Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
THOSE TROPHIES BACK HOME AS
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO YET
THE ACT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
IT AWAY FROM THEM
ARBITRARYLY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. BERMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE
PETERS AMENDMENT.
WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT, THE
BILL WILL UNDERMINE THE
PROTECTIONS CURRENTLY IN PLACE
FOR WILD SPECIES UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE
MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT.
IN THIS CASE, THE HUNTERS WHO
CHOSE TO KILL THESE POLAR BEARS
KNEW THEY WERE TAKING A RISK.
THEY HAD GOOD INFORMATION THAT
POLAR BEARS WOULD BE LISTED AS
AN ENDANGERED, THREATENED
SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT, AND ACTED CONTRARY
TO IT.
THEY WERE REPEATEDLY WARNED BY
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND HUNTING
ASSOCIATIONS THAT THE FINAL
LISTING WOULD CUT OFF IMPORTS
IMMEDIATELY AND THEY HAD WELL
OVER A YEAR'S NOTICE.
DESPITE THIS KNOWLEDGE, HUNTERS
STILL CHOSE TO SHOOT AND KILL
POLAR BEARS AT A TIME WHEN THE
SPECIES FACED SEVERE HARDSHIP
AND LEGAL PROTECTIONS WERE
IMMINENT.
WE SHOULD NOT ENCOURAGE A SMALL
GROUP OF PEOPLE TO TAKE
CONSCIOUS RISK AND THEN TURN
AROUND AND ASK CONGRESS FOR
RELIEF.
IF WE PASS THIS BILL WITHOUT
THE PETERS AMENDMENT, WE ARE IN
EFFECT TELLING HUNTERS THAT
WHEN SPECIES ARE LIKELY
CANDIDATES FOR THE ENDANGERED
OR THREATENED LISTS, KILL THEM
AS SOON AS YOU CAN AND THEN
CONGRESS WILL GIVE YOU SPECIAL
TREATMENT AND EXEMPT YOU FROM
THE LAW.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
YES ON THE PETERS AMENDMENT.
DON'T DESTROY THE LONG-TERM
CONSERVATION EFFORTS FOR THE
SPECIAL INTEREST OF A FEW
TROPHY HUNTERS HOPING FOR HOME
DECOR AND BRAGGING RIGHTS.
I WILL STRONGLY OPPOSE THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ALASKA.
I'M SURPRISED MY
GOOD FRIEND FROM CALIFORNIA, HE
HAS A LOT OF POLAR BEARS IN
CALIFORNIA.
IT'S AMAZING TO ME, DOESN'T
SQUAT ABOUT THE POPULATION
OF POLAR BEARS AND TO HAVE THE
-- TO IMPLY THAT THESE ARE RICH
PEOPLE GOING TO HUNT, AS IF,
NOW ISN'T THAT CLASS WARFARE?
DEMOCRAT POSITION.
THE IDEA THAT NOW THIS IS WRONG
WHEN THEY DID IT LEGALLY, AND
THESE BEARS WEREN'T ALL KILLED
IN 2008.
AND THEY WEREN'T ALL WARNED IN
2008.
I WANT TO SEE THE DUMONTATION
OF THAT YOU KNOW THERE'S NO
DUMONTATION.
THAT'S THE SAME PROPAGANDA YOU
GET OUT OF THE SAME GROUPS OF
ANTI-HUNTING.
PEOPLE THAT ARE ANTI-FUN AND
YES, STEP UP TO THE PLATE,
THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE.
I KNOW THAT.
BUT TO TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY
FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS,
ESPECIALLY A WOUNDED VETERAN,
TWO OF THEM, TAKE THAT RIGHT
AWAY FROM THEM IS WRONG.
IT IS WRONG WHEN THIS IS
LEGALLY TAKING SPECIES,
ARBITRARYLY, AND NOW
THREATENED, THE ADMINISTRATION
DOES NOT OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THAT'S AMAZING.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SUPPORT THIS
IS BILL NOW BECAUSE WE MADE
SOME CHANGES THEY WANTED AND
GAVE THEM SPECIFICALLY
RECOGNIZING THIS DOES NOT
ENCOURAGE HUNTING.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES
MR. MORAN.
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA,
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATEMENT
BY MY VERY GOOD FEND FROM
ALASKA, I RISE IN SUPPORT OF
MR. PETERS' AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD REMOVE A PROVISION
THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE
IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEARS
KILLED IN CANADA.
BUT -- IT ONLY BENEFITS 41 BIG
GAME HUNTERS WHO SHOT THEIRS IN
CANADA PRIOR TO THEIR LISTING
AS A SPECIES THREATENED WITH
EXTINCTION.
THESE HUNTERS WERE ON NOTICE
THAT THE TROPHIES WOULD LIKELY
NOT BE ALLOWED INTO THE UNITED
STATES BUT RUSHED TO HUNT THE
BEARS ANYWAY.
NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR CONGRESS
TO BAIL THEM OUT BY CREATING AN
EXEMPTION IN THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT SO THEY CAN BRING
COUNTRY.
THEIR TROPHIES INTO THE
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
POLAR BEARS.
IT IS ABOUT THE UNDERLYING
PRINCIPLE THAT DECISIONS
RELATED TO THE PROTECTIONS OF
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
ANIMALS SHOULD BE BASED UPON
SCIENCE AND SUBJECT TO
CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT, NOT
DEPENDENT UPON THE WHIMS OF
CONGRESS.
POLAR BEARS ARE ALREADY
THREATENED.
THE LAST THING THEY NEED IS FOR
MORE TROPHY HUNTERS CHASING
THEM DOWN AND SHOOTING THEM.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN
IF THIS CONGRESS DEMONSTRATES
THAT IT IS FULLY WILLING TO
RETROACTIVELY CHANGE THE LAW IN
THIS MANNER TO ACCOMMODATE THE
WISHES OF A VERY SMALL
MINORITY.
41 BIG GAME HUNTERS AND WE'VE
GOT TO BE HERE CHANGING THE LAW
ON THEIR ACCOUNT?
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE AND THE FEDERAL COURT
HAVE REJECTED PREVIOUS REQUESTS
TO IMPORT TROPHIES AFTER 2008.
THAT SHOULD BE THE FINAL WORD
ON THE SUBJECT.
I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE YES ON THE PETERS AMENDMENT
AND I YIELD TO MR. PETERS THE
REMAINDER OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN'S
TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALASKA HAS 1
1/2 MINUTES REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA HAS LOTS OF POLAR BEARS
IN VIRGINIA.
