-
shore waters with deep importance to fishermen.
My colleague and this amendment's sponsor himself said in the
committee markup that the National Park Service and the National Marine
Sanctuaries cover a negligible percentage of waters within traditional
State jurisdiction.
He is right that we are talking about a relatively small area, but
these waters have outsized importance to the folks living in nearby
communities.
In my district, the National Park Service is attempting to close over
30 percent of Biscayne National Park's reefs to fishing in perpetuity
as part of its new general management plan and in opposition to the
scientific and management expertise of the FWC, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission.
FWC has worked for over a decade to develop mutually agreeable and
scientifically supported fishing restrictions that stop short of a full
closure in these waters, but the National Park Service has completely
disregarded the State's authority to manage its own fishing resources
in Biscayne National Park.

[[Page H971]]

Rather than work with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Committee, what did the National Park Service do? It decided to
abdicate its responsibility to the American public to try to balance
environmental, recreational, and economic considerations.
Instead, the National Park Service kowtowed to the whims of a single
special interest group that bankrolled tens of thousands of form
letters from across the country to hijack the public comment section in
favor of closing fishing access to State waters upon which local
fishermen depend.
That is not the proper use of the public comment process. It is not
in the best interests of south Floridians. It is not in the best
interests of the American people. It is not reflective of how we should
manage public waters.
Let me be clear. The title XIV language in this bill is narrowly
targeted. It is simply to keep States involved in the management of
their own waters. It does not apply in any way to Federal waters. This
language is not anti-environment. It does not roll back any existing
environmental protections nor fishing regulations currently enshrined
in law.
Without keeping this language in the bill, Mr. Chairman, the example
that the National Park Service is setting in Biscayne National Park
will create a terrible precedent for other State and territorial waters
in similar circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of our colleagues to oppose this
harmful amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The gentleman from Virginia
has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in response and with respect to my friend, the
representative from Florida, Biscayne Bay National Park is 164,800
acres. These are Federal lands. This is a national park, Federal
waters.
She mentioned that only they are going to close 30 percent of the
reefs. It is very important to note that the reef that existed 100
years ago is down to only 6 percent that is left. So the 30 percent
that is going to be closed is 2 percent of the original reef.
The whole purpose is to actually serve that special interest, the
fishing interest of Florida, who desperately need the revival of the
fish.
We found at the public hearing that at least half of the fishermen
there were for closing it, and all the fishermen pointed out that the
water was so far away, it was rarely fished at all. The worry was the
precedent, not the specific part that is closed.
We point out that Biscayne Bay itself is only less than 2 percent--
1.4 percent--of all Florida's waters. So this is a very tiny part. But
the point here is not for any special interest, but to revise, because
study after study after study have shown that where these marine
sanctuaries are created, the fish recover much faster even than
scientists expected.
This is for the long-term benefit of the fishing community, for
anglers throughout the world, especially serving the larger interests
of the American public.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important
amendment. We resist giving veto power over Federal decisions to State
governments and territorial governments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 71, Line 13, insert ``the Mark Twain National Forest
in the State of Missouri,'' after ``Mississippi,''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the great outdoors and hunting
traditions of the United States are a way of life for folks all over
our great country.
Throughout our history, they have been championed by Presidents
George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt, who
established national forests, game preserves, and national parks. The
SHARE Act continues these great traditions.
My amendment, which adds Mark Twain National Forest to the list of
forests provided in the section, assures the residents of Missouri that
no executive order, no executive action, or no bureaucrat sitting in
Washington, D.C., who has never set foot on Mark Twain National Forest
will write a rule inhibiting the ability to hunt or fish in our
national forests.
This amendment secures our freedom to be avid sportsmen. Folks in
Missouri don't want an overzealous administration to be able to come in
and dictate to the hunters and anglers of Missouri by executive fiat.
Over 1.3 million Missourians hunt or fish, and many go to the Mark
Twain National Forest each year. It covers roughly 2,331 square miles,
1.5 million acres, most of which reside in Missouri's Eighth
Congressional District.
I ask the body to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this amendment, first and foremost,
because it, like so many provisions already in the bill, seeks to
prevent U.S. public lands from being managed for the benefit of all
Americans.
National forests are lands of many uses, including hunting and
fishing. But how those uses are balanced should be decided by expert
land managers at the Forest Service through a process that is open to
the public and consistent with our national conservation laws, not by a
few well-connected hunters and their allies in Congress.
Furthermore, the practice that this section of the bill is trying to
protect is using dogs to hunt deer. Not only is this an ethically
questionable hunting tactic, it is wildly controversial in the States
listed in this title as well as in my State of Virginia.
Its opponents, Mr. Chairman, are not who you might think. These are
not what was described yesterday as radical leftists. In fact, it is
the complaints from private landowners and not overbearing bureaucrats,
not environmentalists, that led the Forest Service to ban deer hounding
in Louisiana's Kisatchie National Forest in 2012.
Don't take my word for it. A 2014 column in Louisiana Sportsman
stated:

The boot that finally stamped the life out of deer hunting
with dogs in Kisatchie National Forest was trespassing on
private property . . . homeowners reported people standing on
the public roads in front of their homes with guns, waiting
for deer to appear. They reported dogs on their property
sometimes attacking their chickens or other livestock. And,
worst of all, the homeowners reported belligerent and
insolent behavior by these people standing on the roads and
entering their property to retrieve their dogs.

Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest, the subject of this bill, was
the scene of a major law enforcement action that found 46 people guilty
of illegally hunting deer with dogs in 2013, this in spite of the fact
that the practice had already been banned in Missouri.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

[[Page H972]]

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that
is a commonsense amendment that prevents discrimination against hunters
on public Federal lands by preventing the Forest Service from creating
their own hunting laws that are in conflict with State laws on
neighboring State and privately owned lands.
Mr. Chairman, for many people, the public lands on the national
forests are the only place they have to hunt. There are many traditions
and many different ways that people enjoy hunting in the outdoors in my
State as well as others.
We already have similar language in the bill for national forests in
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Arkansas, and I support adding
the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri to this bill.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize that the
Forest Service doesn't prohibit hunting right now in the Mark Twain
National Forest. It simply prohibits hunting deer with dogs.
It does this because of complaints from private landowners, not from
the environmentalists and not from bureaucrats. This is literally
respect for the public input that comes from that.
I continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just a
commonsense amendment that adds the Mark Twain National Forest to the
several other forests that are mentioned in the four other States.
I ask the body to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. 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 Missouri
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Newhouse

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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:

After section 1502, insert the following:

SEC. 1503. PUBLICATION OF CLOSURE OF ROADS IN FORESTS.

The Chief of the Forest Service shall publish a notice in
the Federal Register for the closure of any public road on
Forest System lands, along with a justification for the
closure.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.

{time} 1015

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment
to H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act, and urge my colleagues to support its
adoption.
This amendment is very straightforward. It simply requires the Forest
Service to publish a notice in the Federal Register along with a
justification explaining the decision for the closure of any public
road on Forest Service lands.
Some of you may ask why this amendment is necessary, and that is
understandable because, fortunately, many Americans have never had to
deal with this issue. However, in my district in the Pacific Northwest
and in many Federal forests across the country, many people have faced
the reality that a public road that they have used for decades is
suddenly closed. When I say ``closed,'' if I could refer your attention
to this photograph, there is a picture indicating that a road is no
longer even available for use. It is not just a chain going across the
road.
However, the reality is far worse. When the Forest Service closes
many of these public roads, they do so by piling gravel, downing trees,
or both, in order to block access. At other times, they create what are
called tank traps, essentially large ditches dug into the ground that
makes passage impossible. Furthermore, these practices create
impediments that not only block human access but can also restrict the
movement of wildlife in our national forests.
This has become a serious issue in central Washington. For many
people who use these roads, it can have detrimental impacts on their
everyday lives, whether by making their daily travel much longer or by
restricting access to campsites or treasured areas in our national
forests.
Some of these roads have been in use for 70 or 80 years, with
generations of Washingtonians using them for forest access and
recreation. Yet, in most cases, the Forest Service has closed them
without even first notifying local residents and the surrounding
communities.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the first indication of a public road being
closed should not come when an individual or a family is faced with an
impassable roadway, but rather through adequate public notice from the
Forest Service. That is why I have introduced this amendment today.
Just to be clear, my amendment simply requires the Forest Service to
provide notification when closing a public road on Forest Service land
as well as justification for such a decision. This is an important
first step in ensuring that rural communities and residents are given
proper warning and advance notice when a public roadway will suddenly
be blocked and access to a Federal forest area will no longer be
available.
Local residents and communities deserve to know when such an action
is taking place and whether forest action will be denied. This
amendment will guarantee the Forest Service is being transparent in
future decisions and closures.
Mr. WITTMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Newhouse for yielding.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, rural communities deserve better from
their government. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Mr. Newhouse
on introducing this amendment.
These roads were built with taxpayer dollars, yet the Forest Service
arbitrarily goes in and shuts those roads down so people don't have
access to them.
We have the same problem in our forests in Alaska: no notification,
and then they will spend millions of dollars closing down a road that
the public had access to. Their excuse is: well, it is our land. We
don't have to worry about other people using this road now, so we will
just isolate everybody from it.
So I compliment the gentleman for the introduction of his amendment.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the good
gentleman from Alaska.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in ambivalent opposition to my
friend's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to let Representative Newhouse
know I completely appreciate the dilemma that he is in and appreciate
the motivation for this amendment.
My one concern is that it will require the chief of the Forest
Service to publish notice in the Federal Register, along with a
justification, any time a national Forest Service road is closed, and
there may be some unintended consequences which we should at least
think about.
For example, the amendment will require the Forest Service to publish
the

[[Page H973]]

Federal Register notice to close a road that is being engulfed by
wildfire, or a road that is covered with debris after a tornado or in
jeopardy of being swept away after a landslide, a power line down on
the road, or even one that is closed to prevent militants from coming
and going, as we have recently seen.
I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that there should be a
justification for anything that closes a public road that people have
used for many, many years, but I also don't want to hamstring them from
closing roads that are necessary for the public safety.
I tepidly encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that since this is a
bill, the SHARE Act, about public access, about use of our treasures,
our national forests and public lands, all we are asking from the
Forest Service is a little bit of transparency, notice so that people
aren't caught off guard. Certainly there are extenuating circumstances
where notice, if there is a downed power line or debris is in the
middle of a road that makes it impassable, it seems to me that is a
time when notice is even more necessary and imperative for the public
good.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but would still urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Fleming

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE XVII--UTILITY TERRAIN VEHICLES

SEC. 1701. UTILITY TERRAIN VEHICLES IN KISATCHIE NATIONAL
FOREST.

