[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7499-H7506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY REFORM ACT OF 1998
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 521
[[Page H7500]]
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 521
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2863) to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
to clarify restrictions under that Act on baiting, to
facilitate acquisition of migratory bird habitat, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Resources now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6
of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 521 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 2863, the Migratory Bird Reform Act of 1998. The
purpose of the bill is to codify a uniform standard to determine when
someone is guilty of hunting migratory birds on a baited field.
The rule provides the customary 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order for the purposes of
amendment the substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now
printed in the bill which shall be considered as read.
In addition, the rule permits the Chair to grant priority in
recognition to members who have preprinted their amendments, and
considers them as read. Further, as has become standard practice for
open rules, the Chair is allowed to postpone recorded votes and reduce
the time for electronic voting on postponed votes. Finally, the rule
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House is able to consider
legislation today that enjoys wide bipartisan support. H.R. 2863 is
needed to clarify baiting restrictions under the 1918 Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, which is the United States law which implemented the
convention for the protection of migratory birds signed in 1916 by the
United States, and on behalf of Canada, by Great Britain.
{time} 1030
A curious provision which has caused some controversy in the 80 years
since Congress passed the Migratory Bird Act involves the hunting of
birds over fields that have been illegally baited to attract these
migratory birds.
I am not a hunter, but hunters are well aware that hunting migratory
birds over bait is considered unsportsmanlike and is illegal. This is
not in dispute and will remain illegal under this bill. The problem,
however, arises when a hunter was truly unaware of the nearby bait. The
current Fish and Wildlife regulations provide no possible defense for a
hunter who may have been legitimately and completely unaware that
someone else may have scattered corn, for example, in a nearby field.
Simply possessing a loaded firearm in a nearby field is enough to
convict a hunter of a crime in most States.
H.R. 2863 seeks to bring some common sense and uniformity to baiting
regulations. The bill applies a single standard that make it unlawful
for a person to hunt over a baited field if that person knows or
reasonably should know that the area is baited, and also makes it
unlawful for someone to place that bait in the field for the purpose of
attracting migratory birds for hunters.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I guess it
could be referred to as the House version of the Byrd rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for
yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is an open rule. It will allow for
full and fair debate on H.R. 2863. As the gentleman from Florida has
described, this rule will provide 1 hour of general debate to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Resources.
The rule permits amendments under the 5-minute rule. This is the
normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the
aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments.
As my colleague said, this bill amends and clarifies a provision of
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which restricts the hunting of birds over
fields that have been baited with food to attract them. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has concerns about this bill because it will
preempt the service's ability to issue regulations. Also some animal
welfare advocates believe the bill would harm waterfowl populations.
Because the bill will be considered under an open rule, Members will
have the opportunity, they will be able to offer improving amendments.
This is an open rule, as I said before. It was adopted by the Committee
on Rules by voice vote. I urge its adoption.
Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I also yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart). Pursuant to House
Resolution 521 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2863.
{time} 1034
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2863) to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify
restrictions under that Act on baiting, to facilitate acquisition of
migratory bird habitat, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Emerson in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2863, a bill
introduced by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) to reform the
Migratory
[[Page H7501]]
Bird Treaty Act. He has been joined in this effort by a number of
colleagues, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Madam Chairman, it has been 80 years since Congress enacted this law
to conserve migratory birds. It is a good law and it has worked. During
this time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued many
regulations dealing with the harvest of migratory birds. The vast
majority of these regulations were proposed by the hunting community,
and as such, they have worked.
The Federal courts, however, impose a rule which is referred to as
the rule of strict liability on those accused of hunting migratory
birds over bait. It is this rule of strict liability that this reform
act seeks to change. I would like to say at this point that the basic
bill, the law itself and the provisions it imposes, are not changed at
all.
For example, the term ``baiting'' is defined in the current law and
the definition remains the same. And just for the purpose of
clarification, I would like to state what that rule is. Baiting is
defined and it says, ``No person shall take migratory bird by the aid
of baiting, which means the placement or scattering of corn, wheat, or
other feeds so as to constitute a lure, attraction or enticement to any
areas where hunters are attempting to take them,'' ``them'' referring
of course to migratory waterfowl. That provision remains intact as it
is and as it has been and as it has worked well.
