Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014

Floor Speech

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I come to the floor this morning to speak on the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014.

I have been working on this bill with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Hagan. We have been working on this bill together for about 1 year. Our package is very reflective of its name. It is a bipartisan sportsmen's package.

We have, as of this morning, 46 Members signed on in support of this legislation. I think most would agree that at this time to have 46 Members across the aisle reaching together on any issue is quite extraordinary, and one would think we would have a clear path forward as to how we can advance a measure that has brought together a very diverse group of Senators, diverse from different parts of the country. But it speaks to how important and how widely accepted and supported these issues are, and this is in no small part due to the fact that America's sports men and women come from all over the country. They are not just in the rural areas and out in the country, but they are in the big cities, they are in urban centers, they are in the North, and they are in the South. For so many of us, outdoor activities and traditions define who we are.

I don't know how it is in North Dakota, but September 1 in our household--I recognize that is Labor Day for us around the country, but for most Alaskans I know, it is opening day. It is opening day, and it is when everybody is getting ready to go out duck hunting, and then we have moose season, we have caribou season. We define our seasons not by the calendar but by what is happening with hunting.

Right now, in my State, all that anyone is talking about is fishing. The reds are running on the Kenai. That is where I am going to be this weekend with my husband. Last week it was all about the kings on the Nushagak.

This morning an article in the newspaper around the State is about a sports angler who caught a 482-pound halibut off of Gustavus. It described the fisherman as a 77-year-old man who came up to the State. This is his third visit to Gustavus because he likes going out for the halibut. For a small community such as Gustavus to have fishermen come in to their town and bring the dollars they do, this is big for us. This helps our economy. It is not only fun, it is an economic driver in so many parts of my State.

Whether it is hunting or fishing, these are issues Alaskans care about. I think they are also issues people in North Dakota, Virginia, and Maryland and all over the country care about.

What we have done in this very bipartisan bill is combined a host of measures that speak to some of the regulatory reforms that will provide greater access for our sports men and women, whether on the water or on the land, whether it is the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, which provides for revenues and dollars to help with hunter education programs--very important for us around the country--electronic duck stamps, Farmer and Hunter Protection Act, Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act--again, all provisions and measures Senator Hagan and I have worked on to build these initiatives into one package to focus on how we can do more to provide for greater access for our sports men and women around the country.

But we also provide for some very important conservation principles. We include the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act, some very important measures. We have a provision we have included from Senator Heinrich, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act reauthorization. So it is not just on the access side, but it is also focused on the conservation side as well.

There is very strong support not only within this body but also within sports organizations all over the country. Some 42 different organizations have come together to sign a letter in support of advancing this measure through the Senate.

We spend a lot of time here on the Senate floor talking about: Well, we might be able to advance something in the Senate, but we don't know how it is going to fare on the House side. We have already seen good action, similar legislation sponsored by Congressman Latta from Ohio, that passed the House on February 5 of this year by over a 100-vote margin. So clearly the support is not only bipartisan, it is bicameral.

What we have done, working together with Senator Hagan and her good staff, is worked hard to try to coordinate these efforts to ensure that the House and Senate bills are closely aligned, so that when we move something out of here we don't have to guess as to what might happen, we know we are going to have good, strong support.

I am obviously very hopeful that we can complete our work on this bill. But before we complete the work on the bill, we have to be able to start work on the bill.

I also recognize that unless we can agree to an open and a fair amendment process where we actually take some votes around here on amendments offered by folks on both sides, we are probably unlikely to make progress on this bill. I think that is very unfortunate, because I know there are a lot of folks in my State hoping we are going to move on this, who are saying: If the Senate can't come together on something like a bipartisan sportsman package, where you have 46 Members coming together to do this, wow, how are they going to do anything? We need to be able to demonstrate we can work together on some of these initiatives where there is a good level of consensus.

I hate to be in the place where we are right now, arguing about whether we are going to be able to take up any relevant amendments. I want us to take up these relevant amendments.

I like the bill Senator Hagan and I worked on. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't be standing here trying to advance and encourage my colleagues that we move forward to it. But I also know that as good as Senator Hagan and I are in representing these issues, we don't have a monopoly on all the good ideas. We don't have a monopoly on everything coming from different parts of the country. We need to have input from our colleagues.

