the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234. the nays are 175. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. auto would members please take their conversations from the floor. clear the well. clear the aisles.

the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. to continue on for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pnding which i will yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i further ask that all members

may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: the resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of 4089, a bill to protect the traditional rights of american sportsmen to fish and hunt on public lands, free from undo any bureaucratic restrictions and unwarranted and any irrational limitation and provides for one hour of general debate equally controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. mr. speaker, i am actually pleased to stand before this house today and support this rule as well as the underlying legislation. far too often, decisions are made to placate certain political special interest groups who are farahway from the locations they seek to dominate and -- faraway from the locations they seek to dominate and control and far away from taxpayers which the impact will occur are ignored. this asks for our consideration

. too often local and state considerations are not taken into account. too often there are inconsistencies with the the public domain where the b.l.m. and parks and wildlife are different. this bill tries to bring some consistency and though i don't know how much debate will occur on this particular issue, it is about hunting and fishing on public lands. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. govecombove thank you, mr. speaker. and -- mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, technically this rule allows for consideration of h.r. 4089,

the sportsmen's heritage act, a patchwork quilt of four different bills that ease restrictions on guns and hunting. this bill, aesopped to the gun lobby, deserves to be defeated by the house. but that's not the most egregious part of this rule. that's because of the language -- that's because of the language slipped into this rule at the last minute by the rules committee, language that sets the budget numbers for the next fiscal year. language that, mr. speaker, once again ends the medicare guarantee for america's seniors. that's right, mr. speaker, last night the republicans in the rules committee pulled a switcher-radio just before our vote -- switcher-roux just before our vote on the rule. these provisions would effectively enact the ryan budget and require that congress use it as a framework for the rest of the year. the irony is by adopting this

language now the republican leadership is admitting that their awful budget resolution is not going anywhere and this so-called deeming resolution is the only way forward. it's ironic because they are using parliamentary stricks and sleight of hand to pretend that their budget has the force of law. where are the tea party folks who used to be so outrage at this kind of abuse of regular order? why aren't they yelling or screaming? there hasn't been a single committee debate or markup on this language. these provisions undercut the budget control act and worst of all these provisions end the medicare guarantee again. the american people get it. they said no to the ryan budget last year. they don't want medicare to turn into a voucher program. they don't want to see their health care rationed or cut. they don't want washington politicians trying to pull the

rug out from underneath them after years of contributing to this important program. we made a promise to america's seniors, mr. speaker, and once again the republican leadership is breaking that promise. mr. speaker, it's bad enough that the republican leadership doesn't want to focus on getting americans back to work. it's bad enough they are pushing cuts that will make hunger in america worse. that's evidence by the fact that tomorrow in the agriculture committee we're going to be asked to vote on a package to cut $33 billion out of the snap program, increasing hunger in america. but there is insistence on continuing to push for an end to medicare is indescribable. now, i'm sure my republican friends will deny they want to end medicare for america's seniors. they'll say their idea is bipartisan even though it's not. they'll say that the -- it is exaggerating. yes, senator wyden co-sponsored

legislation with congressman ryan but he said he doesn't support the provisions in the ryan budget with regard to medicare. i'm sure someone will once again try to twist his words around, but they are very clear to me, mr. speaker, this plan is not bipartisan. this is wholly owned by the republicans and the republican leadership. and i know my friends will say this doesn't change medicare. that, too, is a misrepresentation of their plan. but don't take my word for it. let me read directly from the aarp's letter. by creating a support system for future medicare beneficiaries it will increase costs for beneficiaries while removing medicare's promise of secure health coverage. end of quote. aarp goes on to say, let me quote again, the premium support method described in the proposal, unlike private plan options that currently exist in

medicare, would likely price out traditional medicare as a viable option. thus rendering the choice of traditional medicare as a false promise. the proposal also leaves open the possibility for private plans to tailor their plans to healthy beneficiaries, again, putting traditional medicare at risk, end quote. finally, aarp says, converting medicare to a series of private options would undermine the market power of medicare and could lead to higher costs to seniors. end of quote. it shatters the myth that the ryan medicare plan wouldn't harm current or future seniors. mr. speaker, democrats oppose the ryan budget because it's the wrong plan for america. and the deeming language included in this rule would force the ryan budget on this house without a direct vote. that's right. there's no up or down vote on this plan. no, the rules simply deems that the ryan budget takes effect despite the lack of a budget

resolution conference report. americans want us to focus on jobs and the economy, not on partisan games designed to throw red meat to the right wing -- of the right wing. reject this rule and reject the ryan medicare plan. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. as was stated on the point of order, we are talking when we talk about deeming, a term obviously most americans have never heard, a procedural issue. we have had the policy debate and we will have in the future the policy debate. this point is about procedure. so, mr. speaker, if you allow me, i'd actually like to go back to the topic of the debate we have today and the topic of the rule and indeed the topic of the bill dealing with hunting and fishing. that is the issue before us in the underlying bill. hunting and fishing. and it is significant because

what this bill asks for those who are sportsmen in america is that hunting and fishing be recognized as a historic and traditional recreation activity. and that our bureaucracy back here in washington will support and protect those hunting and fishing rights although we do not -- they prioritize them. what that means in simple language is if the agencies back here in the bureaucracies of washington decide that some area of public land should be closed to public recreation they have to have a darn good reason to do it. in fact, the bill lists it, public safety, national security or compliance with state laws or regulations and only then and there and indeed in addition to have that criteria, unlike other elements when we deal with public lands issues, there is a specific time limit on when these decisions have to be made and if indeed the agency will not

make those decisions in a timely fashion, reverts back to what it was and these activity may go forward. do we need do this? of course we do. one bureau of land management official implied that recreational hunting should be eliminated on public lands because in his words, the urbanites freak out when they hear the sound of shots being done on public lands. i suggest to you that is not a logical reason on why hunting and fishing rights should be protected or be prohibited and therefore you need this language in here to make sure those hunting and fishing rights are indeed protected. there will be one amendment that will come forward later on that tells about recreational shooting. i want to remind this body that under the rules that we have that includes such things as re-enactment. that if ever the bureau of land management or the national parks service has a

re-enactment, if that amendment were to be passed, you couldn't actually shoot a gun because it will violate some of the rules here. it says congress has banned e.p.a. from making rules or regulations dealing with lead ammunition or flying equipment. and yet once again we have a nuisance lawsuit that was filed on march of this particular year petitioning the e.p.a. to make a decision to try and ban this particular process. there is no scientific evidence for that petition. but we don't know necessarily what some of the agencies in here making bureaucratic regulations, in effect making a legislative decision within the body of an executive a agency, will do. therefore this legislation once again makes it crystal clear that congress has spoken on this issue, congress has primesy on this issue and congress' decision on this issue should inkeyed be respected. -- should indeed be rpted.

this bill stops red tape by the bureaucracy that have stopped legal hunting trophies from coming into this country. i emphasize the word legal hunting trophy. this bill is poured by every sportsman's group imaginable. some people would say this is a second amendment issue. i don't necessarily want to go that far. because our second amendment is about an individual right of self-defense. hunting is not the purview of the second amendment when it was adopted. but indeed the ability of people to bear weapons on public lands, to do hunting and fishing when it is allowable, is important and it is important for us to step forward and say, it should be protected. in essence what this bill does is say to those who like to recreate on public land, and that recreation includes hunting and fishing, that is a traditional, that is an historic activity and that should be maintained. and nep of those efforts by special interest groups to try

and curtail that will be rejected by this congress. that's why this bill is sheer. and that's why this bill is significant. and that's why this bill is important and that's why this bill should be passed, including the rule to start forward in that process. with, that mr. speaker, we will talk about other elements. i'm sure that will come up. but we can do that at a later time and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i can see why my good friend from utah are so desperate not to talk about the demon -- deem and pass language which is included in this rule. i would remind him and i remind others on the other side that back in march of 2010 speaker john boehner said that the deem and pass strategy was, quote, one of the most outrageous things i've seen since i've been in congress, end quote. that's what the current speaker of the house said back in march of 2010 and now astonishingly

everybody on the other side of the aisle is quiet about that. let me just say this, mr. speaker. this place is becoming an institution where trivial matters get debated passionately. and important ones not at all. my friend from utah is saying this is all about the guns. the gun issue. well, that's the least important part of what this rule does. this rule deems the ryan budget. it basically says that we're going to operate under those very difficult numbers that congressman ryan and the republicans' budget committee has passed and what it means is we're going to end medicare as we know it. that's more important to talk about than guns. what it means is that we're going to force more people into food insecurity and hunger because it's going to result in drastic cuts in food and nutrition programs. that's more important to talk about than guns. the fact of the matter is, this rule undercuts the social safety

net in this country. this rule, if it is passed, and these numbers become what the house operates under i think will destroy the middle class, will force more people -- in the middle into poverty. it undercuts programs in education, it undercuts programs in environmental protection and investments in our infrastructure, aid to cities and towns, helping our police, helping our firefighters. as i said, i cannot say this enough, this ends medicare as we know it. if people want to end medicare, then vote for this rule. because that's exactly what this rule will require. and i think that that's outrageous. there's some things worth fighting for and the protection of medicare is one of those things. at least on our side of the aisle we think is worth fighting for. so please do not be fooled that this is some innocuous rule that would merely bring up a bill dealing with guns. this bill deems the ryan budget basically as pazzed -- passed,

as if gone through the house and the senate, and the numbers we're going to operate under in all of our committees. i think that as the american people paid closer attention to what is happening here, they get more and more outrage by the activities of the republican leadership. this is not what the american people want. they rejected this attempt to undercut medicare last year. they're going to reject it again. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. vote no on this rule. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i appreciate the concerns of some people who do not live in areas that have a vast amount of public lands owned and controlled by the federal government, who don't see the need for some of those situations to be modified, rectified and securitied. for those of us who have -- secured.

for those of us who have the joy of the federal government as an absentee landlord this bill is actually significant, not just another gun bill. it's dealing with ways of life and recreation opportunities that should and ought to be maintained at all times. but, mr. speaker, there is the deeming portion of this that happens to be there. senator mccarthy of minnesota, that name that goes back to my childhood, once gave a wonderful article in which he told people not to -- if you were a senator, not to worry about the rules of the senate because none of the senators know what they are so just go ahead and try what you want to. he also said that if you're a house member, the rules of the house are too complex so just ask the parliamentarian, don't try to learn them. a lot of wisdom in that. because what we have in here in this particular deeming section is a procedural issue. something that must take place according to our rules if we indeed are to go forward with the work of what congress is

supposed to be. unlike the rhetoric that we have heard so far, this is not the debate on the policy issue that has happened in the past. that will come again in the future. this rule is simply about the procedure, if we allow congress to move forward with our work. i have said there is precedence for this. six times in the history of the house, these kind of deeming provisions have been written into the budget. is it good? of course not. no one wants to do it this way. but it has to go forward simply because of the dynamics of the two houses that we have here right now. as i said, this has precedent for it. in 2010 indeed there was another deeming motion that was made here on the floor in resolution 1500 of that particular year. the gentleman from massachusetts was the sponsor of that on the floor as well. in which at that time, under democratic control, we also deemed -- there was a

difference, though, in that deeming at that time. under this time there has been a budget that has gone through the budget committee and that was voted on the budget committee and was debated on the floor and passed on the floor. in 2010 there was no budget that went through a budget committee and did not have a vote and indeed the numbers were only given a day before the actual vote took place under law and at that time in 2010 this house resolution was hereby adopted. we're not doing that this time. what we are simply doing is allowing the process to go forward. allowing the process -- there's two ways of doing that. either we can pass this deeming concept for the house so that the appropriation bills and the authorization bills and the reconciliation bills within their committee can go forward with some kind of stad on what they are doing -- standard on what they are doing. to do so without that is like playing a baseball game without any umpires, without someone there to say what is a ball or a

strike. that's what this concept would do. there's another way of solving the same problem and that's asking our good friends on the other side of this chamber, the senate, to finally pass a budget so that we can work together and move forward. but the senate has refused to pass a budget and now -- in now 1,081 days. 1,081 days the senate has refused to do a budget on their side. and we should not be paralyzed by inaction because of their inaction. 1,081 -- henry xiii married, divorced and beheaded his wife in less time than that. the senate should be willing to move forward and if they did, they passed the budget, we had this conference committee, we could actually move forward in that time. but without that we have to do something else procedural so that our committees can actually pass authorization bills, appropriation bills, reconciliation bills and bring them here to the floor in some kind of order. you have to have a budget if you don't want to have a government

shutdown. you have to have a budget if you want a reconciliation that will solve what secretary panetta says is the see quester meat axe that would help -- sequester meat axe that would happen. the senate refuses to do a budget. i find it surprising that some on the other side are basically arguing not to do anything that would actually lead to shutting down the government or a draconian cut or basically telling us we're not supposed to do our work. that is ridiculous. this is not a great concept. i'm not happy that we're doing this. it would be much better if the senate would do their work and let us work together. or maybe there's a third option. congressman berger of wisconsin back in the 1920's suggested that a constitutional amendment would be patsed -- passed that dissolved the u.s. senate and leave only the house. that is a third option that would solve our problem. and perhaps our friends on the other side would like that option better.