However, the Federal court's imposition of a rule of strict liability
of those accused of hunting migratory birds under bait as defined by
the words I just read has not worked well, at least in the opinion of
those of us who support this bill.
What this means is that if a hunter is there in a location and bait
is there, the hunter is guilty. There is little opportunity for
defense. The court rules the bait was there, the hunter was there.
Whether or not the hunter knew the bait was there is irrelevant, and
the guilty verdict applies.
Further, conviction under this act is a Federal criminal offense and
penalties may include a fine of up to $5,000 and 6 months in jail. This
is strict liability interpretation. ``If you are there, you are
guilty'' is fundamentally wrong under our American system of laws, law
enforcements, and jurisprudence. It violates one of our most basic
constitutional protections, that a person is innocent until proven
guilty. Strict liability has a chilling effect, therefore, on thousands
and thousands of law-abiding citizens.
Let me just put forth a couple of examples about how unfair this rule
is. Baiting is illegal. It will continue to be illegal. And
unfortunately, there will be those who take part in the practice of
baiting, I suppose thinking they will never be caught. So let us just
assume for a moment that someone in the Midwestern part of the country
decides they want to hunt for Canadian geese. As we know, Canadian
geese love to eat corn. And if a flock of Canadian geese, Canada geese,
become accustomed to feeding in a field every morning at 6:30 a.m.,
because somebody goes out and spreads corn around every afternoon at 6
p.m., the flock comes back again and again and again. And those who
bait and who are illegally hunting there, I suppose, benefit from the
fact that they are getting away with this baiting.
Now, let us just suppose for a moment that on their way home from
school some 16- or 17-year-old boys who love to hunt notice that this
is a prime spot for hunting. It is so because every morning on the way
to school they see this hunting activity taking place and they say to
themselves, tomorrow morning, on Friday, let us go to that field
because it must be a wonderful place to hunt. So the teenagers show up,
they get in a blind, and along come the snow geese followed by a game
warden.
The teenagers are there doing their hunting which they think is
totally legitimate because they had no idea that the baiting has taken
place. The warden shows up, arrests the teenagers, and they go to court
and they are found guilty with no reference whatsoever to whether or
not they knew the baiting had occurred. They were there, the bait was
there, and therefore they were guilty. There are many other examples
like this that could be used, but I think that example makes the point.
At the full Committee on Resources markup, the gentleman from Alaska
(Chairman Young) offered an amendment that limited the scope of the
bill to the two issues that can be resolved through this legislative
process. The first is to replace this strict liability, if the hunter
was there and the bait was there, the hunter is guilty, to replace this
liability with the phrase that the person knew or should have known
that the baiting had taken place.
The second provision improves the current law by making it unlawful
to place or direct the placement of bait. This will allow the service
to cite those commercial operators who intentionally bait a field
without the knowledge of the hunter.
Madam Chairman, I believe that every American is innocent until
proven guilty and that people should be entitled to offer evidence in
their defense. I hope that others will agree with this provision. It is
the right thing to do and the ``knows'' or ``reasonably should know''
standard will be effectively applied throughout this Nation. There is
no justification for the strict liability doctrine in this case when it
refers to these migratory birds, and I hope that my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle will agree and vote ``yes'' on this measure.
Madam Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:
California Waterfowl Association,
Sacramento, CA, July 10, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Young: The California Waterfowl
Association (CWA) is pleased to support HR 2863, your effort
to obtain changes in federal migratory bird baiting
regulations to provide hunters, wildlife managers, farmers,
law enforcement officials, and the courts with enhanced
clarity and guidance as to the restrictions on the taking of
migratory birds.
CWA supports the intent of regulations aimed at preventing
baiting for the purpose of increasing the vulnerability of
waterfowl to the gun. However, our Association has long
recognized that current regulations, if actively enforced,
would likely result in negative impacts to California's
critical remaining managed wetland base, as well as
unwarranted prosecution of law abiding sportsmen and women.
Of primary concern are ambiguities in the current regulations
which conflict with traditional ``moist-soil'' wetland
management practices which are intended to augment habitat
values for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife.
Because California has lost nearly 95% of its historic
waterfowl habitat, it is critical that the wetland values and
functions of the habitat base which remains be maximized.
Currently, however, confusion over the meaning and
enforcement of these regulations is compromising the
willingness of many landowners to employ preferred waterfowl
habitat management practices on their lands.
