Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I simply take a minute. Since we have no amendments on leaded bullets or lead in fishing, this may be the only time it is germane to clear up an issue from our debate yesterday evening.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my good friend, mentioned about at shooting ranges, especially, bullets often end up back in the ground.
I just wanted to clarify, and let me quote from the Science and Environmental Health Network, that in the environment many chemicals are degraded by sunlight, destroyed through reactions with other environmental substances or metabolized by naturally occurring bacteria. Some chemicals, however, have features that enable them to resist environmental degradation. They are classified as persistent and can accumulate in soils and aquatic environments. Metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic are always persistent since they are basic elements and cannot be further broken down and destroyed in the environment. Lead contamination of air, soil, or drinking water can ultimately result in significant exposures in fetuses, infants, and children, resulting in impaired brain development.
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to get that on the record that the lead is not going to degrade once it hits the soil during hunting or fishing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2406 would increase Federal assistance made available in the Pittman-Robertson Act for construction, operations, and maintenance of recreational shooting ranges on public lands.
I, myself, am an avid outdoorsman and a big proponent of recreational activities, and I understand the value of recreational shooting. However, I believe that with these privileges come certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to ensure that we are not creating a situation where dangerous people are allowed to hone their shooting skills on the taxpayers' dime.
My amendment today simply says, if you operate a public shooting range and if you receive Federal assistance by way of this act, then you must have a policy, a notice of some sort in place stating that no person who is prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm is allowed to use the shooting range.
Nothing in this amendment creates new gun laws. Nothing in this amendment would infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners. Nothing in this amendment is onerous in any way. We are simply saying that the Federal Government should not be in the business of subsidizing dangerous people improving their marksmanship or creating spaces around guns where convicted felons feel like they can operate outside the law and endanger law-abiding sportsmen and -women. The Federal Government has an obligation to keep people safe.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, with respect for my friend from Virginia, there is nothing in the amendment that suggests or requires background checks for people wanting to use public shooting ranges--in fact, just the opposite. All we are asking is that there be a policy or a notice saying, if you are otherwise prohibited from using weapons under Federal law, that you can't practice, hone your shooting skills on these ranges.
Mr. Wittman and I both come from Virginia, where we have six target ranges managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Those six public target ranges have 17 rules. These rules include: use paper targets only; organized competitive shooting is prohibited; use of unauthorized target materials, such as cans, bottles, clay birds is prohibited. None of these is onerous. All we are asking is for an 18th rule that says, if you are otherwise prohibited from using a gun under Federal law, then you can't use it at the target range.
We are not trying to extend background checks to everyone. That is not what this says. All we are trying to do is make sure that people who can't otherwise have possession of a gun don't go to a target range, rent one, and practice.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, all I need is just a few seconds to point out to my friend from California that many of the things that he objects to are irrelevant and not germane to this amendment.
We are not asking for background checks. We are certainly not setting up a structure where lawyers can sue. We are simply asking for a policy or notice to be in place, as many other policies and notices are in place at gun shooting ranges around the country, that recognize that Federal law prohibits certain people, some dangerous people from possessing or using firearms in the United States, and especially the public shooting range that is being funded by the Federal Government under Pittman- Robertson.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, title XIV of this bill would give States and territories the authority to override Federal fishing rules in coastal waters of national parks, national marine sanctuaries, and some marine national monuments. This is simply not right.
Places like Biscayne National Park, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monument belong to all Americans, not just to the fishing interests in Florida, Hawaii, and American Samoa.
Protection of these special ocean places has overwhelming public support and is recognized by the scientific community as critical to making fisheries more productive.
What is more, most of these areas do not even preclude fishing. California's national marine sanctuaries generate more than $140 million a year in economic impact from commercial fishing.
Recreational anglers spend more than $100 million a year on fishing in the Florida Keys.
I attended the public hearing in Homestead, Florida, last year on closing a very small part--less than 6 percent--of Biscayne National Bay for a marine national monument simply to bring the fish back, many fish that fishermen there hadn't seen in years.
But fishing is not the only important use of these waters. Whale watching, snorkeling, scuba diving, and scientific research all generate enormous benefits, not to mention the impact that protecting coral reefs and other diverse productive habitats has on stabilizing our oceans and our fisheries in the face of global warming.
