Protect America's Wildlife Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prevent the cruel and unsportsmanlike practice of hunting from airplanes.

This practice undermines the hunting principle of a fair chase and often leads to a slow and painful death for the hunted animals.

I firmly believe that slaughter must be the very last option when it comes

to wildlife management. Moreover, if slaughter must be carried out, it should be done in the most humane method possible.

In my opinion, allowing private citizens to hunt from airplanes runs contrary to this belief.

Specifically, the Protect America's Wildlife Act closes the loophole in current law that allows private citizens to hunt from aircraft. It limits airborne hunting to employees of state fish and wildlife agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior.

It eliminates the practice of ``land-and-shoot'' hunting by prohibiting the chasing or exhausting of animals from an aircraft.

It provides an exception to allow airborne hunting during biological emergencies, which is defined as a case where a wildlife population's sustainability is significantly threatened by an excess of predators.

It also ensures that this exception only applies to when it is the only way to prevent a biological emergency, and limits the number of animals killed to a minimum.

Finally, it increases fines for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act from $5,000 to $50,000.

It does not preclude States or Federal agencies from carrying out responsible wildlife management programs.

Congress initially passed the Airborne Hunting Act of 1971 as a result of the public's reaction to film of this practice broadcast over television.

Currently, a loophole in the Airborne Hunting Act permits States to allow private citizens to engage in airborne hunting of wildlife--in most cases wolves and bears--under the guise of wildlife management.

It was clear in the 1970's, as it is now, that airborne hunting is inhumane and must be stopped.

In my opinion, aerial hunting methods are cruel and unnecessary for wildlife management--and undermine the principles of sportsmanship.

Since 2003, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed from the air in the State of Alaska. According to the animal welfare group the Defenders of Wildlife, more than 250 wolves have been shot dead during the current hunting season alone.

Aerial hunting is typically carried out in one of two ways:

In the first method, a hunter will shoot the wolf directly from the aircraft while flying overhead. This frequently wounds the wolf, leading to a slow, painful death.

In the second method, known as ``land-and-shoot,'' a hunter flying in an aircraft will chase the wolf until it is exhausted, land, and kill the animal from point-blank range.

So, I am introducing a bill today to close the airborne hunting loophole that allows it to continue.

This legislation would not impinge on legitimate hunting rights.

This bill does not prohibit the use of airplanes for transportation. A hunter would still be able to legally fly anywhere, anytime, and hunt as they otherwise would.

Further, all other legal methods of transportation or hunting may also continue: on foot, by snowmobile, by all-terrain vehicle, etc.

The State of Alaska, where airborne hunting is more prevalent, argues that wolf populations must be limited to support sustainable levels of moose and caribou.

The State continues to carry out airborne hunting by private citizens with authority from the State Department of Game, which argues that the moose and caribou populations must be increased.

It is estimated that the State's resident hunters alone contribute roughly $662 million annually to the economy. The hunting industry also sustains 10,000 jobs.

With this in mind, it is certainly not my intention to prevent Alaska, or any other state for that matter, from maintaining a robust hunting and tourism industry.

This is a balanced bill that will enable states to responsibly manage wildlife populations, while banning the most egregious cases of aerial hunting by civilians.

It limits the practice of airborne hunting to employees of State and Federal wildlife agencies without impinging on legitimate sport hunting practices.

It is also supported by former members of the Alaska Board of Game that agree this practice should be controlled.

I became concerned about inhumane wildlife management practices due to the slaughter of nonnative deer in my own State.

Beginning in the summer of 2007, the National Park Service began culling Axis and Fallow deer at Point Reyes National Seashore near San Francisco. This inhumane shooting resulted in a number of deer dying slow and painful deaths. Some were left to rot in the Park.

Hundreds of constituents from the Bay Area raised an outcry about this practice and I am pleased that the National Park Service has stopped slaughtering the deer.

In conclusion, this bill prohibits the cruel practice of aerial sport hunting, while safeguarding the rights of legitimate hunters and allowing States and the Federal Government to maintain responsible wildlife management.

I am certainly open to the suggestions of my colleagues who have ideas for improving this legislation and look forward to working with them to pass it quickly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prevent the cruel and unsportsmanlike practice of hunting from airplanes.