In an effort to address these concerns, for nearly three
years, CWA and others have actively urged the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) to consider changes in federal
baiting regulations. As you are aware, this past March, the
Service responded by offering for comment a variety of
amendments to the existing rules. Our Association applauds
the Service for this proposal which addresses many of our
concerns regarding conflicts with preferred wetland
management practices. Although the Service proposal needs
further clarification, we believe our remaining concerns in
this area can be addressed administratively during the
proposal's public comment process.
The Service's proposal does not, however, address another
area of concern to our Association--the issue of strict
liability. Existing regulations are written in a ``guilty
until proven innocent'' fashion which has, at times, resulted
in law abiding hunters being unreasonably prosecuted for
baiting. By proposing to amend the rule to install the
``knows or reasonably should know'' standard, your HR 2863
effectively addresses this concern by allowing those who
believe they were unfairly cited to present their case in
court.
Our Association appreciates your willingness to carefully
address the outstanding issue of strict liability without
weakening the important intent of current restrictions, or
the protection they offer the waterfowl resource. As such, we
are pleased to offer this legislation our support, and we
look forward to working closely with you to secure its
passage.
Sincerely,
Bill Gaines,
Director, Government Affairs.
____
The Grand National
Waterfowl Association,
Cambridge, MD, May 13, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Young: The Grand National Waterfowl
Association was chartered
[[Page H7502]]
in 1983 as a private, non-profit organization. The
organization's purpose is to promote the conservation and
wise use of our wildlife and natural resources and to promote
a better understanding of our responsibilities to the land.
Grand National has members both from the local community as
well as across the United States and several from foreign
countries.
We understand that the Resources Committee is reporting out
H.R. 2863 amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and that
this legislation will provide some much needed clarification
on the ``baiting'' issue. Over the past 50 or so years this
has been one of the most vexing problems for the sportsman
due to inconsistencies in enforcement and in court decisions.
Let me assure you we have no quarrel with the intent of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but the implementation has caused
unnecessary confusion and resulting injustices for many
sportsmen. We hope the ``strict liability'' and ``zone of
influence'' issues are clarified in the legislation and that
the legislation is acted upon before another waterfowl season
of uncertainty.
Sincerely,
Robert Gormley,
President.
____
International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, DC, April 29, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, House Resources Committee, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: I recently discussed with Harry
Burroughs of your staff the recommendations of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on
the issue of baiting as it relates to waterfowl hunting. As
you know, our concern with this matter goes back several
years and eventually led to the Association's establishment
in 1996 of an ad hoc Committee on Baiting. This committee
completed its work with the submission of a final report on
April 29, 1997 that presented recommended changes in federal
waterfowl hunting regulations. The recommendations in this
report were adopted by the Association's Executive Committee
as the official position of the Association. On May 15, 1997,
Brent Manning, Chairman of our ad hoc Committee and Director
of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, testified
before your Committee on H.R. 741 and presented the
recommendations of the Association's committee on baiting. I
am enclosing a copy of this report for your ready reference.
I believe it is significant that the ad hoc committee
recommended that consistency be brought to the application of
hunter's liability by adoption of the Delahoussaye language
from the federal Fifth Circuit. The Association's
recommendations contained in the ad hoc committee's report
are generally contained in your amendment in the nature of a
substitute for H.R. 2863, which you recently introduced and
which is consistent with the Association's position regarding
liability.
We appreciate your leaving the detailed recommendations
regarding agricultural crops and management of natural
vegetation to the regulatory process. As Mr. Manning
indicated in his testimony, it is likely that these will need
to be modified and fine tuned to reflect changing
agricultural practices.
As you are aware, the Fish and Wildlife Service recently
published proposed regulations on baiting and baiting areas
in the Federal Register. Those proposed regulations reflect a
number of the recommendations of our ad hoc Committee
regarding agricultural crops and management of natural
vegetation. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations do not
reflect changes recommended by the Committee regarding
liability. Our Association has officially requested that the
60-day comment period be extended until October 1, 1998, so
that we can have time to conduct and coordinate an adequate
review. We were disappointed that the Service did not address
the liability issue in their draft regulations, even though
we had requested earlier that they do so. We will comment on
the draft regulations based on our ad hoc Committee report.
In the meantime, the report of the ad hoc Committee as
adopted by the Association constitutes the official position
of the Association.