(a) In General.--The Forest Administrator shall amend the
applicable travel plan to allow utility terrain vehicles
access on all roads nominated by the Secretary of Louisiana
Wildlife and Fisheries in the Kisatchie National Forest,
except when such designation would pose an unacceptable
safety risk, in which case the Forest Administrator shall
publish a notice in the Federal Register with a justification
for the closure.
(b) Utility Terrain Vehicles Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``utility terrain vehicle''--
(1) means any recreational motor vehicle designed for and
capable of travel over designated roads, traveling on four or
more tires with a maximum tire width of 27 inches, a maximum
wheel cleat or lug of \3/4\ of an inch, a minimum width of 50
inches but not exceeding 74 inches, a minimum weight of at
least 700 pounds but not exceeding 2,000 pounds, and a
minimum wheelbase of 61 inches but not exceeding 110 inches;
(2) includes vehicles not equipped with a certification
label as required by part 567.4 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
(3) does not include golf carts, vehicles specially
designed to carry a disabled person, or vehicles otherwise
registered under section 32.299 of the Louisiana State
statutes.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, 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 rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
2406, the SHARE Act, which would allow hunters better access to and
from hunting areas in the Kisatchie National Forest in northern
Louisiana.
The Louisiana Legislature passed House Bill 581 by Louisiana
Representative James Armes in 2015. This new State law would allow
municipalities to designate certain local roads for use by utility
terrain vehicles, also known as UTVs or side-by-sides. These are not to
be confused with ATVs, or all-terrain vehicles. They are larger, weigh
more, seat multiple passengers, and are often equipped with safety
features like roll cages, seatbelts, and enclosed cabs.
My amendment would build on the Louisiana law to allow seamless
access from these designated local roads into hunting areas within
Kisatchie National Forest. The size of these vehicles makes them more
difficult to transport when compared with ATVs. The ever-increasing
list of features for UTVs makes them very attractive to hunters in
order to recover game and transport supplies and equipment.
This amendment would allow the Secretary of the Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries to nominate roads that would be opened in the
Kisatchie Forest travel plan, unless the Chief of the Forest Service
determined that such an opening would pose an unacceptable safety risk.
If so, the Forest Service would have to publish a justification in the
Federal Register as to why the road could not be opened.
I believe my amendment strikes the right balance of public safety and
hunter access, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Abraham), my good friend.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, Dr. Fleming, for
introducing this very important amendment. He and I both know that
hunting is a major part of Louisiana's heritage and culture. In
Louisiana, hunters themselves are usually the best steward of our
environment.
This amendment would give authority to the Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to nominate roads that could be
open for utility terrain vehicles in the Kisatchie National Forest.
Like Dr. Fleming said, these vehicles have a minimum footprint and
are much safer than our traditional ATVs. They are often used by
hunters to recover game and carry supplies and equipment in and out.
For far too long, they have been prohibited from sharing municipal
roads with other users.
Dr. Fleming's amendment would simply make Federal law more consistent
with existing State laws of Louisiana where these UTVs are commonly
used in a safe and responsible manner. This would allow hunters greater
access to roads within the Kisatchie Forest travel plan.
If the Chief of the Forest Service determined that opening a road to
UTVs would pose an unacceptable safety risk, then they would have the
authority to override this nomination. However, they would be required
to publish their justification in the Federal Register. This is
important to ensure transparency and accountability in the Federal
decisionmaking process.
The Kisatchie National Forest is one of Louisiana's national
treasures. The citizens of Louisiana should not be unnecessarily
limited in how they can use this beautiful public space.
I urge my colleagues to support Dr. Fleming's amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to be debating two doctors
on one amendment.
I do think that one of the dilemmas here is that this amendment, like
so much of H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act, continues the essential idea that
we should be turning over decisions that have been made at the Federal
Government level by the National Park Service, by the Bureau of Land
Management, and by the Forest Service to State governments and even to
local governments.
This is not a debate on UTVs. I respect that automobiles and all
kinds of transportation continue to evolve. Rather, it is the idea that
we are setting a damaging precedent with regard to our conservation
laws and regulations that again and again we are saying that, rather
than taking a national perspective, we are turning to the local folks
to decide what works best for the country.
This amendment allows the State of Louisiana, not the Forest Service
charged with managing the Kisatchie National Forest for the benefit of
the American people, to determine where and whether it is permissible
to chase down deer with motorized vehicles. These are thoughtful rules
established through an open, public process. They seek to balance
multiple uses and prevent abuses in our national forests.
The fact that this amendment focuses on off-road vehicles brings to
mind the illegal 2014 ATV ride through Recapture Canyon in Utah. That
is the last thing we want to happen in Kisatchie National Forest.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and the precedent that
it would set.

[[Page H974]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say in rebuttal to my
good friend that it is very interesting the radical environmental lobby
wants to set aside the forest for the enjoyment of humans. The only
problem is they cut off all access through their lobbying power by
humans to this valuable land, like Kisatchie National Forest.
If we are going to have a national forest set side for the American
people, let the American people enjoy it. As such, they can't get in
there without some type of vehicle. If they have game, they can't get
the game out unless they have some type of vehicle.
As for the Forest Service, yes, of course, the Forest Service opens
for public comment, but they still do what they want to do anyway. That
is the whole problem.
It is time that we allow the American people to step forward and
speak in favor of their lifestyles, particularly the hunter lifestyle,
the ``Sportsman's Paradise'' lifestyle that we enjoy in Louisiana.
Mr. WITTMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLEMING. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to close and say
let's think about the American people, and let's give the American
people access to the valuable and beautiful land that we have here in
this Nation.
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.

{time} 1030

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Griffith

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end the following:

TITLE XVII--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION

SEC. 1701. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS OR
AMMUNITION.

(a) In General.--Section 926A of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms or
ammunition

``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of any law, rule, or
regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof:
``(1) A person who is not prohibited by this chapter from
possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm or
ammunition shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any
lawful purpose from any place where the person may lawfully
possess, carry, or transport the firearm to any other such
place if, during the transportation, the firearm is unloaded,
and--
``(A) if the transportation is by motor vehicle, the
firearm is not directly accessible from the passenger
compartment of the vehicle, and, if the vehicle is without a
compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the
firearm is in a locked container other than the glove
compartment or console, or is secured by a secure gun storage
or safety device; or
``(B) if the transportation is by other means, the firearm
is in a locked container or secured by a secure gun storage
or safety device.
``(2) A person who is not prohibited by this chapter from
possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm or
ammunition shall be entitled to transport ammunition for any
lawful purpose from any place where the person may lawfully
possess, carry, or transport the ammunition, to any other
such place if, during the transportation, the ammunition is
not loaded into a firearm, and--
``(A) if the transportation is by motor vehicle, the
ammunition is not directly accessible from the passenger
compartment of the vehicle, and, if the vehicle is without a
compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the
ammunition is in a locked container other than the glove
compartment or console; or
``(B) if the transportation is by other means, the
ammunition is in a locked container.
``(b) In subsection (a), the term `transport' includes
staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food,
fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment,
and any other activity incidental to the transport, but does
not include transportation--
``(1) with the intent to commit a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that involves the
use or threatened use of force against another; or
``(2) with knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe, that
such a crime is to be committed in the course of, or arising
from, the transportation.
``(c)(1) A person who is transporting a firearm or
ammunition may not be arrested or otherwise detained for
violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or
any political subdivision thereof related to the possession,
transportation, or carrying of firearms, unless there is
probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a
manner not provided for in subsection (a).
``(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a
criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of
proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the
person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsection
(a).
``(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a
defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the
prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney's fee.
``(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege,
or immunity secured by this section, section 926B or 926C,
under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may
bring an action in any appropriate court against any other
person, including a State or political subdivision thereof,
who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for
damages and other appropriate relief.
``(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an
action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other
relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable
attorney's fee.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended in the item relating to section 926A by
striking ``firearms'' and inserting ``firearms or
ammunition''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, this is a civil liberties amendment. It
clarifies and strengthens existing Federal law.
The amendment is necessary, unfortunately, because while the
underlying law protects a traveler who is transporting a firearm under
the Federal regulations that the firearm has to be locked in a proper
container and out of the reach of the person if he is in a car, et
cetera, in one's traveling from State A to State B, sometimes on the
way from State A, where the gun is lawful, to State C, where the gun is
lawful, one must pass through State B, where the gun may or may not be
lawful.
What we have found is that, notwithstanding the fact that it is
lawful in State A and is lawful in State C and is protected by Federal
law while being transported, some State and local governments have
decided that they are not going to follow the Federal law, and they end
up arresting the otherwise law-abiding traveler. We have examples of
this. It is not just that they are out and are necessarily looking for
the traveler, but there are circumstances that occur.
One example that happens fairly frequently is that an airline
passenger has done everything he is supposed to have done in that he
has followed all of the security rules. Then, for reasons beyond his
control, his flight in State B is missed. So he has traveled lawfully
and he has checked his gun lawfully, he has done everything he is
supposed to have done, but when he gets to the layover terminal, his
flight is either already gone or it has been canceled.
In one case in particular, the gentleman was told ``you need to go a
hotel. Take your bags. Come back the next morning.'' When he went back
the next morning, he was arrested by State law enforcement individuals
because his gun was not legal, notwithstanding the fact that he had
done everything he was supposed to have done.
In another very tragic situation, a gentleman was traveling from New
Jersey to South Carolina. He was a veteran, so he stopped off in
Washington, D.C., at Walter Reed, to see one of his doctors. He was
lawfully transporting the firearm under Federal law and he was
arrested.
Now, while most of these cases end up getting worked out either as a
misdemeanor or by some other arrangement, it is still a great
impediment on the traveler to use the Federal law lawfully.