Sometimes it is necessary to protect certain areas of the ocean, particularly those that have been over-fished in the past or are particularly sensitive to fishing impacts, if we want to support a wide variety of uses and keep our oceans healthy. Science shows that this benefits fishermen in the long run as well.
My amendment is simple. It strikes title XIV of H.R. 2406 and leaves fishery management decisions in the waters of marine parks, sanctuaries, and monuments up to the Federal agencies charged with managing these resources in trust for all Americans.
We would never think of allowing Wyoming to set hunting rules for Yellowstone, but without this amendment, this bill would allow the same thing to happen for our ocean parks that are every bit as magnificent.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague and friend from California, I don't think that is the way the system works.
In fact, right now fishing limitations are developed in coordination with their respective States and territories. They are just not given final, blanket veto power. The Park Service and the States benefit from cooperative fisheries research and management and full participation. My only personal experience is with the Biscayne Bay where there were many, many public hearings. The public was fully involved. The fishermen, pro and con, were fully involved in it.
The idea is not to eliminate the close coordination of partnership with the States and with the territories, but, rather, to avoid giving the States and territories the ultimate veto power over what essentially are national decisions.
Mr. Chairman,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in response and with respect to my friend, the representative from Florida, Biscayne Bay National Park is 164,800 acres. These are Federal lands. This is a national park, Federal waters.
She mentioned that only they are going to close 30 percent of the reefs. It is very important to note that the reef that existed 100 years ago is down to only 6 percent that is left. So the 30 percent that is going to be closed is 2 percent of the original reef.
The whole purpose is to actually serve that special interest, the fishing interest of Florida, who desperately need the revival of the fish.
We found at the public hearing that at least half of the fishermen there were for closing it, and all the fishermen pointed out that the water was so far away, it was rarely fished at all. The worry was the precedent, not the specific part that is closed.
We point out that Biscayne Bay itself is only less than 2 percent-- 1.4 percent--of all Florida's waters. So this is a very tiny part. But the point here is not for any special interest, but to revise, because study after study after study have shown that where these marine sanctuaries are created, the fish recover much faster even than scientists expected.
This is for the long-term benefit of the fishing community, for anglers throughout the world, especially serving the larger interests of the American public.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important amendment. We resist giving veto power over Federal decisions to State governments and territorial governments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this amendment, first and foremost, because it, like so many provisions already in the bill, seeks to prevent U.S. public lands from being managed for the benefit of all Americans.
National forests are lands of many uses, including hunting and fishing. But how those uses are balanced should be decided by expert land managers at the Forest Service through a process that is open to the public and consistent with our national conservation laws, not by a few well-connected hunters and their allies in Congress.
Furthermore, the practice that this section of the bill is trying to protect is using dogs to hunt deer. Not only is this an ethically questionable hunting tactic, it is wildly controversial in the States listed in this title as well as in my State of Virginia.
Its opponents, Mr. Chairman, are not who you might think. These are not what was described yesterday as radical leftists. In fact, it is the complaints from private landowners and not overbearing bureaucrats, not environmentalists, that led the Forest Service to ban deer hounding in Louisiana's Kisatchie National Forest in 2012.
Don't take my word for it. A 2014 column in Louisiana Sportsman stated:
The boot that finally stamped the life out of deer hunting with dogs in Kisatchie National Forest was trespassing on private property . . . homeowners reported people standing on the public roads in front of their homes with guns, waiting for deer to appear. They reported dogs on their property sometimes attacking their chickens or other livestock. And, worst of all, the homeowners reported belligerent and insolent behavior by these people standing on the roads and entering their property to retrieve their dogs.
Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest, the subject of this bill, was the scene of a major law enforcement action that found 46 people guilty of illegally hunting deer with dogs in 2013, this in spite of the fact that the practice had already been banned in Missouri.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize that the Forest Service doesn't prohibit hunting right now in the Mark Twain National Forest. It simply prohibits hunting deer with dogs.
It does this because of complaints from private landowners, not from the environmentalists and not from bureaucrats. This is literally respect for the public input that comes from that.
I continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in ambivalent opposition to my friend's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to let Representative Newhouse know I completely appreciate the dilemma that he is in and appreciate the motivation for this amendment.
My one concern is that it will require the chief of the Forest Service to publish notice in the Federal Register, along with a justification, any time a national Forest Service road is closed, and there may be some unintended consequences which we should at least think about.
