Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Here is the crux of the issue right here. The gentleman started his remarks by saying that the committee, which I had the privilege to chair, created the Ocean Commission. I was not on the committee at the time, but I acknowledge that. We did create that. And this is the crux of the matter right here. One of the recommendations that came out of that committee was that the policies-- it said: The Ocean Council should work with Congress and so on to develop a flexible and voluntary process for the creation of regional ocean councils. States working with relevant stakeholders should use this process to establish regional ocean councils. That is exactly the process we should be going through, but the process of the executive process is 180 degrees from that. So the legislation the gentleman is citing is being used is contrary to what he is trying to promote. That's the whole point of this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to make this point. The gentleman makes the point of how maybe the process should work and the commission was created. My objection--and I think the gentleman from Texas' objection--is this is being done by executive order. The way that the process is laid out totally ignores the recommendation that came out of that policy. That is the whole point.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, we have had five hearings on this, just to make a point.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The gentleman, when he made his remarks about all of the challenges that we face, if you heard, nobody is arguing on our side about that. Nobody is arguing about that. It is the structure of which we are talking about here. And, unfortunately, we have experienced painfully in this body and in this country when we have a structure of a top-down solution, it always seems to come out wrong. And that is what the issue is all about. We have had five hearings, like I said, in my committee on this issue. But the way this is set up, it was designed to be voluntary, and it was designed to be in corroboration with the States. Our home State of Washington has responded to that. But the way this is written and the way it is interpreted, it is a top-down issue; and if we let it continue going, we are going to have a problem, and the gentleman knows it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am aware of that. Clean water takes care of that, and that process is going through. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't. But just let me make an analogy that I think the gentleman would agree with. We had a long debate last night on catch shares, something entirely different. The gentleman was very much so defending--and I agree with him--the fact that there was regional planning. And catch shares works in our part of the country. That is all that we are saying. We think that is probably a better model. This executive order is contrary to that. So my arguments here over and over have been the model, and that's why we should defund it and come back and do it correctly. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4849) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue commercial use authorizations to commercial stock operators for operations in designated wilderness within the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This legislation addresses an urgent need at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California. Because of a lawsuit, the National Park Service has chosen not to issue commercial packer permits this year. These permits allow mules and horses into the park to carry visitors and supplies. Unfortunately, this not only means the loss of hundreds of jobs, it also canceled long-planned family vacations into the outdoors. For many Americans, whether elderly or handicapped, stock animals are the only option if they want to visit our national parks. Today, we have the option to right a wrong and allow these permits to be awarded to responsible stewards of our parks. This bipartisan legislation was worked out between Members of both parties in the California delegation. Time is very crucial here. This only extends what has been happening for decades in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. We must act now if there's any hope in preserving the season for those individuals who have planned and paid for their visit in the national park.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 4849, the Clerk be authorized to make the change that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the section of the bill that applies to hunting and fishing was derived from the excellent bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek). I have noticed that whenever a new wilderness designation bill is introduced and a subcommittee hearing is held, the sponsor testifies that his or her bill will not reduce hunting because hunting is clearly permitted in wilderness areas. And they are right. Nevertheless, when an anti-hunting group went to court recently to block hunting in the wilderness section of a national forest in Michigan, the Forest Service had to waste a great deal of time and money justifying the hunting permitted there. Similarly, anti-hunting groups have sought to use the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, to entangle the land management agencies in NEPA's briar patch when the agencies allow hunting activity on public land. Now I'm certain that many would agree that hunting and fishing on public land is not a new major Federal action that requires a full environmental impact statement. However, to protect sportsmen and to prevent the waste of resources that occurs when conservation dollars are diverted into defending against nuisance lawsuits, Dr. Benishek's provision gives clear statutory support to legitimacy of hunting on public land. I believe from the beginning that the Benishek bill dealt only with hunting and fishing. It