I KNOW IT'S SPRING TIME.
BEARS IN VIRGINIA.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S MANY POLAR
ALL OF THREE OF THEM HAVE SAID
ENDANGERED SPECIES.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES.
MA'AMS -- MAMMALS.
THIS HAS TO DO WITH MARINE MA
ENDANGERED SPECIES ARE STILL
IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES.
ZEBRAS, YES.
THE AFRICAN ELEPHANTS, YES.
THOSE.
THIS HAS TO DO WITH MARINE
MAMMALS.
I REALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WARNS
YOU, WARNS YOU, IT'S NOT AGAINST
THE LAW, BUT THEY WARN YOU BUT
YOU BETTER FOLLOW IT BECAUSE
WE'RE WARNING YOU.
NOW, THAT'S NOT LAW.
THESE PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN
NOTIFIED THERE'S A POSSIBILITY
BUT THEY HUNTED UNDER EXISTING
LAW.
UNDER EXISTING PERMITS.
AND PAID FOR.
NOW TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM,
I DON'T CARE IF IT'S ONE PERSON
OR 500 PEOPLE OR 4,100 PEOPLE,
41 PEOPLE, WHEN THE LAW IS
FOLLOWED AND WE DON'T FOLLOW
THROUGH WITH IT, THEN SHAME ON
US.
THESE PEOPLE DID WHAT WAS RIGHT
AND LEGALY.
NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE THAT
RIGHT AWAY FROM THEM.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS THE
ONLY ONE WHO HAS TIME REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN'S
TIME HAS EXPIRED.
HOW MUCH MORE TIME I
GOT?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS 15
GOOD.
SECONDS.
15 SECONDS, I URGE A STRONG
RESOUNDING NO ON THIS AMENDMENT
AND VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE OF
AMERICA WHO HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION AS LONG AS THEY
FOLLOW THE LAW TO DO SOMETHING
THAT'S CORRECT AND THEY'VE DONE
THAT.
THEY DID EVERYTHING BY THE LAW.
AND I SAY NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE A
RIGHT WHEN THEY FOLLOW THE
CORRECT LEAD.
SHAME ON YOU.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN WILL BE
POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-444.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
THAT'S BEEN MADE IN ORDER.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-444
FLEMING OF
LOUISIANA.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA, MR. FLEMING, AND A
FIVE MINUTES.
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL CONTROL
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MY
AMENDMENT TODAY MAINTAINS THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA'S ABILITY TO
REGULATE HUNTING WITHIN ITS
BORDERS.
IN A DECISION ANNOUNCED MARCH 1,
2012, THE FOREST SERVICE
REGIONAL FORSTER LOCATED WAY
OVER IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA, WENT
OVER OUR HEADS, WENT OVER THE
HEADS OF LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND
FISHERY COMMISSION TO FOREVER
PROHIBIT THE USE OF DOGS TO HUNT
DEER IN A NATIONAL FOREST.
DEAR HUNTING -- DEER HUNTING HAS
A LONG AND IMPORTANT CULTURAL
HISTORY WITHIN THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA.
WHEN SETTLERS FIRST CAME TO
LOUISIANA IN THE 18TH CENTURY,
LOUISIANA WAS COVERED BY THICK
ETS AND DENSE TIMBER.
MOST OF THESE SETTLERS HAD
COMPANION DOGS WITH THEM, BUT
HOUNDS.
THE DEER
THE USE OF DOGS WOULD HELP THE
HUNTER DRIVE THE DEER OUT OF THE
FOREST BECAUSE DEER WERE SO
PLENTIFUL AND PROVIDED EXCITING
RACES, IT PROVIDED SOUND
NOURISHMENT.
HUNTING IN MANY FORMS HAS BEEN
FOR DECADES AND CONTINUES TO BE
A EXASSBLE ACTIVITY ON THE
600,000-ACRE NATIONAL FOREST.
ODDLY ENOUGH, THE REGIONAL
FORSTER DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE
USE OF DOGS FOR HUNTING RACCOON,
SQUIRREL, RABBIT AND GAME BIRDS.
IN 2011 THE DOG DEER SEASON WAS
ONLY NINE DAYS AND ONLY APPLIES
TO CERTAIN RANGER DISTRICTS.
ACCORDING TO COMMUNICATION WITH
THE FOREST SERVICE, SEVEN
SOUTHERN STATES ALLOW HUNTING ON
NATIONAL FOREST WITHIN THEIR
BORDERS.
THEY INCLUDE ALABAMA, ARKANSAS,
FLORIDA, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH
CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, BUT IN
THIS CASE NOT LOUISIANA.
HOWEVER, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME
FOREST SERVICE HAS ISSUED A
BAN ON DOG DEER HUNTING OR
HUNTING DEAR WITH -- DEER WITH
DOGS WITHIN A SPECIFIC STATE.
ACCORDING TO THE FOREST SERVICE
ITSELF, THEY INDICATE THAT
REVENUE GENERATED ON DOG DEER
HUNTING INCLUDING EXPENSES TO
CARE FOR DOGS CONTRIBUTES TO
BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 18 TO 29
DIRECT JOBS AND $890,000 TO $1.4
MILLION OF INCOME.
BY THEIR OWN ASSESSMENT, IT IS
LIKELY THAT SOME ECONOMIC
BENEFITS WILL BE LOST DEPENDING
ON WHETHER HUNTING WITH DOGS OR
DEER LEAVE THE AREA TO PURSUE
THE SPORT ELSEWHERE.
IT'S ABOUT TIME, NOW THIS IS
ABOUT TO KILL EVEN MORE JOBS IN
LOUISIANA.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EMPHASIZE
THAT BOTH THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA, THE N.R.A. AND THE
SAFARI CLUB ALL SUPPORT MY
AMENDMENT AND I URGE SUPPORT OF
THIS AMENDMENT AND I WOULD LIKE
TO YIELD AT THIS TIME 30 SECONDS
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF OUR
COMMITTEE.
NATURAL RESOURCES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON IS RECOGNIZED FOR 30
SECONDS.
