the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 234, the nays are 185, the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous

material on h.r. 3590. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 470 and rule 18, the chair declares the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3590. the chair appoints the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: will the house come o order. the house of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3590, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting fishing and

shooting and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, each will control 30 minutes. the house will come to order. the committee come to order. the chair: will members take their conversations off the floor so the committee can come o order. will members take their conversations off the floor so the committee can come to order.

the chair: the committee will come to order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself uch time as i may consume. mr. chairman, the supports men's heritage and enhancement act, h.r. 3590 is a package of eight bills that protects america's sportsmen to fish and hunt from

unjustified bureaucratic restrictions and remove government roadblocks on certain public lands and guard against new regulations that threaten hunting and fishing. this is a bipartisan bill and co-sponsored by the republican and democrat chairs of the congressional sportsmen caucus, mr. latta of ohio and mr. thompson of mississippi and mr. wittman of virginia and mr. walz of minnesota. mr. been check of michigan, mr. gibbs of ohio, mr. hunter of california, mr. miller of florida and mr. young of alaska all deserve credit for leadership on these important issues. mr. chairman, the house -- the committee is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order -- the committee will come to order.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, this legislation ensures that america america's ability to fish and hunt will not be limited by the whim of federal bureaucrats. title 1 of this bill directly responds to bureaucratic threats posed by the e.p.a. in 1976, congress barred the environmental protection agency or e.p.a., from regulating firearms and ammunition. however, this has not stopped attempts to circumvent the law by claiming that while e.p.a. may not be able to regulate ammunition, it can regulate components of ammunition and fishing tackle. this would be a massive power grab by the e.p.a. despite legal authority. banning lead bullets and tackle would hinder sportsmen and cause economic harm to outdoor sportsmen and the recreation

industry. this legislation ensures that the e.p.a. does not, does not, mr. chairman, have the e.p.a. to regulate ammunition and fishing. title 2 of this bill makes more funding available to states for longer period of time to create and maintain shooting ranges, which preserves american tradition. title 3 would direct the secretaries of agriculture and interior to allow with a permit, commercial filming on federal lands for crews of five or fewer. this permit would ensure fair return to the taxpayer in exchange for use of their lands. title 4 of this bill would allow for the importation of legally-taken polar bear hunting trophies from canada through no fault of the sportsmen can be trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. this is focused squarely on resolving existing permits and does not open the door to any future imports. the next two titles of the bill would allow sportsmen across the

country to obtain a federal duck stamp and would protect law-abiding individual's constitutional right to bear arms on land owned by the army corps engineers. heritage council advisory committee, in order to protect the rights of sportsmen while finding balance between common sense and conservation. and last title is requiring federal land managers who support and facilitate use for access for hunting, fishing on forest service and blm land. it protects sportsmen from the federal government to block hunting and fishing activities by implementing an open until closed management policy. however, mr. chairman, it does not prioritize hunting and fishing over other multiple uses

of public lands. mr. chairman, hunting, fishing and recreational shooting or long-standing american traditions that deserve our protection. this important legislation is not a solution in search of a problem. bureaucratic threats to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are very real. this bill has broad bipartisan support and the endorsement from over 36 sportsmen organizations. i commend the bipartisan sponsors of these packages of the bill and encourage my colleagues to support the legislation and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: in the past i have voted for a number of sportsmen's promotion and protection packages. unfortunately, it seems that this one with a number of

extraneous provisions and detrimental provisions to wilderness, wildlife refuges and other areas seems designed to turn what in the past has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of sportsmen's issues into a partisan issue, which is what we do with most everything around here these days and that's unfortunate. because we would be happy to address real problems as they are identified. in this bill, we are going to essentially amend or override the willed deerness act, national environmental policy act, and these are all bedrock environmental provisions which protects public lands and wildlife and have not caused conflict for sportsmen, hunters and fishers and others.

we have the throw-away political thing. the e.p.a. said we don't have the authority to regulate lead and that's the end of it, but we are going to pass the law to say they don't have the authority to regulate lead. ok. that's fine. we have broad agreement that hunting, fishing and other wildlife dependent activities can and should and have and will ongoing take place in wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. there is so much agreement on this point that existing law clearly supports such activities as a result of hunting and fishing are popular. the vast majority of which outside of national parks in the lower 48 are open to hunting and fishing. . .

whatever minor adjustments we might need to make, but to have a blanket exemption for operations in the national wildlife refuge system from all environmental planning under nepa, purpose of such a broad waiver is unclear, the motivation is unclear. it's definitely and potentially or at least probably very -- can't say definitely, but it could well undermine management in refuges in ways that will actually degrade habitat, which will mean less hunting and fishing opportunities. degrade water which means less hunting and fishing opportunities, and that seems contradictory to the meritorious title of the bill which doesn't seem to be reflective in the various parts, some of which have been through hearings, some of which haven't.

now, the filming on public lands, i haven't heard of the controversy. there are some who purport who say there might be some kind of problem who might do hunting, fishing videos, you know, films. i've seen quite a few of them on public lands. there's no example of a problem that's occurred, but the new authority with a fixed rate of a maximum of $200 for a permit no matter how much the impact might be of the film crew and further, to open the door for the use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas for these filming activities is very problematic and objectionable and unnecessary at this point. again, there has been nothing brought up in a hearing of a credible complaint from a film company that couldn't do the wildlife film or hunting film because of restrictions that

were placed upon them. it also would allow the construction of temporary roads. now, i appreciate the fact that the manager's amendment will prohibit permanent roads within wilderness areas that are designated necessary for access for hunting and fishing, but even temporary roads in wilderness areas for hunting and fishing are a clear and unnecessary degradeation of the existing wilderness act, and many horseback hunters or hunters who access on foot in my state, i've never been petitioned by them to open up roads into wilderness areas so they can better hunt. they are concerned about the ongoing review and closure of roads by the forest service and i've been actively involved in that. but in this case we can say, now, we can have temporary roads into wilderness areas, something no one has ever asked me or made the case was

necessary for hunting. you know, so it is slightly improved from the early versions but we're still concerned about temporary roads. and that's not something we want in our wilderness areas. i don't think that weakening or changing the definition of wilderness helps expand access for hunting or fishing nor of the opportunities in those areas. also, the bill has some pretty glaring omissions that would actually tremendously benefit the sportsmen communities. that would be programs that support wetlands conservation, water servation, land, conservation fund which are key in expanding opportunities or protecting continued opportunities to hunt and fish as we see more and more urban encroachment onto traditional hunting and fishing areas.