I will remind us that the measure in front of us is not a measure that has gone through the full committee process. This is a measure that has advanced to the floor through a process known as rule XIV, where it hasn't had the benefit of Members advancing their amendments through the committee process.

I want to have an amendment process. I want to have the debate on some of the measures we have in front of us. I want to stand and tell people why I think it is important we provide for additional access for our sports men and women on our public lands and that we can be doing more to help incentivize that. But we have to have that amendment process.

As many of my colleagues know, we have been here before. We have been here as recently as 2012. It was a highly frustrating experience. We had a similar sportsmen's bill that was bogged down--basically, it was political posturing--late last Congress and it didn't go anywhere as a result.

So with that history in mind, and knowing what we went through in 2012, I decided last July 2013 to introduce my own sportsmen's package. What I wanted to try to do is figure: OK, let's see if we can take some of the politics out of this measure, try to be very bipartisan, try to be nonpolitical.

As the ranking member of the committee with jurisdiction and as one who wasn't up for election at this point in time, I felt I was in perhaps a good spot to maybe lead this thing forward. So we put the ideas out there in November. Senator Hagan introduced her own bill, the SPORT Act. What became very apparent to both of us was that if we continued down this two-track path, we would not be successful in passage.

Senator Hagan and I agreed: We know what the goal is, passage of good bipartisan legislation. So we sought middle ground and we put together what we think is common sense. We took good ideas that both of us had, we melded them and we put together what we think are the best interests of the sportsmen's community around the country. Then we went out and recruited our cosponsors, we secured the time for floor consideration, and now we are here, caught in the same argument about whether relevant amendments from our caucuses should be allowed.

My answer on this is pretty simple. It is a flatout yes. Yes, of course relevant amendments should be allowed. Yes, we should actually be doing our job here in the Senate, taking good ideas from both sides and advancing a package that, again, hasn't gone through the traditional path of the committee process.

Senator Hagan and I have again built this, and many of our colleagues agree with it; otherwise, they would not have signed on as cosponsors. We greatly appreciate their support. But, again, I think it is important to get their perspectives on this initiative before we take a final vote on the bill.

I do want to be very clear, because I heard comments this morning that Republicans are somehow or another filibustering this bill. I find that kind of stunning. The Republican conference is absolutely prepared to vote on all relevant amendments. We have a list. Last evening when I left, there was a list of 13 that had been filed. This morning, that list has grown. It has doubled. It is probably growing as we speak. Let's get moving on these relevant amendments--these amendments that are tied to the bill itself.

It is not just Republican amendments. We have a good handful of them I would like to see advanced. There are amendments on both sides, and some of these amendments are very relevant to specific States.

I know Senator Landrieu has an amendment that is very unique to Louisiana. It is the Kisatchie National Forest deer hunting amendment, very specific to Louisiana. It wasn't included in the package Senator Hagan and I built because we were trying to do it broader, more comprehensive, national in scope. But if Senator Landrieu feels this is an important piece to have, she should have an opportunity to weigh in on that.

Senator Cardin and Senator Crapo have introduced an amendment, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act--again, a bipartisan amendment led by Senator Cardin, clearly relevant to this measure. Why would we not want to have the opportunity to advance some of these provisions that Members feel will enhance a bill that already has good, strong support.

I want to make sure Members know I am fully committed to a full and open amendment process; that Republicans would like to see a full and open amendment process; and that we get moving. Instead of talking about getting moving, we actually make that happen.

I thank those who have come forward and offered their support for this measure. A lot of work has gone into crafting the bill. But I am fearful that, once again, we are at risk of basically being cast aside because of political concerns.

I ask the majority leader to reconsider his view that relevant amendments are too difficult to vote on. We have to return to regular order. We have to have a fair and healthy debate on legislation--especially legislation such as this that has not gone through the committee process, has good, strong support, but needs to have further input from Members all over the country.

I appreciate the consideration of the body here in trying to advance a measure that will help us not only when it comes to access for our fishermen and our sports men and women, provides for further conservation measures, but also helps us to advance a process in this body that at this time we so desperately lack.

I yield the floor.

Source