AND I'LL RESERVE MY
TIME AFTER HIS 30 SECONDS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING AND HIS
TALK AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
LONG HISTORY AND STRONG LOCAL
SUPPORT FOR THIS TRADITIONAL
FORM OF HUNTING IN HIS STATE.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS
LEGISLATION IS TO LIMIT
UNJUSTIFIED FEDERAL BUREAUCRATIC
LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON
HUNTING AND FISHING IN PUBLIC
LANDS.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE HAS
DETAILED DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS
AMENDMENT FITS SQUARELY WITHIN
THE SPHERE OF THIS BILL AND I
THEREFORE SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
IT IS THE AUTHORITY OF STATES TO
REGULATE HUNTING AND FISHING.
INDIVIDUAL FEDERAL AGENCY
PERSONNEL SHOULD NOT BE
SUBSTITUTING THEIR OPINION FOR
THE LAWS OF THE STATES AND I
COMMEND THE GENTLEMAN AND I URGE
ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
FLEMING AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THERE ARE FEW POINTS THAT I
THINK I REALLY BELIEVE NEED TO
BE MADE.
THE DECISION TO ELIMINATE DOG
DEER HUNTING ON THIS FOREST WAS
MADE ONLY AFTER MORE THAN HALF A
DOZEN PUBLIC MEETINGS, A COMMENT
PERIOD THAT RESULTED IN A
THOUSAND COMMENTS WHICH WERE
THOROUGHLY REVIEWED.
IN FACT, THE POLICY HAS BEEN
AMENDED IN RESPONSE TO THOSE
SPECIFIC LOCAL CONCERNS.
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS
POLICY IS NOT ONLY TO PREVENT
TRESPASSING, THOUGH THIS IS ONE
REASON IT IS NECESSARY, THE
FOREST HAS A CHECKERBOARD
PATTERN OF NONFEDERAL LANDS
MIXED IN WITH FEDERAL LANDS.
DOG DEER HUNTING RESULTS IN DEAR
RUNNING OVER LONG DISTANCES AND
HUNTERS PURSUING THEM AND AT
THE RUN.
TIMES DISCHARGING FIREARMS ON
IN AN AREA WITH PRIVATE HOMES,
THE FOREST SERVICE DETERMINED
THAT THIS WAS SIMPLY TOO
DANGEROUS.
THE FOREST HAS COLLECTED INPUT
LOCAL RESIDENTS AND
NONHUNTERS WHO FEAR FOR THEIR
SAFETY DURING DOG DEER HUNTING
SEASON.
TO BE CLEAR, WHILE THE DECISION
WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE
REGION IN ATLANTA, THE POLICY
WAS DEVELOPED BY THE LOCAL
FOREST SERVICE STAFF WHO WORK ON
THE FOREST.
LASTLY, THIS AMENDMENT IS
REDUNDANT AND WASTEFUL.
BECAUSE THE RULE ALREADY IN
PLACE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
THE CURRENT RULE LRT COVERS THE
SMALLEST PORTION OF FOREST
POSSIBLE BECAUSE WITH THE
CHECKERBOARD LANDS, THE RULE
MUST COVER THE ENTIRE FOREST TO
BE EFFECTIVE.
WHILE PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE
PRIMARY JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS
RULE, PREVENTING TRESPASS IS
ANOTHER REASON FOR THE RULE AND
WHY IT WAS PUT IN PLACE.
THE FLEMING AMENDMENT WOULD
THROW OUT THE CURRENT RULE AND
THEN REQUIRE A NEW RULE THAT
.
MEETS THE EXACT SAME REQUIREMENT
THIS IS REDUNDANT A WASTE OF
TIME AND MONEY -- REDUNDANT, A
WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
FINALLY, ACCORDING TO THE FOREST
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
ALREADY PROHIBITS DOG DEER
HUNTING ON STATE LAND.
SO THIS IS SIMPLY CONSISTENT
WITH STATE POLICY.
THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE
DEFEATED AND I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA HAS
1 3/4 MINUTES REMAINING.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF
THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE.
I RECEIVED A PETITION OF
THOUSANDS OF HUNTERS FROM
LOUISIANA AND SEVERAL STATES WHO
WANTED THIS TO CONTINUE.
THE STATE, NOT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, IS IN THE BEST
POSITION TO MAKE THIS
DETERMINATION.
BY OCTOBER 6, 2009, THE FOREST
LAND HAD RECEIVED 1,237
FOR COMMENT.
RESPONSES TO ITS 2009 REQUEST
OF THESE, 320 AGREED WITH THE
PROPOSED PROHIBITION.
BUT 917 WERE AGAINST IT.
THAT'S A 77% MAJORITY OF THESE
RESPONDENTS WHO WERE ACTUALLY
FROM CENTRAL LOUISIANA WHERE
THIS STATUTE OF THE NATIONAL
FOREST EXISTS.
FOREST SERVICE RECEIVED OVER
1,300 MORE COMMENTS ON THE
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
ALL BUT FIVE LETTERS, ALL BUT
FIVE LETTERS, MR. CHAIRMAN, WERE
OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
PROHIBITION.
SO AGAIN I WOULD RESERVE THE
REMAINDER OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THE CONTRADICTION -- AND WITH
THAT I'LL CLOSE.
THE CONTRADICTION IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
THE MAJORITY TALKS ABOUT LOCAL
CONTROL, LOCAL CONTROL.
IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU HAVE THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA THAT HAS
PREVENTED -- THAT HAS PROHIBITED
THIS TYPE OF HUNTING ON ITS
LANDS AND THAT IS A LOCAL
DECISION TO BE HONORED.
BUT IT IS OK TO HONOR THAT
DECISION BUT ON FEDERAL LANDS WE
WANT TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION AND
SET A PRECEDENT.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE
CONTRADICTION IN THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD
TIME.
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA HAS
25 SECONDS.
45 SECONDS REMAINING.
I WANT TO RESPOND
AGAIN.
AGAIN, THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA,
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IS IN
FULL SUPPORT OF DOING AWAY WITH
THIS PROHIBITION.
THIS WAS A DECISION MADE BY
SOMEBODY IN ATLANTA, A FEDERAL
PERSON, THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT
IS REALLY A LOCAL ISSUE, THIS IS
A TRADITION THAT GOES BACK 300
YEARS AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY
OBVIOUS THAT THE PEOPLE OF
LOUISIANA SUPPORT THE
CONTINUANCE OF HUNTING DEER WITH
DOGS.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT.
THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE
AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-444.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE
AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-444
OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF NEW
YORK.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK, MR.
BISHOP, AND A MEMBER OPPOSED
EACH WILL CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
THE PURPOSE OF MY
AMENDMENT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT OPENS AN AREA OFF THE COAST
OF MY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT TO
RECREATIONAL STRIPE BASS
FISHING.
