Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, Federal law prohibits certain criminals from possessing firearms. This amendment assumes that a criminal who is forbidden from possessing a firearm, who then breaks that law and possesses one anyway, will then obey a law that says he can't bring the illegally possessed gun to a shooting range.

I have news for the author of this amendment. The last place a criminal wants to be is on a shooting range where he is surrounded by law-abiding and armed citizens. Criminals prefer gun-free zones where decent people can't fight back.

So what is the real purpose of this amendment? I think it is twofold. The first is to imply that gun ranges are brimming with criminals who are honing their skills to go on rampages. That is an insult to the many millions of Americans who own guns and who use shooting ranges.

Second, and more disturbing, it is to put the owners and managers of shooting ranges in an impossible legal position. How are they supposed to comply with this law? The gentleman says, well, they don't need to do background checks of every consumer, but what else are they then supposed to do in order to abide by this law? Require a 2-week waiting period to make reservations? How long before leftist legal firms begin suing these gun ranges for failing to do due diligence in thoroughly probing the backgrounds of their customers?

We have many laws on the books to prohibit the illegal use of firearms and to prohibit criminals from possessing them. That is the problem with criminals: they just don't obey our laws. But instead of putting them behind bars, where they can't hurt anyone, the left seeks to make it increasingly difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

It shouldn't surprise us that the sum total of these laws is more gun violence and not less. I urge the House to defeat this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I noted that one of our principal objectives of the Federal lands policy must be to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to the communities impacted by the Federal lands.

Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the Forest Service, advised his foresters to find out in advance what the public will stand for. If it is right and they won't stand for it, postpone action and educate them.

That is essentially what this bill does. It says that the Federal Government needs to listen to States and territories before imposing fishing regulations in State waters.

This amendment would strip this language and say, in effect: We don't care what local communities think. We know what is best.

It speaks volumes about why States and communities are openly revolting against Federal lands policy.

Pinchot also advised us to get rid of an attitude of personal arrogance or pride of attainment of superior knowledge. I would commend that advice to the gentleman from Virginia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would forbid development of one of the most promising and untapped oilfields in the world. I have to ask: How is the cause of American energy independence advanced by forbidding development of America's own vast energy resources? We are talking about reserves that are larger than the reserves in the entire nation of Mexico or Norway, whom we currently depend on for importing oil.

The gentleman from California is right: that land is owned by the American people. So is the oil under it. That means about $300 billion of revenues into the Federal Treasury. That is about $2,400 for every family in this country.

The proposed development of the Arctic oil requires about 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres of the wildlife reserve. That is one-one hundredth of 1 percent of that land area. That is how extreme this measure is.

It would sacrifice American prosperity. It would sacrifice oil reserves larger than those in all of Mexico. It would sacrifice revenues to the Treasury of $2,400 for every family to place off limits a tiny part of the frozen Arctic tundra.

If you want to know why our economy is stagnating, if you want to know why our country is going bankrupt, you need only look to measures like the amendment before us.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source