we could use those tools. we need those tools. they're both expired, and, you know, they are not allowed to be part of this package. there were various other amendments offered that we will get to later in the discussion that were not allowed that could have improved this package. so, you know, we will impthrough the amendment process, try and deal with some of the concerns, but, you know, at this point, as written and introduced i would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. >> i want to yield to the gentleman from alaska for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: the provision in title 4 of 3590, the support of

the fish and wildlife service to the president of the united states, this provision is a polar bear conservation and fairness act. it's a bipartisan measure that would make a very limited fix that would affect hunters nationwide. prior to the threatened listing of the polar bear population on may 15, 2008, there were a number of hunters that took trips to canada. these hunters followed all the rules at the time and were prevented from bringing in their polar bear trophy due to the threatened listing triggering an importation ban under the marine mammal protection act. the legislation, my legislation, 3590, will allow the secretary of interior to issue permits to only those qualified hunters with legally taken polar bear trophies prior to the may listing date. this legislation would allow up to 41 hunters to import their trophies from canada. as a result, roughly 41,000 would be available to the

united states, russia, polar bear conservation fund to support conservation activities for the share of polar bear population. this provision that would bring and reserve conservation activities that otherwise would not be funded. as a result, i urge the members to support this legislation and keep in fact these are dead polar bears in storage hunted legally under the premise of canadian law and united states law. this is a good part of this bill. by the way, speaking of this bill, it is a good bill. from the state of alaska, more parks and more refuges than any other state, the refuge the department allow to hunt. park service don't allow us to hunt and i'm arguing that this park and refuge areas set aside for the refuge, managers themselves and not for the people of america, let alone the people of alaska. this legislation is the right way to go. let's think about public lands, not the kings lands, not the

administration lands but the land of the people. this bill is a good bill. i urge passage of this legislation. the chair: the committee will rise informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the united states of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i'd yield the gentleman from mississippi, co-chair of the sportsman caucus, as much time as he might consume. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized.

mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me thank the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from oregon, for allowing me to speak in support of this legislation even though he has reserved time in opposition. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3590, the sportsmen's heritage and recreational enhancement act of 2013. today's bill is the product of the work of members of the bipartisan congressional sportsmen's caucus which i serve as co-chair. the congressional sportsmen's caucus is the largest caucus in congress, boasting nearly 300 members. the caucus seeks to advance hunting, angling, shooting and trapping legislative priorities. today's bill is comprised of eight individual bills that seeks to promote these interests. mr. speaker, not only is hunting and fishing a great passion for millions of individuals like myself, it is

also a major contributor to the u.s. economy. mississippi, home to some of the world's finest duck, whitetail and sports fishing, contributed $2.2 billion to the economy in 2011 alone. my congressional district receives scores of visitors each year, including some members of our -- this body who come to enjoy the vast natural resources that the mississippi delta has to offer. when these individuals visit mississippi, they hire local outfitters, stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, pay state hunting fees and purchase hunting gear, like primos brand hunting calls which are produced in my district in floral, mississippi. in fact, it's been estimated that hunting and fishing supports 33,000 jobs in mississippi.

mr. speaker, the bill before us today makes improvements to a wide range of issues, including the ability to purchase duck stamps online. statutorily, it establishes the wildlife hunting and heritage council which was administratively formed by secretaries salazar and ville secretary in 2012. it -- vilsack in 2012. it will have target range construction and maintenance. also, it excludes commercial ammo and fishing tackle from being classified as toxic substances, which the e.p.a. has agreed. it also directs the secretary of interior and the secretary of agriculture to issue a permit and assess an annual fee for commercial filming crews of five people or fewer for activities on federal land and waterways administered by the secretary. it also allows law-abiding

citizens to transport firearms across army corps of engineers' projects, like the hundreds of miles of levees that i have in my district. it also opens more federal land to hunting and fishing. mr. speaker, while this bill makes to amend the strides to advance the needs of sportsmen, there are several other provisions that were not included in this bill that we must continue to push for and including an overhaul of the red snapper management of the gulf of mexico, the ability to convert decommissioned oil rigs to fish habitats and the re-authorization of the land and water conservation fund. i look forward to working with my colleagues to address these issues. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 3590 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. benishek: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer my support for h.r. 3590, the sportsmen's heritage and recreational enhancement act of 2013, better known as the share act. and i commend my friend and co-chair of the congressional sportsmen's caucus, representative bob latta of ohio for his leadership in guiding this bill to the floor. i'm also proud to join with the sportsmen's caucus co-chairs, both representative latta, representative bennie thompson of mississippi and vice chair, tim walz of minnesota, in support of this important bill. as a member of the natural resources committee, i'd also like to thank chairman doc hastings for his work in cooperation on behalf of america's sportsmen to support this legislation through the committee process. as a sportsman, i'm humbled to advocate for this community and help introduce this legislation

to advance priorities for american anglingers, hunters and conservationists. this comprehensive package will expand opportunities for recreation, support fair treatment and modernize programs for sportsmen and includes a proposal i authored to allow migratory water fowl hunters to purchase their annual duck stamp online. as vice chair of the congressional sportsmen's caucus i can proudly say this provision is important to water fowl hunters across america. the electronic duck stamp act is supported by the congressional sportsmen's foundation and ducks, unlimited. i'd like to recognize representative ron kind as a promoter of the electronic duck stamp act. he's a dedicated supporter of this. there's no costs to taxpayers and there is bipartisan support for this innovative idea and this convenient 21st century delivery system will be

utilized by thousands of american sportsmen in the future. again, i would encourage my colleagues to support this important package, h.r. 3590, the sportsmen's heritage and recreational enhancement act. with that, mr. chairman, i ield back. mr. defazio: how much time on either side? the chair: gentleman has 19 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 21 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. defazio: i grant the gentleman from california, mr. farr, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise today in opposition to this legislation and i would hope that my colleagues will read it, look before they leap. it's called the sportsmen heritage recreational

enhancement act of 2014, but unfortunately it is mired in a muck of text in the legislation that i think does just the opposite of enhancement. it ought to read kill the habitat and wildlife and enjoy a dead forest act. this bill diminishes the conserves measures designed to protect the habitat for wildlife by creating loopholes in the wilderness act and weakens the nepa process. title 1 amends the toxic substance control act to prohibit the e.p.a. from regulating toxic substances contained in bullets, andling lures and other hunting equipment with respect to toxic substances, toxic substances. it's not just people that are affected by toxic substances, so are animals. and in here, they prohibit

barring lead in bullets. now california is a big hunter state. and guess what? california state law prohibits the use of lead. why? because the federal government has spent millions, millions and millions of dollars trying to restore the california condor. does that count? $1,000 a anch inns at night. it's filled all the time. why? you can see mountain lions and sea otters and other things that we protect by protecting their environment. what does a condor die from? eats things that have been killed by bullets. and guess what? it kills them. there is no question about this. this is the number one cause of

death of condors in california after we spent money to get them restored. this is going to hurt the economy. and you know what, people call them sportsmen, they don't want to kill the wildlife by poison or destroying the habitat. that's why the bill passed in california banning lead bullets. and this one prohibits states like california from doing that. even the military is moving toward pursuing a lead-free environment for their small arms. it's a serious problem. and this bill bans that. this is nuts. lead poisoning from ammunition is where you kill off wildlife, not by a good shot. you kill it off by the poison that's left behind. and that's why governor brown signed into law a ban on lead bullets. and they phase it in to 2019. this allows 30 other states

follow at least what 30 other states have done in regulating lead ammunition in some manner. so if we want to really protect and enhance the environment ks then we ought to do what the original conserveists did by switching to none toxic ammunition and allow them to continue on good conservation efforts. so this legislation is a step backwards for a sportsmen. i'm a fishermen and i don't want to put stuff in the ocean or lakes that are toxic and conservation practices that protect our open lands, public spaces and wilderness areas. look before you leap. don't jump in because there are a bunch of people endorsing this. look at the small print. and i urge you to oppose this legislation until it can be legislation that will be a sportsmen's heritage and