we got to move forward. this is a procedural issue to move us forward with precedent, having been done in the last congress, precedence. i ask that you consider that and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me just say that if this were nothing, my friends on the other side of the aisle would not be hiding this deeming language in a rule dealing with guns. we'd have a straight up or down vote on the floor, on the deeming provision. the fact of the matter is that this rule magically puts the ryan budget into effect and with that -- what that means is an end to medicare as we know it and we're going to fight my friends on the other side of the aisle who want to destroy one of the most important social programs that we have in this country. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and forgiving us all this opportunity to speak about

-- for giving us all this opportunity to speak on what's happening on the floor today. it's happening just as we have returned from two weeks with our constituents, listening to them, talk about poor challenges facing the american people and the key priorities our families, businesses and workers are facing. americans have made it clear over and over again, it is their constant message, we must work together to create jobs and grow our economy. we must preserve these economic security of our seniors, the middle class and small business owners. this is all the backbone of the middle class, the backbone of our democracy. we must protect medicare and not dismantle it. and yet, mr. speaker, our republican colleagues are at it again. not once, not twice, not three times, but now four times are they voting to cut the medicare

guarantee. we must protect medicare. we must enact a budget that reflects our nation's values of fairness and opportunity and puts the american dream in reach for every american. yet house republicans simply refuse to listen to what the american people are saying to us? instead they have decided to pull a stunt here today, a deem and pass, their devastating budget. they know their budget cannot stand the scrutiny of the house, the senate and the rest. so they want to deem and pass it using a procedural trick to pretend that both the house and the senate have signed off on their radical agenda. the american people know better. they know that the republican budget ends the medicare guarantee making seniors pay more to get -- pay more to get less on the way to severing the

medicare guarantee completely. that this budget destroys more than four million jobs in the next two years. destroys jobs. and, three, gives a tax cut of nearly $400,000 to people making more than $1 million per year, protects tax breaks for special interests and big oil, and forces the middle class to foot the bill. ends the medicare guarantee, is a job-killer to the tune of four million jobs, gives over $400,000 in tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year. how can that be a statement of our national values? we also know that the republican budget will undermine medicaid for the elderly and people with disabilities, slash critical investments in education,

education where all innovation springs from, education, the source of america's exetiveness internationally -- competitiveness internationally, education, the source of people reaching their aspirations in life. education, jobs and health care would be slashed. and we know that cuts have to be made and important spending decisions must be made. but you just can't say, let seniors pay more more head a-- medicare, let's not invest in education and the rest while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. so this bill, called a budget bill, breaks the deal, it breaks the debt agreement. it makes matters worse for the deficit. . it breaks the deals struck last summer, abond -- abandoning the firm bipartisan promise to the american people, americans already rejected republican budget plan last year and this year is no different except the

republicans think so, that by bringing it up over and over again, this time by saying, we know it can't pass the senate, so we're just -- we'll just deem it passed in the house. rather than try to fool the american people, the republicans are being called upon to join us today in opposing today's previous question and simply allowing the house to vote. and our measure would say if the republicans contend, and they do, that their bill does not hurt medicare, then let the house go on record and say that our measure would prohibit any plan to eliminate medicare, raise costs, ration care or reduce the benefits for seniors and people with disabilities. by supporting our proposal we could keep the bedrock promise to our seniors after a lifetime of work all americans should be able to retire with degree nit

and security. as members of congress, we -- dignity and security. as members of congress, we have the responsibility to protect medicare for our seniors, to create jobs for our workers, to grow our economy, to build a strong, all-inclusive and thriving middle class. as democrats we are committed to reigniting the american dream, to building ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules and take responsibility. and we want them all to succeed. we just don't want people make over $1 million to climb up their ladder, make over $1 million a year and then pull up the ladder so that no one else can even reach some level of success. we ask our house republican friends to please work together to reach our shared goals, to strengthen families, to secure a future of prosperity for all people in our country. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, to

stop the drive, to deem and pass a measure that would end the medicare guarantee. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i appreciate the former speaker's visit to the floor, and i have comments to make about the verbiage of deem and pass. but before i get there i will yield two minutes to the gentlelady from michigan to actually go back what it's supposed to be about, hunting and fishing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i rise in favor of the legislation and the rule as well. our nation has been blessed with such magnificent natural wonders that provide great enjoyment in fishing and hunting. and it's a great tradition that has defined our nation. unfortunately, far too often, sportsmen are stymied in their efforts to build upon this

great american tradition and heritage because of overzealous bureaucrats and activists who want them to stop hunting and fishing. by passing this act we will make a statement of support for our nation's sportsmen and women -- sports men and women. it states that fishing and hunting and shooting are important activities that create jobs and must continue on public land and requires those that manage the land to make it accessible and holds them accountable. it takes away the power from the bureaucrats to limit the types of ammunition and fishing tackle they have been trying to limit that can be used on public lands and it removes red tape that keeps hunters from bringing home unlimited number of legally taking trophies from canada as well. and today, mr. speaker, we will send a very clear message to american sportsmen and american sportswoman that we are on your side. we value the important role that you play in upholding our national heritage and this great tradition and of america

and the jobs you create through your activities as well, and i would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation and this rule as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: let me just repeat. this rule ends the medicare guarantee as we know it. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. i first of all would like to strongly agree with the previous speakers on our side of the aisle that this is trying to shield the budget, the public, from the full consequences of the budget. we just left the budget committee where we had an opportunity for people to start looking at what is going to happen for us to move forward. and make no mistake, if our

friends on the other side of the aisle thought that this deem and pass was just a little modest thing to do and it was a good idea, no big deal, we would be having the budget discussion here with trumpets blaring. the reason we are not, you saw a moment of cannedor by presidential nominee -- candor by presidential nominee romney about what it's going to deal with housing eliminated or shrunk. talk about the passive tax increases that are going to be necessary on middle america if they're going to give these additional tax increases -- benefits, tax deductions for people who need it least. there's a reason why this is being shuffled through without a full honest debate about the consequences.

i'm hopeful that this falls short, but make no mistake, this is a sad effort to back away from assertions from the republicans that they were going to try and open up the process, be inclusive, engage people in a broad discussion. so we get legislation like this. i listened to my good friend from michigan just sort of passing over. for example, the little item about being able to bring trophies that have been hunted in canada. you know, back up and look at what's happening here. this encourages people to hunt for trophies, polar bears which are threatened and endangers. they know they are not supposed to import it back in the united states. but now these people go out and kill these animals for trophy, for sport. now they're going to be able to bring them here to the united states even though for years it's been inappropriate to do

so. what sort of incentive is this to respect our efforts to protect threatened and endangered species like the polar bear? open up public lands? we're all in favor of being able to use public lands. i come from the west. i'm one of those states where the federal stewardship is over half the land. i represent federal areas in my area, and i represent a lot of people who hunt and fish. i also represent a lot of people who like to hike, people who like the wilderness experience, people who respect efforts to try and manage our forests. and this legislation, if it were enacted, and mercifully it won't, would enable some bureaucrats in washington, d.c. -- may i have an additional minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. blumenauer: to trump local land managers to try and

protect -- for example, in conditions of high fire hazard. we saw forest fires in colorado started by recreational target shooting. now -- of course, our friends on the other side of the aisle aren't concerned about increased global warming, increased drought, extreme weather conditions, but heaven's sake, taking away the local managers to be good stewards of the land, to take away the authority of the e.p.a. to ever deal with appropriate regulations on things like lead in this is just silly. it's not appropriate. it's not good policy, and it's part of an effort to obscure the real efforts that are under way and that has to do with being able to weasel the legislation through. i strongly urge rejection of

the rule and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from oregon for being here. it was exhilarating to hear someone actually talking about the bill before us. unfortunately it was slightly inaccurate as well so if i could make a couple of corrections. the trophy concept that is there is not opening it up with new elements. it is simply saying those trophies that were already legally hunted and denied access to this country can be accessed into this country. it doesn't expand anything. and indeed rather than actually taking away state and local control, one of the provisions of this bill is that the rules will be atuned to state and local laws which means state and local authorities actually have a great deal of authority under this particular bill. they have more authority than a bureaucrat sitting here in washington. but let me go back to what the other people wish to talk about and that is this deeming

concept, again, even though it's one of the provisions and still not the basis of the bill. you know, i was -- i taught debate for almost a dozen years, and i have debate culture when i was younger that said when you are totally lost on an issue, just find an argument and keep drilling it in over and over again and just maybe the judge will vote for you. you heard that happening today. no decision is being made on this procedural vote. we did actually have a debate and vote three weeks ago. that debate was appropriate three weeks ago, and it will be appropriate in the future, but not necessarily. this is a procedural vote on how we move forward. it is not a policy vote on how we move forward. and words do have consequences and meaning. the speaker was kind enough to come in here and say how we're deeming and passing something. i have to take -- we are not

deeming something and passing something. that actually took place in 2010 when speaker pelosi presided over house resolution 1500 which actually deemed and passed something, passed something that had not gone through committee, had not been discussed or voted on by anybody and that was deemed and then passed. what we are talking about here is passing something which happened three weeks ago and now so that we can go forward with a discussion in our committees deeming it simply because the senate once again in over 1,000 days have failed to allow us in the traditional way to move forward. that's why this is a procedural vote. it's not about policy. it's not an effort where you have to pass something to find out what's in it. this is the procedure in which we will go forward on something we have already passed out of committee on something which is in the nature of what is going

forward which has been debated here on the floor and now allow it to be debated voted. this is procedural. this is procedural. >> isn't it the case that in passing this rule we provide the process by which the budget will be implemented in the house of representatives? isn't that the case? mr. bishop: thank you and i appreciate that. i know you're the next speaker and you are going to go over this issue one more time. that's exactly what it is. there has to be a procedure to go forward. but once again, unlike what happened in 2010, we're not pulling the numbers out of thin air. you actually have the chance to debate that earlier in your budget committee and will have the chance to debate that again in the -- on the floor as well as in the committee. and that's the process. it's a process. if you want to go across the rotunda and talk to your friends over on the other side, maybe we wouldn't have to do that. but until they're willing to do something, we have a procedural problem here. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i -- let me -- before i yield to the ranking member of the budget committee, i want to make it clear to everybody who's watching this that this rule is about a lot more than a gun bill. this rule is about how we're going to proceed with the appropriations of the various committees. so we are -- again, if this wasn't so controversial, my republican friends would have brought up this deeming language on its own but instead they are hiding this in this gun bill and they are trying not to talk about what this means. what this means is an enter to the medicare guarantee. among other things. it means an end to the social safety net in this country. i think this is a horrible, horrible way to proceed. i think the budget is -- passed by the house is horrible, but to move forward in this manner i think is very, very destructive. so people need to understand this is not just a rule that

allows a gun bill to come to the floor and, oh, by the way, there is a few little minor procedural things that are contained in this rule. this is a big deal. this is a huge deal and my colleagues need to know it. i want to yield to mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. . mr. van hollen: i thank my friend, mr. mcgovern, he's absolutely right. the next vote will be a vote to double down on the republican budget. i appreciate the answer from my colleague from utah, mr. bishop. what the next vote will allow, the vote on the rule, is for the house to proceed with the implementation of the republican budget. and therefore if you think that budget is the wrong direction for this country, you should vote against the rule and not give the house the authority to move forward. because that's what the next vote is all about.