I hope that the information I have provided is useful and
look forward to working with you on this and other important
issues that we face.
Sincerely,
R. Max Peterson,
Executive Vice President.
____
Illinois Department of
Natural Resources,
Springfield, IL, April 29, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Chair, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Young: As the Chief Law Enforcement
Officer for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, I
wish to go on record in support of H.R. 2863 (as amended). As
a career Conservation Law Enforcement Officer, I know first
hand the strengths and weaknesses of our current federal
baiting regulations. If Congress adopts the Delahoussaye
standard for waterfowl baiting regulations, a serious and
longstanding weakness will have been remedied.
Some opponents of your bill object on the basis that law
enforcement officers will have to work much harder to make
good baiting cases. In my opinion, in a free society like
ours, ease of enforcement should not be a standard that is
applied when evaluating a law. Rather, we should seek to
enact common sense laws that treat sportsmen fairly, and
protect our precious natural resources first and foremost. I
believe your amended bill meets all of these criteria.
I thank you for your support of waterfowl and wetland
management and the hunting opportunities they provide.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Closson,
Chief, Office of Law Enforcement.
____
Illinois Department of
Natural Resources,
Springfield, IL, April 27, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Chair, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Young: As Director of the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, I am writing to express my
support specifically for the component of H.R. 2863
addressing the issue of strict liability for waterfowl
hunting. I am a wildlife biologist, chairman of a committee
reviewing federal baiting regulations, and an avid waterfowl
hunter. In these capacities I have been exposed to a
considerable amount of information regarding the application
of strict liability in the enforcement of federal baiting
regulations. It is my opinion that the so-called Delahoussaye
standard should be adopted in place of the current strict
liability regulation. This change will not put the waterfowl
resource at risk, as some allege. I applaud your attempt to
bring common sense and fairness to this aspect of waterfowl
hunting. Please be assured of my support in this regard.
Sincerely,
Brent Manning,
Director.
____
Migratory Waterfowl
Hunters, Inc.,
Alton, IL, June 18, 1998.
Hon. John Shimkus,
State Representative, Springfield, IL.
Dear Representative Shimkus: HB 2863 removes the ``strict
liability'' clause from the migratory bird hunting
regulations as proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in the Federal Register. Migratory Waterfowl Hunters, Inc.
strongly urges you to vote in favor of this bill.
Far too many duck and goose hunters have been arrested and
wrongly convicted of baiting waterfowl because the ``strict
liability'' clause renders a sportsman guilty before proven
innocent. H.R. 2863 will take the guess work out of this law
enforcement issue and cause conservation police officers to
focus on the real criminals.
Once again, please support H.R. 2863, Congressman Don
Young's bill to remove the ``strict liability'' clause from
migratory bird hunting regulations.
Sincerely,
Greg Franke,
Corresponding Secretary.
____
National Rifle Association
of America,
Fairfax, VA, May 5, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, House Resources Committee, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: On behalf of the National Rifle
Association of America (NRA), I would like to convey our
appreciation to you for the commitment you have made to
reforming the baiting rules governing the hunting of
migratory birds.
We wish to congratulate you on the passage of your bill,
HR2863, as amended, from the Resources Committee on April 29.
The NRA has long been an active and enthusiastic supporter of
legislative reform in this area. It has been our pleasure to
work with your staff to meet your stated objective of
providing clarity, simplicity and uniformity to the
enforcement of the baiting rules.
While we anticipated having the legislation reported from
your Committee last year, we supported your decision to give
the US Fish and Wildlife Service one last opportunity to
reform the baiting rules through the regulatory process. We
were very disappointed to find that the publication of the
proposed rule on March 25 gave truth to our suspicions that
the Service will never step in where reform is most needed.
All of us, including the Service, have known from the
beginning that the core of the issues surrounding enforcement
of the baiting rules has been the application of the doctrine
of strict liability. It is regrettable that the Service
buckled under pressure from its law enforcement agents and
refused to propose the Delahoussaye standard for public
review and comment. As we stated in our comments to the
Service on the proposed rule, ``the NRA can only surmise that
the Service fully intends to have the Congress resolve the
issue by codifying the Delahoussaye standard through the
legislative process.''