recreational enhancement act. as of now, it deserves your opposition. the chair: the gentleman from ichigan is recognized. mr. benishek: i rise in support of this act. i would like to talk about title 8 of this bill which is the text of a bill that i introduced, recreational fishing and heritage opportunities act. hunting and fishing are an important part of the lives of the constituents in my district. i grew up in northern michigan and like many of my constituents, spent my summers fishing, my octobers hunting grouse in the u.p. woods. these are the kind of things that we must make sure we preserve for generations to come. mr. chairman, this portion of

the share act creates an open until closed policy for sportsmen use of federal lands. nearly a quarter of the united states' land mass or 500 million acres are managed by the bureau of land management, the fish and wildlife service and the forest service. these lands are all owned by all americans. it is important that the right to fully utilize these lands is ensured for future generations. over the years, legislative ambiguity in the wilderness act has opened the door for numerous lawsuits. rather than embracing sportsmen and women with a -- anti-hunting and environmental groups have pursued an agenda of limiting heritage activities on federal lands for years. they look for loopholes in the law to deprive our constituents for the right to use their own federal lands. recreational andlers, hunters

and sporting organizations, many of whom who have endorsed this bill are supporters of the conservation movement and continue to provide direct support to the wildlife managers and enforcement officers at the state, local and federal level. these dedicated sports men and women from the shorelines of lake superior to the beaches of the pacific ocean deserve to know that the lands they cherish will not be closed off to future generations. this is a bipartisan issue. presidents bush and clinton recognized the value of these heritage activities. it is time we finally close these loopholes, firm up the language and make sure that future generations will always be able to enjoy the outdoors. hunting, fishing, shooting or just takeing a walk in the woods. i would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this

important piece of commonsense legislation and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is ecognized. mr. defazio: how many more speakers does the gentleman have? mr. benishek: i have six more, mr. chairman. mr. defazio: i have no more except myself, so i would suggest the gentleman go ahead. i would reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. benishek: i reserve yield to minutes to the gentleman from from wyoming -- the gentleman from montana, sorry. mr. daines: i rise in support of the share act, h.r. 3590. as a fifth generation of montana

and lifelong sportsmen, i know that hunting, fishing and hiking is simply a way of life for us in montana. the outdoors is a critical aspect of our culture and as 30% of our state is owned by the federal government, we depend on responsible stewardship and public access to these lands. and unfortunately, our federal government too often imposes rules and regulations that prevent responsible land use and our freedom to use the land that we pay for. roughly two million acres in montana are inaccessible to the public. that's the most of any state in the nation. many of our hunting and fishing opportunities are locked away. the share act is an important bill that will protect access to public lands for outdoor recreation and too often the federal government forgets that it's hunters, andlers,

outdoorsmen whose passions rely on the land that respect the landscape the most and are the best stewards of our public lands. and here we have the federal government trying to expand its authority over lead bullets, keeping millions of dollars spent on ammo and fishing by hunters and andlers being used for conservation and wildlife management. the sport act, this bill would protect our industries that manufacture these goods from these unnecessary regulations. the share act would also protect our second amendment rights where the administration has tried to constrain them. it ensures that state and local governments are consulted in those managing shooting ranges and outdoorsmen instead of bureaucrats are advising the administration on these issues. the share act is an important bill to protect america's outdoor heritage and ensure the

responsible use of our public lands. i urge passage of this bill. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. benishek: i would like to yield at this time two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta. mr. latta: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 3590, the sportsmen heritage and recreational enhancement act or share act. i have introduced this on behalf of the sportsmen caucus with congressman thompson of whom i thank for his work. i would like to thank chairman hastings for his support of the various bills contained in the sportsmen package and chairman shuster and chairman upton and all of my colleagues that introduced the individual bills. as a lifelong hunter and outdoorsman, issues relating to hunting and conservation are important to me.

this legislation includes various pro-sports men and women items to ensure our outdoors are protected in advance. h.r. 3590 addresses some of the most current concerns of america's hunters, andlers, shooters and trappers. title 3 of the bill is legislation that i introduced to -- related to public lands filming. this provision directs the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture for any film crew of five persons or fewer to require a permit and assess an annual fee of $200 for filming or similar projects on federal lands and waterways. this prohibits the secretary for persons holding such a permit from assessing any additional fee for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in those areas during public hours. i have introduced language until title 7 that the advisory

committee which advises the secretary of interior and agriculture on wildlife and habitat conservation, recreational hunting and shooting. authorization is vital to maintain hunters have a capacity role. passage of h.r. 3590 will not only elevate the stature of the council but the levels of certainty necessary to ensure the council's ability to engage in assisting the government and implementing the innovative long-term solutions that are often necessary -- mr. benishek: i yield another 30 seconds. mr. latta: long-term solutions that are necessary to address policy issues important to sportsmen and sportswomen. it is important to allow access to federal lands and provide needed certainty for the rules surrounding these activities. they provide an economic benefit

to our country and 2011, they spent $90 billion. in my own state of ohio, they spent $2.85 billion on hunting and fishing and more from the revenue from corn. h.r. 3590 is good for the sporting and conservation communities and i urge my colleagues to sport the bill. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. if mr. latta would remain on the floor. if you would, i would like to direct a question about the filming provision, because it seems -- i'm curious what problem specifically have been identified regarding filming permits and the second question would be is it the gentleman's intent they should be able to use members of the committee niesed filming on tracks in

wilderness areas? mr. latta: first, there are a lot of smaller companies out there that don't have the large film crews and don't have the large backup when it comes to funding the bill to do these types of activities. we want to make sure those individuals have the ability to be out there with a smaller fee so they can go ahead and make the films. mr. defazio: reclaiming my time as i understand the current process, the fees -- there is not one large fee. the fees vary in terms of the agency -- i mean if it's a one-person crew or four-person crew, the fees would be smaller and if it's a mega film coming from hollywood, they would charge a larger fee, is my understanding. so i'm wondering if there has been a specific case where someone has come to the gentleman and said we are a two-person crew and they want to

charge us $10,000. do you have any specific examples? mr. latourette: what we have have come to -- mr. latta: what we have come to us and again this is multiple groups coming together and when we looked at the fee, et cetera, they thought it would be appropriate, $200 for the annual fee for the small groups that ant to go out and film. mr. defazio: and the issue of mechanized film being used, being used in wilderness areas, i'd yield? mr. latta: that is one of the sections in the title. mr. defazio: do you think we should waive it for film crews and not other activities? mr. latta: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it could be a very small a.t.v.

