G.I. Bill Tuition Fairness Act, Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act

Floor Speech

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize passage this week of three important pieces or legislation: H.R. 357, the G.I. Bill Tuition Fairness Act; H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act; and H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act. Unfortunately, I was not able to vote on final passage of these important bills because of a death in my family and my attendance at the subsequent funeral.

The G.I. Bill Tuition Fairness Act is commonsense legislation for our veterans that will lead to more affordable education opportunities when our men and women in uniform return from service.

The Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act is a bipartisan package of eight individual bills that will strengthen and preserve important outdoor traditions and some of our pristine natural treasures for American sportsmen, recreational enthusiasts and future generations. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this bill.
H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act seeks to address the crisis that is taking place in California that has resulted from extreme drought and other challenges. I am supportive of measures that provide much needed relief to our farmers. Having said that, as I am a strong supporter of state water rights, I could not have supported this legislation without the inclusion of provision 501 which states these dire circumstances are unique to California and should not serve as a precedent for other states.

Finally, I want to address three quick items that came up during debate on H.R. 3590. The first is H. Amdt. 541, offered by Mr. Holt, which would have allowed the Secretary to prevent hunting and fishing on public lands based on speculative climate change studies. Any proposals to limit hunting and fishing should be made by state fish and game agencies and local communities, not Washington bureaucrats. The second item is H. Amdt. 537 offered by Mr. DEFAZIO that would have undermined the bill, lead to frivolous lawsuits and the eventual closing of public lands for hunting and fishing. Clearly, this amendment is contradictory to the intent of the bill and would have had negative consequences. The third and final issue that came up during debate on H.R. 3590 was in relation to condors and lead ammo. I would encourage legislators who opposed the bill based on this premise to visit my home state of Arizona where they have put forth a voluntary program that is having fantastic results and could serve as a model for the country on how to address this issue.

Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted in support of these three important bills with a ``yea'' vote on rollcall Numbers 33, 41 and 50. I would have opposed the two dangerous amendments and voted ``nay'' on rollcall numbers 38 and 39.

Source