Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014

Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Vitter, for this incredible work. For several years we have been focused on this piece of legislation for two reasons; one, not only is it important for the hunters, the duck hunters, but a provision in there is also important for subsistence users in my State of Alaska.

This is an important bill. As has been mentioned, 98 cents of every $1 that goes into a duck stamp goes back into habitat protection for hunters currently and into the future.

Along with that, since 1934, almost $1 billion--three-quarters of a billion dollars--has been spent in protecting wetland habitat, again for the purpose of ensuring that we have this habitat protected not only for hunters but in my case for subsistence users.

I agree with Senator Vitter, this is the kind of legislation we want to see done, where Democrats and Republicans, the House and the Senate, are working together. My colleague, Congressman Young, a Republican on the House side from Alaska, worked on his side of the equation, working with other House Members, to figure out how to move a bill. We had a Senate version over here we were working on. At the end of the day, it is not about whose name is on the bill; it is about getting the job done.

Here we have a piece of legislation that will finally correct the pricing on duck stamps to ensure that we keep up with inflation, to ensure that the continued preservation of wetlands is done for our hunters and our sportsmen. But on top of that, for my State of Alaska, this recognizes the needs of subsistence hunters. Millions of acres in Alaska are set aside as refuge and others are in protected status. Our subsistence users live off the land--not for extra gain for their household, but literally for food for the winter in order to survive. So this allows a waiver to be put into place that will have minimal impact on the duck stamp program, but will ensure that subsistence users--people who live off the land in Alaska--can continue to do that without the threat of a Federal agency fining them or even dealing with them in some way because they didn't have the stamp. This allows them to go for a waiver and ensure they will be able to do their subsistence hunting they have been doing for generations before the government came along and locked up their land they have been hunting. And we will make sure this happens not only now but into the future.

Again, I wish to thank Senator Vitter for his work and his efforts not only in this body but on the other side of the Capitol, working with House Members to make sure we could all work together and do this by unanimous consent. Along with them, Senator Boxer and the EPW staff did an incredible job. It is an honor to be here today.

The last thing I will say to Senator Warner is this: My son just had an opportunity to go to the bay. He did an incredible field study there with some of his staff. It was a great experience. He was able to go into the mud. I am not sure what that is exactly, but he was able to go chest deep, and then he decided not to do that, but to be there to help people. But it was an incredible experience, to experience that bay, which is a national treasure. So having that bill at the same time as this other one is not only good for Senator Warner's community but good for this whole country. And for folks from my State who come to visit this community, it is another opportunity for them to see a national treasure. So it is an honor to have two pieces of legislation that will pass by unanimous consent.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in a moment I am going to be asking a unanimous consent request on some legislation that combines some work I have been doing and work the ranking member of the EPW Committee, my friend, the Senator from Alaska, has been doing. I want to make a brief statement first and then I am going to turn the floor over to the Senator from Louisiana.

I start by thanking Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for working with me on this important legislation. I also thank the bipartisan Virginia delegation on both sides of the Capitol, especially my friend Congressman Rob Wittman. He and I have worked on this initiative now for more than 4 years.

As we all know, the Chesapeake Bay, while located around Virginia and Maryland and Delaware, is actually a national treasure. It is the centerpiece of the culture and economy of many coastal communities in Virginia and in several neighboring States.

Restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay must be a national priority. Virginia and five other States, the District of Columbia, 10 Federal agencies, and more than 1,000 local governments have spent decades on this shared priority.

We have joined together over the years in a shared commitment to the Bay. We have worked across jurisdictional lines, across the political aisle, across every level of government in partnership with the private sector and with nonprofit groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

This important bipartisan legislation that we are going to be moving on shortly ensures that we maintain a Federal commitment to the partnership to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It also makes sure that during these challenging fiscal times every dollar spent on improving the health of the Bay produces real results.

The Chesapeake Bay accountability bill requires the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget. That means we will actually track where and how Federal and State restoration dollars are being spent throughout the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

This will allow us to track costs and match them to results. It means more accountability and it means more transparency to our combined efforts to restore this national treasure.

This bipartisan legislation is an important step forward in ensuring that the Chesapeake Bay restoration and preservation efforts remain effective, accountable, responsible, and transparent. In a moment I am going to urge all my colleagues to join us in approving it.

At this moment, I yield the floor to the ranking member, the Senator from Louisiana.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his comments and I will be happy to take the Senator and his whole family out to the bay again. I thank the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Alaska for working together. That is the way this is supposed to work. There are duck hunters in Virginia as well and they firmly support this legislation. I appreciate also the special considerations that need to be addressed in terms of the State of Alaska.

I ask unanimous consent that the EPW Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1000, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration and the consideration of H.R. 5069, which is at the desk, en bloc.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Warner substitute amendment to S. 1000, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed en bloc; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5069) to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act to increase in the price of Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps to fund the acquisition of conservation easements for migratory birds, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As author of H.R. 5069, I am pleased that we are considering this bipartisan bill that has been cosponsored by the dean of the House of Representatives, the leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and the entire Louisiana House congressional delegation.

