Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Let's go back and set the stage for why this legislation is needed, and let's understand that public lands were designated for multiple use which, of course, means recreation and, of course, commercial activity, unless Congress says otherwise. And the most obvious example of where Congress says otherwise is in wilderness designations. But even then, in wilderness designations, there are certain activities. But Federal lands were designed to be multiple use. The reason for this legislation is because we are finding arbitrary decisions on the ground not for the exceptions that Congress looked at that would restrict land activity. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) pointed that out very well with his portion of this bill. Some of the restrictions make perfectly good sense if one were to look at it hopefully logically, and sometimes we miss that point when we debate here on the floor. One of the reasons is for reasons of national security. If there should be restrictions on public lands for national security, nobody, I think, would argue with that. If there should be restrictions on public lands for public health, nobody would argue with that. Forest fires or wildfires come to mind in that situation--or if they are contrary to applicable Federal statutes. All of those things make sense. But let's not lose the underlying principle of public lands, that they should be for multiple use. And what this legislation simply does is reiterates, reiterates that hunting and fishing have their portion-- not higher, not lower--but have their portion on use for public lands. That's what the whole intent of this legislation is. We hear my friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is becoming top down; and yet when you look at the concerns that Members have had trying to offer amendments where they're trying to get more flexibility, you can't have it both ways. This simply reiterates what are the national standards. It should be multiple use, but particularly in this case as it relates to hunting and fishing. With that, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, this manager's amendment is a noncontroversial amendment to H.R. 4089 that makes several technical, clarifying, and harmonizing changes to the bill. It adds to the bill amendments that were adopted by the Natural Resources Committee when it considered several of the individual bills that are now separate titles of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act. In addition, although I believe the original bill never allowed extractive commercial activity or motorized travel in wilderness areas, this amendment adds language that will say so explicitly. Finally, the amendment reduces the administrative tasks faced by the agencies with regard to the format and frequency of public notice and congressional reporting requirements. I ask for your support for this amendment, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Holt amendment uses a blunderbuss and not a rifle to address the complex issue of the programs in national parks that involve shooting. This issue goes beyond sport or subsistence hunting, which are currently allowed in some park units. In addition to national parks that allow traditional forms of hunting, the National Park Service has a historic weapons program that would be silenced, contrary to what my good friend and the author of this amendment, Mr. Holt, says. In 2011, more than 600 national parks participated in some form of historic weapons demonstrations. From cannons to flintlocks, the Park Service says this program is ``undeniably popular with visitors'' and drew just less than a million visitors to various national parks around the country last year. At Fort Vancouver National Park in Oregon and Washington, for example, both rangers and volunteers regularly fire muskets and cannons to demonstrate the historic role these weapons played in the history of the site. One of the most popular public participation events in many parks involves the reenactment of historic battles. Thousands of reenactors participate. They use their own historically accurate weapons and costumes to re-create, on location, the great battles that took place at our Civil War sites. For many of those who participate or come to watch, these educational passions are the favorite of the national park events. It was on this week, 237 years ago, that General Thomas Gage, the Royal Governor in Boston, sent his troops to confiscate the patriot weapons at Lexington and Concord. And at the Minuteman National Historic Park today, a living history event is conducted in which volunteers are permitted to bring reproductions of the flintlock muskets, pistols, and percussion cap weapons their ancestors used during the first battle for our independence. At a time when the National Park Service is running a multibillion dollar maintenance backlog, the Holt amendment will disarm it of its real draw. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to allow the Park Service to continue the tradition of educating visitors about our proud American history. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time. I beg to differ. I understand where my good friend from New Jersey is coming from. I'm sure that's what his intent is, but that's not what his amendment says. His amendment says that that activity has to be provided by statute at each facility, and that's simply not the case. We haven't done that. We blanket authority give that to the National Park System to carry on what is classified as pastimes, that sort of activity. He prohibits that unless it's provided by statute. He did not offer an amendment to say we should statutize every one of those at every one of the sites. That's the flaw in the amendment. It was brought up in Rules yesterday, and yet the amendment wasn't corrected and so here we are. Now, I understand what he's trying to do, but the amendment does not say that. So I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, last year, the Bureau of Land Management decided that it would close a lot of the land it manages to shooting sports. The agency never explained why it wanted to do this, but one BLM official was quoted in a news article as stating, ``It's not a safety issue; it's a social conflict issue.'' He elaborated by saying that urbanites ``freak out'' when they hear shooting. Now, after a public outcry on this, the Interior Secretary had to send out an order telling BLM to stand down on this regulation, but the question is really: For how long? There is nothing that prevents the Obama administration from