might not be talking about a truck but something very thall. mr. defazio: well, thank you. reclaiming my time. mr. latta: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. defazio: i think that this is a solution in search of a problem. we have had no testimony before the committee and no specifics were provided there. i believe it's an overly broad provision. if we had cases where extortion fees were being charged to small groups or unreasonable fees that weren't following the scaling basis that the agency tells me they follow, then i would share the gentleman's concerns. with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the chairman. i thank chairman hastings for his support and including the shooting protection act as title 1 of this sportsmen's package. i want to thank my

congressional sportsmen's caucus colleagues and chairman bob latta and bennie thompson for their efforts to protect sportsmen's rights and our nation's heritage. title 1 simply clarifies existing intent of law regarding e.p.a.'s authority under the toxic substance control act with respect to traditional ammunition and fishing tackle that contain lead components. this legislation would prevent e.p.a. from expanding its regulatory authority under toska. into an area where fish and wildlife agencies are better positioned to manage. what the several anti-hunting and anti-fishing groups who insist on the expansion fail to recognize is that the ammunition, the firearms, the tackle industries, along with sportsmen and women are the ones foot -- sports men and women are the ones footing the bill to protect the species and habitate that they claim they

are trying to save. there's no sound evidence of traditional ammo and fishing tackle with lead components causing harm to wildlife populations or human health that would warrant a complete ban. i'd also say that one of my colleagues came to the floor earlier and said that this particular piece of legislation would in fact prevent states like california from banning lead ammunition. that is not true. doing so in disregard of the intent of the law, e.p.a. would devastate countless domestic manufacturing facilities, drive up the costs for law enforcement and for our military, destroying thousands of jobs and hurting wildlife conservation funding all at the expense of the taxpayer. that is a cost that shut not be borne. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: if the gentleman would remain on the floor for a minute, mr. miller. i guess he doesn't want to remain on the floor. ok. i was going to direct a

question to him which is, since the e.p.a. has found it does not have legal authority to legislate these substances, why do we need to pass a law to prevent a law from being passed which i guess is what we're trying to do here in case we ever wanted a law to do this, we already passed a law to prohibit that? because e.p.a. says they don't have the authority do this that. there was a petition filed. it was rejected. end of story. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3590, the sportsmen's heritage and recreational enhancement act. the bill protects the second amendment right to visitors, the army corps recreation lands. they have more outdoor recreation visitors than the national park service or

national forest system lands. y district is home to lake graystown. while we have protections for americans' second amendment rights in american forest lands, it does not protect corps profits propts and this bill corrects that. it removes unnecessary firearm restrictions while maintaining the safety of buildings and properties. i ask my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 3590, the sportsmen's heritage and recreational enhancement act and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i'd yield myself such time as i may consume. i'd like to ask the chairman regarding that since it's under the jurisdiction of my committee and i am not aware we held a hearing on this issue. did we? i yield. mr. shuster: i think so in the past. mr. defazio: i have many corps areas in my district.

reclaiming my time. i am not aware of restrictions except there are restricted these ecause a number of have equipment that operates dams and spillways and those are high security areas post-9/11. i'm wondering if the gentleman's interpretation of this is that it would allow people to carry firearms into these high security areas, i'd yield to the gentleman. to huster: protect rights carry firearms on, law-abiding citizens. i think it's something reasonable and something i support. i thank the gentleman for the inquiry. mr. defazio: reclaiming my time. you know, i'm a strong supporter of the second amendment and gun owner myself and i'm not aware of -- haven't had a single complaint about corps restrictions in my state. you know, and that would include areas where we have had

tampering with machinery that relates to spillways and dams, potential terrorism, and i wouldn't want to facilitate terrorism by saying if we're talking about general corps and areas lands managed, fine. if we're talking about sensitive areas that has to be protected and guarded, i don't know why we would have a civilian carry firearms in those areas which would make us vulnerable to terrorism, terrorists without a weapon, i guess they can bring a weapon in anyway, they'll violate the law, if one brings a weapon now they would be asked to leave or apprehended. so i'm concerned about those aspects. and i think my committee and homeland security should have looked at this issue before it was brought to the floor without a hearing. with that i'll retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. gibbs: thank you.

mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 3590, the sportsmen's heritage and recreational enhancement act of 2013. i would like to speak specifically to title 6 of the bill. the fundamental constitutional right to bear arms must be protected for all law-abiding citizens. americans deserve to exercise their right but also provide self-defense for themselves and their loved ones. in the 111th congress, we passed legislation which would allow guns to be legally possessed and carry on lands within our national parks. following the enactment of that legislation, the army corps of engineers immediately issued the following release. public law 111-204 does not apply to corps projects or facilities. the passage of this new law does not affect application of title 6 -- title 36 regulations. the corps administrators over 11.7 million acres of land,

including 400 lakes and rivers projects, 90,000 campsites and 4,000 miles of trails. much of this land is remote and without quick access to emergency service or law enforcement, so the ability to carry a firearm in the case of an emergency is imperative. this army corps policy preempts state regulatory frameworks for transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating conceal weapon carry permits that would otherwise you a lao law-abiding american citizens to exercise their second amendment right. it would ensure the right to carry at the army corps water resource development sites and would not force regulation that would prevent an individual to possess a firearm on these properties, therefore restoring continuity to federal law. gun owners need to be able to exercise their second amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting and fishing in army corps projects.

i'd like to thank my colleague from ohio, representative latta, for including my bill in this legislation. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation and the whole. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i'd like to inquire how many more speakers. mr. benishek: we have one more speaker. mr. defazio: you're counting yourself as one or one more because i'll go just before you close? mr. benishek: i have one more speaker and then i'll close. mr. defazio: so i'd reserve at this point. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. hunter. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. hunter: i want to thank the committee for putting in h.r. 2463, the target practice and marksmanship support act that congressman walz from minnesota and myself wrote. basically what this does, it

allows americans to use federal lands that they pay for in order to go out and shoot for sport, to have practice ranges and target ranges and with fewer rages today providing greater flexibility to states for the purpose of maintaining public shooting venues and it will go a long way to restrorg recreational opportunities and -- restoring recreational opportunities. we have to go to an indoor range or go to someone's private ranch. there are no more public facilities. the target practice and marksmanship training support act uses existing resources to allow americans greater access on lands to safely practice recognize weeksal and competitive shooting. -- recreational and competitive shooting. -- public shooting nges will provide a safe

place for target practice and will sustain jobs and local businesses. this is a great bill. it's a great overall bill. i'd urge my colleagues to support it because shooting and shooting well is an american tradition and you shouldn't just have to join the marine corps to learn that. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. i'd agree with the gentleman and i appreciate that. it came out of committee unanimously. it's a true bipartisan proposal. i learned to shoot through the y in a basement range with a .22. anyway, you got to learn somewhere. public lands is another place for families to go and learn to shoot. so that's one of the noncontroversial parts of the bill. in fact, four of the components of this bill could have been brought up under suspension or even i believe unanimous consent yesterday. definitely under suspension.

they definitely would have passed. previously considered by committee, been subject to hearings and the language was agreed upon. unfortunately, the majority has insisted, although i also believe that the title would get unanimous consent in this body. it's a great title. but sometimes we attach provisions to great titles that aren't necessary. some of the components of this, which i talked about, the potential for degradation of wetlands management, intrusions into wilderness areas that are inappropriate are unnecessary and, you know -- i mean, we can do a little political got you. you voted against this bill that has this great title so that means you're against

sportsmen and fishing and hunters and families enjoying those activities. i'm not and very few, if any, members of this body are. but be that as it may, we pointed out a number of the problems in this legislation. you know, legislating is really a pretty difficult exercise. to do real things, to do things that actually would benefit, you know, our wildlife resources and hunting and fishing activities. one would be congressman daines' proposal to re-authorize the land water conservation fund. every day, every day, you know, development proposals move forward that take more and more wildlife areas, more and more wetlands, more and more, you know, forests out of, you know, out of access to hunting and fishing and recreation in many cases. the land and water conservation