[[Page H975]]

This amendment says if that happens, if one is stopped by the State
or the local government, that the prosecutor in that State or local
area must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt that this individual
was not following the Federal law. It sounds like a pretty reasonable
American principle.
If it is determined that the traveler was lawful and was actually
arrested and has to go to court to defend himself, the court will award
attorneys' fees to that individual.
We are just trying to make him whole. We are not paying him for the
time he served in jail. We are not paying him for the fact that his
vacation plans or his travel plans were disrupted. We are just saying
that there ought to be something that tells the local and State
governments that you ought not do this again or you are going to pay
this gentleman or this gentlewoman her attorneys' fees.
To me, that is taking care of civil liberties and is making sure that
the people who are following the law are not wrongfully arrested
without their having any recourse. I see this as a civil liberties
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would weaken current law,
undermine State laws concerning the carrying of firearms, and harm the
efforts of law enforcement to take action against illegal firearms
trafficking.
Current law applies only to the transportation of a firearm in a
motor vehicle. This bill would expand current law to allow a person to
transport a gun outside a motor vehicle so long as the firearm is
unloaded and locked in a container or is secured with a safety device.
This would allow a person to walk down the street with an unloaded gun
as long as the gun had a trigger lock on it, regardless of the State's
laws on carrying guns in public.
This amendment would also allow guns on trains, cable cars, and
trollies so long as the guns are unloaded and locked, regardless of
State or local laws. This is because trains, cable cars, and trollies
are not considered to be motor vehicles under the applicable Federal
definition. Current Federal law gives State governments the authority
over firearms in these forms of transportation, but the Griffith
amendment would remove that authority.
The proposed amendment would also have a negative impact on our law
enforcement officers' ability to enforce our gun laws. Specifically,
this amendment would make it more difficult for officers to investigate
suspected gun traffickers and people who illegally carry weapons.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Police
Foundation.

Statement of the Police Foundation Regarding Proposed Amendment to the
Sportsman's Bill (HR 2406), February 25, 2016

The Police Foundation expresses its grave concerns with a
proposed amendment to the Sportsman's Bill (HR 2406), by
Congressman Morgan Griffith from Virginia, which will have a
chilling effect on enforcement of illegal gun possession and
other gun crimes. We strongly oppose the amendment's
provision that could make law enforcement agencies liable for
investigative stops and detentions of armed subjects.
Further, the proposed amendment will drastically undermine
states' concealed carry licensing laws. States must be able
to determine their own concealed carry statutes and
regulations that fit the values and enhance the safety of
their communities and constituents.
At a time when many cities and counties have just witnessed
2015 come to an end with increased homicides and non-fatal
shootings, Congress should strengthen, not weaken enforcement
of our nation's gun laws.
We call on Members of Congress to support law enforcement
officers as they perform the most dangerous job of
confronting shooters and other armed criminals, and to uphold
state and local efforts to make communities safer.
We urge Members of Congress to oppose the proposed
amendment.

Mr. BEYER. The letter expresses the Police Foundation's grave
concerns with this amendment. They write that this amendment ``will
have a chilling effect on the enforcement of illegal gun possession and
other crimes.''
Why would Congress narrow the limited set of enforcement tools our
police officers currently have to pursue suspected gun traffickers?
The Griffith amendment subjects a police officer to a personal
lawsuit when he or she detains or arrests someone whom the officer
reasonably believed at the time of detainment was illegally trafficking
or was carrying a firearm.
We must respect our officers' ability to use discretion, albeit
limited, when determining if gun trafficking is occurring; so
subjecting them to personal lawsuits when they are simply trying to do
their jobs to protect us seems a little reckless. These brave men and
women should not be afraid to carry out their investigative duties due
to the fear of being sued.
For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman brought up the dilemma
that this amendment would pose for law enforcement. It would,
shockingly, actually, impose individual penalties on law enforcement
officers who are just trying to do their jobs but who might mistakenly
detain someone in connection with his possession of a firearm if he
were transporting it in a way that is protected under this amendment.
This is going to have a chilling effect on law enforcement's ability
to protect Americans from gun trafficking, to make us safer at a time
when there are more guns in the hands of more people than ever before,
when we have more accidents, when we are experiencing a tragic gun
violence epidemic.
I am also concerned that this amendment goes a little further than
just being a narrow cleanup of the anecdotal stories we heard about
travelers who were inconvenienced or detained. As I read the amendment,
it not only would allow a person to walk down the street with an
unloaded gun, as long as that gun had a trigger lock on it--regardless
of State law, regardless of any local rules that may be in effect--it
would allow one to take that gun onto trains, cable cars, and trollies
even if local jurisdictions prohibited that. Again, so long as the gun
had a trigger lock in place.
Now, in my district we had a tragic incident a couple of years ago in
which a young teenager had a toy AK-47, and law enforcement believed
that it was an actual gun that was threatening members of that
community. They fired shots that took that young man's life. Imagine
the dilemma, whether intended or unintended, as a consequence of this
bill, and people could suddenly go into parks or even onto public
transportation with real AK-47s.
What kind of dilemma would law enforcement face?
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I am really
surprised that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't
supporting this civil liberties amendment. Clearly, they have
misinterpreted the amendment.
First of all, it only applies if somebody is lawfully transporting a
gun--where it is lawful in State A to another State where it is lawful.
If you are going to be on a trolly car or on a cable car, you have to
be transporting that gun from one State to another and it has to have
been lawful to begin with and lawful at the terminis. It is only in the
interim that that would be an issue.
I would say to the gentleman that this is not about any kind of
personal lawsuits against law enforcement officers. It says the court
shall award attorneys' fees against the local government or the State
that is prosecuting the individual. I would also say to the gentleman
that it is only for wrongful arrest.
I practiced criminal law for 28 years. There is a huge difference
between detention, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have alleged this bill would affect, and arrest. This bill does not do
one single thing. They are simply mistaken on detention. It doesn't do
anything. If you want to

[[Page H976]]

stop somebody, if you want to investigate, he may miss his flight.
Arrest means one has been placed into custody, has been taken down to
the station, has been booked, and is having to post bond.
That is what this bill deals with. When someone is wrongfully
arrested, when he has been following the Federal law, he should, in
fact, have his attorneys' fees restored to him. It is reasonable
attorneys' fees. It is not whatever--the sky and the Moon--the attorney
might ask for. A court determines if they are reasonable attorneys'
fees.
This is just a small measure to make sure that when somebody makes a
mistake and a local government goes forward with a prosecution, that
you get some of that back. We are not paying you for being in jail. We
are not paying you for being arrested. We are not paying you for having
your rights taken.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we are
certainly not objecting to reasonable attorneys' fees and to making
people whole. It is the idea that law enforcement officers can be held
personally responsible and can be, actually, personally sued for doing
their jobs that we object to.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) very
much. I sit on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman who is the proponent of
the legislation that, first of all, we have a responsibility to keep
law and order; we have a responsibility to protect the Second
Amendment; and we have a responsibility to law enforcement officers.
Tragically, in the backdrop of this debate was an individual who
secured guns and killed and slaughtered people just last night. We want
to make sure that we are safe and that we are dealing with issues that
are important to protecting our law enforcement.
First of all, this amendment is unnecessary. Current Federal law
already entitles a person to transport a firearm from one place to
another so long as the firearm is unloaded and the needs of the
firearms or any ammunition being transported is not readily accessible
or directly accessible from the passenger compartment, et cetera.
This amendment intends to make a Federal open carry law. This open
carry law should be one of the State's determinations. It happens to
exist in the State that I am from. It should not be placed upon the
entire country by Federal law.
Why?
Because whether a gun is supposed to be locked or has a trigger on
it, it still poses a threat, possibly, to our law enforcement.
I oppose this amendment because it is unnecessary and because it puts
our law enforcement persons in danger.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and acknowledge the
shooting in Kansas as evidence that we don't need more guns being
carried back and forth on the streets.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Hardy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Heck), I offer amendment No. 13.
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 XVII--GOOD SAMARITAN SEARCH AND RECOVERY

SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Good Samaritan Search and
Recovery Act''.