never authorized motorized travel or extractive industries, even though some environmental activist groups quickly made that accusation. But to allay any genuine concerns people may have, we worked closely with a wide variety of conservation groups and decided to include in the manager's amendment that was passed a provision that explicitly states that the relevant portions of the bill--and I quote from the amendment--``are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational access or use.'' With that very direct language I can honestly say that virtually every major conservation group that is not anti-hunting supports the bill. I don't have time to read the whole list, but it does include the NRA, the Safari Club, the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Ducks Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I think H.R. 4089, as amended, now has the support of the entire range of sportsmen conservation groups, ranging from those considered conservative to those that are quite liberal, and do not believe that the wilderness section needs any additional changes as offered by the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment. Again, the concerns expressed by the gentleman from New Mexico in support of his amendment, in my view, are unfounded. This bill deals squarely with hunting and fishing, and does not authorize motorized travel or mining or other such activities in wilderness areas. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 4089.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. This legislation protects the traditional right of American sportsmen to hunt and fish from arbitrary and unjustified bureaucratic restrictions and limitations. It will remove government roadblocks to these activities on certain public lands and guard against new regulations that threaten hunting and fishing. This is a bipartisan bill, Madam Chairman. It has the bipartisan sponsorship of the Republican and Democrat chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Miller of Florida and Mr. Ross of Arkansas, as well as the caucus' vice chairs, Mr. Latta of Ohio and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina. This bill also has the broad support of America's recreational fishing, hunting, shooting, and wildlife conservation community. At the appropriate time, I will include two letters, one from over 35 sportsmen's organizations and one from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, for the Record. There are four titles to this legislation, and each reflects stand- alone bills sponsored by individual Members of the House. Mr. Benishek of Michigan, Mr. Flake of Arizona, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr. Miller of Florida all deserve credit for leadership on these important sportsmen issues. Their four bills were assembled in this package to be among the first pro-sportsmen bills considered and, I hope, passed by the House this year. I expect and anticipate further action on additional legislation in the months ahead. This legislation is an affirmative declaration that Americans' ability to fish and hunt is not arbitrarily subject to limitation by the whim of Federal bureaucrats. It makes clear that public lands are ``open until closed'' to such recreational activities, and it makes absolutely clear, Madam Chairman, that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle. This bill is not a solution in search of a problem, but regrettably, bureaucratic threats to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are very real, thus the need for this legislation. Title I of this bill protects sportsmen from arbitrary Federal efforts to block hunting and fishing on public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM. It requires that these activities be supported and facilitated, but-- this is very important, Madam Chairman--it does not prioritize hunting and fishing over other multiple uses. The vast majority of our Nation's public lands are to be open and available for multiple uses, but, regrettably, there are agency personnel and land managers who attempt to control these lands as personal fiefdoms and prevent legitimate uses and activities, including hunting and fishing. In addition, activist groups bring lawsuits to limit these activities; and in the worst situations, bureaucrats willingly roll over to such lawsuits as a convenient way to limit the use of these facilities. This bill will protect against such lawsuits and the ensuing costly paperwork associated with them. Title II of the bill directly addresses the sudden attempt last year by the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management to limit target shooting on certain lands. An agency spokesman was cited in a news article saying that their proposed ban was being enacted in response to urbanites who ``freak out'' when they hear shooting and that the restriction wasn't rooted in public safety but, rather, to reduce ``social conflict.'' This proposed ban echos the Obama administration's attempt to impose a new classification of wildlands on Federal property in an attempt to unilaterally establish de facto wilderness. Madam Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues once again that only Congress has the authority to establish wilderness areas. Just as with the wildlands proposal, public outcry against the BLM's attempt to limit target and recreational shooting forced Interior Secretary Salazar to retreat from this effort, and rightfully so. However, at any point--say, right after the November election--the administration could again attempt such a ban on such activities. This is exactly why this legislation is necessary, because it would clearly provide that any closure must be specifically and publicly justified and be for reasons of national security, public safety, or to comply with Federal or State laws. Title III of the bill would allow for the importation of certain legally taken hunting trophies from Canada