STRIPE BASS IS A POPULAR GAME
FISH IN NEW YORK AND IT HAS LONG
BEEN AN IMPORTANT CATCH FOR
RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN.
THE FORMATION OF ANENTIAL
CLUESIVE ECONOMIC ZONE CREATES A
SMALL AREA OF FEDERAL WATER IN
THE BLOCK ISLAND SOUND.
IN MOST CASES WHEN YOU HIT THE
THREE-MILE POINT OFF THE COAST
OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU HAVE
FRONT OF YOU.
NOTHING BUT FEDERAL WATERS IN
THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE FOR
NEW YORK FISHERMEN.
BECAUSE OF THIS GEOGRAPHIC
ANOMALY, WHEN THE BAN ON STRIPED
BASS FISHING IN THE E.E.Z. WENT
INTO EFFECT, IT CLOSED OFF 60%
OF NEW YORK'S TRADITIONAL STRIPE
BASS RECREATION AREAS FROM
FISHING, ACCORDING TO THE MONDAY
TAG BOATMAN AND CAPTAIN'S
ASSOCIATION IN MY DISTRICT.
THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERY
SERVICE RECOGNIZED THIS UNIQUE
AREA BY DESIGNATING IT AS A
TRANSIT AREA WHERE IT WAS
PERMISSIBLE FOR FISHERMEN TO
POSSESS STRIPED BASS ON THEIR
BOATS AS LONG AS NO FISHING
TAKES PLACE WHILE IN THE E.E.Z.
AND THE BOAT IS IN CONTINUOUS
TRANSIT.
MY AMENDMENT GOES ONE STEP
FURTHER AND OPENS THIS
RELATIVELY SMALL AREA TO
RECREATIONAL FISHING.
MINDFUL OF THE NEED FOR
REASONABLE CONSERVATION, MY
AMENDMENT ALSO PROVIDES THE
ABILITY TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION
FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.
FISHERMEN AND CHARTER CAPTAINS
KNOW THESE WATERS BETTER THAN
ANYBODY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE TALK ABOUT GOVERNMENT
REGULATIONS, STIFLING THE
ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
AFTER ALL, FISHERMEN ARE JOB
CREATORS, BOTH DIRECTLY AND
INDIRECTLY.
THEY HIRE CREWS, THEY HAVE THEIR
BOATS MAINTAINED BY MECHANICS
AND THEY SELL THEIR CATCH TO
OUT TO EAT.
RESTAURANTS WHERE AMERICANS GO
I SUPPORT REASONABLE FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT THAT IS DESIGNED TO
PROMOTE ROBUST HEALTH TO FISH
STOCK BUT AS A REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE OLDEST FISHING PORTS IN
THE UNITED STATES, I ALSO
SUPPORT SENSIBLE EFFORTS TO
ENSURE OUR FISHERMEN CAN FISH
AND EARN THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
OPENING THIS AREA WOULD ONCE
AGAIN GIVE RECREATIONAL
FISHERMEN ACCESS TO FRUITFUL
STRIPE BASS FISHING GROUNDS.
CHARTER BOATS WILL BENEFIT AS
WILL THE PORTS THEY DEPART FROM
AS PEOPLE COME TO THE EAST END
OF LONG ISLAND FOR GREAT
FISHING.
THIS WILL PROMOTE JOB GROWTH IN
TOURISM, WHICH IS THE GOAL OF
THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
THE ATLANTIC STRIPE BASS
CONSERVATION ACT APPROPRIATION
EXPIRED AT THE END OF FISCAL
YEAR 2011.
OUR FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEE
INTENDS TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE
CONGRESS.
RE-AUTHORIZATION IN THIS
I THINK THIS WOULD BE THE
APPROPRIATE TIME AND PLACE TO
HAVE THE DISCUSSION WHICH IS THE
SUBJECT OF YOUR AMENDMENT AND,
LISTEN, I UNDERSTAND THE
GENTLEMAN'S CONCERN, BELIEVE ME.
WE'VE HEARD OTHER CONCERNS ON
THE ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS.
IF THE GENTLEMAN WOULD WITHDRAW
HIS AMENDMENT, I CAN ASSURE HIM
THAT HE'LL GET A FULL HEARING ON
THE CONTENT OF HIS AMENDMENT IN
OUR COMMITTEE THIS YEAR.
I YIELD BACK.
I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THAT OFFER AND BASED
ON YOUR ASSURANCE THAT THIS
WILL RECEIVE A FULL HEARING IN
YOUR COMMITTEE OR THE
APPROPRIATE SUBCOMMITTEE I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO WITHDRAW
MY AMENDMENT.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN AND WE WILL WOK
TOGETHER ON THIS.
I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE
GENTLEMAN'S CONCERNS.
I APPRECIATE THAT
THE GENTLEMAN
AMENDMENT IS WITHDRAWN.
TGS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN PRINTED
IN H.R. 112-444.
THE CLERK WILL
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER
SEVEN PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
112-444, OFFERED BY MR.
HEINRICH OF --
THE GENTLEMAN VECK
NICED.
IT'S LIKELY YOU
HEARD CLAIMS FROM PEOPLE ACROSS
THE AISLE THAT THE MANAGER'S
AMENDMENT WILL SOLVE CONCERNS I
HAVE TODAY, MAKING THIS
REDUNDANT OR DUPLICATIVE.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASISM
APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO RESOLVE MY
CONCERNS THEY LANGUAGE IS FAR
TOO VAGUE AND NEEDS ADDITIONAL
CLARIFICATION.
AS AN AVID HUNTER, I SUPPORT
INCREASING ACCESS TO PUBLIC
LANDS FOR HUNTING AND FISHING.
WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT GOAL
WITHOUT ELIMINATING THE VERY
WILDERNESS PROTECTIONS THAT
HAVE PROTECTED SOME OF THE BEST
WILDLIFE HABITAT AND BACK
COUNTRY HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES
IN OUR NATION.
THE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION
TODAY WOULD ELIMINATE LONG
STANDING PROTECTIONS AGAINST
LOGGING, OIL AND GAS DRILING
AND MOTOR VEHICLE USE IN
WILDERNESS AREAS.
IT WOULD CREATE A LOOPHOLE IN
THE WILDERNESS ACT FOR ANYTHING
THAT WOULD PROVIDE, QUOTE,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECREATIONAL
HUNTING, FISHING AND SHOOTING,
UNQUOTE.
