[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 34 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2993-S2994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      THE 1995 BIRD HUNTING SEASON

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on the Senate floor today, one of my 
colleagues challenged my concern shared by thousands of Minnesotans 
that S. 219, a bill that would create a moratorium on new regulations, 
would have the effect of limiting or eliminating the 1995 migratory 
bird hunting season. I take strong exception to my colleague's comments 
and will continue to 
[[Page S2994]] fight to protect this cherished annual Minnesota event.
  The divergence in our two views apparently comes down to this: The 
junior Senator from Texas apparently believes that the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's annual rulemaking process required by current law to 
open the hunt fits under some exclusion in S. 219 for routine 
administrative matters. I see no such exclusion.
  Presumably, the language in S. 219 that my colleague thinks exempts 
the annual migratory bird hunting rulemaking from the strictures of the 
moratorium is found in the section which excludes ``any agency action 
that the head of the agency certifies is limited to repealing, 
narrowing, or streamlining a rule, regulation, or administrative 
process, * * * or otherwise reducing regulatory burdens * * *.'' 
Clearly, the duck hunting rulemaking does not ``repeal[], narrow[], or 
streamlin[e] * * * [an] administrative process.'' In my view, reading 
this language to exempt the duck hunting rulemaking is forced, at best.
  I might point out that my colleague is from a southern State, where 
the normal duck hunting season opens later than it does in Minnesota. 
If the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimated best-case scenario proves 
correct, S. 219 would serve to delay the necessary rulemaking, and thus 
the opening of the season in Minnesota, by no less than 30 days. Since 
Minnesotans do the majority of their hunting at the local shoot early 
in the season--beginning around the beginning of October--before the 
local ducks fly south, such a delay would effectively cancel this part 
of the season. On the other hand, in Texas the regular duck season 
opens in mid-to-late November. Therefore, the Texas season may not be 
as affected by the delay in the rulemaking process.
  If S. 219 becomes law without being changed to clearly exempt the 
1995 duck hunting rulemaking from the moratorium, here is a possible--
perhaps even likely--scenario: The Fish and Wildlife Service proceeds, 
as it has been, with rulemaking action to open the 1995 season on time. 
Somebody opposed to duck hunting sues to stop the hunt--that's right, 
the moratorium bill also allows lawsuits for people adversely affected 
by an agency violation of the moratorium. The whole thing winds up in 
court.
  Yesterday, I introduced a bill to protect the 1995 hunting season 
from S. 219's moratorium provision. If the sponsors of S. 219 do not 
mean to threaten the 1995 duck hunt, then why don't they come on board 
my bill? I say S. 219 is perfectly clear--it would negatively impact 
the 1995 season in Minnesota.
  So I challenge the sponsors of S. 219 to ask the Governmental Affairs 
Committee to adopt explicit language exempting the 1995 duck hunting 
season rulemaking from the moratorium. The language of my bill would do 
that nicely. If they would just fix the problem they created in the 
moratorium bill, then this whole issue would go away. If it is not the 
intent of the sponsors of S. 219 to impact the 1995 duck hunting 
season, then surely they should have no objection to my request.


                          ____________________