| Executive Session |
May 17, 2012 |
|
Lamar Alexander, R-TN
|
|
"It’s an election year, and the Senate can’t agree on how to keep the student loan interest rate from doubling on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8. While both sides agree that it should be done, how to pay for it is the stumbling block. A party-line cloture vote failure has once again brought calls for changing the Senate’s rules by majority vote at the beginning of the next Congress, bypassing the two-thirds cloture requirement if there’s opposition. The Senate’s membership has changed considerably in the last decade, but the Senate rules, with the exception of some changes that were enacted in the Ethics in Government Act, have not undergone any major changes since the Senate went on TV in 1986. While the House has its Rules Committee, which allows the majority to exert its will and control the flow of legislation, the Senate has a tradition of protecting the rights of the minority and of unfettered debate. Its own website describes “[t]he legislative process on the Senate floor [as] a balance between the rights guaranteed to Senators under the standing rules and the need for senators to forgo some of these rights in order to expedite business.” The Senate has for centuries functioned by this compact of selectively forgoing one’s rights, but now that compact, to some, seems to have broken down—hence the call to enact rules changes at the beginning of the next Congress by majority vote. These calls have come from Democrats, but they are quick to admit that it should apply regardless of who is in the majority at the time. Such changes can certainly quicken the process and allow for the majority to pass legislation and confirm presidential nominees with little hindrance. While the initial rules reforms will probably be limited to restricting debate on a motion to proceed and other less dramatic changes, eventually such majority rules changes at the beginning of a Congress will result in a majority-controlled body similar to the House. Once the Pandora’s Box of granting the majority the unfettered ability to change the rules every two years has been opened, having seen how the current situation has escalated, tit for tat over the last 30 years, it is difficult to believe that strict majority rule would not be the ultimate result. Thereafter, a member of the minority in the Senate will be just as impotent as his or her House counterparts. Filibusters and the forcing of a cloture vote have been repeatedly used to stop legislation and nominations and to waste time. This is why the number of successful cloture votes, many on noncontroversial nominations and on motions to proceed to bills, has gone up dramatically in recent years. By requiring the cloture vote and then voting for it, the minority has been able to waste considerable time and thus reduce the amount of time available to act on other items of the president’s agenda. The call for changing the Senate’s rules by majority vote at the beginning of a Congress is not new; it was attempted without success in 1953 and 1957 and in 1959. When faced with such an effort, then-Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson negotiated a cloture change back down to two-thirds of those present and voting, but as part of the compromise he had to add Paragraph 2 to Senate Rule V, which states “The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.” So is it time to ignore the existing rules and change them at the beginning of the next Congress by a majority vote? Perhaps it is time—so many other changes have occurred in our lives in the recent past, why shouldn’t the Senate change the way it does business? However, should that occur, one must be prepared to live with the eventual outcome of a Senate where the majority rules and the rights of the minority have been severely curtailed. While I can sympathize with those demanding such changes, it’s the manner of their implementation that keeps reminding me of the exchange between Sir Thomas Moore and his son-in- law, William Roper, in the movie “A Man For All Seasons”: Roper: “So, now you give the devil the benefit of law!” Moore: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?” Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” Moore: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? … Yes, I’d give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”"
|
|
| Sportsmen’S Heritage Act Of 2012 |
April 17, 2012 |
|
Paul Ryan, R-WI
|
|
"(a) In General.—Subject to valid existing rights and subsection (g), and cooperation with the respective State and fish and wildlife agency, Federal public land management officials shall exercise their authority under existing law, including provisions regarding land use planning, to facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands and waters for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting except as limited by— (1) statutory authority that authorizes action or withholding action for reasons of national security, public safety, or resource conservation; (2) any other Federal statute that specifically precludes recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting on specific Federal public lands, waters, or units thereof; and (3) discretionary limitations on recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting determined to be necessary and reasonable as supported by the best scientific evidence and advanced through a transparent public process. (b) Management.—Consistent with subsection (a), the head of each Federal public land management agency shall exercise its land management discretion— (1) in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities; (2) to the extent authorized under applicable State law; and (3) in accordance with applicable Federal law. (c) Planning.— (1) Effects of plans and activities.— (A) Evaluation of effects on opportunities to engage in recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting.—Federal public land planning documents, including land resources management plans, resource management plans, travel management plans, general management plans, and comprehensive conservation plans, shall include a specific evaluation of the effects of such plans on opportunities to engage in recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting. (B) Not major federal action.