Robert Wittman

Mr. WITTMAN

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

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.

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.

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WITTMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Newhouse for yielding. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

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

Mr. WITTMAN

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 2406, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. WITTMAN

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his leadership as vice chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. We have heard a lot of, I think, good efforts today in wanting to ensure that our sportsmen and our sportswomen have access to Federal properties, to make sure they can enjoy outdoor sports. I think that is absolutely critical. That is what this bill is about. It is about clarifying to make sure that it is the legislative body that does the directing, not the bureaucrats. I want to make sure there is a balance there because we hear each and every day from our constituents about what they feel needs to happen with their land. We must remember this land belongs to the taxpayers, and we must find responsible ways to make sure that there is access to that land for everyone. I want to make sure that we do that. I believe that this bill achieves that. I understand, too, that we want to make sure that their voices are heard. Many times from the side of these agencies, they will consider comments, but many times the comments aren't included. This ensures that Congress has a role in defining what those opportunities are. I want to make sure those voices are heard. I can't help but believe that everyone here is in favor of making sure that their voices are heard and that opportunities exist across all these Federal lands for our outdoorsmen, our sportsmen and -women of this Nation. I want to make sure, too, that we are clear that all of us are against stopping the illegal trafficking of ivory. All of us here want to make sure that stops. I think there are reasonable and thoughtful ways that do that that don't inhibit the sportsmen who want to go there to be part of the legal process to harvest an elephant in the areas where there is an overpopulation. The dollars there are used to support local populations in that area, villages. None of that animal is wasted. Every bit of it is used. The fees that are collected for hunters are put into stopping the poaching effort there. I think those are sustainable models to make sure that elephant populations continue in those areas and that we, indeed, have the ability and resources in Africa to stop those efforts by poachers. I think sustainable hunting is a way to do that. In any way impeding the flow of ivory back into the United States from legal hunting operations doesn't allow us to do that. Making sure, too, that it is simple and straightforward for owners of ivory to continue to own that, especially those pieces that are family heirlooms, and not have to go through a long, drawn-out bureaucratic process to prove that something is yours that has been passed down through family history where you may not have documentation to do that. These efforts that U.S. Fish and Wildlife agencies are putting forward would make it in many instances very, very difficult for individuals and families to demonstrate that. Let's make this process easy and let's get at the issue, and that is the illegally harvested ivory that is coming out of Africa to the United States. We talked, too, about access elements. We heard the number used that 99 percent of our ocean waters are open to fishing, to recreational fishing. But remember that the entire ocean is different in its habitats. So fish live in certain areas. I would argue that the 1 percent that is being closed off many times is the most productive area for fishermen. It is where the habitat rests. It is where the fish are. So if you were to say, don't worry about it, you can hunt the entire Sahara Desert, that wouldn't mean much to sportsmen. The same that you are saying if you are allowed to fish these other areas that don't hold the habitat that allow fish to live in those areas also doesn't keep in mind making sure that recreational fishermen have access to the place where fish live. So I want to make sure that that is clear when we talk about these numbers, 99 percent versus the 1 percent. Remember, this bill is not about what is not included. It is about really making those opportunities available for those men and women who hunt, fish, and use the outdoors. I am in full support of LWCF. I am in full support of NAWCA. I do believe that we ought to reauthorize those pieces of legislation, and I do believe that there are mechanisms to do that. I believe that the vast majority of folks on our Committee on Natural Resources, as well as in Congress, want to see those things happening. The difficulty always is in taking one bill and adding a bunch of different elements to it. I think those bills are important enough that they deserve their own level of debate and own level of attention about what we do in reauthorizing those bills. I think folks outside the 90 square miles of Washington look at us and say, you know, why are you putting all these other elements into a bill rather than debating them individually? I think we can put too much into a piece of legislation where it becomes confusing and it doesn't get after the true purpose behind the original bill. We tried to put together pieces that were similar in scope but didn't include other areas that really deserve their own level of debate. So that is the reason that LWCF and NAWCA was left out of this, not by any intention to say we shouldn't address those, but by understanding that we have a responsibility to try to keep these packages of bills as simple and straightforward as we can. Also, when we talk about lead, remember that the lead we talk about is in things like fishing sinkers. Remember, fishing sinkers are used in water. The gentlewoman from California talked about the issue with California condors. Well, California condors are not an aquatic bird, so I don't think we have to worry about them swimming in water and getting hold of these fishing sinkers. The same way with bullets. I understand there are a few instances where they might have found a bullet associated with ingestion with a California condor, but the vast majority of shooting sports are put forth in legal ranges where the lead ends up in the ground. It ends up in the ground at a shooting range. Remember, that is the exact area where the lead came from. So returning it to the ground where we know eventually through the years it does indeed decay, it does indeed break down, those things are legal and I think environmentally responsible ways that lead is used in both hunting and fishing. Let's not stop those efforts. I want to make sure that those things happen. If there are specific issues related to the California condor, I think we ought to address that, but these carte blanche one-size-fits- all efforts to say let's ban lead across the spectrum in the shooting sports, for hunting, and for fishing doesn't get at those root issues and it creates unnecessary burdens on folks who are using those in a legal way and in a way that doesn't affect our fish and wildlife populations. So I want to make sure that those things continue. I do believe that there are many more areas of agreement than disagreement on this bill. I think that we have talked to folks on many aspects of this. It is different in its scope with the Senate bill, and I look forward to its successful passage out of this House and for our ability to bring it to a conference committee in the Senate and to work through those particular differences between the House and the Senate bill. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his perspectives on this and for the good conversation we have had in trying to find common ground to make sure that we are, indeed, supporting the great outdoors and the sportsmen and -women that enjoy the great outdoors. I thank him for his efforts there and look forward to continuing to work with him. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like respond just briefly to the gentleman's remarks concerning ivory. If you look at the current state of regulatory efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for those nations that have sustainable elephant populations, it would actually make it much, much more difficult to manage them and it would actually encourage more poaching. We want to make sure that we allow the legal trade of legally harvested elephants. In doing that, that makes sure that African nations can put in place sustainable programs for the harvesting of elephants, where there are overpopulations, to make sure that they have the wherewithal to put people on the ground to stop poaching. This is a sustainable effort, I believe, that is critical, and these regulations will actually stop that. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, before the House today is the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2016, better known as the SHARE Act. It is a package of commonsense bills that will increase opportunities for hunters, recreational shooters, and anglers; eliminate unneeded regulatory impediments; safeguard against new regulations that impede outdoor sporting activities; and protect Second Amendment rights. Similar packages were passed with strong bipartisan support in both the 112th and 113th Congresses. Outdoor sporting activities, including hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, are deeply engrained in the fabric of America's culture and heritage. Values 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. Much of America's outdoor sporting activity occurs on our Nation's Federal lands. Unfortunately, Federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management often prevent or impede access to Federal lands for outdoor sporting activities. Because lack of access is one of the key reasons sportsmen and -women stop participating in outdoor sporting activities, ensuring the public has reliable access to our Nation's Federal lands must remain a top priority. The SHARE Act does just that. One of the key provisions in the bill, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, will increase and sustain access for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on Federal lands for generations to come. Specifically, it protects sportsmen and -women from arbitrary efforts by the Federal Government to block Federal lands from hunting and fishing activities by implementing an ``open until closed'' management policy. Another provision in the package will give State and Federal agencies the tools to jointly create and maintain recreational shooting ranges on Federal lands. In addition, the bill allows the Department of the Interior to designate hunting access corridors throughout our national parks so that sportsmen and -women can access adjacent Federal lands to hunt and fish. The package also protects Second Amendment rights and the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle. It defends law-abiding individuals' constitutional right to keep and bear arms on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and ensures that hunters are not burdened by outdated laws preventing bows and crossbows from being transported across national parks. Finally, the package prevents the implementation of onerous constraints by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on lawfully possessed domestic ivory products and eliminates red tape associated with the importation of 41 lawfully harvested polar bear hunting trophies. This important legislation will sustain America's rich hunting and fishing traditions, improve access to our Federal lands for responsible outdoor sporting activities, and help ensure that the current and future generations of sportsmen and -women are able to enjoy the sporting activities our country has to offer and what we hold dear. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important election. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, 22 February 2016. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: During the week of February 22, 2016, the House will be debating H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on the Judiciary, among other committees. At the request of Vice Chairman Cynthia Lummis, I ask that you allow the inclusion of the text of H.R. 3279, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, as passed by the House of Representatives, as part of a manager's amendment to the bill. Mrs. Lummis is a cosponsor of the measure and has discussed this course of action with the bill's author. The Senate counterpart to H.R. 2406 already includes such a provision, and I believe it would be a substantial improvement to the bill and bolster its purpose of increased sportsmen's opportunities to hunt, fish and recreationally shoot. If the amendment is adopted, this action would in no way affect your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the amendment, and it will not serve as precedent for future amendments. In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee on this matter. Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any response in the Congressional Record to document our agreement. Thank you for your consideration of my request, and I look forward to further opportunities to work with you this Congress. Sincerely, Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2406, the SHARE Act.