and, mr. speaker, let's just remember what that budget does. and i would just remind my colleagues that the issue in the debate was not whether or not we reduce a long-term deficit in this country. we have got to do that. the issue was, how we do that. and the republican budget did not follow the advice of every bipartisan group that has looked at the challenge of deficit reduction. those bipartisan groups have said we need to take a balanced approach. meaning we have to take some tough cuts and passed some in the budget control act and we need to do more. they have also said we need to deal with the revenue side of the equation, and the republican budget doesn't ask for one penny , one penny from millionaires for the purposes of deficit reduction. it doesn't close one single tax

loophole for the purposes of deficit reduction. not one. in fact, the overwhelming majority of our republican colleagues has signed a pledge saying they won't do that. they won't close one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit reduction. the american people understand the math of the budget. if you say that we are not going to ask the wealthiest to do a little more as part of reducing the deficit, it means you got to sock it to everybody else even harder. just this week we saw this play out. . yesterday in the senate they had a vote on the buffet rule. very simple proposition. let's ask millionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries. every democratic senator but one voted for it. every republican senator but one voted against it. contrast that to what's going to happen on the house on thursday. here in the house on thursday, they are going to do another tax

break. look he it joint tax committee, nonpartisan group. where did the bulk of those funds go to? hedge funds? washington law firms? $50 billion added to the deficit in one year. it would be $500 billion over 10 years. and when you give tax cuts like that and you also want to reduce the deficit, it means you got into everything else. what do you cut? you do cut the medicare guarantee. you hit seniors on medicare and i'll just show you a chart that shows exactly what they do here. if you look at this chart, it shows the current support that seniors receive under the medicare program. that's the blue line. this is the percentage of support they get from the medicare program. as you can see if you continue the medicare program current levels of support, it maintains that at that level.

this green line is the level of support that members of congress get as part of the federal employees health benefit plan. members of congress get a fixed percentage of the premium costs as part of their plan. when the costs go up, members of congress support members of congress' support goes up. that is why the level of support, that stays constant over time. but the medicare voucher plan, under the medicare voucher plan as costs for health care rise, the amount of the voucher seniors get will not keep pace. that's how they reduce the deficit. in other words, another round of tax cuts for millionaires, but for seniors who have a median income today of under $22,000, they are going to give them a voucher that doesn't keep pace with health care costs. for members of congress, your plan keeps pace with rising

health care costs. not for seniors on medicare. why? again, not a balanced approach. what else does it do? we just had a hearing today in the budget committee on what it does to medicaid. and it shreds the social safety net. it cuts medicaid by $800 billion over the next 10 years. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, by the year 2022 medicaid will be cut -- i ask the gentleman for an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: by the year 2022 medicaid would be cut by 30%. by the year 2050, by 75%. i would remind my colleagues that 2/3 of medicaid funding goes to seniors in nursing homes and to care for disabled individuals. another 20% goes for kids from

lower income families. they would whack that in their budget, the wble budget, by $800 billion -- in the republican budget by $800 billion, and at the same time if you just take the portion of the tax cut in the republican budget that extends bush tax cuts for the folks at the very top, that's $961 billion. but they don't want to ask those americans to go back to paying the same rates that they were paying during the clinton administration. same rates. the economy was booming, jobs were created. no. they want to give the folks at the very high end a tax break, and cut medicaid by $810 billion. those are the choices that are made in the republican budget. that's what this vote on this rule is all about. whether we should allow this body to go forward and implement that budget. it's wrong for the country. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam

speaker now. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: my old debate coach is looking down on our actions and smiling saying his advice was right, just make the same arguments over and over again and maybe someone will actually believe those. this actually still is about a sportsman bill and hunting and fishing rights on public property. what the gentleman from maryland just said is, like 99% accurate. there is one slight difference in what he said. that is that this would be deemed until such time as there is a conference report. if there indeed is another avenue to go, ask the senate to do their work, to do a job, have a conference committee, and actually move forward in that manner. otherwise we have to either do it in an improvised way, which is this, or you have to simply not do it at all.

actually one of the end results of what the other side is telling us to do is simply not do anything. do not go forward with any ideas. do not go forward with reconciliation. and have a defense sequestration go into effect that would devastate the military and secretary panetta is begging you not to do. you have to do something procedurally to move forward. this vote does not implement anything. this vote allows our committees to go back and do the work that we were supposed to do. you defeat this and we go back to a policy of doing nothing. and as i said before, there is precedent for what we are doing. in 2010, i don't know why we say we are burying this in a hunting bill, but in 2010 when we did this deeming practice over another administration, it was buried in section 4 of house resolution 1500. once again going through a different process back then, because no committee had ever looked at those numbers before,

they were deemed and passed. this time we actually passed the bill. we debated it in committee. we debated it on the floor. and now we are going to deem those numbers until such time as the senate is responsible enough to do their work and have a conference committee report so that the house at least does what we are charged to do and that is the work of the american people. this is a procedural resolution that allows our committees to go forward to find solution and to do it with some order to it. doesn't presuppose what the final decision will be. that's the argument being made here. does not presuppose the final decision. that's why we so desperately need to do this so the house can do its work when the senate refuses to do its work. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. let me remind my colleagues by deeming these numbers what my colleagues will be doing if they

vote for this rule will be to give the republican leadership the green light to go ahead and dismantle medicare. to end the medicare guarantee for our senior citizens. it will be a green light to go after anti-hunger and nutrition programs. it's the green light to go after education programs. and as the ranking member of the budget committee said, very clearly, we all want to balance the budget. we all understand we have to deal with our debt. the way my friend on the other side of the aisle have outlined their plan, it is so one-sided, the burden is all on middle income families, all on those who are poor. their way of balancing the budget is to lower the quality of life for the middle class in this country. and there are other choices to be made, for example, making sure the donald trump pays his fair share or he we close some of these corporate tax loopholes or go after some of the subsidies with the big oil companies. instead of the plans that have been put forward by my republican friends are all aimed at those in the middle and those

struggling to get in the middle. that's why we are so outraged here today. we believe in medicare. we don't want to end the medicare guarantee for our senior citizens. at this point, madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam speaker. our good friend from the state of utah posed the question, what do the american people want? i suppose that most of us would like to hunt on public land and fish and the underlying bill does that. unfortunately tacked on to that bill should this rule actually become -- actually pass the house will be something that i am sure the american people do not want an that is that the trucks of this current debate, debate here is really about what will be added to the hunting and fishing legislation. let's consider for a moment exactly what it is.

it is the end of medicare as we know it. that's a program as we are surely here on the floor at this moment terminate medicare. it's also a bill that will immediately double the interest rate on every student loan taken out here in the united states. it's also a bill that will put 200,000 students out of school, out of college because the pell grants are reduced. it's also a bill that will take $80 billion a year out of medicaid, some 63% of which goes to nursing homes. and so seniors will not be able to get in nursing homes and those that are there may not be able to stay. what is being tacked on to the hunting and fishing bill here is something that the american public does not want. does not want to see students thrown out of school. does not want to see medicare end for seniors. does not want to see seniors no

longer able to go to a nursing home. does not want to see the food stamps terminated as unemployment increases and as we find some 20% of american children in poverty unable to get a decent meal seven days a week. that's what the american public does not want, yet what the republicans are offering with this rule is precisely that. we ought to vote no on this rule. if you must deem, put it in a separate bill and let's have an up or down so the on that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on natural resources, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. the republican budget reads like the legislative version of the "hunger game" pitting american families in an unfair and losing

battle against billionaires and big oil. the republican budget, one, doles out tax breaks that the wealthiest don't need and we can't afford. two, gives away $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies. three, abandons grandma and grandpa forcing them to pay more for health care or forgo coverage altogether. four, takes food out of the mouths of hungry children all across our country. just yesterday senate republicans refused to fix the broken system that allows c.e.o.'s to pay a lower tax rate than their secretary. and here in the house, the republican leadership has called the buffet rule a hoax. but the real hoax is the republican budget. g.o.p. used to stand for grand old party. now it stands for guaranteed oil

profits. now it standards for got and get old people. now it stands for greed over principle. 100 years after the titanic sank, the republican budget throws working americans overboard while saving the lifeboats for the wealthiest. "the hunger games" that's what the republicans are playing. the entertainment of the billionaires and oil companies, we, that is the republicans, are now going to sacrifice the programs that help the neediest children in our country. it is a budget that does not deserve the support of any member of this institution. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i would urge -- i would urge the gentleman to pay particular attention to some of the amendments that are proposed under this rule. one of which would actually

probably prohibit those hollywood people from making movies on public lands if any kind of hunting or fishing action -- i would actually yield to the chairman of this -- mr. dreier: i say to my friend that the lone republican who represents hollywood i don't like aspergses being cast at my very, very distinguished constituents as my friend has just chosen to do. but -- so, mr. speaker, how much time do i have, mr. speaker? mr. bishop: let me yield to the chairman of the rules committee who is here to clean up the mess i made so far. i yield him five minutes. mr. dreier: it's going to take more than five minutes to clean up that mess. madam speaker, thank you very much, madam speaker. let me say that while i am here to clean up mr. bishop's mess, i got to say i never in my wildest dreams believe that the ship that my grandmother almost rode on but didn't quite get on, the titanic, would be brought in to this debate.

i am very impressed that my friend from massachusetts has proceeded to do this. i would say another of his lines, madam speaker, was just absolutely incredible. taking food from the mouths of hungry children. come on. give me a break. i mean, madam speaker, the notion that anyone, democrat or republican alike, would in any way embrace the notion of taking food from the mouths of hungry children is one of the most preposterous things imaginable. we want to ensure that every single child in this country has opportunity as well as food. we want to make sure that we're able to get our fiscal house in order and frankly as i listened to all of the commaints being leveled about the -- complaints being leveled about the action we are going to take with passage of this rule, it is simply unhappiness over the fact that our friends on the

other side of the aisle have lost the budget debate. now, madam speaker, what we're doing is very simply doing the work that this body has charged us with doing. the work that we've been charged with doing is to put into place a reconciliation package, getting the authorizing committees the work -- to work on the charge of the budget. now one of the words that we hear the american people use, to malign all of washington, d.c. is the word gridlock. i am not one of those. i subscribe to the george view that having a notion of having a president of one party and congress of a different party is not necessarily a bad thing. but we know the term gridlock is used as a pragorative. now, madam speaker, i can't think much that would

exacerbate gridlock enough than saying the house passed its budget. the senate has failed more than three years, 1,100-some-odd days that the senate has failed to pass its budget. we have the responsibility since we have been able to pass a budget here to do our work. this notion of calling a deem and pass and somehow likening it to the outrageous proposal that fortunately the american people stood up and said was not help -- acceptable and they wouldn't deem and pass that incredible health care bill which is potentially unconstitutional. we'll see what the supreme court says sometime this summer. but the idea of characterizing that with our doing exactly what democrats did when it came to the budget in the past and that, since the work hasn't been done the reconciliation process had to begin. we had to do the work that follows the passage of a budget. that's exactly what we're

doing. and so to somehow describe this as extraordinary is again a gross mischaracterization of what it is we have before us. and so, madam speaker, i will say that for us to proceed with this rule and consideration of this very important measure, we have a $15.5 trillion national debt. we have budget deficits as far as the eye can see. the so-called buffett rule. i mean, its author in the senate acknowledged yesterday that it would do nothing. senator whitehouse said it would do nothing to create jobs. he threw it out there, it will not solve all the ailments of society. will not cure all the ailments of society. but the fact is we need to focus on job creation, on economic growth. and that's exactly what we're trying to do with this budget. this budget is designed to get our economy growing and at the same time it's designed to, yes, ensure with the social safety net that those who are truly in need are able to

benefit from those programs. but it's designed to make sure those programs will not go into extinction completely. and it's designed to ensure we create opportunity for every man and woman in this country, as many people are struggling to have the opportunity to find a job. the budget that we have is designed to encourage the kind of government structure which will make it possible for that to happen. so, madam speaker, let me just say with that i encourage an aye vote on this rule. let's get down to work. that's what the american people want us to do. and i hope and pray that i cleaned up for mr. bishop. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i thank you, madam speaker. i just want to respond to something that my distinguished chairman of the rules committee said. you know, he implied that when my colleague from massachusetts