SEC. 1702. EXPEDITED ACCESS TO CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible.--The term ``eligible'', with respect to an
organization or individual, means that the organization or
individual, respectively, is--
(A) acting in a not-for-profit capacity; and
(B) composed entirely of members who, at the time of the
good Samaritan search-and-recovery mission, have attained the
age of majority under the law of the State where the mission
takes place.
(2) Good samaritan search-and-recovery mission.--The term
``good Samaritan search-and-recovery mission'' means a search
conducted by an eligible organization or individual for 1 or
more missing individuals believed to be deceased at the time
that the search is initiated.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as
applicable.
(b) Process.--
(1) In general.--Each Secretary shall develop and implement
a process to expedite access to Federal land under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for eligible
organizations and individuals to request access to Federal
land to conduct good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions.
(2) Inclusions.--The process developed and implemented
under this subsection shall include provisions to clarify
that--
(A) an eligible organization or individual granted access
under this section--
(i) shall be acting for private purposes; and
(ii) shall not be considered to be a Federal volunteer;
(B) an eligible organization or individual conducting a
good Samaritan search-and-recovery mission under this section
shall not be considered to be a volunteer under section
102301(c) of title 54, United States Code;
(C) chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Federal Tort Claims Act''), shall not apply to
an eligible organization or individual carrying out a
privately requested good Samaritan search-and-recovery
mission under this section; and
(D) an eligible organization or entity who conducts a good
Samaritan search-and-recovery mission under this section
shall serve without pay from the Federal Government for such
service.
(c) Release of Federal Government From Liability.--The
Secretary shall not require an eligible organization or
individual to have liability insurance as a condition of
accessing Federal land under this section, if the eligible
organization or individual--
(1) acknowledges and consents, in writing, to the
provisions described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of
subsection (b)(2); and
(2) signs a waiver releasing the Federal Government from
all liability relating to the access granted under this
section and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the United
States from any claims or lawsuits arising from any conduct
by the eligible organization or individual on Federal land.
(d) Approval and Denial of Requests.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall notify an eligible
organization or individual of the approval or denial of a
request by the eligible organization or individual to carry
out a good Samaritan search-and-recovery mission under this
section by not later than 48 hours after the request is made.
(2) Denials.--If the Secretary denies a request from an
eligible organization or individual to carry out a good
Samaritan search-and-recovery mission under this section, the
Secretary shall notify the eligible organization or
individual of--
(A) the reason for the denial of the request; and
(B) any actions that the eligible organization or
individual can take to meet the requirements for the request
to be approved.
(e) Partnerships.--Each Secretary shall develop search-and-
recovery-focused partnerships with search-and-recovery
organizations--
(1) to coordinate good Samaritan search-and-recovery
missions on Federal land under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Secretary; and
(2) to expedite and accelerate good Samaritan search-and-
recovery mission efforts for missing individuals on Federal
land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(f) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall submit to
Congress a joint report describing--
(1) plans to develop partnerships described in subsection
(e)(1); and
(2) efforts carried out to expedite and accelerate good
Samaritan search-and-recovery mission efforts for missing
individuals on Federal land under the administrative
jurisdiction of each Secretary pursuant to subsection (e)(2).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Hardy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a critically important
amendment being offered by my friend and colleague from Nevada,
Congressman Joe Heck.
This amendment would ensure the inclusion of the text of H.R. 373,
the Good

[[Page H977]]

Samaritan Search and Recovery Act of 2015, in the underlying bill.
The Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act, of which I was an
original cosponsor, is a commonsense, bipartisan solution to tearing
down the bureaucratic roadblocks that are preventing grieving families
from achieving closure when their loved ones go missing on Federal
lands.

{time} 1045

This issue was first brought to light by the separate, but tragically
similar, cases in Las Vegas of the taxi driver Keith Goldberg and Air
Force Staff Sergeant Antonio Tucker.
Mr. Goldberg and Staff Sergeant Tucker were missing and presumed
dead, with their remains believed to have been missing somewhere within
the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
In both cases, the local, experienced search and recovery groups
volunteered their time and resources to help locate the remains of the
missing individuals.
Unfortunately, due to the unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles from the
Federal Government, the group volunteering to help locate and recover
Mr. Goldberg's remains was denied access to the Park Service land to
conduct its search for 15 months and the group volunteering to help
locate the remains of Staff Sergeant Tucker were denied access for 10
months, needlessly delaying the closure their families sought. This is
absolutely unacceptable, and it must change. This amendment will do
that.
Once these bureaucratic hurdles were finally cleared and the Good
Samaritan search and recovery groups were allowed access to the park,
Mr. Goldberg's remains were recovered in less than 2 hours and the
remains of Staff Sergeant Tucker were recovered in less than 2 days.
Dr. Heck, a former member of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department's search and rescue team, originally introduced this
legislation because he could no longer stomach the cases where
unnecessary red tape continued to get in the way of providing closure
for families faced with tragically similar circumstances.
During the 113th Congress, a similar bill passed the House with a
unanimous vote of 394-0, further proving its bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take action on the measure. Last
April the House again passed this important legislation 413-0.
Mr. Chairman, those are two votes on this Good Samaritan bill
totaling 807 in favor and none opposed. Given our current political
climate, it just doesn't get more bipartisan than that.
We cannot afford to let the Senate's inaction get in the way of
achieving this critical fix that will provide closure for so many
Americans. We must pass this amendment so that future families won't
have to suffer the mental anguish and heartache that the families of
Keith Goldberg and Antonio Tucker did.
In closing, I again thank my colleague from Nevada for offering the
amendment that will truly help the people we serve.
I also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Natural Resources
Committee for all their diligent work in the Good Samaritan Search and
Recovery Act.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada. I urge
my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Hardy).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Ribble

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. RIBBLE. 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 __--GRAY WOLVES

SEC. _01. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING GRAY WOLVES IN
THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES.

Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
reissue the final rule published on December 28, 2011 (76
Fed. Reg. 81666), without regard to any other provision of
statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule.
Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial review.

SEC. _02. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING GRAY WOLVES IN
WYOMING.

Before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
reissue the final rule published on September 10, 2012 (77
Fed. Reg. 55530), without regard to any other provision of
statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule.
Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial review.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am proud today to offer the only bipartisan amendment that has been
found in order on this bill. I am really proud, after working in
Congress now for three terms, that Members from both the majority and
the minority have come together in an effort to protect the Endangered
Species Act.
This amendment speaks directly to the issue of gray wolves protected
by the Endangered Species Act in the western Great Lakes region of
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, as well as Wyoming.
There was a period of time that the gray wolves had become almost
extinct in these areas and the scientists at the Fish and Wildlife
Service decided to protect them from extinction by listing the gray
wolf as an endangered species.
That work was so successful that, in 2011, the Fish and Wildlife
Service decided to de-list the gray wolf. In fact, there are now
hundreds of mating pairs in these regions. However, those wolves have
created some problems.
In spite of this remarkable recovery, in spite of how robust this is,
a surprise Federal court ruling took place in 2014 and invalidated the
scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service who were given the
responsibility under law of the Endangered Species Act to manage this
population.
So my amendment is simple. It just simply restates and delists the
wolves in these four States only. That is what my amendment does. It
protects the Endangered Species Act and the scientists who work at the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, that was extraordinary. We are here to
protect the Endangered Species Act by preempting litigation for
violations of the Endangered Species Act. That is pretty extraordinary.
I mean, we are not only having Groundhog Day here--because this bill
has passed three times before and failed to receive any consideration
in the Senate and the same thing will happen yet again with this bill--
but now we are wandering into Alice in Wonderland. That is
extraordinary.
Yes, the Fish and Wildlife Service did delist in the States the
gentleman mentioned, but they required that each of those States adopt
scientifically based management plans.
Well, the scientifically based management plan in Wyoming is open
season on wolves. Let's try and exterminate them again. There has also
been a tremendous loss of population in a number of the other States
that the gentleman referred to.
So a judge has found that they violated the Endangered Species Act
because they didn't adopt scientifically based management plans.
You know, these are horrible predators, as you can see here. They are
very, very fierce. They are, of course, responsible for huge, huge,
unbelievable--big, as Donald Trump would say, really big--depredation
on cattle.
Let's look at the causes for loss of cattle. Well, let's see.
Seventy-four percent died because of health issues--perhaps we need a
little education on husbandry for some of our ranchers--7.8 percent
died due to weather--well,

[[Page H978]]

we are not having climate change; so, there is nothing we can do about
the weather. We don't want to mess with that--2.7 percent is due to
other predators, mostly coyotes.
Animal damage control, now renamed very aptly Wildlife Services, has
killed well over a million coyotes. And guess what. There are more
coyotes now, more distributed than when they started trying to
exterminate them.
The wolves are in a much more fragile place. They are responsible for
0.9 percent of the depredation, and they are at critical population
levels. They were required to keep 10 breeding pairs in Wyoming. Boy,
that is a lot of wolves in a State the size of Wyoming, 10 breeding
pairs.
Well, they violated that, and that is why the judge made this ruling.
Now we are being told we are here to protect the Endangered Species
Act.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record, in light of the
gentleman from Oregon's comments, a letter from the Fish and Wildlife
Service supporting this amendment.

U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service,

Bloomington, Minnesota, January 30, 2015.
Hon. Reid J. Ribble,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Ribble: Thank you for your January 16,
2015, letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
Director Dan Ashe and to me regarding the Service's views on
the status of gray wolf populations in the states of
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as well as our view on
state management of gray wolves since the Western Great Lakes
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was removed from Endangered
Species Act protection in 2011. An identical letter is being
sent to each member who signed the original correspondence.
Director Ashe has asked that I respond on his behalf.
Most of the information provided below is taken from the
2014 report on post-delisting status of gray wolves in the
Western Great Lakes DPS (enclosed). Enclosed, you will also
see our gray wolf post-delisting monitoring plan for the
Western Great Lakes DPS.
Our post-delisting monitoring plan used the recovery goals
in the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf to
identify the population characteristics that needed
monitoring as well as to identify circumstances that could
prompt closer scrutiny by the Service and potential
consideration of relisting. Those circumstances include the
following:
A decline that reduces the combined Wisconsin-Michigan
(excluding Isle Royale and the Lower Peninsula) late winter
wolf population estimate to 200 or fewer wolves;
A decline that brings either the Wisconsin or the Michigan
(excluding Isle Royale and the Lower Peninsula) wolf estimate
to 100 or fewer wolves; and,
A decline that brings the Minnesota winter wolf population
point estimate or lower end of the 90% confidence interval to
1500 or fewer wolves.
Since delisting in 2011 through the winter of 2013-2014,
numbers of wolves in the three states remained well above
established recovery goals (Table 1). Population surveys are
conducted by the three states in late winter after hunting
and trapping seasons and before the birth of pups in the
spring. Thus, the surveys are conducted at a time that the
wolf population is at its lowest level during the annual
cycle.