Mr. WITTMAN

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support today's rule. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with Sportsmen's Caucus Co-chair Tim Walz and Caucus Vice Chairs Jeff Duncan and Gene Green in introducing H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, better known as the SHARE Act. This bipartisan package of legislation protects and advances hunting, angling, and recreational shooting traditions and also promotes fish and wildlife conservation efforts. The SHARE Act passed the House of Representatives in both the 113th and 112th Congress with bipartisan support, and in October 2015 the Natural Resources Committee voted 21-15 in favor of the bill. In addition, H.R. 2406 is supported by the Nation's leading hunting and fishing conservation organizations, which represent millions of sportsmen and -women across the Nation. This commonsense proposal will expand opportunities for hunting and fishing and promote conservation across the United States, particularly on Federal lands. In many parts of the country, American sportsmen and -women rely on access to Federal lands to hunt, fish, and recreationally shoot. This bill would expand access to these lands by requiring the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to keep lands open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting unless there is a specific reason to close them. The bill also requires the National Park Service or Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to consult with State fish and wildlife agencies prior to closing areas to fishing, and allows State fish and wildlife agencies the added flexibility needed to construct public shooting ranges. The SHARE Act also protects Second Amendment rights. It ensures the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms on lands and waters managed by the United States Corps of Engineers, which is consistent with rights afforded on other Federal public lands. The bill also prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from unnecessarily regulating ammunition and fishing tackle. As an avid sportsman, I am humbled to advocate for this commonsense legislation. I am proud, also, to introduce it in order to advance the priorities of American sportsmen and -women. I encourage my colleagues to ensure that America's hunting and fishing heritage remains a top priority for the Federal Government for years to come and to pass this critical legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support H.R. 2406.

Mr. WITTMAN

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Elizabeth S. Tai. After 36 years, she has retired from the position of Director of the Poquoson Public Library. Under her leadership, Poquoson Public Library was accredited by the Library of Virginia, and started receiving state funding in 1980. During her tenure, Elizabeth S. Tai spearheaded many initiatives which resulted in Poquoson Public Library becoming one of the busiest and most respected libraries in Virginia. I thank her for her dedication to the Poquoson community and wish her a happy retirement.