UNDER THE WILDERNESS ACT, LAND
MANAGERS ARE ALLOWED TO ACT IN
WAYS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN
WILDERNESS AREAS IF THE ACTION
IS NECESSARY FOR THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE AREA IN
PRACTICE, THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY LANGUAGE
AND STANDARDS MEANS THEY CAN
USE MOTORIZED VEHICLES, CHAIN
SAUCE, EVEN HELICOPTERS IN
EXTREME MRMS, TO FIGHT FIRES,
RESCUE STRANNED HIKERS OR
REMOVE DOWNED TREES FROM TRAILS
THAT THREATEN HUMAN SAFETY THIS
BILL WOULD EXTEND THAT KIND OF
EXEMPTION TO ANY ACTION THAT
WOULD PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR HUNTING, FISH, AND
RECREATIONAL SHOOTING THIS
MEANS ACTIVITIES OTHERWISE NOT
WILDERNESS AREA, LIKE
MOTOR VEHICLE USE, WOULD HAVE
TO BE PERMITTED IF IT COULD BE
USED TO FACILITATE EVERYDAY
ACTIVITIES LIKE HUNTING,
FISHING AND RECREATIONAL
SHOOTING.
THE MANAGER'S AMENDMENT
INCLUDES LANGUAGE INTENDED TO
ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS BY
PROVIDING THAT THESE
PROVISIONS, QUOTE, ARE NOT
INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE OR FACILE
*** COMMODITY DEVELOPMENT, USE,
OR MOTOR RECREATIONAL ACCESS OR
USE, UNQUOTE.
WHETHER OR NOT THE BILL'S
INTENTION,S THE LANGUAGE IN THE
BILL THAT STILL ALLOWS FOR THIS
POSSIBILITY AND SAYING THAT
WASN'T THE INTENT DOESN'T
CHANGE WHAT THE LANGUAGE DOES.
IN CONTRAST MY AMENDMENT SAYS
NOTHING SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
ALLOW THESE.
INTENDED VERSUS VALUE THERE'S A
POWERFUL LEGAL DIFFERENCE AND
SPORTSMEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY
RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE AND
SUPPORT MY AMENDMENT.
IN THE LAST FEW HOURS I'VE
HEARD FROM COUNTLESS SUPPORTERS
IN MY OWN STATE INCLUDING THE
NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
THE NEW MEXICO CHAPTER OF BACK
COUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS,
THE HIGH DESERT SPORTSMEN AND
THE SPORTSMEN CONCERNED OF
NORTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO TO NAME
A FEW.
NATIONALLY WE HEARD FROM GROUPS
LIKE THE THEODORE ROOSEVELT
COPPER IS VATION PARTNERSHIP.
THE BILL'S SPONSORS SAY THEY
ARE NOT TRYING TO CREATE
SWEEPING CHANGES TO THE ACT, I
HAVE NO DOUBT THEY WILL SUPPORT
LOOPHOLES.
MY AMENDMENT AS IT ELIMINATES
I KNOW HOW VALUABLE WILDERNESS
IS TO HUNTERS AND ANGLERS AND I
HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HABITAT IN
WILDERNESS AREAS AND I YIELD
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I RISE IN
OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN VECK
NICED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
THE SOVEKS THE
BILL THAT DEALS WITH HUNTING
AND FISHING IN WILDLIFE AREAS
WAS DEPRIVED FROM THE --
DERIVED FROM THE BILL FROM MR.
BENISHEK.
I NOTICE WHENEVER A NEW BILL IS
INTRODUCED, THE SPONSOR SAYS IT
WIT KNOLL -- IT WILL NOT REDUCE
HUNTING BECAUSE HUNTING IS
PERMITTED IN WILDERNESS AREAS.
THAT'S RIGHT.
NEVERTHELESS, WHEN A HUNTING --
ANTI-HUNTING GROUP WENT TO
COURT, THE FOREST SERVICE HAD
TO WASTE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME
AND MONEY JUSTIFYING THE
HUNTING PERMITTED THERE.
ANTI-HUNTING GROUPS HAVE SOUGHT
TO USE A NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT TO ENTANGLE THE LEFT
HAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES IN
NEPA'S BRIAR PATCH WHEN THEY
ALLOW HUNTING ON PUBLIC LANDS.
I'M CERTAIN THAT MANY WOULD
AGREE THAT HUNTING AND FISHING
ON PUBLIC LAND IS NOT A NEW
MAJOR FEDERAL ACTION THAT
REQUIRES A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
HOWEVER, TO PROTECT SPORTSMEN
AND PREVENT THE WASTE OF
RESOURCES THAT OCCURS WHEN
CONSERVATION DOLLARS ARE
DIVERTED INTO LAWSUITS, DR.
BENISHEK'S DECISIONS GIVES
CLEAR, STATUTORY SUPPORT TO THE
LANDS.
LEGITIMACY OF HUNTING ON PUBLIC
I BELIEVED FROM THE BEGINNING
THAT THE BENISHEK BILL DEALT
ONLY WITH HUNTING AND FISH,
NEVER AUTHORIZED MOTORIZED
TRAVEL EVEN THOUGH SOME
ACCUSATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS MADE THAT
BUT TO ALLOW ANY GENUINE
CONCERNS PEOPLE MAY HAVE, WE
WORKED CLEESELY WITH A WIDE
ARRAY OF CONSERVATION GROUPS
AND DECIDED TO INCLUDE IN THE
MANAGER'S AMENDMENT THAT WAS
PASSED PROVISIONS THAT
EXPLICITLY STATES THAT THE
RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE BILL,
AND I QUOTE FROM THE AMENDMENT
ARE NOT INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE
OR FACILITATE COMMODITY
DEVELOPMENT, USE, OR
DISTRACTION OR MOTORIZED
RECREATIONAL ACCESS OR USE, END
QUOTE.
WITH THAT VERY DIRECT LANGUAGE,
I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT
VIRTUALLY EVERY MAJOR
CONSERVATION GROUP THAT IS NOT
ANTI-HUNTING SUPPORTS THE BILL.
I DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ THE
WHOLE LIST BUT IT DOES INCLUDE
THE N.R.A., THE IS A FATHER
RECLUBE, THE BIPARTISAN
CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN CAUCUS,
DUCKS UNLIMITED, THE THEODORE
ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION
PARTNERSHIP AND THE SORK OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES.