This practice undermines the hunting principle of a fair chase and often leads to a slow and painful death for the hunted animals.

I firmly believe that slaughter must be the very last option when it comes

to wildlife management. Moreover, if slaughter must be carried out, it should be done in the most humane method possible.

In my opinion, allowing private citizens to hunt from airplanes runs contrary to this belief.

Specifically, the Protect America's Wildlife Act closes the loophole in current law that allows private citizens to hunt from aircraft. It limits airborne hunting to employees of state fish and wildlife agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior.

It eliminates the practice of ``land-and-shoot'' hunting by prohibiting the chasing or exhausting of animals from an aircraft.

It provides an exception to allow airborne hunting during biological emergencies, which is defined as a case where a wildlife population's sustainability is significantly threatened by an excess of predators.

It also ensures that this exception only applies to when it is the only way to prevent a biological emergency, and limits the number of animals killed to a minimum.

Finally, it increases fines for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act from $5,000 to $50,000.

It does not preclude States or Federal agencies from carrying out responsible wildlife management programs.

Congress initially passed the Airborne Hunting Act of 1971 as a result of the public's reaction to film of this practice broadcast over television.

Currently, a loophole in the Airborne Hunting Act permits States to allow private citizens to engage in airborne hunting of wildlife--in most cases wolves and bears--under the guise of wildlife management.

It was clear in the 1970's, as it is now, that airborne hunting is inhumane and must be stopped.

In my opinion, aerial hunting methods are cruel and unnecessary for wildlife management--and undermine the principles of sportsmanship.

Since 2003, more than 1,000 wolves have been killed from the air in the State of Alaska. According to the animal welfare group the Defenders of Wildlife, more than 250 wolves have been shot dead during the current hunting season alone.

Aerial hunting is typically carried out in one of two ways:

In the first method, a hunter will shoot the wolf directly from the aircraft while flying overhead. This frequently wounds the wolf, leading to a slow, painful death.

In the second method, known as ``land-and-shoot,'' a hunter flying in an aircraft will chase the wolf until it is exhausted, land, and kill the animal from point-blank range.

So, I am introducing a bill today to close the airborne hunting loophole that allows it to continue.

This legislation would not impinge on legitimate hunting rights.

This bill does not prohibit the use of airplanes for transportation. A hunter would still be able to legally fly anywhere, anytime, and hunt as they otherwise would.

Further, all other legal methods of transportation or hunting may also continue: on foot, by snowmobile, by all-terrain vehicle, etc.

The State of Alaska, where airborne hunting is more prevalent, argues that wolf populations must be limited to support sustainable levels of moose and caribou.

The State continues to carry out airborne hunting by private citizens with authority from the State Department of Game, which argues that the moose and caribou populations must be increased.

It is estimated that the State's resident hunters alone contribute roughly $662 million annually to the economy. The hunting industry also sustains 10,000 jobs.

With this in mind, it is certainly not my intention to prevent Alaska, or any other state for that matter, from maintaining a robust hunting and tourism industry.

This is a balanced bill that will enable states to responsibly manage wildlife populations, while banning the most egregious cases of aerial hunting by civilians.

It limits the practice of airborne hunting to employees of State and Federal wildlife agencies without impinging on legitimate sport hunting practices.

It is also supported by former members of the Alaska Board of Game that agree this practice should be controlled.

I became concerned about inhumane wildlife management practices due to the slaughter of nonnative deer in my own State.

Beginning in the summer of 2007, the National Park Service began culling Axis and Fallow deer at Point Reyes National Seashore near San Francisco. This inhumane shooting resulted in a number of deer dying slow and painful deaths. Some were left to rot in the Park.

Hundreds of constituents from the Bay Area raised an outcry about this practice and I am pleased that the National Park Service has stopped slaughtering the deer.

In conclusion, this bill prohibits the cruel practice of aerial sport hunting, while safeguarding the rights of legitimate hunters and allowing States and the Federal Government to maintain responsible wildlife management.