said that the republican budget plans would literally take the food out of the mouths of children, that somehow we were engaged in hyperbole, some kind of empty rhetoric, i don't know if my chairman knows that tomorrow in the house agriculture committee under direction of the republican leadership that they are going to cut $33 billion out of the snap program. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield. mr. dreier: i say to my friend, obviously we have to deal with very, very serious fiscal challenges we have here. i know that these state-run programs are designed to ensure that those who are truly in need are able to benefit and so no one has a desire to take food from the mouths of hungry children. mr. mcgovern: i thank my friend for his comment. $33 billion cuts will reduce benefits for people. it will literally take food off the table for many families. and a lot of working families too. and so the -- under the republican leadership's direction, the agriculture committee is not going after

excessive subsidies and big agri businesses. it's going after snap, food stamps. i am going to have an amendment in the rules committee today. when we bring up the transportation bill, like the 15th time i've offered it, to go after the billions of dollars that we give to oil companies in subsidies, taxpayer subsidize these programs. we never get an opportunity to vote on it in the house floor. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. mcgovern: not allowing me to do it, they say we shouldn't go after and trim this corporate welfare. they are saying $33 billion in cuts in snap is outrageous. i yield to the gentleman in one second. i know these are difficult budgetary times. but, i mean, to not ask the donald trumps of the world to pay a little bit more and -- rather instead cut $33 billion in snap or to not insist we pay for these wars that seem to go

on forever and let that add to our -- add to our debt but go after poor people who are on snap, that's where the outrage is. i can't believe that's the first place we're turning. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. dreier: i say i agree with part of his statement here that being we need to look at overall tax reform. i concur with the notion of reducing any kind of subsidies. i don't like the idea of engaging in social planning through tax policies. i hope that in the context -- mr. mcgovern: reclaiming my time. mr. dreier: we'll be able to do what my friend is saying when it comes to subsidization. mr. mcgovern: might i inquire of the gentleman from utah how many speakers he has? mr. bishop: how many does he want us to have? mr. mcgovern: as many as he wants. mr. bishop: we have many.

i hope it won't be. mr. mcgovern: i'll close for our side. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that they can't use reconciliation procedures to force through the elimination of medicare as we know it or force cuts in medicare benefits for seniors or people with disabilities. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, you know, we have a choice here. we can either balance our budget and deal with our deficit and our debt in a fair and balanced manner or we can do it in the way that the republican leadership has proposed which is to basically put the burden on middle-income families and those struggling to get in the middle and to put an added burden on our senior citizens. and make no mistake about it, that if you vote for this rule you are voting to end the medicare guarantee. that is their plan.

that is what they have said. there was no question about it. i think it is outrageous. i think when you have -- when warren buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, there's something wrong with our tax system. when corporations get all these special loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes but middle-income families have to, there's something wrong with the system. we need some balance. so i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. there is as i finish this couple areas i want to talk about. there are children who are preparing to go to preschool today who have lived their entire lives without seeing the senate actually pass a budget. were that not the case we would not be here with this particular issue, and if they were to actually pass a budget we would go forward without

this particular issue. once again merits of the budget notwithstanding this vote does not implement anything. it allows us the procedure to go forward to implement something. the underlying bill still does talk about the ability of those of us who live in public land states to have hunting and fishing rights guaranteed and protected without the heavy hand of washington bureaucrats stopping that concept. indeed, state law will have to be considered before they do any kind of concept. i also want to put one other concept before you just in closing that illustrates the problem we have with the american people and how we waste money and indeed that needs to be one of the first things for our consideration. c.b.o. has scored this bill as potentially costing $12 million. it doesn't make a difference, there is nothing mandated here that needs to have a review under the nepa process of these bills. the administration said that we might have to go through this

process. therefore, you should score it at $12 million. let's make an assumption that you actually have to go through the reprocessing of going through all the land management plans, and i would ask the people a question, does it make sense that it would take $12 million for the park service and the b.l.m. to decide whether hunting would or would not be allowed? could that not be done with the secretary and a cell phone in a week if we were decent of what we are trying to do? indeed when we have bills like this when the administration and the government is trying to say, it will cost $12 million to make a decision of whether hunting is allowed or not, it puts all of our efforts into question. it does not make sense and it may be one of the reasons why we need to look at what we are doing internally first and that would be an appropriate thing to take place. madam speaker, in closing, i want to reiterate that this is still a procedural vote on a rule that is extremely fair, and it is appropriate to the

underlying legislation of 4089 which does talk about fishing and hunting rights, preserving that time-honored tradition and indeed allowing those of us in the west to make sure we are not precluded from those traditional areas of activity. it's a good bill. and more importantly, this is a fair rule and i urge you to adopt it and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption

resolution 614 if ordered and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1815. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 179. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the resolution is adopted. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228, the nays are 184. the motion is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1815 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1815, a bill to award a congressional gold medal to lena horne in recognition of her achievements and contributions to american culture and the civil rights movement. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the

bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 410, the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house come to order, please. all members take their conversations from the floor. all members who are staying please be seated. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state rise? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill h.r. 4098. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 614 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4089. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. emerson, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house will be in order. the committee will be in order.

will all members please take their conversations off the floor? the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4089 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva,

will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: madam chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 4089, the sportsmen's heritage act of 2012. this legislation protects the traditional right of america's sportsmen to hunt, fish from arbitrary and unjustified bureaucratic restrictions. it will limit government roadblocks on certain public lands and guard against new regulations that threaten hunting and fishing. this is a bipartisan bill, madam chairman. it has a bipartisan sponsorship of the republicans and democrat chairs of the congressional sportsmen congressional, mr. miller of florida, mr. ross of arkansas, as well as the caucus vice chairs, mr. latta of ohio, and mr. shuler of north

carolina. this bill also has the broad support of america's recreational fishing, hunting, shooting and wildlife conservation community and at the appropriate time i'll include two letters, one from over 35 sportsmen organizations and one from the association of fish and wildlife agencies for the record. the chair: will the gentleman suspend? the house will be in order. will all members please take conversations off the floor? the gentleman may proceed. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. there are four titles this to legislation and each reflect stand-alone bills sponsored by individual members of the house. mr. benishek of michigan, mr. flake of arizona, mr. young of alaska and mr. miller of florida all deserve credit for leadership on these important sportsmen issues. their four bills were assembled in this package to be among the

first pro-sportsmen bills considered and i hope passed by the house this year. i expect and anticipate further action on additional legislation in the months ahead. this legislation is an affirmative declaration that americans' ability to fish and to hunt is not arbitrarily subject to limitation by the whim of federal bureaucrats. it makes clear that public lands are open until closed through such recreational activities and it makes absolutely clear, madam chairman, that the e.p.a. does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle. this bill is not a solution in search of a problem, but regrettably, bureaucratic threats to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are very real. thus, the need for this legislation. title 1 of this bill protects horsemen managed by the u.s.

forest service and the bureau of land management, or the b.l.m. it requires that these activities be supported and facilitated, but, madam -- this is very important, madam chairman -- it does not prioritize hunting and fishing over other multiple uses. the vast majority of our nation's public lands are to be open and available for multiple uses but regrettably there are agency personnel and land managers who attempt to control these lands as personal -- limit activities, including hunting and fishing. in addition, activist groups bring lawsuits to limit these activities and in the worst situation bureaucrats willingly roll over to such lawsuits as a convenient way to limit the use of these facilities. this bill will protect against such lawsuits and the ensuing costly paperwork associated with them. title 2 of the bill directly

addresses the tip last year by the obama administration bureau of land management to limit target shooting on certain lands. an agency spokesman was cited in a news article saying that the proposed ban was being enacted in response to urbanites who, and i quote, freak out, end quote, when they hear shooting and that restriction wasn't rooted in public safety but rather to produce, and i quote again, social conflict, end quote. this proposed ban echoes the obama administration's attempt to impose a new classification of wild lands on federal property. in an attempt to unilaterally establish de facto wilderness. madam chairman, i want to tell my colleagues again, only congress has the authority to establish wilderness yar. just as with the wild lands proposal, public outcry against the b.l.m.'s attempt to limit target and recreational

shooting forced interior secretary salazar to retreat from this effort and rightfully so. however, at any point, say, right after the november election, the administration could begin attempts such a ban on such activities. this is exactly why this legislation is necessary, because it would clearly provide that any closure must be specifically and publicly justified and be for reasons of national security, public safety or to comply with federal or state law. title 3 of the bill would allow for the importation of certain legally taken trophies from canada, that through no fault of the sportsman, had they become trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. this is focused squarely on reducing certain situations installed in red tape and does not open the door to unlimited future imports.

finally, title 4 of the bill is in response to perhaps the greatest bureaucratic threat and that threat comes in the form of the environmental protection agency, or e.p.a. in 1976 congress borrowed -- barred the e.p.a. from regulating firearms and ammunition. however, this has not stopped attempts to try to circumvent the law with the argument that e.p.a. may not be able to regulate ammunition but it can regulate components of ammunition and components of fishing tackle. regulating components of ammunition and fishing tackle would be a massive power grab by the e.p.a. despite a clear lack of legal authority, but has that stopped the e.p.a. under this administration? sadly it hasn't. the e.p.a. is an unfettered agency with an appetite for greater regulation that result in a greater stranglehold of

our economy and how americans are allowed to live their lives. but unfortunately the e.p.a. is not without its ally. in march, over 100 activists, anti-hunting and environmental groups petitioned the e.p.a. to ban the use of lead in hunting and fishing components. this is an overt attempt to end run a law that has been on the books for nearly 40 years. this legislation that the house will vote on today reiterates and clarifies existing law, leaving no question that the e.p.a. does not, does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle. madam chairman, hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are a long-standing american tradition that deserves protection which is exactly what this underlying legislation does, the sportsmen's heritage act of 2012. this is why the bill has received strong bipartisan support and the endorsement of dozens of sporting and wildlife

organizations. so i again want to commend the sponsors for their work, encourage all of my colleagues to support and vote for this legislation. i also want to thank chairman upton of the energy and commerce committee and chairman lucas of the agriculture committee for their cooperation and assistance in helping to exat the died consideration of this bill. at the appropriate time i will again insert in the record an exchange of letters between me and those chairmen regarding this legislation. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 4089 and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: this legislation is completely unnecessary and if enacted would actually harm hunting and fishing on our public lands. the date, april 17, 2012,

nearly 85% of federal lands are open for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. these activities have always been an essential part of the federal land management and they always will be. yes, hunting and shooting are facing ever increasing pressure from development, from pollution, from habitat destruction, areas that were once fertile and open, hunting grounds are now condominiums or strip malls. the reality is that federal public lands and federal land managers are the last part of hunting traditions that many have enjoyed for a generation. while so much property was closed to hunters, the federal lands remain open. but instead of recognizing the value of these lands and the expertise of these dedicated land managers, instead of recognizing the complexity of balancing the competing demands on our public lands, the part of this bill accuses local land

management professional and we here in the capitol know best how to manage wildlife thousands and thousands of miles away. the legislation and its supporters are wrong on every count. as part of the analysis of h.r. 4089 by the congressional budget office, c.b.o. found that hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are allowed on most, and i repeat, most federal lands under current law. the problem this bill claims to solve actually does not exist. what's worse, this bill is not designed to improve the quality of our public lands or public recreation. rather, it's another in a string of legislative proposals put forth by the majority intended to devalue and degrade our public resources. since the beginning of this congress, republicans have pushed for unlimited oil and gas development on federal

lands, even waiving important environmental assessment designed to make sure energy development doesn't destroy wildlife and surrounding communities. republicans have rejected efforts to put safeguards on offshore drilling to protect important coastal eekstls. republicans have sought to sell federal lands on the cheap or just give them away. republicans have tried to cut off funding for the new -- for new habitat through the land and water conservation fund. they support dams and other developments in and along wild scenic rivers. they even push for uranium mining near the grand canyon in my beloved state of arizona. supporters of this bill will claim to love wildlife, but they attack wildlife habitats every chance they get. at every turn we have argued that our parks, forests and monuments are important for recreation, for wildlife and for water. we have argued against these