HR 2863, as amended, not only acknowledges the work left
uncompleted by the Service, but also acknowledges the fact
that many of the reforms in the parent bill were adopted in
the proposed rule. While the NRA has already stated that is
supports HR 2863 as introduced, we are also supportive of the
[[Page H7503]]
narrower version that now awaits House Floor action.
Again, on behalf of the NRA, I extend the appreciation of
our 2.8 million members for your efforts on behalf of the
hunting community.
Sincerely,
Susan R. Lamson,
Director, Conservation, Wildlife
and Natural Resources.
____
Safari Club International,
Herndon, VA, April 28, 1998.
Chairman Don Young,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Young: Safari Club International urges you
to pass without delay The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act.
Several recent incidents indicate that the ``strict
liability'' language of the existing regulations has led to
prosecution of sportsmen that are unfair and that do not aid
the conservation of the migratory birds.
The Service had promised to administratively correct the
situation, but to date they have failed to do so. As late as
the end of March, the Chairman of the Resources Committee had
urged the Service to provide Congress with a solution that
would correct the unfiar components of the regulations.
Despite repeated promises from the Service to address the
inequities of the current regulations, their recent proposed
amendment does not address the issue. It is evident that
Congress must act.
Sportsmen and hunters are only asking that they be treated
as fairly as all other Americans and that they only be found
guilty if they knew or should have known that bait had been
placed. The language of The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act
assures that hunters will remain innocent until proven
guilty.
Safari Club International requests that you change this
unfair and punitive law.
Sincerely,
Alfred S. Donau, III,
President-elect.
Hon. Ron Marlenee,
Consular.
____
The Wildlife Legislative
Fund of America,
Columbus, OH, May 8, 1998.
Hon Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America
strongly endorses H.R. 2863 to eliminate strict liability as
it relates to the baiting proscriptions of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. Strict liability, which enables convictions
against unknowing and innocent hunters, is wholly
inconsistent with principles of American law. The need for
this reform has long been recognized, but neither the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service nor other Members of Congress have
been willing to provide the requisite leadership. We applaud
your effort and the leadership you have demonstrated.
We are committed to working with you and the Committee to
assure favorable House action on this important measure.
Sincerely,
William P. Horn,
Director, National Affairs and
Washington Counsel.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 2863.
This bill changes a 60-year-old standard of strict liability for
hunting migratory birds over bait, a standard that has provided
effective protection of migratory birds from the overkill that can
result from baiting. The law places the burden of guarding against
unsportsmanlike hunting practices where it properly lies, with the
hunter.
This bill is a product of a few anecdotes, and we will likely hear
some of them as we already have this morning. The real issue here is
much broader. The important issue is whether or not in changing this
law, as this bill proposes, will allow us to maintain the enforcement
of the law against harming migratory birds. That is the purpose of this
law. It is for the protection of the migratory birds, a protection that
runs to the Nation generally, not just to the question of the
activities of hunters.
Notwithstanding these few anecdotal pieces of evidence, the
supporters of this bill have not made a convincing case that there is a
crisis that needs addressing. The paramount public interest in
protecting migratory birds for all the American public, not just
hunters, has traditionally warranted a high standard of protection
embodied in strict liability and, with one exception, the courts have
upheld this standard.
In fact, when the Congress had an opportunity to review this in
previous Congresses, they inserted the ``knowing'' standard with
respect to felony activities under the Migratory Bird Treaty, but they
did not do that with respect to the misdemeanor portions, which
indicates clearly that Congress understood the importance of this
provision of the law.
The bill before the House today is an improvement over the bill as it
was introduced, which would have substantially weakened the protection
of migratory birds. The amendment makes it a violation to place bait
for migratory birds if one knows it will be hunted over. This will make
it easier to prosecute the real bad actors, that small number of
property owners guides, and hunt club personnel who unlawfully try to
improve hunting through baiting.
However, a number of law enforcement personnel charged with
protecting migratory waterfowl tell me that they think this bill is
ill-advised and will seriously complicate their job of battling illegal
hunting. I am very concerned that this bill ignores the views of the
hard-working law enforcement people and makes sweeping changes in the
law based on a few isolated cases.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of revising its
baiting regulations to address legitimate concerns that have been
raised by the hunting community. It strikes me that it would be
appropriate to withhold action on this legislation to allow the service
to promulgate those regulatory changes.