The Federal Duck Stamp Act will modestly increase the price of the Federal duck stamp for the first time in 23 years and, by so doing, restore the buying power of this conservation tool which has been used to acquire, conserve, lease, and restore thousands of acres of wetlands.

Wetlands are critical to the survival of not only migratory waterfowl but to the millions of Americans who live along our coastlines. The U.S. Geological Survey has calculated that for every 2.5 miles a hurricane travels across wetlands, the storm surge is reduced by 1 foot. It is therefore likely that wetlands were directly responsible for saving lives and property in the gulf coast that were devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

This legislation has been endorsed by Ducks Unlimited and more than 30 national conservation organizations, including the National Rifle Association, Boone and Crockett Club, the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.

In their support letter, these groups noted that, ``In order for us to pass down our hunting heritage from generation to generation, sustain a vital and viable resource for wildlife and people, we must increase the price of the duck stamp this year.''

I urge adoption of H.R. 5069, and I want to thank all of the Members who join with me in this effort.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in closing that not only do we have huge bipartisan support for this bill, but I just want to point out, as an example, in 2012, we spent, essentially, an equal amount of money on both the fee simple land purchase and the easement. Around $16- to $17 million each. But look at the bang for the buck we got. We purchased 14,747 acres fee simple, but on easements we got 48,144.

So it is obvious that not only is this a huge savings to the taxpayer, this is a much better deal, but also think about the maintenance costs that are now going to be unnecessary because landowners with the easements will continue to maintain the land rather than taxpayers.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, my colleagues and I will vote on the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014. This bill would raise the price of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps (more commonly known as ``Duck Stamps''), for the first time in 23 years, from $15 to $25. I am a proud supporter of this legislation and ask my colleagues to vote in favor.

Ever since Congress created the Duck Stamp program in 1934, hunters have bought duck stamps to help pay for the protection of wildlife habitats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses the money generated from these sales to acquire new land or preserve existing wildlife refuges for water fowl. Duck Stamps also serve as an entrance pass for any national wildlife refuge that charges admission, so they are in effect a user fee for hunters and bird watchers.

Today, because of rising land prices and inflation in general, the value of the Duck Stamp has fallen by 40 percent, depriving conservation efforts of crucial funds. As an avid hunter, I understand the importance of investing in our wildlife habitats. We need to pass these traditions on to the next generation, so they can learn the importance of being good stewards of the land.

Since the federal government already owns nearly one third of our country's land, this bill prohibits new land acquisition and requires the funds generated from the fee increase to be used solely for acquiring easements for migratory birds. But since the funds collected from Duck Stamp sales are technically classified as revenues, increasing the fees to allow for higher spending on protecting migratory-bird habitats does not comply with the House's ``Cut as You Go'' rule (Rule XXI, Clause 10).

In the past, we've made exceptions for spending increases that are offset with revenue increases for selected programs when there is a close connection between the revenues and the spending. For example, budget resolutions often include reserve funds that effectively waive the ``Cut as You Go'' rule for deficit-neutral legislation designed to achieve a specific purpose.

Because the funds generated from this legislation will be user fees, not taxes, and this bill reduces the deficit, I support granting a waiver of the ``Cut as You Go'' rule for consideration of this bill.

Madam President, I am truly honored to join my colleagues on the floor, Senators Warner and Begich. I am pleased to support Senator Warner's bill that he just described and also a second bill Senator Begich and I have been working very diligently on that will be part of the unanimous consent request. That is H.R. 5069, the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014. This bipartisan legislation is a real victory for sportsmen and for conservation. It is a straightforward bill that updates the fee paid by duck hunters for a duck stamp for the first time since 1991, and that is a big win for the hunters, it is a big win for conservation because the cost of the duck stamp goes directly toward conservation of waterfowl habitat. In fact, 98 cents on every $1 generated goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for ducks, and where you have more habitat, you have more ducks and you have a healthier environment. It is as simple as that.

I am very pleased to say our work on this bill is exactly how this place and American democracy is supposed to work. I first heard about this real need from duck hunters, from sportsmen who live this and breathe this every day. I am an occasional hunter, but these folks absolutely live it and breathe it every day and understand the critical need.

I immediately got very involved. I reached out to allies such as Senator Begich, who had a great interest in it. I met with the House sponsor, Representative John Fleming, also from Louisiana. We met with the House Natural Resources chairman, Doc Hastings. We got a strong version of the

bill that passed through the House recently and that now comes to the Senate. Today, by this consent, we will pass that House bill through the Senate and send it to the President.

As I said, that is the way the process is supposed to work, and this is a real win for hunters, for conservation, for the environment.

I thank my colleague and partner on this, Senator Begich, and yield the floor to him.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Did that unanimous consent agreement cover both bills?

I thank the Chair.