development proposals because we believe that these lands provide economic benefits to the surrounding communities. for supporters of this legislation to come to this floor and claim they have seen the light, that all of a sudden they realize federal public lands are valuable is not just -- is not credible. this bill is not intended to save federal lands or to support federal land managers. this bill is designed to wrap them in red tape, place obstacles in their path and intimidate by them seeking permission from washington before they can do their job. this bill is about scoring political points from outside groups even if it means harming our precious public resources. not only is h.r. 4089 bad policy, it's an expensive piece of legislation. again, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, forcing the federal land management agencies to scrap decades of

careful planning and then forcing them to redraft all these current plans, according to the dictates of politicians here in washington, will ultimately cost $12 million. on a day when the majority has voted to deem the ryan budget in place, a budget we are told is necessary even though it will devastate our seniors, our students, our families, our environment, the majority is asking the house to vote for $12 million in new spending that is both unnecessary and harmful. hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are commonplace on federal land. the only step this congress could take to endanger these activities is to pass h.r. 4089. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i am very pleased to yield four minutes to the author of one of those pieces of legislation, the chairman of the veterans affairs

committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for four minutes. mr. miller: i thank chairman hastings for yielding and subcommittee chairman bishop and all the members of the resources committee for their support in helping bring this piece of legislation to the floor. i'd also like to a take this time to say thank you to the speier sportsmen's community -- to the entire sportsmen's community. and i thank my counterparts in the congressional sportsmen's caucus leadership, congressman ross, latta and shuler. and i'd be remiss not to recognize the efforts of the individuals who have diligently worked together with the sportsmen's community to help advance this very bipartisan package of legislation. and i agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle. that hunting, fishing and other wildlife-dependent activities have always and should be continued on our public lands. what this legislation does is protects sportsmen's rights.

it protects sportsmen's rights that preserves our nation's heritage. and among the provisions in this legislation it prevents the e.p.a. from expanding the regulation of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle. those in opposition may suggest it's the majority's belief that lead shot, bullets and other projeck tims should not be regular -- projectiles should not be regulated but as you heard a moment ago by the chairman of the full committee, state fish and wildlife agencies are authorized to manage most of the states' fish and wildlife activities. and therefore closely monitor, address any local concerns about lead-based ammunition. some will also falsely claim that there is significant danger to wildlife populations. with very limited exceptions, there is simply no sound evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is causing harm to wildlife or

their population. others incorrectly claim the traditional ammunition was a threat to human health. in fact, according to the c.d.c., there has never, never been a case where lead poisoning has been traced to wild game meat. succumbing to the anti-hunting and anti-fishing group at the expense of the taxpayer and sportsman, it will be detrimental to the countless manufacturing facilities of sportsmen and recreational industry. it will destroy thousands of jobs and hurt wildlife conservation funding and efforts. it is the very ammunition, the firearms, and the fishing tackle, along with sportsmen and women that are footing the bill to manage, to protect and create the habitat for the species that the very anti-hunting and angling interests claim that they are trying to save. that is why the sportsmen's conservation organizations and the state fish and game agencies have united with industry and second amendment interests to get behind this piece of

legislation. while there is still much work to be done to ensure that sportsmen's rights continue to be protected, h.r. 4089 addresses some of the sportsmen's communities' most pressing concerns and i urge passage of this important piece of legislation. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, who is maybe of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 4089, the sportsmen's heritage act of 2012. a bill that will protect hunting and fishing on public lands and preserve the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle. i'm an avid hunter and sportsman. in fact, i'm a life member of

sport club international and my number is 17. i began coming to washington, d.c., as a volunteer advocate for hunting and fishing rights and for gun owners' rights and responsible conservation. i'm also honored to be a life member of the national riffle association. i know the importance of ensuring that our hunters and our anglers' rights are protected as well as ensuring the sustainability of wildlife. this legislation is a compilation of shooting bills offered by my friends, jeff miller of florida, done young of arizona, jeff flake of -- i mean, don young of alaska, jeff flake of arizona. i commend all of them for their great work on this issue. i'm also pleased to say that i co-sponsored all of their legislation. i would like to personally thank dr. ben check for allowing me to amend his portion of this bill,

the recreational fishing and hunting heritage and opportunities act that we marked up in our natural resources committee. in this congress, as i've done in the past two congresses, i introduced h.r. 1444, legislation that would require that hunting activities be considered as a land use in all management plans of federal land. my amendment was complimentary to mr. benishek's legislation and it is included in this legislation that we're voting on today. sportsmen devote their time, their money and efforts toward ensuring that our nation's fish and wildlife are sustainable for all americans to enjoy. in return, i urge my colleagues to support the sportsmen's heritage act so that future generations can continue to hunt, fish and enjoy god-given -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i urge my colleagues to support the sportsmen's heritage act so that future generations can continue to

hunt, fish and enjoy the god-given natural resources that were bestowed upon this country. i yield back and i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona wishes to continue reserving? mr. grijalva: continue to reserve. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, dr. benishek, who is also a sponsor of one of the pieces of legislation that's part of this legislation two minutes. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for two minutes. mr. benishek: thank you, madam speaker. i come before the house today as a co-sponsor and a strong supporter of a sportsmen's heritage act. i thank my good friend, chairman miller, for introducing it. i am particularly pleased that title 1 of the bill contains the recreational fishing and hunting heritage opportunities act, the bill i introduced last september. madam speaker, i know the michigan district is blessed with abundant natural resource, including three federal forests. like many in the first district

i've enjoyed hunting and fishing since i was a child. these are memories i have cherished for a lifetime and i want to ensure that northern michigan's children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same. today's bipartisan bill is not some sweeping or radical piece of legislation. it simply confirms that sportsmen will be able to access federal lands to enjoy fishing, hunting and recreational shooting. these pursuits are part of the tradition of american public land use, but regrettably they are threatened by animal rights and environmental groups that seek to end that tradition. like many in this house, i believe these traditions are something to be celebrated and protected. whether it's trout fishing in may, dear hunting in november or just -- deer hunting in november or just shooting clay with friends, every person in this country has a right to enjoy these lands. mr. speaker, let us make clear today that hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on federal lands must be protected. let us make sure that when our

grandchildren pick up their fishing rod or firearm for their first time and head out into america's great outdoors they have the same rights and privileges that we have always known. i invite all of my colleagues to visit northern michigan this summer for some of the best trout fishing in america and -- or visit this october and november for some grouse and deer hunting. i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam speaker. just to make sure that the record is clear and as i mentioned, much of our public land and p.b.o. mentioned that as well is open to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. i think it's important to see how that translates into acreage. b.l.m. lands across this country, 245 million acres are open for those activities. park service, 84 million acres, 70% open. b.l.m. land, 95% open.

fish and wildlife, 150 million acres, 57% open. forest service, 193 million acres, 95% open. the real threat, the real threat to access to our public lands for hunters, anglers and recreational shooting is the privatization of these very important public resources. degraded habitats lead to lack of funding and development that disrupts habitats and water quality. the majority frequently laments that federal lands dominate the west and are robbing local communities of important resources. they have promoted taking these same lands and giving it to the states, liquidating others and intensely developing what is left. if that is the pattern of land management that the majority seeks for our public lands, then

hunters, anglers, recreational and people that enjoy our open spaces and public lands will be more endangered by that public policy than a problem that this bill addresses that doesn't -- attempts to address that doesn't exist. and i yield back and observe the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you. i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, somebody who has worked on this legislation, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this sportsmen's heritage act of 2012. i have lived in rural america my entire life. where hunting and fishing and sports shooting are more than just hobbies. they are a wear way of life -- they are a way of life. unfortunately in arizona where the federal government administers nearly 50% of our land, recreation activities are being restricted by ill-advised land management decisions. nearly 72,000 acres have been shut down and is targeting

600,000 more at the desert in the ironwood forest national monument. the bill we are considering today removes government road blocks to these activities and guards against new regulations that threaten to block or limit access to hunting and fishing. our way of life should not be infringed upon because of the fredges -- prejudices of bureaucrats who do not understand the lifestyles of sportsmen in rural america. i urge my colleagues to protect jobs, economic growth and the traditional right of american sportsmen to hunt and fish. vote yes on h.r. 4089, the sportsmen's heritage act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. let me touch a bit on an issue that was brought up as to the cost of this legislation. costs that i acknowledge was scored by the congressional

budget office. i have to say sometimes we have differences with those agencies. i guess that's understandable. but they suggest that there's a cost associated with this bill. let me kind of walk through some points of this bill that i hope will point out how can there be a cost associated with it? because, first of all, this bill does not create a new program. new programs would be associated with costs. this does not create a new program. it does not authorize any new spending. so because it doesn't authorize spending, how can there be a cost associated with it? it does not authorize any new personnel. so if we don't add any new personnel, how can there be a cost associated with it? third, the bill restricts the ability of federal land managers to oppose restrictions. now, maybe because -- well, if

they dos remain less, one would say, logically, how can there be a cost associated with it? i think what the reason is, and sometimes we point fingers here too much, but i mentioned in my opening statement that the department of interior has some problems with this legislation. and maybe they have some problems and said there would be new activities for their -- for people that work for them and therefore there'd be a cost. let me reiterate. it doesn't create a new program, it does not authorize new spending, doesn't hire anybody. under current law they're required to do what they are required to do. how could that possibly cost more money? but yet that is what the c.b.o. scored and there's absolutely nothing we can do because that's what they scored. but i'll tell you, madam

chairman, for the record, i highly doubt that if one were to walk their way through the restrictions that i have here to any other legislation, i would have to think there would be no cost associated to that legislation and i think that is probably the case when you really get down to it on this legislation. with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: may i inquire as to how much time is available? the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 23 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from washington has 11 1/2. mr. grijalva: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i am pleased to yield to -- three minutes to another gentleman who has authored legislation as part of the title of this legislation, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake.

the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, is recognized for three minutes. mr. flake: thank you, madam speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 4089, the sportsmen's heritage act. i appreciate the opportunity and have helped with the introduction of legislation that will protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting. i'm proud that the recreational shooting act and protects the rights of recreational shooters is included in the bill that we're debating today. as i stand here, the bureau of land management is actually working to ban recreational shooting in both the sonora desert and a monument in arizona. that's 600,000 acres, taxpayer supported public lands, would be closed to recreational shooting in my state alone. 600,000 acres in arizona alone. don't be confused.

