Jared Huffman: “I, too, commend the author for his concern about waterfowl and wildlife. This amendment, by itself, is not harmful, but…”

“I, too, commend the author for his concern about waterfowl and wildlife. This amendment, by itself, is not harmful, but it is important to acknowledge that it doesn't come close to curing the problems with this bill that are, in fact, very harmful to fish and wildlife. The gentleman's amendment seeks to provide cover in some ways to proponents of this bill who are now coming under fire from the California Waterfowl Association and other sportsmen's groups because this bill hurts migratory birds and other wildlife and waterfowl. The California Waterfowl Association is on record opposing this bill because: ``It would eliminate water supplies for California migratory waterfowl and other wetlands-dependent species.'' Other sportsmen's groups also oppose. Trout Unlimited has spoken out against the bill because it would weaken protections for steelhead and salmon. While I do not oppose this bill, it is important not to suggest that this bill is somehow good for or supported by hunters or sportsmen's groups. It is not. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).”