Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014

Floor Speech

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.

Source