that, through no fault of the sportsmen, have become trapped in a bureaucratic limbo. This is focused squarely on resolving existing situations ensnarled in red tape and does not open the door to unlimited future imports. Finally, title IV of the bill is in response to perhaps the greatest bureaucratic threat posed, and that threat comes in the form of the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. In 1976, Congress barred the EPA from regulating firearms and ammunition. However, this has not stopped attempts to try and circumvent the law with the argument that EPA may not be able to regulate ammunition, but it can regulate components of ammunition and components of fishing tackle. Regulating components of ammunition and fishing tackle would be a massive power grab by the EPA despite a clear lack of legal authority. Has that stopped the EPA under this administration? Sadly, it hasn't. The EPA is an unfettered agency with an appetite for greater regulations that result in a greater stranglehold of our economy and how Americans are allowed to live their lives. But, unfortunately, the EPA is not without its allies. In March, over 100 activist antihunting and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to ban the use of lead in hunting and fishing components. This is an overt attempt to end-run a law that has been on the books for nearly 40 years. This legislation that the House will vote on today reiterates and clarifies existing law, leaving no question that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition and fishing tackle. Madam Chairman, hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are longstanding American traditions that deserve protection, which is exactly what this underlying legislation does, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. This is why the bill has received strong bipartisan support and the endorsement of dozens of sporting and wildlife organizations. I again want to commend the sponsors for their work and encourage all of my colleagues to support and vote for this legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Lucas of the Agriculture Committee for their cooperation and assistance in helping to expedite consideration of this bill. At the appropriate time, I will again insert into the Record an exchange of letters between me and those chairmen regarding this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, March 8. 2012. Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hastings: I am writing concerning H.R. 4089, the ``Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012,'' which was ordered reported from your committee on February 29, 2012. I wanted to notify you that, although it received a referral on the bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 4089 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. This is done with the understanding that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction, and the Committee will not be prejudiced with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 4089, and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Sincerely, Fred Upton, Chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek, who is also a sponsor of one of the pieces of legislation that's part of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the author of one of those pieces of legislation, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, somebody who has worked on this legislation, Mr. Gosar.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me touch a bit on an issue that was brought up as to the cost of this legislation--cost that I acknowledge was scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I have to say, sometimes we have differences with those agencies. I guess that's understandable. But they suggest that there is a cost associated with this bill. Let me kind of walk through some points of this bill that I hope will point out: How can there be a cost associated with it? Because, first of all, this bill does not create a new program. New programs would be associated with cost. This does not create a new program. It does not authorize any new spending. So because it doesn't authorize spending, how can there be a cost associated with it? It does not authorize any new personnel. So if we don't add any new personnel, how can there be a cost associated with it? Further, the bill restricts the ability of Federal land managers to oppose restrictions. Well, if they do less, one would say, logically, how could there be a cost associated with it? I think what the reason is--and sometimes we point fingers here too much, but I mentioned in my opening statement that the Department of the Interior had some problems with this legislation, and maybe they had some problems and said that there would be new activities for people that work for them and, therefore, there would be a cost. Let me reiterate: it doesn't create a new program. It does not authorize new spending, doesn't hire anybody. Under current law, they are required to do what they are required to do. How could that possibly cost more money? But yet that is what the CBO scored, and there's absolutely nothing we can do because that's their score. But I will tell you, Madam Chairman, for the record, I highly doubt that if one were to walk their way through the restrictions that I have here and apply it to any other legislation, I would have to think that there would be no costs associated with that legislation. And I think that is probably the case, when you really get down to it, on this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman that has authored legislation that is part of the title of this legislation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a vice chairman of the bipartisan Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Latta, from Ohio.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman. I am prepared to close, and so if he wishes to close, then I will close on my side.