this isn't an arizona issue alone. they closed 400 acres across other states. there is a process by which they're coming about. the mechanism for these closures is just bureaucratic fiat. they point the actions of some bad actors and just as quick to ignore that many shooting enthusiast responsibly use their federal lands and the existing laws already on the books that make disreputable actions already. whether it's closing millions of acres to do mining, investigating costly pollution, controls for a new power plant, trying to require costly modifications to pools or locking up recreational shooting areas, you'd think the administration's aim at some point -- the administration's arms, i should say, would get tired of overreaching. as a remedy in the shooting

area, as a recreational shooting protection act portion of the bill would require congressional approval for existing and future recreational shooting restrictions on b.l.m. managed national monument land it would also direct the b.l.m. to manage national monument lands in a manner that enhances recreational shooting opportunities. i should say that that really is the instruction that the agencies are under now. yet, they're continuing to carry forward with these actions. for generations, the federal government has recognized recreational shooting as a traditional and legitimate activity on public lands. nowhere is this more relevant than western states like arizona where communities are often and literally surrounded by federal lands. to be clear, all this provision advocates is an additional layer of supervision and oversight of the process. it does not prevent the closure of b.l.m. lands to recreational shooting. it does not unconditionally reverse existing closures, and it does not grant recreational

shooters cart blanche on national monument -- cart blanche on national monument land. i believe the act affords congress the necessary oversight, prevent unnecessary recreational shooting bans and i urge its adoption. i should mention -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: have a diverse package of critical national -- natural resource bills, the sportsmen's heritage act is poised to protect and enhance activities for sportsmen across the nation, i urge its passage and, again, i thank the chairman for bringing this forward and those who worked on the broader pieces of legislation. it's a good piece of legislation. it should be passed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam speaker. you know, my state and my colleague, congressman flake's state and my district are both blessed with federal lands,

both forest service bureau of land management services. the debate over access for shooting has been fierce for many, many years. we had closures of some areas because shooting activities, in particular, the juarez cactus as its target, was impacting the lands. those areas or the iron wood, and this is endangered, bosk, which is one of the few left in our nation and certainly in the southwest, these are processes by which communities go through an arbitrary cookie cutter approach. at the national level, in terms of recreational shooting, robs the local community of their ability to impact and their ability to be able to negotiate, compromise and draw consensus on appropriate shooting ranges and sites. i would suggest that here in

washington, d.c., whether it's congress or the officials here in washington make those decisions for arizona, for our respective districts that the reaction from the public will not be a good one insofar as they have been robbed of the opportunity to find a workable solution for all the parties involved. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the vice chairman of the bipartisan sportsmen caucus, mr. latta, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. latta: i thank the gentleman and, madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4089, the sportsmen's heritage act of 2012. this important legislation for sports men and women protect their rights to hunt and fish while limiting restrictions with regard to these activities. as a lifetime hunter, ohio hunter education instructor and current vice chairman of the

congressional sportsmen's caucus, these issues are not only important to me but to individuals across this nation. i strongly support h.r. 4089 and will discuss a provision of the bill relating to the importance of having access to public lands for our sports men and women. this portion of the bill would ensure that federal land management agencies, primarily the forest service and the bureau of land management, protects and foster fishing, hunting and shooting on public lands by directing these federal agencies to exercise their land management discretion, facilitate sports men and women's activities. one of my priorities is to ensure that our youth have the opportunity to access and become involved in the hunting, fishing and other shooting sports. but a main reason cited as to why sports men and women limit this activity is access to land. by having more access to federal land it facilitates that next generation of

fishers, hunters and shooters. some of our western states, the majority of the land publicly owned, as mentioned by my friend. for example, in nevada, approximately 80% of the land is federal land and wyoming it's almost 50%. again, if these lands in these states have large tracks of federal lands are restricted, hunters and recreational fisher men and women will not be able to participate in these outdoor activities. and, again, it will impede our youth from being able to participate in the future. because, they rely on the adults that get them out. i strongly urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4089 and i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: if i may if i could inquire from the chairman hastings as to any more speakers, i'm prepared to close but -- mr. hastings: thank you. i am prepared to close so if he wishes to close then i'll close on my side. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr.

chairman. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. dams, derricks, distressed sales, that has been the agenda of the majority until today regarding our public lands. today an epiphany. we need to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and access for hunters, fishermen, anglers and recreational shooting. promoting more hunting and fishing activities of our federal land involves ensuring the habitat is protected, acquiring new lands to expand existing habitat, funding wildlife and habitat management and continuing to ensure that our parks, forests, monuments and wildlife areas remain in public hands. so if we're going to have a discussion about access for a

very widely and broadly issue of hunting and fishing on our public lands, we should do that. a serious discussion and i invite the majority to enter into that. a serious discussion about the funding for fish and wildlife and habitat. a serious discussion of land acquisition to increase access and availability for hunters and fishermen and clean water programs that would assure that that habitat is protected. hunting and fishing are under attack, but they're under attack from privatization and development, not from federal land managers. this bill says that topdown washington knows best, knows the best management and that that is the way to go. we support letting local land managers, local communities do their job. you can't say you trust c.b.o. when you like the score and

don't trust c.b.o. when you don't like the score. a vote for this bill is a vote to spend $12 million. that simple. a vote for this bill is to continue -- to continue the philosophy of dams, day, and distressed sales of our -- derricks and distressed sales of our public lands under the guise of solving a problem for hunters and fishermen in this country that does not exist on the public lands. four out of five acres is available for hunting and fishing on our public lands. i would suggest that that is not just a question of being enough, that is about access and opportunity on our public lands for those activities. let's not jeopardize them. vote no on 4089, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for six minutes.

mr. hastings: i thank the chairman. let's kind of go back and set the stage for why this legislation is needed and let's understand that public lands were designated for multiple use which of course means recreation and of course commercial activity unless congress says otherwise. and the most obvious example of where congress says otherwise is in wilderness designations but even then in wilderness designations there are certain activities. but federal lands were designed to be multiple use. the reason for this legislation is because we are finding arbitrary decisions on the ground not for the exceptions that congress looked at that would restrict land activity. the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, pointed out very well with his portion of this bill. but some of the -- some of the restrictions make perfectly good sense if one were to look

at it, hopefully logically, and sometimes we miss that point when we debate here on the floor. but one of the reasons is for reasons of national security. if there should be any restrictions on public lands for national security, nobody i think would argue with that. if there should be restrictions on public lands for public health, nobody would argue with that. firefight -- forest fires or wildfires come to mind in that situation. or if they are contrary to federal statutes. all of those things make sense. but let's not lose the underlying principle of public land -- that they should be for multiple use. and what this legislation simply does is reiterate, reiterates that hunting and fishing has their portion, not higher, not lower, but has their portion on use for public lands. that's what the whole intent of this legislation is, and we hear our friends on the other side of the aisle saying this

is becoming topdown, and yet when you look at the concerns that members have had trying to offer amendments where they're trying to get more flexibility, you can't have it both ways. this simply reiterates what is the national standard. it should be multiple use, but particularly in this case as it relates to hunting and fishing. with that i urge adoption of the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-19. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute

shall be in order except those printed in house report 112- 444. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 11-444. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington -- 112-444. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 614, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes and the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for up to five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, this managers amendment is a noncontroversial amendment to h.r. 4089 that makes several technical clarifying and harmanizing changes to the bill. it adds to the bill amendments that were adopted by the natural resources -- -- resources committee. in addition, although i believe the original bill never allowed extracted commercial activity or motorized travel in wilderness areas, this amendment adds language that will say so explicitly. finally, the amendment reduces the administrative task faced by the agencies with regard to the format and frequency of public notice and congressional reporting requirements. i ask for your support for this amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona.

mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. we do not object to this dab of lipstick on 4089 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-444. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman. h.r. 4089 deems all federal land open for hunting and recreational shooting, unless a closure is made by the head of the agency here in washington. the authors of the legislation intended to exempt from the bill lands under the jurisdiction of the national parks service. i'm sure i have it on good authority from them, from the authors, that this was their intention. however, as written, the bill only exempts national parks and national monuments. my amendment's a simple technical correction that ensures all units of the national park service are included in the exemption. the exemption language in title 1 is i believe unintentionally broad and not clear. the national park system includes units that have a variety of designations. national sea shores, national

scenic trail, national battlefield, among others. the national park system has units in urban areas, in rural areas, in suburban communities, in the east, in the west, in the center of our country. and without this amendment h.r. 4089 could potentially open for hunting the patterson, new jersey, graut falls national historic park in the city of patterson. the bill could as written potentially allow hunting within a national battlefield. all units of the national parks system like our national battlefield and military parks are sacred ground. should be reserved for solemn contemplation of the sacrifices of our ancestors. my amendment would ensure that the policies of the national parks service involving firearms in areas controlled by the national park service stay in place.

now some have suggested that the historic battle reenactments institute -- re-enactments institute recreational -- constitute rec real -- recreational shooting and this would prevent re-enacting on battlefields. maybe my good friend from utah doesn't know the national parks service policy. important to note that current national park service policy right now prohibits, quote, battle re-enactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that involve exchange of fire between opposing lines or any other form of simulated warfare, end quote. i'm not aware of any problems that this policy has caused. it's important to note that there are national park system units like lake roosevelt national recreational area in washington state, i say to my friend, the chairman, or craters of the moon national preserve in idaho that allow hunting and recreational shooting. my amendment would not affect

those policies. the hunting and recreational shooting could continue in those places. i just want to emphasize, this is a technical amendment. i'm not getting at the merits for or against the bill overall. but should this bill proceed, it would be a big mistake to say that the hunting, the recreational shooting could take place in gettysburg and any number of other places that aren't intended. let's ensure that in the hurry to open all federal lands to hunting and recreationality shooting we don't carelessly -- recreational shooting we don't carelessly open up to gun fire concentrate cruiserweighted ground like battlefields and the -- consecrated ground like battlefields. i ask my colleagues to support this technical correction to the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. chairman, the whole amendment uses a blunder bust and to address the complex issues of programs in national parks that involve shooting. this issue goes beyond sports or hunting which are currently allowed in some park units. in addition to the national parks that allow hunting, the national park service has a historic weapons program that would be silenced contrary to what my good friend and the author of this amendment, mr. holt, says. in 2011 more than 600 national parks participated in some form of historic weapons demonstration. from cannons to flintlocks, the park service says this program is, and i quote, undeniably popular with visitors, end quote. and drew just less than a

million visitors to various national parks around the country last year. at fort van vufere national park -- vancouver national parks -- parks muskets are regularly fired to demonstrate thes whoer toic role these weapons played in the history of the site. one of the most popular public participation events in many parks involves a re-enactment of historic battles. thousands of people participate. they use their own historically accurate weapons and costumes to recreate on location the great battles that took place at our civil war sites. many of those who participate or come to watch, these educational passions are the favorite of the national park event. it was on this week 237 years ago that general thomas gauge of the royal governor of boston sent his troops to confiscate the patriot weapons at lexington in concord. and at the minuteman national

historic park today, a living history event is conducted in which volunteers are permitted to bring reproductions of the flintlock muss kits, miss -- muss cut, pistols and things their ancestors used. at the time when the national park service is running a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog, the whole amendment will disarm it of its real draw. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to allow the park service to continue the tradition of education -- educating visitors about our proud american history and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman. may i ask the remaining time? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. holt: thank you. my amendment simply ensures that nothing in fact would force hunting in the national park service. i really don't understand what the chairman is talking about here. because where it is allowed it would be allowed. where it's not allowed, it would not be allowed.

it is policy of the national park service not to allow re-enactment of battles. the battle re-enactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that involve exchange of fires, the taking of casualties, hand to hand combat, etc., are prohibited in all parks. park service employees can conduct demonstrations as part of their living history program, that's done now, it would be continued under this. what this says is under this legislation, were it to become law, a person who wants to hunt in gettysburg park can't do that unless the national park service policy allows it. that's all this says. it extends, it extends it to all facilities of the national park service, not just what was

specified in the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. holt: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time which is how much? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. i beg to differ. i understand where my good friend from new jersey is coming from. i'm sure that's what his intent. but that's not what his amendment says. his amendment says that that activity has to be provided by statute at each facility. and that's simply not the case. we haven't done that. we blanket authority give that to the national park system, to carry on what is classified as pastimes, that sort of activity, he prohibits that unless it's provided by statute. and he did not offer an amendment to say we should stat advertise every one of those at every one of the sites. that's the flaw in the amendment. it was brought up in rules yesterday and yet the amendment wasn't corrected and so here we

are. i understand what he's trying to do. but the amendment does not say that. so i urge defeat of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. holt: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: on that i ask a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-444. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. the purpose of my amendment is to emphasize the point that

nearly 85% of all public lands are already open for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. whether we are talking about fish and wildlife service, bureau of land management, including national monuments, national park service lands, or the forest service lands, in each and every case the majority are open for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. my amendment would only trigger the provisions in title 1 and 2 of this legislation if less than 75% of federal public lands are open for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. i can't think of any other use that occurs on 75% of our public lands. i understand that some individuals are upset about some specific court decision or specific local closures but we need to keep things in perspective. right now more than four out of five acres are open for hunting, fishing and recreational

shooting. given that, do we really need federal employees in d.c. making decisions about which lands to close or worse yet have congress make that decision? my state and my district are both blessed with federal lands, debates occur all the time about shooting ranges that have been very fierce, as i mentioned earlier. local land managers have worked with local groups and communities to come up with solutions including providing access on other federal lands. unless we see significant closures across the landscape, i think we should allow local managers to make local decisions based on local input. the problem this bill claims to solve does not exist. but this amendment would allow the provisions of the bill to kick in if this problem ever actually developed. i would urge support of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, last year the bureau of land management decided that it would close a lot of the land it manages to shooting sports. the agency never explained why it wanted to do this but one b.l.m. official was quoted in a news article as stating, and i quote, it's not a safety issue, it's a social conflict issue, end quote. he elaborated by saying that urbanites and i quote, freak out, end quote, when they hear shooting. now, after the public outcry on this, the interior secretary had to send out an order telling b.l.m. to stand down on this regulation but the question is really for how long? there is nothing that prevents the obama administration from changing its mind say immediately after the november election and again seeking to arbitrarily limit shooting sports.

