[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 41 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E525-E526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR'S ASSERTIONS THAT MIGRATORY BIRD 
            SEASON REGULATIONS WILL BE IMPACTED BY H.R. 1022

                                 ______


                          HON. JAMES A. HAYES

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 6, 1995
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, last week during the debate on H.R. 450, the 
Regulatory Transition Act, I thought that I, along with my colleagues, 
Mr. Baker of Louisiana, and Mr. Young of Alaska, expediently and 
prudently clarified language of that bill to address the concerns of 
the Department of Interior with respect to potential delays in the 
opening of migratory bird hunting seasons. Such a postponement could 
have been disastrous to Louisiana's and our Nation's economy.
  Now, much to my chagrin, the Department of Interior is at it again. 
They, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], claim that 
H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act, would also 
adversely effect the promulgation of the annual regulations designating 
migratory bird hunting seasons. As you may know, the taking of 
migratory birds is specifically prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act of 1918, unless rulemaking actions by the Department of Interior 
authorize such hunting seasons.
  USFWS has provided as the primary basis for their contention that 
hunting licensure requirements, although actually instituted and 
collected by state authorities, cost the hunting public in excess of 
$100 million per year, thus meeting the threshold requirement contained 
with the bill's definition of a major rule. Under H.R. 1022, any 
regulation that is likely to result in annual increase in cost of $25 
million or more is classified a major rule. USFWS also asserts that the 
inclusion of the term indirect in the definition of costs could provide 
an additional argument that the $100 million makes hunting regulations 
applicable to the risk analysis requirements.
  The intent of H.R. 1022 is clearly not to limit the ability of 
Federal agencies to move ahead 
[[Page E526]]  with legitimate and routine annual regulatory processes, 
especially those rules that have positive benefit-to-cost ratios. USFWS 
is trying to create a dubious and incorrect connection between the 
definitions of indirect costs as germane to the threshold requirement 
of a major rule and the fees hunters pay to States every year.
  H.R. 1022 clearly seeks to differentiate between those regulations 
which have a significant cost on our Nation's economy and those 
regulations which have a positive economic impact. By their own 
information, USFWS states that the economic multiplier associated with 
migratory bird hunting accounts for somewhere between $700 million and 
$1 billion per year. In my State of Louisiana, duck hunting pumps some 
$57 million into our economy. This amount represents the benefits, not 
the regulatory burdens, that our economy reaps when hunters travel to 
hunting camps, eat at restaurants, buy equipment, etc., and all of 
these benefits are made possible by USFWS' regulatory process. 
Therefore, USFWS' interpretation of the threshold requirement contained 
within the definition of a major rule is in direct contrast to the 
objective and meaning of the language of H.R. 1022, and seems motivated 
more by politics than substance. In fact, the House Committee on 
Commerce has indicated that H.R. 1022 does not cover regulations for 
opening and closing of migratory bird hunting seasons.
  Injecting risk assessment into the Federal regulatory process will be 
critical if the Federal Government is to appropriately allocate its 
limited resources toward our most pressing problems. The yearly 
analysis that is an integral part of USFWS' migratory bird hunting 
regulations provides the best available data on bird population to 
enable the appropriate designation of season lengths and bag limits. 
This information is crucial to ensure the future sustainability and 
conservation of the species. Accordingly, I believe that, should the 
USFWS continue to misinterpret the intent of the legislative history of 
H.R. 1022, they will be abdicating their responsibilities as the 
stewards of our wildlife and fisheries resources, and they will have no 
one to blame but themselves.


                          ____________________