—No action taken under this title, or under section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), either individually or cumulatively with other actions involving Federal public lands, shall be considered to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and no additional identification, analysis, or consideration of environmental effects, including cumulative effects, is necessary or required. (C) Other activity not considered.—The fact that recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting occurs on adjacent or nearby public or private lands shall not be considered in determining which Federal public lands are open for these activities or for setting levels of use for these activities. (2) Use of volunteers.—If hunting is prohibited by law, all Federal public land planning documents of listed in paragraph (1)(A) of an agency shall, after appropriate coordination with State fish and wildlife agency, allow the participation of skilled volunteers in the culling and other management of wildlife populations on Federal public lands unless the head of the agency demonstrates, based on the best scientific data available or applicable Federal statutes, why skilled volunteers shall not be used to control overpopulations of wildlife on the land that is the subject of the planning documents. (d) Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Lands.— (1) Lands open.—Lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, including lands designated as wilderness or administratively classified as wilderness eligible or suitable and primitive or semi- primitive areas but excluding lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, shall be open to recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting unless the managing Federal agency acts to close lands to such activity. Lands may be subject to closures or restrictions if determined by the head of the agency to be necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence, for purposes including resource conservation, public safety, energy or mineral production, energy generation or transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities, protection of other permittees, protection of private property rights or interests, national security, or compliance with other law. The head of the agency shall publish public notice of such closure or restriction before it is effective, unless the closure or restriction is mandated by other law. (2) Shooting ranges.— (A) In general.—The head of each Federal agency— (i) may lease its lands for shooting ranges; and (ii) may designate specific lands for recreational shooting activities. (B) Limitation on liability.—Any designation under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall not subject the United States to any civil action or claim for monetary damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by any activity occurring at or on such designated lands. (e) Necessity in Wilderness Areas.— (1) The provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on designated wilderness areas on Federal public lands shall constitute measures necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the wilderness area. (2) The “within and supplemental to” Wilderness purposes, as provided in Public Law 88 577, section 4(c), means that any requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented only insofar as they facilitate or enhance the original or primary purpose or purposes for which the Federal public lands or Federal public land unit was established and do not materially interfere with or hinder such purpose or purposes. (f) Annual Report.— (1) In general.—Not later than October 1 of each year, the head of each Federal agency who has authority to manage Federal public land on which fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting occurs shall publish in the Federal Register and submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that describes— (A) any Federal public land administered by the agency head that was closed to recreational fishing, sport hunting, or shooting at any time during the preceding year; and (B) the reason for the closure. (2) Closures or significant restrictions of 640 or more acres.— (A) In general.—Other than closures under subsection (c), the withdrawal, any change of classification, or any change of management status that effectively closes or significantly restricts 640 or more contiguous acres of Federal public land or water to access or use for fishing or hunting or activities related to fishing and hunting (or both) shall take effect only if, before the date of withdrawal or change, the head of the Federal agency that has jurisdiction over the Federal public land or water— (i) publishes notice of the closure, withdrawal, or significant restriction; (ii) demonstrates that coordination has occurred with a State fish and wildlife agency; and (iii) submits to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate written notice of the withdrawal, change, or significant restriction. (B) Aggregate or cumulative effects.—If the aggregate or cumulative effect of small closures or significant restrictions affects 640 or more acres, such small closures or significant restrictions shall be subject to these requirements. (g) Areas Not Affected.—Nothing in this title requires the opening of national park or national monuments under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service to hunting or recreational shooting. (h) No Priority.—Nothing in this title requires a Federal agency to give preference to recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting over other uses of Federal public land or over land or water management priorities established by Federal law. (i) Consultation With Councils.—In fulfilling the duties set forth in this title, the heads of Federal agencies shall consult with respective advisory councils as established in Executive Orders 12962 and 13443. (j) Authority of the States.— (1) In general.—Nothing in this title shall be construed as interfering with, diminishing, or conflicting with the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of any State to manage, control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State law (including regulations) on land or water within the State, including on Federal public land. (2) Federal licenses.—Nothing in this title authorizes the head of a Federal agency head to require a license or permit to fish, hunt, or trap on land or water in a State, including on Federal public land in the States, except that this paragraph shall not affect the Migratory Bird Stamp requirement set forth in the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718 et seq.). "
|
|