that's why this bill is necessary, because it limited recreational shooting, fishing and hunting without justification. the ranking member on the committee is even more arbitrary, while the amendment is drafted to appear reasonable, it is most certainly not. the devil is in the clever details. it appears to permit hunting, fishing and recreational shooting but in reality the amendment nullifies the purpose of the underlying bill to protect these activities. first, one needs to understand that you can fit a lot of eastern states in a small fraction of our land that is b.l.m. land. b.l.m. continues 153 million acres of land. second, public lands means more than national forest and b.l.m.

land. it also includes the outer continental shelf. under this amendment, as long as fishing is allowed in any part of the ocean, no actual land need be opened to hunting. in other words, the 20% requirement can be satisfied in the outer continental shelf. who hunts in the outer continental shelf, mr. chairman. again, the bill we are considering today is about public land open to american people for outdoor recreation. that is a good goal and this amendment tries to hijack the bill by sending it 180 degrees from the intent of the underlying legislation. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. -- the gentleman is

recognized. mr. grijalva: there may be a credit plan to -- the argument is that this hasn't happened yet but there may be a plan to do so after the election. a problem does not exist and this bill will do real harm. the example that my good friend, the chairman, used about urban encroachment and development speaks to the point we have been trying to make on this legislation, that the greatest threat to hunting and fishing and recreational shooting is exactly that, development, privatization, and unregulated extraction as we were talking about around the grand canyon and uranium mining. those threats, through our public -- to our public lands, are the threats and trends and the public policy that is being promoted by the majority that will limit and deny access to public lands to hunters, fishermen and recreational

hooters. right now as we stand, b.l.m., 245 million acres, 95% open to those activities. park service, 4 million acres, 70% open to those activities. fish and wildlife, 150 million acres, 50% open to those activities. forest service, 193 million acres, 95% open to those activities. those activities being hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. if we want to protect access and protect the opportunities for hunters and fishermen and our public lands, i would urge the approval of the amendment and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the bhns of my time, which is how much? the chair: two and a half minutes. mr. hastings: the gentleman from arizona said that suggested that there could be a change in direction after a

november election, i'll paraphrase, he said, that's preposterous, it may be but i would remind my colleagues that in a situation here several weeks back, when it was not supposed to be recorded, our president was talking to the president of russia. and he said, and this was recorded on an open mike, when he was talking to the president, that -- and again, i'll paraphrasing after the election, i'll have more flexibility on missile defense. now, on that issue, keep in mind. he'd already given up the ms. isle defense in eastern europe. why would he want to have more flexibility for the defense of our country? the issue there is flexibility. the issue is if the president is going to use flexibility in that context, couldn't you apply the same flexibility to something he's already done this career that's been reversed? i don't think it is prepross

rouse. the flexibility issue, i believe, is going to be an issue that's going to be talked about a lot between now and november and it can apply to a great deal of policies that we could be considering in this house. this is one of them because the administration has already said these activities should make b.l.m. lands offlimits to target shooting. i don't know why that same principle could not be applied if the president has more flexibility after the election. i urbling defeat of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from -- the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes visit. mr. gri hall have: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 18, further proceedings from the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number four printed in house report 112-444. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: earment number four, offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i rise today to support my amendment which strikes a bailout that was slipped into this bill for 41 wealthy sport hunters who want to import polar bear trophies taken during hunts in canada. polar bears were listed as threatened in may of 2008 by the bush administration's fish and wildlife services which prohibited their importation as trophies this protection was not implemented overnight. trophy hunters were warned, they were warned by federal agencies and hunting associations for more than a year that the final listing

would cut off imports immediately. the hunting report told its readers in 2007, and i quote from "the hunt regular port," the bottom line is, no american hunters should be putting hard, nonreturnable money down on a polar bear hunt at this time. these individuals knowingly assumed the risk that their trophies might not be approved for importation and they decided to hunt and kill these beautiful, threatened creatures anyway. while it's too late to save these bears, passing this bill creates a perverse incentive for trophy hunters who rush to hunt any species that will soon be protected under the endangered species act because their friends in congress will simply bail them out after the fact. we cannot allow that and that's why i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: to oppose the amendment. chip chip -- the chair: the gentleman veck niced. mr. young: i strongly oppose this amendment, i'm deeply surprised the gentleman would support this amendment he has one of these bears from his state, a lot of hunters are notwelly. this is a legal activity in can dark they hunted the bears prior to 2008 and even prior to 2007. these are dead bears. and they're sitting in can dafment -- canada. when the hunters hunted legally. the ka nadequan government gave them the proper authority to do. so it helped the native villages. right now, there's more bears in canada than there ever has been in history. hunting is a vital prosessdz of management of game. these people included two wounded veterans, they are in iraq in that heated area, the

one dream they had when they got back was to be able to go and hunt a polar bear and i can understand that. they shot their trophies legally. with the blessing of the canadian government and the local province. and then they expected to be able to return those bears, those hides, yes, sometimes even the body, back home for proper display of their hunt. and now to say you can't import something when a bear was declared threatened by, yes, the bush administration, and wrongfully so. the bears are not threatened. there are more bears now than there were in 1964. i'm probably the only individual that ever shot a bear in 1964 on this floor and i'm certainly not rich. i'm suggesting this amendment is ill-placed, poorly thought out and improper. i want those people who did things legally, by a nation of our neighbors, blessed by the

province, be able to bring those trophies back home as they have the right to do yet the act of the secretary of the interior took it away from them arbitraryly. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. berman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. berman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of the peters amendment. without this amendment, the bill will undermine the protections currently in place for wild species under the endangered species act and the marine mammal protection act. in this case, the hunters who chose to kill these polar bears knew they were taking a risk. they had good information that polar bears would be listed as an endangered, threatened species under the endangered species act, and acted contrary to it. they were repeatedly warned by federal agencies and hunting

associations that the final listing would cut off imports immediately and they had well over a year's notice. despite this knowledge, hunters still chose to shoot and kill polar bears at a time when the species faced severe hardship and legal protections were imminent. we should not encourage a small group of people to take conscious risk and then turn around and ask congress for relief. if we pass this bill without the peters amendment, we are in effect telling hunters that when species are likely candidates for the endangered or threatened lists, kill them as soon as you can and then congress will give you special treatment and exempt you from the law. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the peters amendment. don't destroy the long-term conservation efforts for the special interest of a few trophy hunters hoping for home decor and bragging rights. i will strongly oppose the underlying bill. the chair: the gentleman from

alaska. mr. young: i'm surprised my good friend from california, he has a lot of polar bears in california. it's amazing to me, doesn't know squat about the population of polar bears and to have the -- to imply that these are rich people going to hunt, as if, now isn't that class warfare? democrat position. the idea that now this is wrong when they did it legally, and these bears weren't all killed in 2008. and they weren't all warned in 2008. i want to see the dumontation of that you know there's no dumontation. that's the same propaganda you get out of the same groups of people that are anti-fun and anti-hunting. yes, step up to the plate, that's what you are. i know that. but to take that right away from american citizens, especially a wounded veteran, two of them, take that right away from them is wrong.

it is wrong when this is legally taking species, arbitraryly, and now threatened, the administration does not oppose this bill. that's amazing. fish and wildlife support this is bill now because we made some changes they wanted and gave them specifically recognizing this does not encourage hunting. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. notwithstanding the statement by my very good fend from alaska, i rise in support of mr. peters' amendment. it would remove a provision that would allow for the importation of polar bears killed in canada. but -- it only benefits 41 big game hunters who shot theirs in canada prior to their listing as a species threatened with

extinction. these hunters were on notice that the trophies would likely not be allowed into the united states but rushed to hunt the bears anyway. now they're asking for congress to bail them out by creating an exemption in the endangered species act so they can bring their trophies into the country. it's not about the number of polar bears. it is about the underlying principle that decisions related to the protections of threatened and endangered animals should be based upon science and subject to consistent enforcement, not dependent upon the whims of congress. polar bears are already threatened. the last thing they need is for more trophy hunters chasing them down and shooting them. that's exactly what will happen if this congress demonstrates that it is fully willing to retroactively change the law in this manner to accommodate the

wishes of a very small minority. 41 big game hunters and we've got to be here changing the law on their account? the u.s. fish and wildlife service and the federal court have rejected previous requests to import trophies after 2008. that should be the final word on the subject. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the peters amendment and i yield to mr. peters the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. the gentleman from alaska has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. young: the gentleman from virginia has lots of polar bears in virginia. i know it's spring time. i don't think there's many polar bears in virginia. all of three of them have said endangered species. this has nothing to do with the

endangered species. this has to do with marine ma ma'ams -- mammals. endangered species are still imported into the united states. zebras, yes. the african elephants, yes. we can still import those. this has to do with marine mammals. i really can't understand because the government warns you, warns you, it's not against the law, but they warn you but you better follow it because we're warning you. now, that's not law. these people may have been notified there's a possibility but they hunted under existing law. under existing permits. and paid for. now to take that away from them, i don't care if it's one person or 500 people or 4,100 people, 41 people, when the law is followed and we don't follow through with it, then shame on us. these people did what was right and legaly. now you're trying to take that right away from them. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman is the only one who has time remaining. the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. mr. young: how much more time i got? the chair: the gentleman has 15 seconds. mr. young: good. 15 seconds, i urge a strong resounding no on this amendment and vote for the people of america who have the right under the constitution as long as they follow the law to do something that's correct and they've done that. they did everything by the law. and i say now, you don't have a right when they follow the correct lead. shame on you. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from michigan. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-444. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?

mr. fleming: i have an amendment that's been made in order. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: mr. chairman, my amendment today maintains the state of louisiana's ability to regulate hunting within its borders. in a decision announced march 1, 2012, the forest service regional forster located way over in atlanta, georgia, went over our heads, went over the heads of louisiana wildlife and fishery commission to forever prohibit the use of dogs to hunt deer in a national forest. dear hunting -- deer hunting has a long and important cultural history within the state of louisiana. when settlers first came to louisiana in the 18th century,

louisiana was covered by thick ets and dense timber. most of these settlers had companion dogs with them, but the most treasured were the deer hounds. the use of dogs would help the hunter drive the deer out of the forest because deer were so plentiful and provided exciting races, it provided sound nourishment. hunting in many forms has been for decades and continues to be a exassble activity on the 600,000-acre national forest. oddly enough, the regional forster does not prohibit the use of dogs for hunting raccoon, squirrel, rabbit and game birds. in 2011 the dog deer season was only nine days and only applies to certain ranger districts. according to communication with the forest service, seven southern states allow hunting on national forest within their borders.

