Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes technical changes to the underlying bill, makes expenditures under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act subject to appropriation, and eliminates the Pittman-Robertson interest on obligations language, title XII, which was signed into law last year.

The manager's amendment also adds an important new title to the bill, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, which makes that law more transparent. The Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA, was originally passed in 1980 as a social safety net program for seniors, veterans, and small businesses.

It was designed to pay back these little guys for the cost of suing the Federal Government in a once-in-a-lifetime event. However, special interest groups have used EAJA as a way to be reimbursed for lawsuits when they can't be reimbursed under the Nation's environmental laws. These illegitimate reimbursements not only cost taxpayers money, but they tie up our land management agencies, chasing procedural lawsuits instead of doing their actual job.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amends the definition of public target ranges in title II and the definition of public target range as used for Pittman-Robertson funding.

This amendment is unnecessary, as it prohibits behavior which is already against the law. This amendment is also impractical. Administrators at public ranges would have no way of knowing who is prohibited and who is not. Public target ranges are not equipped to run background checks, and requiring them to do so would largely undermine the other purposes of the bill, like expanding access to ranges.

This amendment does not distinguish between public target ranges that allow only archery versus those that allow firearm use. The amendment would prohibit, without justification, certain persons from taking advantage of otherwise lawful and harmless recreational archery.

Access to the national background check screening data base is strictly limited by law and cannot be used to screen people just because they want to use a target range. The National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Safari Club International oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman from Virginia--we all have an interest in shooting sports--that there is no evidence to suggest that there is an issue right now with felons using this opportunity to perpetrate crimes at public shooting ranges, so I think it is a solution in search of a problem. We want to make sure that there is a balance there and that, indeed, people have access to these ranges.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind folks, too, that the law already prohibits certain individuals from possessing a firearm, from using it at a public range. The acquisition or possession of a firearm by a person subject to 18 U.S. Code 922, section (g), under any circumstances for any purpose is already a Federal felony. I think the law already covers that as far as who can and cannot own a firearm.

Having the additional effort of saying you can't access a public range is secondary to the primary violation of the law. I think that that is already covered if you are looking at making sure that guns aren't put in the hands of those folks who are convicted of these crimes.

Again, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same, to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes a provision of the SHARE Act that will allow the importation of 41 polar bears legally harvested from sustainable populations in Canada before the polar bear was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate something that Mr. Young said. There is a thousand-dollar importation fee that is assessed on all 41 of those trophies. Those dollars go to polar bear conservation and research. So we are looking to use these efforts to continue the promulgation of this species. We want to make sure polar bear populations continue to grow.

Hunters provide, I believe, the largest measure of conservation of any group out there that is looking to preserve polar bears. It is in everyone's interest to make sure these things happen.

We have a number of groups out there that are in support of this bill: the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Safari Club International, and the Boone and Crockett Club. All those organizations are deeply committed to making sure that we continue and grow these species.

We want to make sure we understand that, but hunters are the best conservationists on the planet because they are involved in making sure the species continue. They use their resources to put into species continuation. They want to make sure these species are properly managed and that we have good science in managing those species. I believe that this is what we want. We want to make sure that we are encouraging that.

This amendment does not allow us to do that. It strikes those provisions. I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate polar bears are not endangered. They are not on the endangered species list.

I want to remind folks, too, these 41 trophies were harvested in Canada. Canada has a world-class management program for polar bears. They have used the best science.

Remember, these polar bears were taken in 2008, based upon the science Canada was using to manage the program. The polar bears in Canada, both at the time and now, are increasing in population. Canada does a great job in managing this.

This is just a situation where polar bears legally harvested under the best management programs available should be allowed to come back into the United States. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that we support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Newhouse for yielding.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman from California that the duck stamp program is a great program. It does a tremendous amount of good. We all know the wetlands that are preserved with that. We all know it is a great opportunity for the hunting community and the conservation community to come together.

As you know, last year, the duck stamp fee was increased, for the first time in 24 years, from $15 to $25. I, myself, am an avid duck hunter. I buy multiple duck stamps because I firmly believe in the program.

The increase last year we believe will yield about $119 million over 10 years; but we also know, looking historically, that when you put these increases in fees, for the first couple of years the revenue drops because people that would buy them without the need don't do that, and then they come back to actually purchasing it.

So we understand that. That is why we have asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to look specifically at how the implementation of this fee is going to play out and how the costs associated with the program are, so that we can understand how to best manage this, as you said, to get the most dollars to wetlands conservation.

With the idea of now going to an inflationary factor right on the heels of a $10 increase without getting, from the Fish and Wildlife Service, what the impacts are going to be so we can best maximize the dollars, I think, is premature.

I serve as a member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, and still, I believe the responsibility for any type of increases should still be on the backs of all Members of Congress, not just the four that are on the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

I applaud the gentleman's effort to draw attention to the duck stamp program. We all understand the good it does, but I would argue that this inflationary increase measure is premature, especially in the face of a $10 increase last year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes, I will tell the gentleman from California that we will indeed work with you in looking at the future of the duck stamp program, making sure that it is managed in the proper way, making sure that, indeed, is getting dollars to where they need to go, and that is to preserve those critical wetlands.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, the minority's motion to recommit is an issue about chemicals in drinking water. Chemicals in drinking water is an issue that was addressed in the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was before this House.

There were multiple opportunities to have a debate about that and to determine what we do to address that issue. That bill passed out of the House. It is now in a preconference committee with the Senate. That was the opportunity.

This bill, the SHARE Act, is a package of commonsense bills that will increase opportunities for hunters, recreational shooters, and anglers; will eliminate unneeded regulatory impediments; will safeguard against new regulations that impede outdoor sporting activities; and will protect Second Amendment rights. It does not pertain to chemicals in drinking water.

Outdoor sporting activities, including hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, are deeply ingrained in the fabric of America's culture and heritage. Values that are instilled by partaking in these activities are passed down from generation to generation and play a significant part in the lives of millions of Americans.

This important legislation will sustain America's rich hunting and fishing traditions, will improve access to our public lands for responsible outdoor sporting activities, and will help to ensure that the current and future generations of sportsmen and -women are able to enjoy the sporting activities this country holds dear.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation and to defeat the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source