fund has been a key in protecting those lands when jeopardized and purchasing from willing sellers to prevent that ind of development. though we're still collecting the tax that funds the land and water conservation fund, yes, we are collecting the tax, even the republicans haven't proposed that we do away with that tax, because they're spending land and water conservation funds on other things. god only knows what. you know, some of the earmarks that a bill will -- in a bill we'll take up late they are week, but they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars that are supposed to go to benefit sportsmen and women, hunters, fishers, wildlife and protect those areas and manage them reasonably with that full access, they are spending that money somewhere else. they don't want to take away the tax but they don't want to re-authorize the land and water conservation fund. that's a shame. that would be a much bigger

benefit than anything else we're doing here today. we have a number of bipartisan wilderness proposals pending. mr. reichert from washington state, alpine lakes, mr. benishek, sleeping bear dunes and others. that are pending. those things would benefit since wilderness does allow hunting and fishing and does provide a degree of protection for those lands that is unparalleled, that would be a -- an experience for horseback hunters, people who walk in on their own two feet but there's plenty of places to go in a motorized way, there's a little more -- it's a little more rare to have the opportunity to do that from horseback or hiking but we're not considering those because they're controversial -- controversial. instead we have this kind of hash that we're calling one thing and doing a number of other things with. we ve the proposal that have a problem with unidentified

film crews who have never come forward who might be charged too much or need to use mote orized equipment in areas and therefore we're going to open them up. that's a heck of a way to legislate, really. we're worried that maybe some units and definitely the dam areas of the corps of engineers prohibit, you know, prohibit individuals carrying weapons. that's not exactly an intrusion, they can't carry a weapon into an airport, you can't carry a weapon into the capitol you can't carry a weapon into a federal courthouse and you can't carry a weapon to a dam site where tampering with equipment could cause a massive flood or dam failure. it makes a lit bit of sense to me but the bill says no, it's an infringement on the second amendment. i think it's a reasonable step by the government. we're going to open that up, again without any hearings identify anything problems with access. i have a lot of corps projects in my state, never had a constituent call and say, gee, i want to go on this corps

property and bring my gun. i've got a concealed weapons permit you know. and i've car raid gun on many federal lands with it and there is no restriction and i supported the park provisions last year. but we're creating another imaginary problem to add another title to this hash of a bill. so, i'm sorry that we're having to go forward in this way. i did support a less controversial measure for sportsmen, heritage in the last congress and even that didn't go anywhere in the senate this one already has an affirmed veto threat from the white house and the senate isn't going to take it up so we can pretend we did something here today and some people get excited about the fact that we did something here today that will never happen. we could and it's much harder agree on a bipartisan measure for reasonable measures to pr protect people's rights to hunt and fish and bear arms but we're not going to do that. so let's get on with the political show. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: let me make a couple of points. i want to make a broad point on the what the intent of this legislation is because it's aimed at use of public lands. now, i have always been of the mind that public lands, particularly federal lands, should be -- unless congress designates otherwise, then the uses of those lands should be for multiple purposes. obviously recreation, i.e., hunting and fishing, would be part of that. so what this bill seeks to do then is to proside certainty into federal laws -- provide certainty into federal laws that indeed multiple uses, in which case, hunting, fishing and recreational use, will be on public lands. there's nothing really more complicated than that. and what has caused this

legislation to be brought forward is because of actions of certain bue beau rackcies within certain parts of the federal government that have a different decision, if you will or different idea of that and slow down the recreational activity. this bill seeks to put certainty in that. lastly, let me just respond to the arguments we heard about the land and water conservation fund. mr. chairman, that is a program, there are people that think it's a very, very good program, there are those that, including me that feel that sometimes it is not as good as it is simply because -- if you acquire private land for the frft, can't maintain what we have that should be a reason for pause anyway but the reason i think the rule committees didn't make that particular amendment in order is very a -- is for a very, very good reason.

talk about regular order, the land and water conservation fund statute does not expire until 2015. so i know as chairman of the house natural resources committee that the subcommittee in charge of that particular legislation is going to have hearings and we're going to go through legislative process in order to re-authorize that. so to rail against the idea that that amendment was not made in order somehow continues to break the program is simply not the case. the program is in place until it expires in 2015 and i have no doubt that the arms committee will come up with legislation to do the proper re-authorization. with that, mr. chairman, i think it's a very, very good bill and urge my colleagues to sport it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: 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 and shall be considered as read.

no amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in house report 113-339. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 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 and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one offered by mr. haste offings washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington.

mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, this amendment makes several technical and clarifying changes to the bill and conforms the bill tokse which was favorably report fled committee on natural resources. let me cite some of the small changes in the amendment. it includes a saving provision regarding the effect of the act on indian tribes treaty or other recognized rights, clarifies that. it also provides clear language that the provision of opportunities to hunt, fish, and shoot on certain federal lands, and i'll quote, shall not authorize or facilitate commodity development, use or extraction, motorized vehicle access, road construction, maintenance or use not otherwise allowed under the wilderness act, that clarifies that. it also incorporates an amendment filed by our colleague, the sponsor of the legislation, mr. latta, to title 7 of the bill to correct a sunset date for the existing advisory council so as i understand the manager's

amendment is something that's been vetted and i urge its adoption and reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the entleman from oregon rise? mr. the de-faws yoke: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition. mr. defazio: i am. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minute plsms defazio: i appreciate there are some clarifications in this amendment which we do support but there are a few remaining oversights. there was an amendment by delbene and kilmer from washington state that specified that tribal jurisdiction is not o be infringed upon where this language is not the, you know, this blanket language in the hastings amendment protecting

tribal rights could well not be read, we're supposedly in a number of places here, we're illusions, of s, threats with some of the provisions about the film permitting and that. but this might be real. which is, you know, this does not deal with the p ten rble for disputes between tribes and neighbors landowners or between tribes and so therefore it would have been better to have the broader language of delbene and kilmer which specified treaty protected rights of the individual tribal members are protected whereas this only protects the rights of the tribe itself. i worry that we're creating a loophole here that doesn't adequately protech the sovereignty of tribes and all of their members. the amendment does attempt to address some of the wilderness issues in title 7. the recreation -- so-called

recreational fishing and hunting heritage act which fails to address the wilderness issues in title 3, fipping on public lands, we've had extensive discussion of that, no identified problem, no hearing, nobody's ever said we need this but it's in there. we'll allow mechanized film crew into wilderness areas. and then title 7 creates a loophole that will allow motorized equipment and vehicles into federal wilderness areas, not with permanent roads, with only temporary roads or driving offroad to facilitate hunting in wilderness areas or otherwise restricted areas, wildlife refuges and that, and we still find that very problematic. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back 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. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number two printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. hanna: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two printed in house report 113-339 offered by mr. hanna of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470 the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. hanna: thank you. i rise today in strong support of the share act and am pleased to be a sponsor of this bill. the share act allows more americans to enjoy outdoor hobbies such as hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on public lands. not only do these activity prossvide constituents with enjoyable hobbies and pastimes, they also contribute to our

communities by creating and supporting diverse jobs in every congressional district. when families travel for activities in the outdoors they spur demand for outdoor products and services and create jobs in the manufacturing, outfitting, lodging and hopityity industries. i'm proud that the village of illian in my congressional district is home to the oldest continued -- continuously operating manufacturing company, remington harms. it sustains more than 1rks400 well-paying union jobs in new york's mohawk valley. legislators in washington and in albany should take concrete steps to support these private sector jobs and not threaten them. i am pleased the house is taking this action today. by opening new lands for recreational use and by making the joys of the out-- of

outdoors more accessible to average americans, we can assist important sectors of our economy without spending taxpayer dollars. my amendment would simply quantify the economic impacts of this act by detailing how the new recreational opportunities it provides will create jobs, boost wages and generate new local, state, and federal revenue. it is my hope that by highlighting the connection between sportsman-friendly federal policy and growth in outdoor industries, future congresses will take additional steps to not only provide our constituents with greater access to hunting, fishing, shooting, and conservation pursuits but also help grow jobs in the private sector and support these american traditions. mr. hastings: if the gentleman will yield? mr. hanna: yes.