TABLE 1.--RECENT POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR GRAY WOLVES IN MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, AND WISCONSIN. INCLUDED IS THE
LAST POPULATION ESTIMATE COMPLETED BEFORE THE WOLF WAS DELISTED AND TWO ESTIMATES COMPLETED AFTER DELISTING.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Wolf Population Estimates
State --------------------------------------------------------
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan............................................... 687 602-714 594-678
Minnesota.............................................. 2,921 (2007-2008) 2,211 22,423
Wisconsin.............................................. 815-880 809-834 660-689
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differences in the trends of wolf numbers among the three
states are likely due to different levels of human-caused
mortality (Table 2). Also, it is suspected that a decline in
white-tailed deer may have played a role in the initial
decline of Minnesota wolves after delisting (Table 1).
Regardless of the different trends, the wolf population
remains well above the original recovery goals for the entire
population and within the individual states. In Michigan and
Wisconsin, there were at least 594 and 660 wolves,
respectively, in early 2014 and the number of wolves in
Minnesota appears to have stabilized at around 2400 wolves
(Table 1).

TABLE 2.--WOLF DEATHS CAUSED BY TWO SOURCES OF HUMAN CAUSED MORTALITY, CONTROL OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL DEPREDATION AND HARVEST BY HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS, IN
THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT DURING THE PERIOD WHEN WOLVES IN THE REGION WERE NOT LISTED AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED, 2012-2014.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014
State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depredation Harvest Total Depredation Harvest Total Depredation Harvest Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan........................... 17 No season 17 10 23 33 13 No season 13
Minnesota.......................... 295 413 708 127 238 365 211 272 483
Wisconsin.......................... 76 117 193 65 257 322 35 154 189
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The relationship between human-caused mortality and wolf
population numbers is well established and evident in the
population trends among the three states. In Wisconsin, 14%
of the population was harvested by hunters and trappers in
2012, yet no change in wolf numbers was detected in the
subsequent survey completed during late winter of 2012-2013
(Tables 1 and 2). In 2013, 32% of the population was
harvested and the wolf population declined by about 18%. In
Minnesota, the decline of the population between 2007-2008
and 2012-2013 was 24 to 25% and was likely caused by hunter/
trapper harvest, depredation control, and a 23% decline in
deer between 2007 and 2012. In response to the wolf
population decline, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources reduced wolf harvest levels and the population
appears to have stabilized. In Michigan, human-caused
mortality of wolves by hunters and for depredation control
has been relatively minor after delisting and the Michigan
wolf population has shown no significant change (Tables 1 and
2).
Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin have managed wolves
according to state wolf management plans that the Service
evaluated as part of our decision to delist the species in
2011. Our evaluation led to a determination that each state's
plan provided for the long-term conservation of a viable wolf
population in the region. The state management plans and our
evaluation acknowledged that the states could carry out
regulated harvests after delisting. In the final rule to
delist the Western Great Lakes DPS we made the following
comment:
``Unregulated killing was the primary threat to the species
historically. The State management plans that will be
implemented after delisting provide protection from
unregulated killing. It is not the Service's position to
decide whether a regulated harvest in and of itself is an
appropriate management tool. Instead the Service is concerned
with whether the use of that tool might reduce the number of
wolves in such a way that they would again be considered a
threatened or endangered species under the Act. A regulated
harvest of wolves can be carried out in a manner that would
not threaten their continued existence.''
Since delisting, the states have demonstrated effective
management to ensure wolf populations remain viable.
We value the cooperation and contributions that state and
tribal biologists have made to ensure that the Service could
monitor the post-delisting status of wolf populations. Staff
from each Department of Natural Resources has been highly
responsive to our requests for information, even after the
wolf was relisted. We believe that each state has
demonstrated an ability to respond to the challenges that are
unique to conservation of wolves in the wild. Moreover, they
have done so in ways that demonstrate their intent to
maintain the wolf as a viable component of their ecosystems.
Thank you for your concerns regarding the wolf and its
status. If you have any further questions or concerns, please
feel free to contact Mr. Peter Fasbender, Field Supervisor
for our Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office.
Sincerely,
Thomas O. Melius,
Regional Director.
Hon. Reid J. Ribble,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
House of Representatives Washington, DC.
Hon. Dan Benishek,
House of Representatives Washington, DC.
Megan Kelhart,
Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Mr. Peter Fasbender,
Field Supervisor, Twin Cities Ecological Services Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

[[Page H979]]

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, I am just stunned by the misrepresentations
of the previous opponent of this bill. Let me show you what is going on
really.
Here is the habitat of the wolf. Clearly, it is not endangered. On
the red list, it is considered a species of least concern.
Let's look at the habitat of the Shiras moose. This is Wyoming,
Montana, Idaho, and going into Montana. The Shiras moose is in rapid
decline, and it is because of this critter.
Now, the gentleman from Oregon showed you little puppies as if they
do no damage. Look at this moose. This Shiras moose is surrounded by
wolves, and they are attacking that baby.
The reason this is such a big issue is they are wiping out the
babies. So there is no longer a breeding population of moose or elk in
major areas of this country, including the Lolo elk herd in Montana and
the moose around the Greater Yellowstone area in Wyoming.
It is these baby moose they are after. They surround the mother. Two
of them distract the mother. The rest of them take the babies.
There are not enough breeding females left. So when the older females
age out of the population, there are no breeding females to take their
place. It is the wildlife that is getting decimated, Mr. Chairman. This
is a wildlife issue.
To save the moose, I strongly encourage the adoption of this
amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, actually, I think wolves are part of
wildlife. I heard a mention of Montana Yellowstone.
Actually, in Yellowstone, the rivers were in horrible, horrible
condition because all of the browse that was being done by elk and
other critters right down into the streams. Fish populations were
crashing. The water was too hot and lost all of the riparian cover.
Now you find we have restored balance because there are wolves there
and the elk and others stay in herds and they stay in the forest. They
don't go down and stomp around in the streams.
Natural balance is sometimes problematic. The gentlewoman showed a
picture of a moose under attack. Fairly natural.
I don't believe that that is the total cause for the problems with
the moose population. In fact, those moose are still hunted. So I guess
we need to save the moose from the wolves so the hunters can hunt the
moose.
So I am on the side of the wolves on this one. I think most American
people would like to see this iconic predator restore balance.
Coyotes are three times the predators on cattle. If you want to
protect cattle, guess what. Wolves kill coyotes. But when you don't
have wolves, the coyotes spread and take over.
The gentlewoman showed Russia and China and then Canada and a few
other areas on a map. Those aren't gray wolf populations in many of
those areas.
I don't know what Siberian wolves look like, but I don't think that--
since the land bridge went away, whenever that was, they haven't been
coming to the United States. And I don't know about Chinese wolves. I
don't know anything at all about Chinese wolves.
I do know that wolves here are in a fragile state of recovery. If you
hunt them back to extinction, which is what basically is going on in
Wyoming, or you hunt below the levels for sustainable populations, as
some of these other States are doing with trophy hunting and that, then
we are going to be back where we started with the wolves being
extinguished in the lower 48 and more coyotes.
Maybe you will have some more moose. Maybe the elk can go back in the
streams in Yellowstone. They probably miss thrashing around in there
and eating all the riparian cover.
I think that this amendment, to substitute political science for
sound science and for Congress to preempt litigation with this, is
somewhat unprecedented, to say the least.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have not mentioned protecting cattle at
all. Maybe some of my colleagues will. I have only mentioned trying to
protect the Endangered Species Act.

{time} 1100

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Benishek).
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
this amendment and the time.
I rise today in support of this amendment for the SHARE Act. This
amendment directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue a rule
to delist the gray wolf in Wyoming and the Great Lakes region, which
includes my State of Michigan.
In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the wolf
recovered in Wyoming and the Great Lakes and would remain recovered
under federally approved State management plans.
I can speak from personal experience about the impact that wolves and
their recovery are having on my district. This photo next to me is of a
constituent in my district. One of his calves was attacked and eaten by
a wolf, which may not mean much to the opponents of this, but it means
pretty much to small farmers in Michigan. It isn't just the cattle.
As the number of wolves have increased well beyond the recommended
number for recovery, we have seen drastic declines in the deer
population in northern Michigan. My camp has no deer. The economy of
the whole area is in collapse because there is no hunting anymore.
I understand that some are opposed to ever delisting the wolf, but as
numbers continue to expand, we must consider the impact the wolf has on
the landscape as a whole. This amendment does not change the Endangered
Species Act. It simply allows for the following of true sound science.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RIBBLE. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. BENISHEK. The gray wolf was recovered in the Great Lakes and
ready for delisting and State management.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and close.
About two decades ago, there were only 15 gray wolves in the western
Great Lakes States. Today the gray wolf population exceeds 3,700, and
yet we are to act as if some judge someplace decides that that is not
enough, that the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming in
and of themselves cannot manage these populations in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife's actions and with their scientific help.
This is not unprecedented, as the minority has mentioned. This
exactly has happened with Montana and Idaho before.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Ribble,
Lummis, Benishek, and Peterson amendment.
Managing gray wolves continues to be a huge problem in my state of
Minnesota. In spite of the overwhelming evidence by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service that the gray wolf population in the Western Great
Lakes States has not only recovered, but thrived in the past few years,
a single judge in Washington, D.C. unilaterally decided that gray
wolves somehow need federal protection. In 2014, Minnesota had nearly
2,500 gray wolves, by far the highest number in any state besides
Alaska.
This has put the farmers and ranchers in my district in a very
difficult situation. They are now forced to choose between following
the law or protecting their livestock and livelihoods. Our amendment
simply reinstates Fish and Wildlife's original decision to delist gray
wolves in the Western Great Lakes States from Endangered Species Act
protections and allows the agency to relist gray wolves if science
supports it. I believe this amendment is scientific and fair.
This is a real problem that needs immediate solution. The states--not
the federal government--are best equipped to manage gray wolf
populations and provide assistance when problem wolves harass my
constituent's livelihoods.
I urge Members to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H980]]

the gentleman from Wisconsin will be postponed.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end the following:

TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. _01. PROHIBITION ON ISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE.

The Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
shall not issue a final rule that--
(1) succeeds the proposed rule entitled ``Non-Subsistence
Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure
Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'' (81 Fed.
Reg. 887 (January 8, 2016)); or
(2) is substantially similar to that proposed rule.