I THINK THAT H.R. 4089, AS
AMENDED, NOW HAS THE SUPPORT OF
THE ENTIRE RANGE OF SPORTEN --
SPORTS MAP CONSERVATION GROUPS
FROM THOSE CONSIDERED
CONSERVATIVE TO THOSE THAT ARE
QUITE LIBERAL AND DO NOT
BELIEVE IT NEEDS ANY ADDITIONAL
CHANGES AS OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW MEXICO.
AGAIN, THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED
BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
MEXICO IN SUPPORT OF HIS
AMENDMENT NEW YORK MY VIEW ARE
UNFOUNDED.
THIS BILL DEALS SQUARELY WITH
HUNTING AND FISHING AND DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE MOTORIZED TRAVEL
OR MINING OR OTHER SUCH
ACTIVITIES IN WILDERNESS AREAS.
WHERE THAT, I RESERVE THE PLANS
OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW MEXICO.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD
TWO MINUTES TO MY GOOD FRIEND
AND COLLEAGUE, THE SPORTSMAN
FROM NORTHERN NEW MEXICO, MR.
LUJAN.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
I WANT TO THANK MY
FRIEND FROM NEW MEXICO FOR
OFFERING THIS AMENDMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M FROM THE
WESTERN UNITED STATES AND I'M A
AMENDMENT.
SUPPORTER OF THE SECOND
I'M A HUNTER AND FISHERMAN MY
FAMILY RAISE SHEEP AND CATTLE
ON ALLOTMENTS IN THE AREA WHERE
I WAS RAISED.
LIKE MANY OTHER STATES IN THE
WEST, WE NEW MEXICANS ENJOY OUR
USE OF LAND FOR HUNTING,
SHOOTING AND RECREATIONAL
ENJOYMENT.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO EVERYTHING
IN THIS BILL BUT I'M CONCERNED
WITH PLANS THAT WOULD CREATE A
LOOPHOLE IN THE WILDERNESS ACT.
IT ENABLES US TO HAVE PRISTINE
AREAS TO HUNT AND FISH,
CRITICAL AREAS THAT SHOULD BE
PRESERVED TO ENJOY.
THIS BILL AS WRITTEN WALKS A
DANGEROUS LINE.
I HAD CONCERNS IN THE COMMITTEE
MARKUP OF THE BILL,
SPECIFICALLY LANGUAGE IN
SECTION 104E WHICH OPENS UP FOR
INTERPRETATION TO ALLOW
MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN SENSITIVE
AREAS, COMPLETELY UNDERMINING
LANDS.
THE EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE
THOUGH THE MAJORITY HAS
INDICATED THEY CLARIFIED THIS
PROBLEM, A C.R.S. MEMORANDUM
ISSUED ON APRIL 12, 2012, THEY
HAVE CONFIRMED MY DE-- MY
CONCERN THAT H.R. 24E COULD
LEAD TO COMMERCIAL USE IN
DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS.
IF THE MAJORITY STATES THROUGH
THE MANAGER'S AMENDMENT THAT
THEIR INTENTION IS NOT TO OPEN
THESE AREAS FOR MOTE
VISED -- MOTORIZED VEHICLES,
LET'S MAKE SURE THIS WON'T
HAPPEN.
I'M GLAD TO SEE THEY SEE
THERE'S A PROBLEM AS WELL WHICH
THEY ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS, BUT
IT'S NOT ENOUGH.
LET'S SUPPORT THE HEINRICH
AMENDMENT AND MAKE SURE WE
DON'T COMBINE MOTORIZED
VEHICLES WITH SECOND AMENDMENT
RIGHTS IN OUR BACK YARD.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
HAS ONE AND A HALF MINUTES
REMAINING.
DID I UNDERSTAND
THAT ALL THE TIME HAS EXPIRED
ON THEIR SIDE?
THAT'S CORRECT.
I YIELD MYSELF
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
IT APPEARS THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
THIS LANGUAGE WHICH WE DRAFTED
AND PASSED IN THE MANAGER'S
AMENDMENT IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH.
LET ME READ THE APPROPRIATE
WORD.
IN THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
MEXICO'S AMENDMENT, HE SAYS
THAT -- HE FOCUSES ON THE WORD
SHALL, WHICH IS STRONG
LANGUAGE, BUT HE FOLLOWS IT
WITH CONSTRUED.
QUESTION.
CONSTRUED BY WHOM?
OUR LANGUAGE SAYS VERY
SPECIFICALLY THAT NOTHING IN
HERE IS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE,
EXTRACTION.
FACILITATE ANY USE REGARDING
THE LAW.
WE SAY THAT IS THE INTENT OF
VERY SPECIFICALLY.
WHEN YOU USE THE WORD
CONSTRUED, I DARE SAY, MR.
CHAIRMAN, THAT YOU ARE OPENING
THIS WIDE OPEN TO LITIGATION
AND MAYBE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT
THE GENTLEMAN INTENDED.
BY FEE FAUX CUSING ON SHALL, HE
DOESN'T FOCUS ON THE OPERATIVE
WORD, WHICH IS CONSTRUED
BECAUSE CONSTRUED CAN BE USED
BY ANYBODY OUTSIDE IN ORDER TO
SUE.
WE SAY VERY SPECIFICALLY, EVEN
THOUGH WE DIDN'T THINK
EXTRACTION WAS PART OF THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION, BUT WE
SAY VERY SPECIFICALLY, IT'S NOT
INTENDED TO REINFORCE IT.
THAT WAS A REASON THAT
PROVISION WAS IN THE MANAGER'S
AMENDMENT.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DEFEAT
THE HEINRICH AMENDMENT.
TIME.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BECOME THE
THE QUESTION OCCURS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
QUELT FROM NEW MEXICO.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW MEXICO WILL
BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT PRINTED
IN HOUSE REPORT 112-444.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA
SEEK RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE
TODAY TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT
WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER
POSITIVE ELEMENT.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER
EIGHT PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
112-44, OFFERED BY MS. FOXX OF
NORTH CAROLINA.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, THE GENTLEWOMAN
FROM NORTH CAROLINA, MS. FOXX,
AND A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA, MS. FOXX.
I RISE TODAY TO OFFER
AMENDMENT THIS WOULD ADD
ANOTHER POSITIVE ELEMENT TO
THIS BILL.
THE PATH CAN DESIGNATE NATIONAL
MONUMENTS ON FEDERAL LANDS,
THIS HAS BEEN USED 129 TIMES TO
DESIGNATE NATURAL TREASURES
SUCH AS THE GRAND CANYONS GRAND
LIBERTY.