mr. hastings: i think putting this aspect in the bill will quantify how important this is if you put an economic component to it. i plan on supporting the amendment. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. hanna: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i believe that the information on the economic impacts of conservation is important. it is something that we don't quantify very well. as we pointed out earlier, some of the provisions of this act, unfortunately, will fly in the face of conservation, the benefits of hunting and fishing activities on public lands. so i think actually on balance the gentleman's requirement here would be very helpful to

help in the future for land managers who have to make decisions between opening up lands through mining or to oil and gas development versus the benefits the community could realize from the -- or has been realizing or continue to realize from the recreation, hunting and fishing would be useful mfings -- information. federal lands have become essentially a reservoir, a place where these activities from the most part of what i mentioned earlier. they are some of the premiere destinations for hunting and fishing in the country. again, the chairman and i disagree on the merits of acquiring some of these lands which are, you know, in now private ownership from willing sellers that potentially would otherwise be slated for development and using land,

water conservation fund i believe that addressing the land-water conservation fund proactively would have been useful. for certain, given objections to that because it has not quite expired even though we're underutilizing it and using the tax dollars somewhere else, the north american wetlands conservation act has expired. dingle-wittman amendment was -- dingell-wittman amendment was proposed to re-authorize that critical program and that was not allowed. that would also be something that would show immeasurable benefit. with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. hanna: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to qualify and quantity fight the economic impact of the share act, 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 york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now time to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. castro: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-339 offered by mr. castro of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470, the gentleman from texas, mr. castro, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. castro: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to chairman hastings and ranking member defazio for considering this amendment. his amendment concerns the

composition of the heritage conservation council advisory committee relating to hunting and recreational activities on federal lands. it adds the requirement that women and minority hunting and fishing advocacy, outreach or educational programs are included as discretionary committee members. examples of such groups include the women's hunting and sporting foundation, hispanics enjoying camping and outdoors organizations and the african-american hunting organization. this will bring the number of groups in that discretionary committee group to 14 from 12. the groups that i am adding with this amendment were originally included in the committee's charter. this amendment simply codifies that inclusion. i'm proud to offer this amendment. i yield back my time. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. i think his amendment, the idea of the whole underlying legislation is to expand as

much as we can to those that want to enjoy that. i think his amendment adds to the legislation, and i am prepared to support it. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back. mr. castro: thank you. mr. defazio: if the gentleman will yield? mr. castro: yes. mr. defazio: i want to thank the gentleman for his diligence nd foresight to propose this amendment. it replaced the current council with a new membership. i am not exactly certain why we need to do that because we haven't heard particular complaints. but in any case this is an improvement upon the newly recommended council to include norts and women fully -- minorities and women fully engaged. i see a lot of those folks in my state and i'm sure you do in texas too. so i'm pleased for one brief moment here we have a bipartisan consensus.

with that i congratulate the gentleman. mr. castro: well, thank you, gentlemen, both. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield it's back. who -- the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chairman. amendment at the desk -- i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 rinted in house report 113-339 offered by mr. gay yageo of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470, the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chair and the ranking member for their work on this legislation. i can think of nothing more important that all of us i think agree on than the importance of taking care of r veterans and our veterans' community. especially now, we have so many wounded warriors coming back and so many taken to outdoors activities as part of the therapy part of wounded warriors and making sure we really approach making them whole again in a very real way and nature is a huge part of that. last night, in fact, this chamber held a moment of silence to honor veterans in afghanistan and iraq. these are folks who have put their country above all else. and what this amendment specifically would do would be to essentially correct what i believe also was an oversight

in ensuring that veterans are lso included in this wildlife, hunting, heritage conservation council advisory committee. that's because so many places are popping up where the outdoors is a great part of that therapy and a very important part of the therapy that many of our wounded warriors are receiving. this advisory committee, as they give their advice to the administration, it's important they do so with a veteran at the table. it's important that veterans have that voice and they look at it with the perspective from a wounded warrior, a veteran, someone who served our country in uniform, what we can be doing to make this experience more meaningful to them. i appreciate, again, the opportunity -- mr. hastings: if the gentleman will yield? mr. gallego: absolutely. happy to yield. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to say that this amendment, i believe, also will add to the underlying legislation which, of course, is to expand the experience of

hunting and fishing. so the remarks i made to his colleague from texas is applicable to this. i endorse his amendment and tell my friend from oregon, the ranking member, that's 2-2 now. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. defazio: if the gentleman ill yield? mr. gallego: absolutely. mr. defazio: i'd like to thank the gentleman for improving this. i thought your points about the healing that can come from wounded warriors being in, you know, these precious natural areas in our country is very well taken. i appreciate that. just not to create any discord at the moment, there was another amendment that wasn't allowed and that isn't the purview of the gentleman with the bill on the floor today, that the rules committee -- by the representative that

al d have waived recreation use by veterans is -- i want to thank the gentleman. mr. gallego: thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time in opposition? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor will say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in ouse report 113-339. haste mr. defazio: as a designee of mr. ellison, i have an amendment at the desk. mr. ellison is detained at the white house. the chair: it's now in order to

consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: ok. you know, i'm confused. which one? the chair: number 6. mr. defazio: ok. i'd repeat what i said previously. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk as a designee of mr. ellison who is detained at the white house. i ask unanimous consent to proceed with the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-339 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon.

mr. defazio: i want to applaud congressman ellison for bringing this amendment to the attention of the house. we have had endless debate about the appropriate role of the national environmental policy act in both resources committee and the house committee on transportation. the underlying bill, 3590, includes language which would eliminate the need for the fish an wildlife service to disclose, analyze and take comments on decisions related to management decisions in national wildlife refuges. let me repeat that. they would not have to analyze or take comment from either side on decisions that relate to management decisions in national wildlife refuges. you know, never has there been a case made here during the leadup to this bill, such as there was, and during the

debate why we need this very broad nepa exception which would, you know, if they want to increase hunting, no nepa analysis. they want to decrease hunting, no nepa analysis. no opportunity for the public to be involved in the process. and as we learned during the shutdown of the wildlife refuge system provides tremendous opportunity, some of it very femoral in terms of seasons for duck hunters, fishermen and other sports men and women throughout the country. in some densely populated areas, like in congressman thompson's district, wildlife refuges are some of the only hunting areas open to the public and especially the disabled public. why do we need to cut the public out, including disabled

americans, veterans, anybody regarding these special places and their management when no evidence has been presented that nepa isn't anyway an impediment to refuge? it's just the standard, boiler plate repeal nepa anywhere, everywhere, all the time and sooner or later it might stick but it won't given the veto threat on this bill and the fact the senate won't act on it, but, anyways, it's in here and there was an amendment to be offered by congressman broun from georgia, which i was going to strongly support, which would have fixed the bill and brought a fair number of votes across the aisle by stripping these extraneous provisions regarding nepa and wilderness and everything that's under attack in this bill that doesn't need to be attacked under this bill but i guess somehow even though it was made in order the republican side has convinced him not to offer the amendment because it would have passed and it would have ade the bill better.

so at this point, at least we can support the ellison amendment as it relates to national wildlife refuges. with that i reserve the balance f my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i guess all good things co-to an end as i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i oppose the amendment because it undermines what i consider to be a fundamental purpose of the law. the fundamental purpose that we are here today is to protect our hunting and fish traditions on federal lands. we are making a clear statement that hunting and fishing are important use of our multiple use federal lands this bill

establishes a clear policy that federal lands should be open for hunting and fishing unless specifically closed by a transparent and open federal process. let me repeat that, mr. chairman. the federal lands should be open for hunting and fishing unless specifically closed by a transparent and open federal process. nepa requires preparation of environmental impact statement thopes federal agency proposes, federal o take major action. when h.r. 3590 is enacted into law, there will be no need for a costly and bureaucratic process currently necessary to make lands available for hunting and fishing. that process won't be necessary because it will be the law. congress has spoken as to what the law is. again this bill is designed to set out an open, unless specifically closed, process on b.l.m. and forest service lands.

as a result, no major federal action would be needed or would take place to keep lands open to these traditional important uses of our shared federal lands. and if there is no administrative action there is no need for an e.i.s. or nepa review. owever, h.r. 3590 confirmed -- or conforms to established understanding of the law that should an agency move to close federal lands the agency should then undertake an open and public process before having the lands closed to traditional uses. now, we know that these provisions are important because they fix a court created problem regarding implementation of the 1997 national wildlife refuge system improvement act. we have seen the clear track record that anti-hunter groups will use to tie up hunting and fishing access to federal lands with endless lawsuits this bill reverse this is trend and makes our lands open for hunting and

fishing. again, mr. chairman, we are making a policy statement that -- that this will be what the law of the land. s h.r. 3590 directs that our conservation dollars be spent on conservation act tiffities in the field rather than on redundant paperwork and of course lendless -- endless lawsuits. that's gold of the bill that this amendment would undercut and which would undercut our goal of promoting hunting and fishing and i urge defeat of the amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. >> i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yield back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i urge defeat of the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment is offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the

noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. -- proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number seven printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number seven printed in house report 113-339 offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 47240erk gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. for my opportunity to present this amendment to h.r. 3590 today, the sportsman heritage

and recreational enhancement act. as a member of the natural resources committee, i couldn't be prouder of the work we have done to continue to protect our sportsmen's -- sportsmen's ability to enjoy the outdoors. as such i'm honored to offer my amendment that would ensure that sportsmen will continue to be able to use motorized vessels in the ozark national scenic riverways. a national park contained wholly within my congressional district in southern missouri. the ozark national scenic riverway sass popular destination in missouri for fishing, gigging and trapping. these activities have traditionally been undertake bin individuals and families for generations. an economy has arisen in my district selling boats, motors and other products to folks who want to gig, fish, and trap within the rivers. recently the national park service has been discussing closing down areas of the park to motorized vessels and further limiting the horsepower of these

vessels in other areas. the reduction of boat motor horsepower would limit the on er of folks who could be a boat and restrict access to families. banning motorized vessels from air dwhreefs park where they are currently aloud would further restrict the public's use and enjoyment of the park. banning motorized vessels would also exclude groups from using the river that simply have no other option like the elderly and disabled veterans. why would the park service resort to such drastic measures to block activities that are currently allowed. one explanation is that they don't want folks to utilize the river like they have for the past decade. my amendment would simply preserve the current park regulations as they are now and how they've been for the last five decades. preventing the park service from regulating sportsmen off the river. the ozark national scenic riverways was creefaret the enjoyment of the public and should stay with the public.

mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think this amendment is in the spirit of the underlying legislation which is to make sure that there is access for hunting and fishing and here we have, as i said in my hoping statement, the potential of bureaucratic ma lace, i guess, sling down access to this particular area that the gentleman from missouri represents. i think his amendment adds a great deal that legislation and i intend to support it and i yield back to the gentleman from issouri. mr. smith: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the -- does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i'm not an expert on the gentleman's district and what the exact issue is here. however i do know that there has been a proposed management plan

that has been out for comment since november 8, it will close on friday. i would hope that the gentleman and concerned parties on either side of the issue have all weighed in to comment because what we're doing here today in this bill will not become law, it's already guaranteed a veto threat, the addition of this bill will not help resolve what salo call issue where the park service has to weigh comments from motorized users and nonmotorized users and then come to a conclusion weighing those comments and put forward a new management plan. that's the way this is going to get done. shouldn't be done from washington, d.c., shouldn't be dictating if we get into every individual land use or access decision being made by every unit of the park service, every unit of our, you know, of the fish and wildlife service and their refuges and every unit of the forest service and every unit of the b.l.m., we're going to be pretty busy and you know, be embroiled in a lot of local

controversy. premature believe, is in that comments close this week and the process will come to a conclusion, comments will be weighed and a decision will be put out for final comment and it's also at this point, you know, being added to a bill that's going nowhere. with that, i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: i yield to the gentleman. mr. hastings: i want to clarify something that's been said here by anymy friend the ranking member that this administration has issued a veto threat. they have not issued a veto threat. they have said, and i'll just read the last line of their statement, administration policy, it says the administration looks forward to working with congress to enact sportsman and recreation legislation that addresses the concerns raised with certain provisions of h.r. 3590. now in the letter they do say

they have problems with four of ea the eight titles but to suggest that the administration has issued a veto threat on this is simply not correct. i ask -- i'll let it go. i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number eight printed in house report 113-339. frun does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. crawford: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report 113-339 offered by mr. crawford

of arkansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, and a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i yield myself such time as i may consume. my amendment would provide a limited exemption related to the taking of migratory game birds over farp fields. it collar fiss a recent interpretation by the u.s. fish and wildlife service about what constitutes a field. some of fields that had been rolled as farmers often do could be offlimits to water foul hunting. as summer's drought led to an early rice harvest in several rts of the country and heavy in caused a rare secondary field to happen. any field such as rolling would make water foul hunting

unlawful. waterfowl hunting is a big deal in my district. farmers, small businesses and others rely on the millions of dollars hunters bring with them every year my amendment is a commonsense solution that simply states that a field may not be resultred of baited as a of normal practices. at the request of the secretary of the interior with concurrence from the state's fish and wildlife service. i ask for your support for this important amendment to protect farmers from being punished for carrying out long-recognized and responsible agricultural practices. i recognize the chairman. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i plan to support his amendment. this is something that it seems like we wrestle with all the time on the federal level. there's uniqueness when you're on the ground but we write rules and regulations as one size fits all. this is clearly a unique situation and i think the gentleman's amendment clarifies that very well. and i support the amendment and

i yield back to the gentleman. mr. crawford: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: you know, we often have conflict in orged conflicts new york oregon we had a substantial conflict relating to geese. and in terms of farmers' fields. and resolution was that the birds protected by the migratory bird act would continue to be protected, but farmers would be able to hunt with the state license and i don't know about the gentleman's state whether or not state license would be required, the birds that were not migratory that were becoming pests and were resident in order

protect their crops. this substantially resolved the problem. don't know if a similar fix would work here but an amendment that gives, you know, an open license on the migratory bird act which is -- has international implications, migratory bird treaty, you know, seems to be an extreme measure in this case and therefore we would oppose the amendment. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman eserves his time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is ecognized. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arkansas. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. fleming: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-339 offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470, the gentleman from louisiana, in fleming, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. my amendment today maintains the state of louisiana's ability to regulate hunting with its borders. in a decision announced march