{time} 1045
For these reasons, and others, Madam Chairman, I oppose this
legislation. I voted for this legislation as it has come out of the
committee as it is presented here. I think it is an improved bill. But
from discussions with those which are charged with enforcing this
legislation, I think it has also become clear that there can be serious
jeopardy attached to the passage of this legislation and the future of
migratory birds. And that is certainly our first charge and our first
concern.
Let me also say that, as suggested very often, that this is all about
innocent, innocent people. If you look in the back of even some of the
anecdotal evidence that was submitted to the Congress and one of the
cases about individuals that were arrested and prosecuted under this
law, these were not exactly innocent individuals. Many of them knew
full well and it was so incredibly obvious what had taken place in this
field for the purposes of these hunts.
I have hunted for many years, and let me say that people in the
hunting community know very well those clubs that bait, those clubs
that boast about it. Those clubs that have tried to increase their take
by being responsible hunters do not go to those clubs. They do not
participate in that activity.
One of the reasons they do not is because of this law. But if they
can go there and claim that they are ignorant of everything the land
owner did, the club owner did, or the guide did, then they are free to
continue that practice and claim ignorance under the law.
Strict liability is not unconstitutional. It is not foreign to the
Constitution. It has been upheld. In fact, it is a doctrine that we use
very often. We use it with respect to this treaty. We use it with
respect to governmental officials.
That is how the Kesterson Reservoir was shutdown when unsafe
practices were there with respect to water pollution because people
knew that people would be put in jeopardy if they continued those
practices to harm migratory birds.
So I think, while this is a better piece of legislation than it was
originally introduced, I think it interrupts a process that I think is
more thoughtful and deliberative that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
undertaking.
I expect the desire to undertake that has been prompted by the
introducing of this legislation by the chairman of our committee having
these hearings and reporting this bill, and I think that they will, in
fact, be responsive to that effort.
At a minimum, I would think that this is the kind of legislation if
we were to pass it we would want to provide for some kind of sunset so
we had an ability to review the impact of this legislation.
For those reasons and others, Madam Chairman, I will be opposing this
legislation.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H7504]]
Madam Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentleman, through
the Chairman of course, that I think that a matter of fairness applies
here and that it is crucial that the strict liability provision be
replaced. I am not alone in feeling that way. As a matter of fact, I
have here a letter from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
from their chief officer of law enforcement. I would just like to read
a few lines from it.
The letter is addressed to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). The
letter reads, ``As the chief law enforcement officer of the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources,'' and I point out and emphasize here
that this is the chief law enforcement officer, and of course I am
speaking to the objections that the gentleman from California raised
relative to law enforcement. He says, ``I wish to go on record in
support of the bill H.R. 2863. As a career conservation law enforcement
officer, I know firsthand the strengths and weaknesses of our Federal
baiting regulations. If Congress adopts the Delahoussaye standard for
waterfowl baiting regulations, a serious and long-standing weakness
will have been remedied.''
``Some opponents,'' he said, ``of your bill object on the basis that
law enforcement officers will have to work much harder to make good
baiting cases. In my opinion, in a free society like ours, ease of
enforcement should not be a standard that is applied when evaluating a
law. Rather, we should seek to enact common sense laws that treat
sportsmen fairly and protect our precious natural resources first and
foremost.''
So this is, I think, stated very succinctly. I believe that it goes a
long way to answer the gentleman's questions or objections.
Secondly, the bill makes a major improvement, I believe, in terms of
law enforcement, because under the current law, if one baits and is not
there when the game warden shows up, he can only be brought into the
case through a conspiracy theory. Under the new law, the baiter
actually will assume direct responsibility for the baiting. Those
provisions are written very clearly in section 3 on page 2, lines 6
through 20.
So we have tried very hard to provide for the continuation of a
strong antibaiting law but to put a degree of fairness in the reform
bill that simply does not exist in the current statutes.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I too want to put a letter into the Record from the
head of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, which indicates
his enforcement staff, unlike that from the gentleman from Illinois, in
our dueling letters here, his enforcement staff tells him that this
would have a detrimental impact in Maryland's and the Nation's
migratory bird resources.
Finally, let me say, under current law, the baiter, if you will, can
be prosecuted and, in fact, is prosecuted. But I do agree with the
gentleman that that is an improvement, that is an improvement in the
law.