changing its mind--say, immediately after the November election--and again seeking to arbitrarily limit shooting sports. That's why this bill is necessary, to prevent such an arbitrary action by bureaucrats to limit recreational shooting, fishing, and hunting without justification. The amendment by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is even more arbitrary. While the amendment is drafted to appear reasonable, it is most certainly not. The devil is in the clever details. It appears to permit fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting, but in reality the amendment nullifies the actual purpose of the underlying bill to protect these activities. First, one needs to understand that you could fit a lot of eastern States in a small fraction of our land that is BLM land. BLM controls 253 million acres of land, more than one-eighth all the land in the United States. Second, the term ``public land'' used in this amendment has an expansive meeting. Legally, public land means more than national forest and BLM land. It also includes the Outer Continental Shelf. So, under this amendment, as long as fishing is allowed in any part of the ocean, no actual land need to be open to hunting; in other words, the 20 percent requirement could be satisfied in the Outer Continental Shelf. Who hunts in the Outer Continental Shelf, Mr. Chairman? Again, the bill we are considering today is about public land open to American people for outdoor recreation. That is a good goal. This amendment tries to hijack the bill by sending it 180 degrees from the intent of the underlying legislation. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Arizona said that suggesting in my argument that there could be a change in direction after the November election--and I'll paraphrase. He said that's preposterous. It may be. But I would just remind my colleagues that in a situation here several weeks back when it was not supposed to be recorded, our President was talking to the President of Russia. This was recorded on an open mike when he was talking to the President, and again I'll paraphrase. He said, After the election, I'll have more flexibility on missile defense. Now, on that issue, keep in mind, he had already given up the missile defense in Eastern Europe. Why would he want to have more flexibility for the defense of our country? The issue there is flexibility. And the issue is, if the President is going to use flexibility in that context, couldn't you apply the same flexibility to something that he has already done this year that has been reversed? So I don't think it is preposterous. The flexibility issue, I believe, is going to be an issue that is going to be talked about a lot between now and November, and it could apply to a great deal of policies that we could be considering in this House. This is one of them because the administration has already said that these activities should make BLM lands off limits to target shooting. I don't know why that same principle could not be applied if the President has more flexibility after the election. So I urge the defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 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 spirit of this bill, and I therefore support the amendment. It is 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 State. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act's authorization of appropriations expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. Our Fisheries Subcommittee intends to hold hearings on the reauthorization in this Congress. I think this would be the appropriate time and place to have the discussion which is the subject of your amendment. I understand the gentleman's concern. Believe me, we have heard other concerns on the Atlantic striped bass. If the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, I can assure him that he will get a full hearing on the content of his amendment in our committee this year.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, I thank you very much, and we will work together on this. This is a larger issue, and I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. It appears that the argument here is that this language that we've drafted and passed in the manager's amendment is not strong enough. Let me read the appropriate words. In the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment, he focuses on the word ``shall,'' which, of course, is strong language. But he follows it with ``construed.'' Now that raises the question: Construed by whom? Our language says very specifically that nothing in here is intended to authorize or facilitate any use regarding extraction. We say that is the intent of the law, very specifically. When you use the word ``construed,'' I dare say, Mr. Chairman, that you are opening this wide open to litigation, and maybe that is exactly what the gentleman intended. By focusing 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 this underlying legislation, but we say very specifically it's not intended to reinforce it. That was the reason that provision was in the manager's amendment. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Heinrich amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act is used more often than not to circumvent Congress' role in setting land-use policy or to foreclose any opportunity for anyone outside the White House to participate in whatever decision they make, including the affected States. Unlike America in 1906 when the antiquities law was first enacted, we now have an elaborate set of other laws and regulations that require deliberative processes and 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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, a week ago or so, I said history repeats itself, and I said it in the context that we keep hearing the same arguments over and over and over again. History repeats itself, it seems like, every week. So here we are, right back from the district work period, and history is repeating itself all over again. We are talking about energy, but we are talking about the wrong solutions. The reason we have an energy problem in this country is due to the policies of this administration. It is so simple. We've said it over and over. In fact, last year, we addressed the issue of trying to increase the energy supply, American energy, to create American energy jobs. Unfortunately, only a few on that side voted with us. Now the other side is starting to get it. Energy matters in this country. We need to develop American energy. This is history repeating itself. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.