00:00It's one order to consider amendments to H.R. 556. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
00:06Mr. Whitman, for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated
00:10Whitman 18 A&S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any
00:16point. You're recognized. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support the A&S.
00:23Hunters and anglers, we know, are the backbone of American wildlife conservation efforts.
00:28Their resources, their time and efforts have gone into creating the wildlife system,
00:34refuge system that we enjoy today, and they are indeed interested in long-term health. They're
00:39one of the main proponents of being able to get land set aside. I know just in my area,
00:42the Raphadak River Valley Wildlife Refuge Center, it is landowners, it is hunters, it is fishermen
00:48that have led to the expansion of this incredible resource that's there, and it does have one of
00:55the largest nesting populations of bald eagles there. So they are interested in making sure
01:00those bald eagles are not affected by what they do on the land there. But they also would
01:05like to see science used. They don't object to science. Nobody should object to the use
01:11of science in responsible public policy decision making. So it's important that Congress comes
01:16to their defense and make sure that decisions aren't ideologically driven or based on unscientific
01:21data or decisions that limit access to our public lands. Again, these lands belong to the
01:27people of this nation. We have a responsibility to be transparent, to use science in making
01:32those determinations. And I think the public is very willing to say, okay, show us the science.
01:37If there is a problem with lead, then don't allow the use of lead. And I want to thank my colleagues
01:43for the debate on this piece of legislation. And I urge its adoption. With that, Mr. Chairman,
01:49I yield back. Mr. Chairman yields back. Is there further
01:51discussion? Mr. Huffman, you're recognized. Thank you. I wonder if the gentleman from Virginia
01:55would yield for a quick question. Because I was a little confused by a couple of the statements
02:01that were just made. Does the gentleman believe that lead ammunition should be used for waterfowl
02:06hunting? Mr. No, it's currently not allowed. It's banned. And are you comfortable with that ban?
02:14Mr. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made that decision. It started out as localized. The initial
02:22information didn't indicate that in all situations, but there was subsequent data that was gathered
02:28to show that it was indeed a responsible decision for that lead ban across the nation in wetlands.
02:34Mr. All right. So you support a nationwide lead ammunition ban for waterfowl hunting?
02:39Mr. I support how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife came to that decision. Developing science, testing birds,
02:46determining were they ingesting lead, determining was it lead that came from sportsmen? Was it lead shot
02:52from shotgun shells? I fully support how they came to that decision. And that was a very transparent,
02:59with data being divulged, uh, decision making so that they could make a responsible decision. Yes,
03:04I do support responsible science-based decision making. And that rule does not require
03:09the hyper-localized scientific finding that you would require in this? You are incorrect. It started
03:15out as localized restrictions and then it graduated to a national ban. It's a nationwide ban. It does not
03:21require that in every single place. It started as a localized, it started as a localized decision.
03:26Mr. So, so one last, uh, question for the gentleman, because we keep kind of coming back to this carte
03:32blanche, uh, phrase and the suggestion that wildlife managers, I think you said that they just have a
03:38feeling or just have a hunch and they want to just do a ban on lead ammo. Um, now if a wildlife manager
03:46actually did that without any scientific basis, without an administrative record that demonstrated
03:53a rational basis and a scientific basis, um, Mr. Whitman, you know and I know that the next day
03:59they would be sued. There is no statutory prohibition on that, so anybody can be sued. But you are aware,
04:05you know anybody can be taken to court. The implication is that they have a free hand to do this. They do.
04:11And the gentleman knows full well. Statutorily, there's no limitation for them in making that decision.
04:14The gentleman knows full well there's this thing called the Administrative Procedures Act,
04:17and that arbitrary and capricious actions by regulators are challenged in court, and if someone
04:23did what the gentleman has continued to describe repeatedly, I'm going to reclaim my time. If someone
04:30did what the gentleman has repeatedly described, they would be sued the next day and they would lose. So,
04:35this is a boogeyman. This notion of regulators run amok on hunches and whims banning lead ammunition
04:42and tackle without any rational basis, without any science, that is simply not a thing. That is a
04:48boogeyman that we're hearing from the gun industry. I yield back.
04:53Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the A&S? Mr. Gosar, you're recognized.
04:59Yes. Well, I would like to enter in with the ranking member.
05:04So, we're talking about capricious actions. We now have three instances I can point to you.
05:10Three instances in which Forest Service has said, listen, if the fire is out there, we're going to
05:16let it burn. They've made a decision that if it's a way for populations, we're going to let it burn.
05:23Well, that happened in Yarn L-19. They allowed a fire to get started and the fire was contained for
05:30a little while. Then the winds brought up and it killed 19 people, 19 firefighters.
05:35We then have the fire up in our sublet county in Wyoming where they were doing a prescribed burn.
05:43Everybody told them, hey, don't do this burn. It's going to go out. They said, no, no, no,
05:47we have a lot of timber to have to go. They lost control. Now, this last week, we lost the North
05:53Rim Lodge because of the same kind of analogy. So, you can't tell me that there doesn't exist
06:01this capricious nature of regulations throughout the government. I think what Mr. Whitman is doing
06:08is just saying, listen, we want to identify all these different aspects. Would you agree with that?
06:15I thank the gentleman. So, it's a little bit different. Apples and oranges. We're talking
06:20about day-to-day decisions about how to fight fires. I think that's different than rulemakings
06:25and regulatory actions by agencies. So, I don't think that the comparison applies.
06:30I think there is something here, okay? Like I shared with you, wouldn't it be better that if you gave
06:35the tools to somebody that has a Forest Service and uses regional aspects and local control? So, wouldn't
06:41you say, listen, instead of just this open rule, are you going to let it burn? You can only let it burn
06:48if it's been managed in that forest. Don't you think that would be wise? And don't you think
06:55these are regulations? These are rules.
07:02I'd be happy to have an extended conversation with the gentleman about all aspects of fire resilience and
07:09public land management and how to make sure that we're proactively managing. Because I think the
07:13gentleman and I both would like to see proactive management. So, we're not always being reactive.
07:19But the truth is, you have to have professionals making these calls on the ground in a day-to-day
07:26manner. And it's not quite the same as the kind of rulemaking and policymaking that we're talking
07:31about here with this bill. So, with that, I respectfully yield back.
07:34I would say differently, but I'll leave it set at that for that discussion. Who would
07:40the gentleman like me to have? No, thank you. Okay. I'll yield back.
07:45Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
07:52If there's no further discussion on the amendment,
Comments