[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S3720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE DUCK HUNTING SEASON IN MINNESOTA

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is an announcement I want to make 
on the floor of the Senate that is certainly important to my State of 
Minnesota. Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee, consistent with a 
request that I made 2 weeks ago, corrected an error in the regulatory 
moratorium bill, that is S. 219, in order to protect the 1995 migratory 
bird hunting season. I am delighted that my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, responded to the concerns of thousands and thousands 
of people who participate in the bird hunting season in Minnesota.
  When I learned that a provision in the regulatory moratorium bill 
threatened the 1995 bird hunting season, I asked my colleagues on the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to correct the bill. I also 
introduced a piece of legislation to protect the 1995 hunting season 
from the moratorium provision. I am delighted to report to the people 
of Minnesota that the committee took the time to remedy the problem so 
that Minnesotans can enjoy this cherished annual event. I owe a special 
debt of gratitude to Senator Glenn and Senator Pryor for their work on 
the committee.
  Mr. President, in our rush to reform the regulatory process we almost 
canceled a tradition for this year. Some of my colleagues criticized my 
efforts to correct the language in the bill. They claimed I was using 
scare tactics, that this was some kind of political magic show. But 
now, by correcting this legislation, the committee has made clear that 
there was an error in the original bill, an error that was overlooked 
and then vehemently denied for the sake of trying to rush through the 
Contract With America. Sometimes haste makes waste.
  Last week one of my colleagues, a cosponsor of the bill, said that 
the language in S. 219 exempted the annual bird hunting rulemaking from 
the moratorium. Perhaps we should note that my colleague was from a 
Southern State--which from my point of view is fine because I love the 
South and grew up, part of my early years, in North Carolina. But the 
normal duck hunting season opens later in the South--I know my 
colleague from Oklahoma knows this --than it does in Minnesota.
  And if the Fish and Wildlife Services' estimated best case scenario 
proved correct, the original S. 219 would have served to delay the 
necessary rulemaking, and thus opening the season in Minnesota would 
have been postponed by no less than 30 days.
  Since Minnesotans do the majority of their hunting at the local shoot 
in early October--our season begins in early October, before the local 
ducks fly south--such a delay would have effectively canceled a major 
part of our season. But in my colleague's State, duck hunting season 
was mid to late November, and therefore might not have been as 
seriously affected by the delay.
  It has always been clear to me that the bill as originally introduced 
did not protect the 1995 bird hunting season. Despite strong statements 
that it was never the intent of the bill's sponsors to put the season 
at risk--and, by the way, I agree that it never was the intent--the 
language of the bill is what matters most. And now, because of the 
action of the Governmental Affairs Committee, we have the protection 
that we need, the rulemaking goes on, and I am very proud of the fact 
that the men and women in the State of Minnesota and their children can 
rest assured that we will have no delay or cancellation and that we 
will have our season.
  So this is a sort of thank you to my colleagues and a delivery of a 
very positive message to Minnesotans.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Just for the Senator's clarification, as original 
sponsor of S. 219, I would like to inform my colleague that we did have 
in the original bill an exception for administrative actions. When 
Senator Roth introduced the bill for markup, we had an exception for 
routine administrative actions. Also we have always had exceptions for 
licensing.
  So the arguments that were made by many people--including President 
Clinton--who said that duck hunting licenses and burials at Arlington 
cemetery were jeopardized by the moratorium, were totally incorrect. 
The bill did state--just so my colleague will know--
 the bill stated and exempted from routine administrative actions--and 
it exempted agencies in their licensing process--which happens to 
include hunting and fishing licenses. So they were never in jeopardy. 
But I know that an amendment was clarified just to make absolutely sure 
that people in Minnesota would be able to hunt ducks and people would 
be able to go fishing without any prohibition whatsoever by this 
moratorium on rulemaking.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague. I want to say to him that I have, of course, heard this 
before. The key distinction was that the hunting season is not covered 
by the administrative exemption nor are we talking about licensing. We 
were talking about the rulemaking the Fish and Wildlife Service 
undergoes every year to open the migratory bird hunting season. The 
problem was that the moratorium on rulemaking would affect this hunting 
rule. That is what I said. The legislators have to be careful with the 
language. The fact is that the change was made today in Governmental 
Affairs to make sure that Fish and Wildlife could go forward with that 
rulemaking and we will have our season. The proof is in the pudding. I 
am delighted the change took place.

                          ____________________