I am certainly open to the suggestions of my colleagues who have ideas for improving this legislation and look forward to working with them to pass it quickly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Development Highway System. This network of highways and corridors, known as the ADHS, was designed to provide access to and from communities in Appalachia. The concept of the ADHS was born 45 years ago. It was, and is, an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and the rest of Appalachia. I thank the cosponsors of my bill: Senators Rockefeller, Casey, and Webb, and I look forward to working with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Boxer to have my legislation included in the next highway reauthorization.

While serving in the House of Representatives, I cast my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System back in 1958. I have had a long history of advancing the cause of our Nation's highway systems and of emphasizing the immense economic and safety benefits that come with the improvement of all surface transportation.

The ADHS's inception was in 1964, when it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that, while the Interstate Highway System would provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian region. This was primarily due to the difficulties involved in building roads upon Appalachia's beautiful, but very rugged topography. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my State, as well as the whole of the Appalachian region, would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the paths of river valleys and stream beds, winding around mountains and hills. Thus, the limited access to these regions has tended to stifle economic opportunities for countless communities--a problem that still exists all these years later.

In addition to the Federal Government's responsibility to keep the promise made decades ago to the people of Appalachia, new benefits-- benefits to the entire Nation--have evolved because of the ADHS. In a recent economic analysis conducted by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the study found that completion of the ADHS will result in significant reductions in travel time for personal, business, and long- distance freight trips. By 2020, the aggregate savings in travel time is estimated to be over 67 million hours, 240,000 hours daily of travel time saved, and grow to almost 180 million hours of reduced travel time by 2035.

ADHS corridor improvements will produce significant monetized travel benefits to individuals and businesses both within and outside the ARC region. Total user benefits--travel time, fuel and non-fuel operating costs, and safety--are estimated to be $1.3 billion in 2020, the year of system completion, and grow to $4.3 billion by 2035. Over half the benefit is expected to accrue to business-related travel--commodity- based truck flows, local nonfreight truck trips, and on-the-clock auto trips.

The reason for the existence of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less valid today than when it was established in 1964. The benefits of completion of the ADHS are twofold: continue to make inroads into isolated communities, and address and alleviate an already overly burdened Interstate Highway System.

Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to local schools. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable, well-paying jobs because of poor transportation access to major employment centers. Some of the most beautiful places in the country are in Appalachia, but for tourism to thrive, Americans must be able to actually get to these beautiful destinations.

It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and to authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. The legislation I am introducing today will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system, and the completion of the system will provide additional economic opportunities, safer modes of travel, and ease the strain on our current transportation infrastructure.

Mr. President, as our Nation wrestles with the impacts of a changing climate, we need strong science to inform our decision-making. Today, I am introducing two bills to support that effort.

The first, the Black Carbon, S. 1538, and Other Aerosols Research Act, S. 1539, would direct research dollars towards improving our understanding of a major component of climate change--atmospheric aerosols. We need more information about how aerosols, including black carbon, impact climate change and how limiting their emissions will ultimately affect the rate of melting in the Arctic and overall climate change. Emerging research shows that black carbon and other aerosols have a major impact on global climate change. In fact, the effect of black carbon is thought to be second only to carbon dioxide. In order to reduce the impacts of aerosols on climate and air quality, we need to better understand their effects. Improved aerosols monitoring, measurements, and models are therefore necessary to improve our response to climate change. This legislation would authorize a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to observe, monitor, and model black carbon and other aerosols to better understand the roles of black carbon and other aerosols in climate change.

Identifying and quantifying human and natural emissions of greenhouse gases are necessary to make informed decisions about emission reduction strategies. Effective policy to address climate change requires monitoring and validation of emissions from specific sources and projects. Given the investments required to meet the challenge of greenhouse gas reductions, it is critical that efforts to reduce emissions be verifiable at local, regional, national, and international levels and consistent with evidence in the atmosphere. The second bill I am introducing today, the Greenhouse Gas Observing and Analysis System Act, would establish a robust monitoring and analysis program to provide more precise and verified estimates of the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This would help us monitor the effectiveness of programs and policies designed to reduce emissions.

We need continued research investments to answer the ``hows,'' and the ``whys,'' regarding climate change. How are we going to be impacted? Why is our atmosphere and planet responding the way it is? We need sound answers to these questions to be agile and to adapt to the changes our globe is experiencing. These bills will help us answer these and many other questions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.