they include alabama, arkansas, florida, mississippi, north carolina, south carolina, but in this case not louisiana. however, this is the first time the forest service has issued a ban on dog deer hunting or hunting dear with -- deer with dogs within a specific state. according to the forest service itself, they indicate that revenue generated on dog deer hunting including expenses to care for dogs contributes to between approximately 18 to 29 direct jobs and $890,000 to $1.4 million of income. by their own assessment, it is likely that some economic benefits will be lost depending on whether hunting with dogs or deer leave the area to pursue the sport elsewhere. it's about time, now this is about to kill even more jobs in louisiana. i would also like to emphasize that both the state of louisiana, the n.r.a. and the

safari club all support my amendment and i urge support of this amendment and i would like to yield at this time 30 seconds to the chairman of our committee. natural resources. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. fleming: and i'll reserve my time after his 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his talk and discussion about the long history and strong local support for this traditional form of hunting in his state. the primary purpose of this legislation is to limit unjustified federal bureaucratic limitations and restrictions on hunting and fishing in public lands. the circumstances that he has detailed demonstrate that his amendment fits squarely within the sphere of this bill and i therefore support the amendment. it's important to recognize that it is the authority of states to regulate hunting and fishing. individual federal agency personnel should not be substituting their opinion for

the laws of the states and i commend the gentleman and i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the fleming amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. there are few points that i think i really believe need to be made. the decision to eliminate dog deer hunting on this forest was made only after more than half a dozen public meetings, a comment period that resulted in a thousand comments which were thoroughly reviewed. in fact, the policy has been amended in response to those specific local concerns. the justification for this policy is not only to prevent trespassing, though this is one reason it is necessary, the forest has a checkerboard pattern of nonfederal lands mixed in with federal lands. dog deer hunting results in dear running over long distances and hunters pursuing them and at times discharging firearms on

the run. in an area with private homes, the forest service determined that this was simply too dangerous. the forest has collected input from local residents and nonhunters who fear for their safety during dog deer hunting season. to be clear, while the decision was ultimately approved by the region in atlanta, the policy was developed by the local forest service staff who work on the forest. lastly, this amendment is redundant and wasteful. because the rule already in place meets the requirements of the proposed amendment. the current rule lrt covers the smallest portion of forest possible because with the checkerboard lands, the rule must cover the entire forest to be effective. while public safety is the primary justification for this rule, preventing trespass is another reason for the rule and why it was put in place. the fleming amendment would throw out the current rule and then require a new rule that

meets the exact same requirement . this is redundant a waste of time and money -- redundant, a waste of time and money. finally, according to the forest service, the state of louisiana already prohibits dog deer hunting on state land. so this is simply consistent with state policy. this amendment should be defeated and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to respond to some of the statements that were made. i received a petition of thousands of hunters from louisiana and several states who wanted this to continue. the state, not the federal government, is in the best position to make this determination. by october 6, 2009, the forest land had received 1,237 responses to its 2009 request for comment. of these, 320 agreed with the proposed prohibition. but 917 were against it. that's a 77% majority of these

respondents who were actually from central louisiana where this statute of the national forest exists. the forest service received over 1,300 more comments on the original proposal and environmental analysis. all but five letters, all but five letters, mr. chairman, were opposed to the proposed prohibition. so again i would reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. the contradiction -- and with that i'll close. the contradiction is very important. the majority talks about local control, local control. in this instance, you have the state of louisiana that has prevented -- that has prohibited this type of hunting on its lands and that is a local decision to be honored. but it is ok to honor that decision but on federal lands we

want to make an exception and set a precedent. i would suggest that the contradiction in this amendment merits its defeat and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana has 25 seconds. 45 seconds remaining. mr. fleming: i want to respond again. again, the people of louisiana, the state of louisiana is in full support of doing away with this prohibition. this was a decision made by somebody in atlanta, a federal person, that has to do with what is really a local issue, this is a tradition that goes back 300 years and i think it's pretty obvious that the people of louisiana support the continuance of hunting deer with dogs. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-444.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-444 offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: the purpose of my amendment is straightforward. it opens an area off the coast of my congressional district to recreational stripe bass fishing. stripe bass is a popular game fish in new york and it has long been an important catch for recreational fishermen. the formation of anential cluesive economic zone creates a small area of federal water in the block island sound. in most cases when you hit the three-mile point off the coast of the united states, you have nothing but federal waters in front of you. this is not always the case for new york fishermen. because of this geographic

anomaly, when the ban on striped bass fishing in the e.e.z. went into effect, it closed off 60% of new york's traditional stripe bass recreation areas from fishing, according to the monday tag boatman and captain's association in my district. the national marine fishery service recognized this unique area by designating it as a transit area where it was permissible for fishermen to possess striped bass on their boats as long as no fishing takes place while in the e.e.z. and the boat is in continuous transit. my amendment goes one step further and opens this relatively small area to recreational fishing. mindful of the need for reasonable conservation, my amendment also provides the ability to take necessary action for conservation purposes. fishermen and charter captains know these waters better than anybody in washington, d.c. our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about government regulations, stifling the economic recovery. after all, fishermen are job creators, both directly and indirectly. they hire crews, they have their

boats maintained by mechanics and they sell their catch to restaurants where americans go out to eat. i support reasonable fisheries management that is designed to promote robust health to fish stock but as a representative for the oldest fishing ports in the united states, i also support sensible efforts to ensure our fishermen can fish and earn their livelihood. opening this area would once again give recreational fishermen access to fruitful stripe bass fishing grounds. charter boats will benefit as will the ports they depart from as people come to the east end of long island for great fishing. this will promote job growth in tourism, which is the goal of the underlying legislation. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i'd be happy to yield. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the atlantic stripe bass conservation act appropriation expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. our fisheries subcommittee intends to hold hearings on the re-authorization in this congress. i think this would be the appropriate time and place to

have the discussion which is the subject of your amendment and, listen, i understand the gentleman's concern, believe me. we've heard other concerns on the atlantic striped bass. if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, i can assure him that he'll get a full hearing on the content of his amendment in our committee this year. i yield back. mr. bishop: i very much appreciate that offer and based on your assurance that this will receive a full hearing in your committee or the appropriate subcommittee i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman and we will wok together on this. i certainly understand the gentleman's concerns. mr. bishop: i appreciate that the chair: the gentleman amendment is withdrawn. tgs now in order to consider amendment number seven printed in h.r. 112-444.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number seven printed in house report 112-444, offered by mr. heinrich of -- the chair: the gentleman veck niced. mr. heinrich: it's likely you heard claims from people across the aisle that the manager's amendment will solve concerns i have today, making this redundant or duplicative. but that's not the casism appreciate the intent of my colleagues to resolve my concerns they language is far too vague and needs additional clarification. as an avid hunter, i support increasing access to public lands for hunting and fishing. we can achieve that goal without eliminating the very wilderness protections that

have protected some of the best wildlife habitat and back country hunting opportunities in our nation. the bill under consideration today would eliminate long standing protections against logging, oil and gas driling and motor vehicle use in wilderness areas. it would create a loophole in the wilderness act for anything that would provide, quote, opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, unquote. under the wilderness act, land managers are allowed to act in ways that are not allowed in wilderness areas if the action is necessary for the minimum requirements necessary for the administration of the area in practice, the minimum requirements necessary language and standards means they can use motorized vehicles, chain sauce, even helicopters in extreme mrms, to fight fires, rescue stranned hikers or remove downed trees from trails that threaten human safety this bill would extend that kind of

exemption to any action that would provide an opportunity for hunting, fish, and recreational shooting this means activities otherwise not afloud a wilderness area, like motor vehicle use, would have to be permitted if it could be used to facilitate everyday activities like hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. the manager's amendment includes language intended to address these concerns by providing that these provisions, quote, are not intended to authorize or facile tit commodity development, use, or motor recreational access or use, unquote. whether or not the bill's intention,s the language in the bill that still allows for this possibility and saying that wasn't the intent doesn't change what the language does. in contrast my amendment says

nothing shall be construed to allow these. intended versus value there's a powerful legal difference and sportsmen across the country recognize the difference and support my amendment. in the last few hours i've heard from countless supporters in my own state including the new mexico wildlife federation, the new mexico chapter of back country hunters and anglers, the high desert sportsmen and the sportsmen concerned of northeastern new mexico to name a few. nationally we heard from groups like the theodore roosevelt copper is vation partnership. the bill's sponsors say they are not trying to create sweeping changes to the act, i have no doubt they will support my amendment as it eliminates loopholes. i know how valuable wilderness is to hunters and anglers and i hope my colleagues will continue to support habitat in

wilderness areas and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman veck niced for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: the soveks the bill that deals with hunting and fishing in wildlife areas was deprived from the -- derived from the bill from mr. benishek. i notice whenever a new bill is introduced, the sponsor says it wit knoll -- it will not reduce hunting because hunting is permitted in wilderness areas. that's right. nevertheless, when a hunting -- anti-hunting group went to court, the forest service had to waste a great deal of time and money justifying the hunting permitted there. anti-hunting groups have sought to use a national environmental policy act to entangle the left

hand management agencies in nepa's briar patch when they allow hunting on public lands. i'm certain that many would agree that hunting and fishing on public land is not a new major federal action that requires a full environmental impact statement. however, to protect sportsmen and prevent the waste of resources that occurs when conservation dollars are diverted into lawsuits, dr. benishek's decisions gives clear, statutory support to the legitimacy of hunting on public lands. i believed from the beginning that the benishek bill dealt only with hunting and fish, never authorized motorized travel even though some environmental groups made that accusation. but to allow any genuine concerns people may have, we worked cleesely with a wide array of conservation groups and decided to include in the manager's amendment that was

passed provisions that explicitly states that the relevant portions of the bill, and i quote from the amendment are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or distraction or motorized recreational access or use, end quote. with that very direct language, i can honestly say that virtually every major conservation group that is not anti-hunting supports the bill. i don't have time to read the whole list but it does include the n.r.a., the is a father reclube, the bipartisan congressional sportsman caucus, ducks unlimited, the theodore roosevelt conservation partnership and the sork of fish and wildlife agencies. i think that h.r. 4089, as amended, now has the support of the entire range of sporten -- sports map conservation groups from those considered conservative to those that are

quite liberal and do not believe it needs any additional changes as offered by the gentleman from new mexico. again, the concerns expressed by the gentleman from new mexico in support of his amendment new york my view are unfounded. this bill deals squarely with hunting and fishing and does not authorize motorized travel or mining or other such activities in wilderness areas. where that, i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend and colleague, the sportsman from northern new mexico, mr. lujan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lujan: i want to thank my friend from new mexico for offering this amendment. mr. chairman, i'm from the western united states and i'm a supporter of the second amendment. i'm a hunter and fisherman my family raise sheep and cattle on allotments in the area where i was raised. like many other states in the west, we new mexicans enjoy our

use of land for hunting, shooting and recreational enjoyment. i'm not opposed to everything in this bill but i'm concerned with plans that would create a loophole in the wilderness act. it enables us to have pristine areas to hunt and fish, critical areas that should be preserved to enjoy. this bill as written walks a dangerous line. i had concerns in the committee markup of the bill, specifically language in section 104e which opens up for interpretation to allow motorized vehicles in sensitive areas, completely undermining the efforts to protect the lands. though the majority has indicated they clarified this problem, a c.r.s. memorandum issued on april 12, 2012, they have confirmed my de-- my concern that h.r. 24e could lead to commercial use in

designated wilderness areas. if the majority states through the manager's amendment that their intention is not to open uh up these areas for mote vised -- motorized vehicles, let's make sure this won't happen. i'm glad to see they see there's a problem as well which they attempted to address, but it's not enough. let's support the heinrich amendment and make sure we don't combine motorized vehicles with second amendment rights in our back yard. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington has one and a half minutes remaining. mr. hastings: did i understand that all the time has expired on their side? the chair: that's correct. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of my time. it appears the argument is that this language which we drafted and passed in the manager's amendment is not strong enough. let me read the appropriate word. in the gentleman from new

mexico's amendment, he says that -- he focuses on the word shall, which is strong language, but he follows it with construed. now, that raises a question. construed by whom? our language says very specifically that nothing in here is intended to authorize, facilitate any use regarding extraction. we say that is the intent of the law. very specifically. when you use the word construed, i dare say, mr. chairman, that you are opening this wide open to litigation and maybe that is exactly what the gentleman intended. by fee faux cusing on shall, he doesn't focus on the operative word, which is construed because construed can be used by anybody outside in order to sue. we say very specifically, even though we didn't think extraction was part of the underlying legislation, but we say very specifically, it's not intended to reinforce it. that was a reason that provision was in the manager's

amendment. i urge my colleagues to defeat the heinrich amendment. with that, i yield become the time. the chair: the question occurs on the amendment offered by the quelt from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number eight printed in house report 112-444. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i rise today to offer an amendment which would add another positive element. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report 112-44, offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx,

and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: i rise today to offer an amendment this would add another positive element to this bill. the path can designate national monuments on federal lands, this has been used 129 times to designate natural treasures such as the grand canyons grand thetons and the statue of liberty. as someone who has enjoyed an appreciated the historic treasures throughout the country, i appreciate the importance of protecting these blessings. currently a national monument designation allows for the president to impose unilaterally the uses of the land. i've offered to stand-alone bill h.r. 302,