SEC. _02. WITHDRAWAL OF EXISTING RULE REGARDING HUNTING AND
TRAPPING IN ALASKA.

The Director of the National Park Service shall withdraw
the final rule entitled ``Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in
National Preserves'' (80 Fed. Reg. 64325 (October 23, 2015))
by not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and shall not issue a rule that is substantially
similar to that rule.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a relatively
complicated amendment in the sense that a lot of people don't have any
history of the Alaska National Lands Act.
My amendment prohibits the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
from issuing a final ruling that would seize authority from the State
of Alaska's Alaska Fish and Game to manage fish and game on all lands.
That was under ANILCA.
My amendment also withdraws the existing National Park Service rule
that interferes with State wildlife management authority under the
National Preserve Lands of Alaska, agreed to by this Congress. The
Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, ANILCA, passed by
Congress, signed into law in 1980, protects the ability of the State of
Alaska to manage wildlife across the State on State, private, and
Federal lands.
As Alaska's lone Representative and someone who was intimately
involved in the process of producing ANILCA, an agreement with my
colleagues, it is my conclusion that the proposed rule set forth by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service is in clear violation of
Federal law.
The scope of the proposed Fish and Wildlife Service rule is enormous.
There are 76.8 million acres of wildlife refuges in Alaska, an amount
of land about the size of four Michigans, at least two or three
Virginias, and on top of that there is 20 million acres of national
preserves in Alaska, a total of 100 million acres in the State of
Alaska.
But when that agreement was set out, we were to retain management of
fish and game on all lands, and that is in the law. Very frankly, my
colleagues, this is a regulatory overreach by this administration,
promoted by this administration, breaking the law.
Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service asserts their actions are allowed
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. However, as the
original sponsor of that act, I can knowingly and affirmatively state
that the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal goes beyond the original
intent of my legislation that was passed by this House.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act specifically
states that ANILCA takes priority over any other conflicts regarding
refuge lands in the State of Alaska. I find it somewhat concerning that
the Fish and Wildlife would cite a law which forbids them from taking
such actions and then say the justification is because of the law. It
is not. This is a special interest pressuring group that says that Fish
and Wildlife will take away the States' rights.
If you believe in States' rights, you will take and support this
amendment that I am offering. If you believe in the Federal Government
only, not the United States of America, the United States as the
Federal Government, you will oppose this amendment.
I am asking my colleagues to think about what is occurring here: the
overreach of this Federal Government that has taken away the rights of
States and is continuing to try to do it.
I urge the passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The gentlewoman from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with nothing but the deepest respect for
my colleague from Alaska--and I even want to tell him, I was afraid to
stand up without getting clearance from one of your other good friends,
the resident hunter in my household--but this amendment is yet another
attempt to allow a State to override perfectly reasonable conservation
policies on U.S. public lands.
This amendment would prevent the Park Service from managing wildlife
on these lands, even though they are owned by the American taxpayers,
not by the State of Alaska.
Of particular concern is Alaska's policy of eradicating keystone
predator species. Because of this policy, allowing wolves and bears to
seek refuge on these Park Service lands may be the only way to keep
them from requiring protection under the Endangered Species Act.
I want to be clear about what this rule does and does not do. It does
not deny access to hunting. This rule does not reduce hunting in the
national preserves in Alaska, period. In fact, it keeps existing
hunting rules in place.
What the rule does do is ban some of the most inhumane and
ecologically damaging forms of hunting, things that a true sportsman
would never do anyway. Let me share examples. This rule would prevent
spotlighting black bears and shooting them and their cubs, babies in
their den. It would prevent using bait to attract and kill bears. It
would prevent killing wolves during their denning season. Again,
babies. And it would prevent the killing of caribou from a motorboat
while under power. Yes, if a deer is swimming and you go after it in a
boat, it would prevent that caribou that is swimming from being shot.
If you think people should be allowed to do any of these what I think
are unsportsmanlike things, then this amendment is for you. But if you
are like most Americans, you will be deeply disturbed by these
practices and will join me in opposing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I remind my good friend from
Michigan--and she is a dear friend and her husband is a dear friend of
mine, he voted for my bill, ANILCA--it is the law. It was an agreement
that the State would manage.
By the way, it is against the law to shoot species of animals from a
boat. This doesn't change that. It changes the management concept. It
is overreach by the Federal Government. It is overreach by Fish and
Wildlife. They would not be fish and wildlife managers anymore. They
are becoming the preservationist group without the management ability
in the State that lives there.
I am not changing anything other than just the fact that the State
still has authority under ANILCA. He voted for it. I am suggesting,
respectfully, if you want the Federal Government to manage everything,
100 million acres that we agreed that we could manage in the ANILCA
law, the State, if you want the government to take that all over, let's
just give the government all the land. Let's stop having free land.
You talk about being public land, the public that lives there, they
want the State to manage the land. So far they have done a great job.
As far as shooting bears, that is against the law in the State of
Alaska.
Now, why are we saying that?
Because it is emotionally acceptable. So let's stick to the facts.
This is a fact.
Do you want the administration, the government to manage all lands or
do

[[Page H981]]

you want to follow the law that we passed in this Congress?
The law.
We have a tendency here to forget what happened, this Congress. Look
at the history of ANILCA. It was a compromise. A lot of it I objected
to, but we passed it in this House and it was accepted by the State
with the understanding that the State would manage fish and game and
not the Federal Government.
By the way, the Park Service in the State of Alaska, the Fish and
Wildlife in the State of Alaska, in the beginning the BLM are not
partners anymore. It is all run from Washington, D.C.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing but the utmost respect for
my colleague from Alaska. I actually think that he and my spouse share
the same sportsmanship policies of hunting, but this rule just
simplifies and updates procedures for closing an area or restricting an
activity. It updates obsolete subsistence regulations and it prohibits
very specifically some of these things that I spoke about. I think we
will respectfully disagree.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. DINGELL. 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 Alaska will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Huffman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end the following:

TITLE__--PRESERVATION OF ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN AS WILDERNESS

SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Udall-Eisenhower Arctic
Wilderness Act''.

SEC. _02. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF POLICY.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Americans cherish the continued existence of expansive,
unspoiled wilderness ecosystems and wildlife found on their
public lands, and feel a strong moral responsibility to
protect this wilderness heritage as an enduring resource to
bequeath undisturbed to future generations of Americans.
(2) It is widely believed by ecologists, wildlife
scientists, public land specialists, and other experts that
the wilderness ecosystem centered around and dependent upon
the Arctic coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, Alaska, represents the very epitome of a primeval
wilderness ecosystem and constitutes the greatest wilderness
area and diversity of wildlife habitats of its kind in the
United States.
(3) President Dwight D. Eisenhower initiated protection of
the wilderness values of the Arctic coastal plain in 1960
when he set aside 8,900,000 acres establishing the Arctic
National Wildlife Range expressly ``for the purpose of
preserving unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational
values''.
(4) In 1980, when the Congress acted to strengthen the
protective management of the Eisenhower-designated area with
the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (Public Law 96-487), Representative Morris
K. Udall led the effort to more than double the size of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and extend statutory
wilderness protection to most of the original area.
(5) Before the enactment of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act, the House of Representatives twice
passed legislation that would have protected the entire
Eisenhower-designated area as wilderness, including the
Arctic coastal plain.
(6) A majority of Americans have supported and continue to
support preserving and protecting the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, including the Arctic coastal plain, from any
industrial development and consider oil and gas exploration
and development in particular to be incompatible with the
purposes for which this incomparable wilderness ecosystem has
been set aside.
(7) When the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was
established in 1980 by paragraph (2) of section 303 of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Public Law
96-487; 94 Stat. 2390; 16 U.S.C. 668dd note), subparagraph
(B)(iii) of such paragraph specifically stated that one of
the purposes for which the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is
established and managed would be to provide the opportunity
for continued subsistence uses by local residents, and,
therefore, the lands designated as wilderness within the
Refuge, including the area designated by this title, are and
will continue to be managed consistent with such
subparagraph.
(8) Canada has taken action to preserve those portions of
the wilderness ecosystem of the Arctic that exist on its side
of the international border and provides strong legal
protection for the habitat of the Porcupine River caribou
herd that migrates annually through both countries to calve
on the Arctic coastal plain.
(9) The extension of full wilderness protection for the
Arctic coastal plain within the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge will still leave most of the North Slope of Alaska
available for the development of energy resources, which will
allow Alaska to continue to contribute significantly to
meeting the energy needs of the United States without
despoiling the unique Arctic coastal plain of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
(b) Statement of Policy.--The Congress hereby declares that
it is the policy of the United States--
(1) to honor the decades of bipartisan efforts that have
increasingly protected the great wilderness ecosystem of the
Arctic coastal plain;
(2) to sustain this natural treasure for the current
generation of Americans; and
(3) to do everything possible to protect and preserve this
magnificent natural ecosystem so that it may be bequeathed in
its unspoiled natural condition to future generations of
Americans.

SEC. _03. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL WILDERNESS, ARCTIC
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, ALASKA.