THETONS AND THE STATUE OF
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS ENJOYED AN
APPRECIATED THE HISTORIC
TREASURES THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY, I APPRECIATE THE
IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THESE
BLESSINGS.
CURRENTLY A NATIONAL MONUMENT
DESIGNATION ALLOWS FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE
UNILATERALLY THE USES OF THE
LAND.
I'VE OFFERED TO STAND-ALONE
BILL H.R. 302, THE PRESERVE
LAND FREEDOM FOR AMERICANS ACT
OF 2011, WHICH IS A MODEL FOR
THE AMENDMENT I'M NOW OFFERING.
THIS AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE PROCESS
BY REQUIRES THE -- REQUIRING
THE APPROVAL OF THE
LEGISLATETURES AND GOVERNORS OF
THE STATE WHERE MONUMENTS ARE
PROPOSED POB LOCATED.
WITH THE GOVERNMENT OWNING SUCH
A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE LAND,
IT IS IMPORTANT TO ALLOW STATE
LAWMAKERS TO WEIGH IN ON ISSUES
WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.
WITH THAT I RESERVE THE BALANCE
OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. GRI HALL HAVE SPAK I RISE
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE
FOXX AMENDMENT AND IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE ANTIQUITIES ACT.
FOLLOWS IN THE -- FOLLOWING IN
THE FOOTSTEPS OF NEED DORE
ROOSEVELT AND FRANKLIN
ROOSEVELT, 16 PRESIDENTS, EIGHT
REPUBLICANS AND EIGHT DEPPS
HAVE USED THE ANTIQUITIES ACT
TO DESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 130
NATIONAL MONUMENTS.
RECENT HISTORY,
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH USED
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT TO
DESIGNATE THE LARGEST NATIONAL
MONUMENT IN HISTORY.
MOST RECENTLY, PRESIDENT OBAMA
USED THE ACT TO PRESERVE AN
ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT ROAD IN
VIRGINIA.
THESE SPECIAL PLACES MAY HAVE
BEEN LOST TO DEVELOPMENT OR
DESTRUCTION HAD THE 59TH
CONGRESS NOT AUTHORIZED
PRESIDENTS TO USE THE
ANTIQUITIES ACT TO MOVE QUICKLY
TO PROTECT FEDERAL LANDS AND
THIS IS WORTH REPEATING.
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT ALLOWS
DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL
MONOYUMES ON FEDERAL LAND ONLY.
THIS IS ALREADY OWNED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND TO CLAIM
THERE IS SOME KIND OF LAND
GRANT GOING ON IS TOTALLY
FALSE.
OR NATIONAL MONUMENTS ARE
VALUABLE.
POPULAR TOURISM THAT SERVE AS
POWERFUL ECONOMIC ENGINES.
THEY STUDIED 17 LARGE NATIONAL
MONUMENTS IN 11 WESTERN STATES
AND FOUND POSITIVE IMPACTS TO
AND EMPLOYMENT.
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT HAVE SERVED
WELL FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY
AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS
AMENDMENT.
NATIONAL MONUMENTS DO NOT HARM
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THEY IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF
LIFE IN SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES, AND WHILE SAVING
HISTORIC, CULTURAL AND SCENIC
RESOURCES FOR OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN.
THE FOXX AMENDMENT WILL HOBBLE
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT BY GIVING
STATES A VETO BY GIVING FEDERAL
DESIGNATIONS ON FEDERAL LAND,
AND IT WILL DO SO BASED ON
CRITICISMS OF THE ACT AND THE
NATIONAL -- AND THE NATIONAL
FALSE.
MONUMENTS THAT ARE PATENTLY
THE FOXX AMENDMENT SHOULD BE
DEFEATED, AND I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
CAROLINA.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH
THANK YOU, AGAIN, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I NOW YIELD 40 SECONDS TO THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE, MR. HASTINGS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 40 SECONDS.
UNFORTUNATELY,
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT IS USED
MORE-ON-THAN NOT TO CIRCUMVENT
CONGRESS' ROLE IN STUDYING LAND
USE POLICY OR FORECLOSE ANY
OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE OUTSIDE
THE WHITE HOUSE TO PARTICIPATE
IN WHATEVER DECISION THEY MAKE,
INCLUDING THE AFFECTED STATE.
UNLIKE AMERICA IN 1906, WHEN
THERE WERE -- THE ANTIQUITIES
LAW WAS FIRST ENACTED, WE NOW
HAVE AN ELABORATE SET OF LAWS
THAT HAVE PROCEDURES TO BE
FOLLOWED BEFORE ANY SIGNIFICANT
ACTION AFFECTING PUBLIC LANDS
CAN BE TAKEN.
I THINK THE GENTLELADY'S
AMENDMENT WOULD IMPROVE THIS
PROCESS AND WITH THAT I SUPPORT
IT AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE
OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ARIZONA.
I YIELD THE
REMAINEDING TIME TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY, --
FROM NEW MEXICO, MR. HEINRICH.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
THE ANTIQUITIES
HAS HELPED THREATENED
PLACES.
WE SEE THE BENEFITS OF THE
ANTIQUITIES ACT IN MY STATE.
CRARLSBAD CAVENS NATIONAL PARK
AND MORE, ALL ORIGINALLY
PROTECTED THROUGH THE
ANTIQUITIES ACT.
RESEARCH BY THE NEW MEXICO
GREEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SHOWS
THAT NEW MEXICO'S 10 NATIONAL
MONUMENTS ESTABLISHED THROUGH
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT ACCOUNT FOR
1.3 MILLION ANNUAL TOURIST
VISITS AND $54 MILLION IN
ANNUAL TOURIST SPENDING,
SUPPORTING OVER 1,000 NEW
MEXICO JOBS.
IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS,
COUNTLESS NEW MEXICANS,
INCLUDING SPORTSMEN LIKE
MYSELF, HAVE ASKED PRESIDENT
OBAMA TO DESIGNATE A NEW
NATIONAL MONUMENT TO PROTECT
THE OREGON MOUNTAINS OUTSIDE
LAS CRUSES NEW MEXICO.
WE ARE ASKING THEM TO PROTECT
OUR VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCES
THROUGH THE ANTIQUITIES.
THIS AMENDMENT, OFFERED BY MY
COLLEAGUE FROM NORTH CAROLINA,
WOULD TAKE THAT POWER AWAY FROM
THE PRESIDENT AND GIVE STATE
LEGISLATURES THE POWER TO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT PUBLIC LANDS
THAT BELONG TO ALL AMERICANS.