1, 2012, the forest service regional forester, located way over in atlanta, georgia, went over the heads of the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries and the louisiana wildlife and fisheries commission to forever prohibit the use of dogs to hunt deer in kisatchie national forest. deer hunting has a long and important cultural history within the state of louisiana. when french settlers first came to louisiana in the 18th century, atlantics and dense timber covered the -- thickets and dense timber covered the area. many had companion dogs with them and the use of dogs helped the hunters drive the deer from the woods onto trails and the plentiful herds provided a support and sound nourishment. the 600,000 acre kisatchie national forest has provided diverse hunting opportunities

for decades, including the use of dogs and hunting a variety of animals. oddly enough, the regional forester does not prohibit the use of dogs for hunting a raccoon, squirrel, rabbit and game birds. the dog deer season in louisiana has been severely restricted in recent years, down from 15 days to seven days in 2012, and dog deer hunting in the kisatchie has been limited to certain ranger districts. according to communication with the forest service, even southern states allow hunting in the national -- i'm sorry -- seven southern states allow hunting in the national forest within their borders. they include alabama, arkansas, florida, mississippi, north carolina, south carolina and louisiana. however, this is the first time the forest service has issued a ban on dog deer hunting or hunting deer with dogs within a specific state. according to the forest service

documents, the revenue generated from dog deer hunting, including the care of animals, contributes approximately 18 to 29 direct obs and results in $890,000 to 1.4 million dollars of income from hunting, tourism and related activities. by the forest service's own assessment, it's likely that economic benefits are currently being lost as hunters leave the area to pursue the sport elsewhere. this is having a tangible economic impact on our state, robbing it of even more jobs. i would like to emphasize that the state of louisiana, the kennel club and safari club international support my amendment and a similar amendment was accepted by the house with a voice vote last congress. i urge support of this amendment and i reserve. yes, sir. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think this is a good amendment, and i do support the amendment. the primary purpose of this

legislation is to limit unjustified federal bureaucratic limitations on hunting and fishing. i also want to make a point here also, it's important to recognize that the authority of states to regulate hunting, fishing should be paramount over the federal government. individual federal agencies should not preempt state laws. it sounds to me that's what the gentleman has talked about in his case. i think the amendment is a good amendment. i support it. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: we talked about major problems confronting this congress and here we are now trying to resolve yet another local conflict. after considerable complaints

by private property owners about hunters encroaching on their lands to retrieve their dogs who've gotten lost, the forest service because of the intermingled ownership to prohibit the dog deer hunting. now, come the gentleman who will say we will counter the locally made decision, but we will have a new process, a new process where the private landowners can petition the secretary to reclose certain areas of the areas that are now closed that he's reopening because of conflicts with their private property. however, these private property owners' petitioned will have to go through the dreaded nepa process. and that is for deciding as something as minor of that, kind of problematic. you know, i guess maybe we should have a special day here where -- and i got some beef with some federal agencies ongoing that i'd like to settle

with legislation too. maybe we should have an open amendment process someday where every little local issue we've been dealing with with a federal agency which is contentious with conflicting users, you know, will be decided by the united states congress in washington, d.c., not at the local level. that's what we're doing here. it's pretty extraordinary. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: yes. mr. chairman, i'd like to address the issues brought up here. first of all, the gentleman said that there were multiple complaints. this was studied considerably. ere was 1,237 responses to a request in 2009. and by october 6, we found there were 77%, a clear majority of the respondents who were actually in favor of continuing the practice of dog

deer hunting. this was requested again in 2011. there were over 1,300 respondents and all but 16 comments from in favor of dog deer hunting and against the forest service proposed ban. the other thing i'd like to address, mr. chairman, is this was not a locally made decision. this was made in atlanta. ok. this is the problem. this has been going on for 300 years in the state of louisiana. it's a big part of our heritage, and somebody over in georgia, in atlanta, representing the federal government made this decision, not locally. there was no decision locally. the state supports this. the local residents support this by a vast majority. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: well, thank you, mr. chairman. in closing, i'd like to just

say, again, the people of louisiana want to see this forest service ban overturned. this was a decision made outside of our borders. in effect, if you will, even though the people of louisiana were asked and they gave the rrect answer, it was ignored in the decision made by someone outside our borders. this was a decision made by someone in atlanta, interfering with a local issue. this is a tradition that goes back 300 years and the people of louisiana support the continuance of hunting deer with dogs. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the mendment is agreed to. the committee will rise in

formally to receive message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been corrected by the senate to inform the house that the senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference to h.r. 2642, cited as the federal agricultural reform and risk management act of 2013. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-339 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 470, 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: i thank the chairman. sportsmen are among the first to notice the effects of our changing climate. as changes in seasonal distribution of game and diminished natural habitat become more evident. as the climate continues to change, we will experience worse drought, flood, wildfire and extreme weather events. for public lands and recognize weeks there, climate change will mean changes in hunting seasons, migratory patterns,

he native and invasive species population. we will experience sea level rise, wildfire, drought and other manifestations of climate change. all of these are altering the landscape and changing the existing opportunities for hunting, fishing and recognize weeks on public lands. -- recreation on public lands. these should be considered. these will have a greater affect on sportsmen, on fishers and hunters than all of the other things we've been talking about today. more than 75% of the federal lands are opened now for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting but climate change will transform irreversiblely, transforming irreversibly of the ability of sportsmen to enjoy the recreational activities in these areas.

so this amendment says the department should consider those things. in fact, it's even more limited than that. it says nothing will prevent the department from considering these things. that's what this amendment is. i would hope that the house will accept this. i've been joined by a number of members of the house sustainible energy coalition in offering this amendment. it's supported by defenders of wildlife and the wilderness society and the sierra club and the natural defense council. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, the primary purpose of this underlying legislation is the premise that federal lands should be opened for hunting and fishing recreation rather than being closed. i believe this should be the policy of all our multiple use

federal lands. the default option should be open regardless of whether your interests are mountain biking, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, logging, building a solar energy facility, mining, wind power or developing oil gas. our nation's multiple use lands were designed to be used for the benefit of the nation. this open before closed concept is not -- we are trying to raise the barf bureaucracy, the bureaucracy has been placed between hunters and the outdoors. reckless disregard of our nation's hunting and fishing traditions means too often our federal lands are closed off arbitrarily and not without -- and not just without public input but against the public sentiment. now the gentleman is proposing that we give the secretary another new tool to close lands

without scientific decisionmaking, without accounting for their actions. the gentleman proposes that we simply grant the secretary the sole authority to dictate that we close off any and all of our nation's lands from hunting and fishing based simply on the secretary's mere opinion that hunting and fishing are a threat to our nation's lands because of climate change. hunting and fishing are traditions and foundations that this nation was built upon. they are not burdens to our national lands. they are one of the many purposes for our national ands. just yet, before the rule committees, one of my colleagues was commenting he had a b.b. gune at age seven a .22 rifle at age 12678 he talked about how as a young man he learned to respect guns and tradition. it's that -- yet that me