(a) Inclusion of Arctic Coastal Plain.--In furtherance of
the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), an area within
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Alaska
comprising approximately 1,559,538 acres, as generally
depicted on a map entitled ``Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge--1002 Area Alternative E--Wilderness Designation'' and
dated October 28, 1991, is hereby designated as wilderness
and, therefore, as a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. The map referred to in this subsection
shall be available for inspection in the offices of the
Secretary of the Interior.
(b) Administration.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
administer the area designated as wilderness by subsection
(a) in accordance with the Wilderness Act as part of the
wilderness area already in existence within the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge as of the date of the enactment of
this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, there are some iconic places in this
country that define America. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in
northeastern Alaska is one of those places. It is a one-of-a-kind
treasure.
Today, for the first time, the full House of Representatives has an
opportunity to cast a vote to permanently preserve and protect this
special place.
Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), my Republican
friend, has joined me in introducing the underlying bill that is
incorporated in this amendment. Together, we are carrying the torch
that prior generations of bipartisan leaders have carried. They have
understood that America's Arctic is a uniquely wild place.
It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who first established
Federal protections for the coastal plain in 1960 and Democratic
Chairman Mo Udall who expanded the refuge, doubling its size in 1980.
I had the great privilege to visit the Arctic Refuge last summer. I
camped in the wilderness and I came away with an increased sense of
urgency to permanently protect the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain.
Allowing drilling in the Arctic Refuge would irreparably disrupt a
very important ecosystem. It would impact the way of life for the
Gwich'in people and forever destroy one of our Nation's last great wild
places. That is why I am offering this amendment to the SHARE Act, to
ask that we protect this American wilderness once and for all.
My amendment would designate the threatened biological heart of the
refuge, the coastal plain, as wilderness, to finally recognize the
intrinsic value of this land and what it holds to ensure that it
remains pristine for generations to come.
Congress has been debating whether to drill in this area for nearly
three decades. As our public lands suffer from the effects of climate
change, most significantly in Alaska, I believe time is of the essence.
Now, the Arctic Refuge is wild, it is spectacular, and most
importantly, it

[[Page H982]]

is owned by all Americans, not by the oil industry. That is why
Congressman Fitzpatrick and I introduced our bipartisan legislation to
permanently designate it as wilderness, following the bipartisan legacy
that this legislation has enjoyed for decades.

{time} 1115

Arctic Refuge support has always been diverse and nationwide. During
the recent public comment period for the draft conservation plan, the
Fish and Wildlife Service received nearly 1 million comments in support
of wilderness for the Arctic Refuge and in opposition to oil and gas
exploration and development. Alaskans showed overwhelming support at
public hearings and sent thousands of comments, including from 100
businesses across the State from Kaktovik to Juneau.
This legislation has been introduced in every Congress for almost
three decades and has never come to a full vote on the House floor. I
am grateful that, in January of 2015, for the first time, the
Department of the Interior released a conservation plan for the Arctic
Refuge that recommended wilderness protection--a recommendation that
was transmitted to Congress.
Only Congress can act to designate the coastal plain as wilderness.
Now is the time to seize that historic opportunity.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I always admired my friend from
California, who doesn't know squat about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
That is the truth. He may have camped out in it, but he didn't camp out
in the area which we would like to drill for oil, which this Congress
set aside for that purpose.
By the way, we did pass opening ANWR 11 times. This Congress did it.
And it got stopped in the Senate every time but one. Bill Clinton,
bless his heart, vetoed it.
We have 18 billion barrels of oil--that is a minimum estimate--74
miles away from an existing pipeline on the coastal plain.
You say, well, we don't need the oil now. I heard that in 1960. We
didn't need the oil, but it went all the way up to $4.50 for gasoline
at the pump.
This is a reserve set aside by Scoop Jackson--a Democrat--myself, and
Ted Stevens so it would be potentially there for development when
Congress acts. You want to include this as a wilderness area in the
bill on the behalf and behest of a group of people that really don't
understand this.
You say Alaska supports your amendment? In that case, I won't be back
here next year. Don't applaud. Don't keep that in mind. I have been
running, now, longer than anybody in this House except for one other
man. Apparently, Alaska does support this ANWR provision.
It is Federal oil. It is not our oil. We have infrastructure in place
right now that can be used to move that oil if and when it is needed.
I am glad the gentleman said only the Congress can designate this,
because your Fish and Wildlife Service recommended it all be
wilderness--another act of this administration.
I happen to agree, very frankly, that the Congress will vote some
day.
And, by the way, if you want to get rid of me, take a vote to open it
up, and I might retire. But until that time, I am staying here, because
it is right for this Nation.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would forbid development of one of the
most promising and untapped oilfields in the world. I have to ask: How
is the cause of American energy independence advanced by forbidding
development of America's own vast energy resources? We are talking
about reserves that are larger than the reserves in the entire nation
of Mexico or Norway, whom we currently depend on for importing oil.
The gentleman from California is right: that land is owned by the
American people. So is the oil under it. That means about $300 billion
of revenues into the Federal Treasury. That is about $2,400 for every
family in this country.
The proposed development of the Arctic oil requires about 2,000 acres
out of 19 million acres of the wildlife reserve. That is one-one
hundredth of 1 percent of that land area. That is how extreme this
measure is.
It would sacrifice American prosperity. It would sacrifice oil
reserves larger than those in all of Mexico. It would sacrifice
revenues to the Treasury of $2,400 for every family to place off limits
a tiny part of the frozen Arctic tundra.
If you want to know why our economy is stagnating, if you want to
know why our country is going bankrupt, you need only look to measures
like the amendment before us.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the senior
legislator from Alaska, I have no doubt that he knows and understands
the coastal plain and that area far better than I do and that anyone
else in this body does, but I do know this: every Member of this body--
in fact, every American--has a stake in protecting the coastal plain of
the Arctic wilderness.
Migratory birds from the coastal plain go to all 49 of the other
States. We are connected, whether we know it or not, with this
critical, vital ecosystem in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
The whole point of wilderness is to protect areas that we actually
may never camp out in, that we may never see, but that are,
nevertheless, of such great intrinsic value that they deserve this
special protection. That is what this is all about.
As to the argument that we need lots of new oil extraction and
development in the Arctic, I would just point out that right next door
to the Arctic Refuge is an enormous, essentially equal-sized area that
we set aside for that purpose. It is called the National Petroleum
Reserve. The oil industry has not seen fit to develop in that area, nor
does it look like they will any time soon, with oil hovering around $30
a barrel and this week the Saudis saying they may be taking it all the
way down to $20 a barrel.
Right now, because of its overdependence on the oil economy, the
State of Alaska is hemorrhaging. Oil revenues are down by half. The
permanent fund is hemorrhaging. Meanwhile, the tourist economy, which
is built around preserving and protecting natural resources, is growing
and will soon eclipse oil revenues in terms of the economic impact.
Let's look to the future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I always listen to these well-
written arguments by the Sierra Club and others that like to take this
Nation to its knees, which is a reality.
We talk about the petroleum reserve set-aside. It was a reserve set
aside for use by this Nation. And they are drilling. They are drilling
today. ConocoPhillips is going in.
Ironically, for some reason, the sales that were put up by this
administration are not where they wanted to drill. I have an old
saying--and people laugh at me when I say it: you don't hunt rabbits on
a pool table just because it is green. All right. You don't drill oil
if it is not there.
Ironically, this administration, bless their hearts, put up sales
where there was nothing there. It was like the pool table. So why would
the oil company drill? They can't and will not.
And I always ask them: Why don't you ask the oil companies where they
would like to drill? We can't do that because someone has asked us to
preserve that great area. The other area is just as pretty, but it
doesn't have any oil.
This is an attempt to take 18 billion barrels of oil away from the
American people and an attempt by special interest groups to make sure
this country cannot grow.
Oil will be here forever. Let's keep it. Let's oppose this amendment.
It is mischievous. It is wrong for this Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H983]]

the gentleman from California will be postponed.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in House Report 114-429.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end the following:

TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. __. PERIODIC INCREASE IN PRICE OF MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING
AND CONSERVATION STAMP TO ACCOUNT FOR
INFLATION.

Section 2 of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation
Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``The Postal'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d),
the Postal''; and
(2) by adding at the end of the following:
``(d) Increase in Price of Stamp.--
``(1) Increase authorized.--The Secretary may, after notice
and public comment, increase the price of each stamp sold
under this section by an amount not to exceed $10 for a
hunting year if the Secretary determines the increase--
``(A) is commensurate with the level of inflation as
determined by the adjustments in the Consumer Price Index
since the last increase; and
``(B) is approved unanimously by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission.
``(2) Effective date of increase.--An increase in price
under paragraph (1) shall take effect--
``(A) no earlier than 2 years after the effective date of
the last increase in price; and
``(B) no later than January 1 of the calendar year
preceding the hunting year.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would simply
allow the price of the Federal duck stamp to be changed by the rate of
inflation.
Inflation is something that each and every one of us cannot avoid.
Just as inflation decreases the value of a dollar for all Americans
over time, it also steadily decreases the real value of a duck stamp.
That is very unfortunate, because the duck stamp is a highly effective
conservation program.
The revenue from the Federal duck stamp that all hunters must buy
each year as a permit to hunt waterfowl is used to preserve wetlands
and maintain a sustainable population for hunters and bird watchers
alike.
Moreover, the preservation of wetland habitat from the duck stamp, in
conjunction with the National Wildlife Refuge System, has reversed the
decline in waterfowl populations across this country. Also, not
insignificant, co-benefits are that these wetlands buffer our
communities from flooding, saving billions of dollars in damages, and
they help filter water and recharge, Mr. Chair, aquifers that are vital
to our groundwater supplies.
The duck stamp works. Ninety-eight cents of every dollar spent on a
duck stamp goes back to preserving wildlife habitat. To date, more than
$800 million from duck stamp sales have been spent on the preservation
of over 6 million acres of habitat. The duck stamp is a true user fee,
where all the funds are spent to benefit the fee payer.
I hope this is an amendment that the chairman can support as a
commonsense update to address the reality of inflation that inevitably
will erode the ability of the duck stamps and the National Wildlife
Refuge System to continue this highly successful conservation program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognize for 5
minutes.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman from
California that the duck stamp program is a great program. It does a
tremendous amount of good. We all know the wetlands that are preserved
with that. We all know it is a great opportunity for the hunting
community and the conservation community to come together.
As you know, last year, the duck stamp fee was increased, for the
first time in 24 years, from $15 to $25. I, myself, am an avid duck
hunter. I buy multiple duck stamps because I firmly believe in the
program.
The increase last year we believe will yield about $119 million over
10 years; but we also know, looking historically, that when you put
these increases in fees, for the first couple of years the revenue
drops because people that would buy them without the need don't do
that, and then they come back to actually purchasing it.
So we understand that. That is why we have asked the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to look specifically at how the implementation of this
fee is going to play out and how the costs associated with the program
are, so that we can understand how to best manage this, as you said, to
get the most dollars to wetlands conservation.
With the idea of now going to an inflationary factor right on the
heels of a $10 increase without getting, from the Fish and Wildlife
Service, what the impacts are going to be so we can best maximize the
dollars, I think, is premature.
I serve as a member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission,
and still, I believe the responsibility for any type of increases
should still be on the backs of all Members of Congress, not just the
four that are on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.
I applaud the gentleman's effort to draw attention to the duck stamp
program. We all understand the good it does, but I would argue that
this inflationary increase measure is premature, especially in the face
of a $10 increase last year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose
this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that we can't come
together today to support such a simple fix to, as Mr. Wittman pointed
out, such a highly successful program. I think the operative word that
you have said is that it is premature at this point, not that you
really oppose the ability to protect our waterfowl populations to keep
them vibrant and make sure that duck hunters have ducks to hunt. I
think we all agree upon that.
I also just want to say that the one issue is just to make clear that
we are not talking about automatically increasing inflation. All we are
saying is that when inflation does come--which will erode this
program--that there is a process in place that the Secretary of the
Interior will make a recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission. That Commission has to support it. At most, it would have
been a 35-cent increase.

