00:00If there's no further discussion on the ANS, it's now in order to consider amendments
00:06to the ANS to H.R. 556. I recognize Ranking Member Huffman for the purpose of offering
00:12an amendment designated Dingle No. 1. Without objection, the amendment is considered red.
00:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Offering this amendment on behalf of Representative Dingle, and this
00:24is an amendment that would ensure that land managers can make science-based decisions
00:28that protect both wildlife and hunting opportunities.
00:32If we support our hunting and angling heritage, as we do, we should want these activities to
00:39remain sustainable and accessible for future generations.
00:44Hunters and anglers are some of conservation's greatest champions.
00:47They deserve our support, and the fact is if land managers are able to follow the best
00:51available science, lead ammo and tackle restrictions can actually be a tool to help hunters and
00:58fishers have more access in more areas, not less.
01:04This is because land managers, especially in the national wildlife refuges, must consider
01:09the compatibility of these hunting and fishing activities with the purposes of the refuge,
01:14including any impacts to threaten and endangered species in those units.
01:18This bill, as written, ties their hands by mandating expensive, unworkable, unit-specific,
01:25hyper-localized analyses before they can propose any prohibition or restriction on lead.
01:33In some cases, it will likely be easier and cheaper to just keep those units totally closed,
01:39to get to this thing we've been talking about, the carte blanche closure of hunting and fishing,
01:44instead of going through this arduous process that the bill sets up.
01:49Wildlife populations face multiple stressors, habitat loss, disease, climate change.
01:55Lead often contributes to declines alongside other factors.
01:59And waiting until it becomes the primary cause, or until you can meet this unattainable standard
02:05of proof that the bill sets up, means waiting until it's too late in some cases.
02:10So this amendment brings back the best available science standard to ensure that responsible
02:15management of wildlife populations and continued access for sportsmen and women is protected in these refuges.
02:24The amendment supports both conservation and recreation through sound science.
02:28I urge support for the amendment and yield back.
02:30The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
02:36Mr. Whitman, you're recognized.
02:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I go back to making sure we develop
02:42science and data around the specific places where there's a proposed ban on lead.
02:50We can't rely on data from a refuge unit in California to apply to a unit in Virginia.
02:56So why wouldn't we want this to be site specific? We'd also want to know too,
03:01is this a situation where it's lead from the use of sportsmen? Is there a remnant lead there
03:06that all of a sudden is making its way into the food chain?
03:09In this situation, none of that has to be part of the determination. It's, again, arbitrary. It's going
03:15in and saying, we give you the statutory authority at your disposal to make determinations about this
03:22without having to develop science, without having to look at the very specific situations of different
03:27ecosystems, animal, fishing and hunting conditions, the use of lead. All those things should be part of
03:33this decision. This is a complex decision making that takes place on the activities of sportsmen,
03:39on the impact on wildlife, on the uniqueness of those land and water systems there. Yet currently,
03:45they don't have to consider any of that. They can just say, no, you know,
03:48statutorily, we can do this. And that's what this is. It's the statutory allow us to do that.
03:54Why wouldn't we want to put some more rigor into the process? You know, I hear my colleagues on the other
03:58side talk all the time about, you know, we want science, we want scientific rigor, but only when
04:03it suits your arguments. When it doesn't, you say, well, no, let's give them carte blanche,
04:07I'm going to keep using that word, let's give them carte blanche to make these decisions.
04:12The statute allows that. All this does is to say, no, there's going to be some rigor in how you make
04:18these decisions. That should be the responsible way to go about this. This bill actually promotes
04:25flexibility for the service and states to make localized policies and decisions,
04:29to put together all of the information. You know, I want to make sure that, you know,
04:34we are quantifying what is the risk here, quantifying what is the impact. We have an obligation to do
04:39that. Why should we be afraid of making sure that we have objective science-based decision making?
04:46It shouldn't only be when we believe that it achieves the ends that we seek. It should be in all
04:52situations. Listen, I'm a scientist by training. The scientific method is develop the science,
04:57question the science, make sure that you come to the conclusion in a very rigorous way. This is
05:04anything but rigor. This is saying you have a statutory authority to make these decisions however you see
05:10fit. And what we're saying is, no, let's be responsible about doing this. These are resources
05:16that belong to everyone. Everyone, we have an obligation to make sure that we make good
05:21science-based decision making. And you know, I just don't see how a science-driven agency like the U.S.
05:27Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System can propose banning lead ammunition
05:33and lead fishing tackle when the the effort itself clearly states that there's no substantiated data.
05:42And in instances, those those actions have been taken where there's there's no data there,
05:47yet we're saying we're going to close these facilities down. All we're saying is that there needs to be
05:53data there to make that decision. I don't know why anybody would object to that and to somehow say
05:58that this is irresponsible then denotes that any sort of objective assertation of data to make
06:06responsible decisions is somehow irresponsible. This bill I think is the most responsible way to
06:12go about this. The Dingell Amendment here limits that flexibility, it hamstrings coordination,
06:18and it makes this bill other than what it is, and that is about objective science-based decision making.
06:25That's what this is about. And that's what I believe will not be allowed under this amendment.
06:31And I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
06:35The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
06:38No further discussion? It's no .
Comments