For example, the amendment will require the Forest Service to publish the Federal Register notice to close a road that is being engulfed by wildfire, or a road that is covered with debris after a tornado or in jeopardy of being swept away after a landslide, a power line down on the road, or even one that is closed to prevent militants from coming and going, as we have recently seen.
I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that there should be a justification for anything that closes a public road that people have used for many, many years, but I also don't want to hamstring them from closing roads that are necessary for the public safety.
I tepidly encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to be debating two doctors on one amendment.
I do think that one of the dilemmas here is that this amendment, like so much of H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act, continues the essential idea that we should be turning over decisions that have been made at the Federal Government level by the National Park Service, by the Bureau of Land Management, and by the Forest Service to State governments and even to local governments.
This is not a debate on UTVs. I respect that automobiles and all kinds of transportation continue to evolve. Rather, it is the idea that we are setting a damaging precedent with regard to our conservation laws and regulations that again and again we are saying that, rather than taking a national perspective, we are turning to the local folks to decide what works best for the country.
This amendment allows the State of Louisiana, not the Forest Service charged with managing the Kisatchie National Forest for the benefit of the American people, to determine where and whether it is permissible to chase down deer with motorized vehicles. These are thoughtful rules established through an open, public process. They seek to balance multiple uses and prevent abuses in our national forests.
The fact that this amendment focuses on off-road vehicles brings to mind the illegal 2014 ATV ride through Recapture Canyon in Utah. That is the last thing we want to happen in Kisatchie National Forest.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and the precedent that it would set.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would weaken current law, undermine State laws concerning the carrying of firearms, and harm the efforts of law enforcement to take action against illegal firearms trafficking.
Current law applies only to the transportation of a firearm in a motor vehicle. This bill would expand current law to allow a person to transport a gun outside a motor vehicle so long as the firearm is unloaded and locked in a container or is secured with a safety device. This would allow a person to walk down the street with an unloaded gun as long as the gun had a trigger lock on it, regardless of the State's laws on carrying guns in public.
This amendment would also allow guns on trains, cable cars, and trollies so long as the guns are unloaded and locked, regardless of State or local laws. This is because trains, cable cars, and trollies are not considered to be motor vehicles under the applicable Federal definition. Current Federal law gives State governments the authority over firearms in these forms of transportation, but the Griffith amendment would remove that authority.
The proposed amendment would also have a negative impact on our law enforcement officers' ability to enforce our gun laws. Specifically, this amendment would make it more difficult for officers to investigate suspected gun traffickers and people who illegally carry weapons.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Police Foundation. Statement of the Police Foundation Regarding Proposed Amendment to the Sportsman's Bill (HR 2406), February 25, 2016
The Police Foundation expresses its grave concerns with a proposed amendment to the Sportsman's Bill (HR 2406), by Congressman Morgan Griffith from Virginia, which will have a chilling effect on enforcement of illegal gun possession and other gun crimes. We strongly oppose the amendment's provision that could make law enforcement agencies liable for investigative stops and detentions of armed subjects.
Further, the proposed amendment will drastically undermine states' concealed carry licensing laws. States must be able to determine their own concealed carry statutes and regulations that fit the values and enhance the safety of their communities and constituents.
At a time when many cities and counties have just witnessed 2015 come to an end with increased homicides and non-fatal shootings, Congress should strengthen, not weaken enforcement of our nation's gun laws.
We call on Members of Congress to support law enforcement officers as they perform the most dangerous job of confronting shooters and other armed criminals, and to uphold state and local efforts to make communities safer.
We urge Members of Congress to oppose the proposed amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. The letter expresses the Police Foundation's grave concerns with this amendment. They write that this amendment ``will have a chilling effect on the enforcement of illegal gun possession and other crimes.''
Why would Congress narrow the limited set of enforcement tools our police officers currently have to pursue suspected gun traffickers?
The Griffith amendment subjects a police officer to a personal lawsuit when he or she detains or arrests someone whom the officer reasonably believed at the time of detainment was illegally trafficking or was carrying a firearm.
We must respect our officers' ability to use discretion, albeit limited, when determining if gun trafficking is occurring; so subjecting them to personal lawsuits when they are simply trying to do their jobs to protect us seems a little reckless. These brave men and women should not be afraid to carry out their investigative duties due to the fear of being sued.
For this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we are certainly not objecting to reasonable attorneys' fees and to making people whole. It is the idea that law enforcement officers can be held personally responsible and can be, actually, personally sued for doing their jobs that we object to.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source