{time} 1130

But I hear what you are saying about that, and if you will work with
me as we go forward to see when is the best time that we can work on
this, I will ask to withdraw this amendment.
Can I get a commitment that we will work together?
Mr. WITTMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Yes, I will tell the gentleman from California that we
will indeed work with you in looking at the future of the duck stamp
program, making sure that it is managed in the proper way, making sure
that, indeed, is getting dollars to where they need to go, and that is
to preserve those critical wetlands.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-429 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.

[[Page H984]]

Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Smith of Missouri.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Griffith of Virginia.
Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Ribble of Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Young of Alaska.
Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Huffman of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Beyer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Beyer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161,
noes 244, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 92]

AYES--161

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth

NOES--244

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--28

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)

{time} 1151

Messrs. MULLIN, COLLINS of New York, REICHERT, NEUGEBAUER, DENT, and
BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DELANEY, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs. POLIQUIN, COHEN, CROWLEY, and
GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 92 on H.R. 2406, I
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 242, not voting 32, as follows:

[Roll No. 93]

AYES--159

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meng
Moore
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond

[[Page H985]]

Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--242

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--32

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Carter (TX)
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Cummings
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Larson (CT)
Lewis
McNerney
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Westmoreland

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1154

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Beyer

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 94]

AYES--169

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--28

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Bost
Brown (FL)
Butterfield

[[Page H986]]

Carter (TX)
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1158

Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 95]

AYES--232

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--173

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--28

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Lummis
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1201

Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina changed her vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Griffith

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Griffith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 96]

AYES--239

[[Page H987]]

Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--165

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (NY)
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--29

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Davis, Rodney
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Lummis
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1204

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Ribble

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ribble) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 97]

AYES--232

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--171

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Nadler
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--30

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rokita
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)
Westmoreland
Young (IN)

[[Page H988]]

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1207

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 97, there was an
error in the transaction of my electronic vote. My office and the Clerk
are looking into the matter. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 98]

AYES--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--169

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--28

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Diaz-Balart
Edwards
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1210

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Huffman

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Huffman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 99]

AYES--176

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)

[[Page H989]]

Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--227

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--30

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Diaz-Balart
Edwards
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, David
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland

{time} 1214

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). The question is on the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2406) to
protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing,
and shooting, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution
619, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. LAWRENCE. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. Lawrence moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2406 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE XVII--PROTECTING WATER SUPPLY FOR PUBLIC RECREATION AND SAFE
DRINKING

SEC. 1701. FINDINGS.

Congress finds as follows:
(1) Every year in the United States, an estimated 4,000
tons of lead are lost in ponds and streams as fishing tackle,
such as fishing lures and sinkers.
(2) The lead content of fishing tackle has the potential to
contaminate water supplies.

SEC. 1702. PROTECTING WATER SUPPLY FOR PUBLIC RECREATION AND
SAFE DRINKING.

Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2603) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Protecting Water Supply for Public Recreation and
Safe Drinking.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, any manufacturer or processor
of an article containing a chemical substance or mixture that
has the potential to contaminate water supplies used for
public recreation or drinking water provided by a public
water system shall generate and provide to all applicable
Federal and State agencies responsible for protecting health
or the environment data sufficient to understand the risks
such article would present to human health and the
environment, including studies of the cancer-causing effects,
reproductive toxicity, and neurotoxicity of the chemical
substance or mixture contained in the article. Exposing the
public or the environment to such article without generating
such studies shall be considered a prohibited act under this
Act.''.

Mrs. LAWRENCE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, my amendment will ensure that our public
water systems and waterways which are used for public recreation will
be protected from an estimated 4,000 tons of lead that are
contaminating our ponds and streams from lost fishing tackle.
My amendment will ensure that all manufacturers of products that
contain any type of substance with the potential to contaminate our
water systems provide to Federal and State agencies the research so we
may understand the risks to human health and the environment.
Members of Congress, the manmade water crisis in Flint has shown us
the devastating effects of having contaminated water sources. The
100,000 residents of Flint lost a basic human right: access to clean
water.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our drinking
water infrastructure has a D grade. That is A, B, C, D. According to
the American Society of Civil Engineers, $126 billion will be needed to
restore water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 4 years,
which leaves a funding gap of $84 billion.
It is significant to note that the American public overwhelmingly
supports investment in our Nation's water infrastructure, as drinking
water is not a luxury. It is a basic need for life.
A poll released just a week ago by the Value of Water Coalition
showed that 95 percent of Americans--and that means on both sides of
the aisle--believe it is important to invest in water infrastructure.
I regret to say that we in Congress have kicked the can down the road
year after year when it comes to investing in our infrastructure.
I know that mayors and Governors and Members of this Congress have
sounded the warning sign over and over again about the possibility of a
disaster, but we never imagined that it

[[Page H990]]

would come in the form of the mass poisoning of an entire American
city.
The children of Flint, the parents, other citizens of Flint, and the
citizens of these United States need Congress, not one side of the
aisle or the other, to act so that we don't see another generation of
children potentially suffer from the negative effects of lead
poisoning.
I urge all Members of this 114th Session of the United States
Congress to support this motion to recommit on H.R. 2406.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, the minority's motion to recommit is an
issue about chemicals in drinking water. Chemicals in drinking water is
an issue that was addressed in the Toxic Substances Control Act, which
was before this House.
There were multiple opportunities to have a debate about that and to
determine what we do to address that issue. That bill passed out of the
House. It is now in a preconference committee with the Senate. That was
the opportunity.
This bill, the SHARE Act, is a package of commonsense bills that will
increase opportunities for hunters, recreational shooters, and anglers;
will eliminate unneeded regulatory impediments; will safeguard against
new regulations that impede outdoor sporting activities; and will
protect Second Amendment rights. It does not pertain to chemicals in
drinking water.
Outdoor sporting activities, including hunting, fishing, and
recreational shooting, are deeply ingrained in the fabric of America's
culture and heritage. Values that are instilled by partaking in these
activities are passed down from generation to generation and play a
significant part in the lives of millions of Americans.
This important legislation will sustain America's rich hunting and
fishing traditions, will improve access to our public lands for
responsible outdoor sporting activities, and will help to ensure that
the current and future generations of sportsmen and -women are able to
enjoy the sporting activities this country holds dear.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this important legislation and to defeat the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 165,
nays 238, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 100]

YEAS--165

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--238

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--30

Amodei
Barletta
Becerra
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Clyburn
Cook
Cooper
Diaz-Balart
Edwards
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Green, Gene
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Kelly (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Meeks
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Pompeo
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, David
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland

{time} 1229

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 161, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 101]

AYES--242

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin

[[Page H991]]

Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--161

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (NY)
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--30

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Stefanik) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining.

{time} 1235

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Personal Explanation

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, February 23;
Wednesday, February 24; Thursday, February 25; and Friday, February 26,
2016, I was on medical leave while recovering from hip replacement
surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been
present, I would have voted:
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 83 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 4408, as amended).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 84 (on the motion to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 4402, as amended).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 85 (on ordering the previous question on
H. Res. 618).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 86 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res.
618).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 87 (on agreeing to the Cartwright
Amendment to H.R. 3624).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 88 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3624,
with instructions).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 89 (on passage of H.R. 3624).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 90 (on ordering the previous question on
H. Res. 619).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 91 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res.
619).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 92 (on agreeing to the Beyer Amendment
to H.R. 2406).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 93 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee
Amendment to H.R. 2406).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 94 (on agreeing to the Beyer Amendment
to H.R. 2406).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 95 (on agreeing to the Smith of Missouri
Amendment to H.R. 2406).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 96 (on agreeing to the Griffith Amendment
to H.R. 2406).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 97 (on agreeing to the Ribble Amendment
to H.R. 2406).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 98 (on agreeing to the Young of Alaska
Amendment to H.R. 2406).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 99 (on agreeing to the Huffman Amendment
to H.R. 2406).
``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 100 (on the motion to recommit H.R.
2406, with instructions).
``No'' on rollcall vote No. 101 (on passage of H.R. 2406).

Personal Explanation

Mr. COOK. Madam Speaker, on February 26, 2016, I was unavoidably
absent. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:
On rollcall No. 92, 93, 94, 99, and 100, I would have voted ``no.''
On rollcall No. 95, 96, 97, 98, and 101, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________

H.Amdt.961 to H.R.2406114th Congress (2015-2016)

Amendment

Description

Text (1)

Actions (2)

Amendment Text: H.Amdt.961 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (02/26/2016)

H.Amdt.961 to H.R.2406114th Congress (2015-2016)

Amendment

Description

Text (1)

Actions (2)

Amendment Text: H.Amdt.961 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Shown Here:Amendment as Offered (02/26/2016)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (02/26/2016)