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT WAS MADE TO
-- HAD THE ACT BEEN WRITTEN
WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THIS
AMENDMENT, THE GRAND CANYON
COULD HAVE BEEN OVERRUN,
ANCIENT CLIFT DWELLINGS IN THE
PETRIFIED PARK MAY HAVE BEEN
LOOTED AND/OR CHARRED PARK MAY
NOT HAVE EXIST.
SEVERAL LEGISLATURES MEET FOR A
LIMITED NUMBER OF DAYS A YEAR
AND CAN'T RESPOND TO URGENT
THREATS TO PUBLIC LANDS.
IN MY STATE WE MEET FOR 60 DAYS
IN ODD YEARS AND 30 DAYS IN
EVEN YEARS.
THE FOXX AMENDMENT WOULD
PREVENT SITES FROM RECEIVING
THE URGENT PROTECTIONS THEY
NEED.
IT ALSO DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THAT
THE UNITED STATES HAS VAST
AREAS OF UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY THAT IS NOT UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF ANY STATE
LEGISLATURE.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH USED
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT TO PROTECT
LANDS AND WATERS IN
UNINCORPORATED FEDERAL AREAS,
INCLUDING THE MARIANAS TRENCH
ISLANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT.
NATIONAL MONUMENTS SHOULD NOT
BE A PARTISAN ISSUE.
BEFORE BEING SIGNED INTO LAW BY
PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
16 PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES,
EIGHT DEMOCRATS AND EIGHT
REPUBLICANS, HAVE USED THIS ACT
TO BETTER PROTECT AMERICA'S
GENERATIONS.
TREASURES FOR FUTURE
AND BY ATTACHING THIS DIVISIVE
ISSUE TO THIS BILL, THE CHANCES
GREATLY INCREASED.
OF A PRESIDENTIAL VETO ARE
I HOPE THAT WE WILL REFRAIN
FROM ENDANGERING THE
PRO-SPORTSMEN ISSUES OF THIS
BILL WITH CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
LIKE THIS ONE.
AS AN ACTIVE SPORTSMAN, I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
ANTIQUITIES ACT.
I ASK FOR A NO VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT AND I'D YIELD BACK
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED FROM ARIZONA.
CAROLINA.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD TWO MINUTES
TO MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE
FROM UTAH, MR. BISHOP.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
UTAH IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT, WHICH
ALLOWS THE PRESIDENT TO
DESIGNATE LAND, IS A
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE GAVE TO THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN TEDDY
ROOSEVELT'S TIME.
WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR NOT IT'S
WRONG FOR CONGRESS TO GIVE ITS
AUTHORITY AWAY TO THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.
IT WAS TIME IT WAS THOUGHT IT
WOULD BE OK BECAUSE THERE WERE
IT.
SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON
YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC
SOMETHING GEOLOGICALLY.
HISTORICAL YOU WERE GOING TO
PRESERVE IT, WAS IN IMMINENT
DANGER AND WAS GOING TO BE IN
THE SMALLEST AREA POSSIBLE THAT
WAS GOING TO BE OVER A COUPLE
HUNDRED ACRES.
PRESIDENTS SINCE THAT TIME HAVE
USED THAT MONUMENT DESIGNATION
POWER FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES IN
AREAS QUITE BIGGER THAN THAT.
THE LAST MONUMENT THAT WAS
COUPLE ACRES.
CREATED IN MY STATE WAS ON A
IT WAS BIGGER THAN THE STATES
OF CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE AND
RHODE ISLAND COMBINED.
IT WAS DONE AT 9:00 A.M. AFTER
THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE WAS
TOLD ABOUT IT AT 2:00 A.M.
AFTER BEING TOLD THE EARLIER
DAY NOTHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN
IN THIS KIND OF AREA.
EARLIER THIS YEAR THE ACT WAS
USED AT FORT MONROE WHEN THE
ENTIRE DELEGATION AND THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY WERE IN FAVOR OF IT.
AS WELL AS MANY OF THE OTHER
ACT WAS DONE, THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF
IT.
WHAT HER AMENDMENT TRIES TO DO
IS SIMPLY SAY, LOOK, IF YOU ARE
GOING TO KEEP THIS POWER WITH
THE PRESIDENT, AT LEAST GIVE A
CHECK AND BALANCE SYSTEM
SOMEWHERE.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THE LOCAL
PEOPLE, THE STATE PEOPLE ARE
FINE WITH THIS DESIGNATION
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DOES
SOMETHING ARBITRARILY,
CAPRICIOUSLY AND TOO AUVE FOR
POLITICAL REASONS.
KEEP -- TOO OFTEN FOR POLITICAL
REASONS.
KEEP THE POWER WHERE IT SHOULD
BE, WITH THE LEGISLATURE, AT
LEAST PUT A LOGICAL CHECKS AND
BALANCE ON THE SYSTEM.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA.
--
HAS 45 SECONDS
REMAINING.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK MY TWO
COLLEAGUES WHO SPOKE ON BEHALF
OF MY AMENDMENT AND TELL THEM
HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE THEIR
COMMENTS, AND I WANT TO SAY TO
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE, IF DESIGNATING AN
AREA AS A NATIONAL MONUMENT
WOULD BE SUCH A GOOD IDEA,
THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY PROBLEM
WITH GAINING APPROVAL FROM THE
LEGISLATURES AND THE GOVERNORS,
AND IT TAKES NO POWER AWAY FROM
THE PRESIDENT BUT IT ALLOWS THE
PROCESS.
STATES TO BE PART OF THE
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
MY AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
YIELDS BACK.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
THE QUESTION OCCURS ON THE
CAROLINA.
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ARIZONA.
ON THAT I ASK FOR
A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA
WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE DO NOW
RISE.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE
DO NOW RISE.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMITTEE
RISES.
MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THE COMMITTEE OF THE
UNION HAVING HAD UNDER
WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE
CONSIDERATION H.R. 4089 DIRECTS
ME TO REPORT THAT IT HAS COME
TO NO RESOLUTION THEREON.
THE
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE
UNION REPORTS THAT THAT
COMMITTEE HAS HAD UNDER
CONSIDERATION H.R. 4089 AND HAS
COME TO NO RESOLUTION THEREON.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 12-A OF RULE
1, THE HOUSE WILL STAND IN
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF