[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15809-15810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     FEDERAL DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2014

  Mr. FLEMING. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5069

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Duck Stamp Act of 
     2014''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PRICE OF MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING AND 
                   CONSERVATION STAMP TO FUND ACQUISITION OF 
                   CONSERVATION EASEMENTS FOR MIGRATORY BIRDS.

       The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 718b(b))--
       (A) by striking ``1990, and'' and inserting ``1990,''; and
       (B) by striking ``for each hunting year thereafter'' and 
     inserting ``for hunting years 1991 through 2013, and $25 for 
     each hunting year thereafter'';
       (2) by adding at the end of section 2 (16 U.S.C. 718b) the 
     following:
       ``(c) Reduction in Price of Stamp.--The Secretary may 
     reduce the price of each stamp sold under the provisions of 
     this section for a hunting year if the Secretary determines 
     that the increase in the price of the stamp after hunting 
     year 2013 resulted in a reduction in revenues deposited into 
     the fund.''; and
       (3) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 718d)--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``, in which there shall be a subaccount to 
     which the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer all 
     amounts in excess of $15 that are received from the sale of 
     each stamp sold for each hunting year after hunting year 
     2013'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``So much'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), so much'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)''; and
       (D) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(4) Conservation easements.--Amounts in the subaccount 
     referred to in subsection (a)(3) shall be used by the 
     Secretary solely to acquire easements in real property in the 
     United States for conservation of migratory birds.''.

     SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORT ON EXPENDITURES.

       Section 4 of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 
     Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718d) is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking so much as precedes ``The Secretary may'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Promotion of Stamp Sales.--''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall include in each 
     annual report of the Commission under section 3 of the 
     Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715b)--
       ``(1) a description of activities conducted under 
     subsection (c) in the year covered by the report;
       ``(2) an annual assessment of the status of wetlands 
     conservation projects for migratory bird conservation 
     purposes, including a clear and accurate accounting of--
       ``(A) all expenditures by Federal and State agencies under 
     this section; and
       ``(B) all expenditures made for fee-simple acquisition of 
     Federal lands in the United States, including the amount paid 
     and acreage of each parcel acquired in each acquisition;
       ``(3) an analysis of the refuge lands opened, and refuge 
     lands closed, for hunting and fishing in the year covered by 
     the report, including--
       ``(A) identification of the specific areas in each refuge 
     and the reasons for the closure or opening; and
       ``(B) a detailed description of each closure including 
     detailed justification for such closure;
       ``(4) the total number of acres of refuge land open for 
     hunting and fishing, and the total number of acres of refuge 
     land closed for hunting and fishing, in the year covered by 
     the report; and
       ``(5) a separate report on the hunting and fishing status 
     of those lands added to the system in the year covered by the 
     report.''.

     SEC. 4. EXEMPTION FOR TAKINGS BY RURAL ALASKA SUBSISTENCE 
                   USERS.

       Section 1(a)(2) of the Migratory Bird Hunting and 
     Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718a(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(D) by a rural Alaska resident for subsistence uses (as 
     that term is defined in section 803 of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3113)).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FLEMING. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FLEMING. 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

[[Page 15810]]

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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5069 would authorize an increase in the price of 
the Federal duck stamp from $15 to $25. Duck stamp revenue funds the 
purchase and conservation of wetland habitats critical to maintaining 
waterfowl populations and other wildlife prized by hunters. This 
increase will restore the purchasing power of the duck stamp dollars to 
nearly 1991 levels, the last time Congress increased the price of the 
duck stamp.
  The current price of the stamp is $15, which equates to less than $9 
in 1991. The increase is expected to generate $5 million in revenue for 
securing conservation easements on land in the United States.
  While I take issue with some of the requirements and restrictions 
this bill would place on the Fish and Wildlife Service, the opportunity 
to generate these additional funds for wetland conservation with the 
support of hunters and other nature lovers is one that we must take 
advantage of.
  I support the passage of the bill and congratulate the author of the 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. 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. RYAN of Wisconsin. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5069, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________