If the gentleman is going to add more letters, I am going to have to
add more letters. We can submit these for the record, and we can all go
on our merry way. This should not delay us from coming to a vote on
this matter.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I would just conclude once again by saying as
directly and as forthrightly as I can that we in no way change the
provisions of the basic law, the antibaiting provisions remain in
effect, and that no person shall take migratory birds by the aid of
baiting in any way, but that we do replace the strict liability
provision with the known or should have known provision.
I ask all Members on both sides of the aisle, with the exemption
perhaps of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), to
support the bill.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join my good friend and
colleague, Chairman Young, in support of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Reform Act.
I became involved in issue because I found it outrageous that almost
ninety sportsmen were cited for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
during a charity dove hunt in Dixie County, Florida back in 1995. I had
the privilege of representing that area when I first came to Congress
and I take personal umbrage with how unfairly these individuals were
treated.
It is not my intention to give you a blow by blow description about
this incident, but I will tell you that many hunters were cited and
fined almost $40,000 for ``allegedly'' hunting on a baited field.
The fact is that nearly all the hunting took place in an area which
had never been inspected for baiting. What is even more perplexing is
that the citations were delivered without any regard to the guilt or
innocence of the hunters.
The purpose of this legislation is to clarify what we mean when we
use the term ``baited field.'' Since Congress has never passed a law
defining what qualifies as ``baiting'' a field, there is much confusion
which results in federal courts acting inconsistently on such cases.
While this activity is justifiably illegal, there are various legal
interpretations that should be clarified. Under current standards, a
person is held liable for hunting on a baited field even though that
person did not realize the field was baited. This is unfair, as many of
my constituents found out the hard way.
Under current law, it is not illegal to bait a field or to feel
migratory birds. However, it is strictly prohibited to hunt in such an
area. This bill amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1918 by
eliminating strict liability for baiting by adding the following
provision:
``It is unlawful for any person to take any migratory game bird by
aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, if the person knows or
reasonably should know that the area is a baited area; or place or
direct the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area for the purpose
of causing, inducing, or allowing any person to take or attempt to take
any migratory game bird by the aid of baiting on or over the baited
area.''
Mr. Chairman, I believe this definition spells out precisely what we
mean when we use term ``baiting'' a field, and will eliminate any
possible future misinterpretation.
The sole purpose of this legislation is to clarify baiting
restrictions to ensure that migratory birds and their habitats are
preserved while protecting law-abiding citizens from unfair
prosecution.
Unfortunately, passage of this legislation did not occur in time to
assist the hunters in Dixie County, Florida, but it will prevent others
from facing unfair repercussions for being at the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Last year, I testified before Chairman Young's committee on the
problems associated with the need to define what we mean when we use
the term ``baiting'' a field, I believe H.R. 2863 will achieve that
goal and prevent the problems that many law-abiding hunter have
experienced from occuring in the future.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
2863, a bill I introduced to reform the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA). I have been joined in this effort by a number of our colleagues
including John Dingell, John Tanner, Cliff Stearns, Curt Weldon, and
Collin Peterson.
It has been 80 years since Congress enacted this law to conserve
migratory birds. During this time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has issued many regulations dealing with the harvest of migratory
birds. The vast majority of these regulations were proposed by the
hunting community. The only exception has been the regulations dealing
with hunting in a field that is ``baited'' to unfairly attract
migratory game birds.
Congress has never passed a law that says--this is baiting and this
practice is illegal. In fact, it is not illegal to ``bait'' a field or
to feed migratory birds. It is strictly prohibited, however, to hunt in
such an area.
Over the years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has modified its
baiting regulations 17 times. In addition, the Service and many Federal
courts impose strict liability on those accused of hunting migratory
birds over bait. What this means is that if a hunter is there and the
bait is there, they are guilty.
Regrettably, whether to cite someone for violating the MBTA is a
subjective decision. Conviction under this act is a Federal criminal
offense, and penalties may include up to a $5,000 fine and six months
imprisonment.
Under strict liability, if you are hunting in a field that an agent
determines is baited, whether you know it or not, you are guilty. There
is no defense and any evidence you may have to support your position is
irrelevant. It does not matter whether there was a ton of grain or
three kernels, whether this feed served as an attraction to migratory
birds, or even how far the ``bait'' is from the hunting site.
[[Page H7505]]
This interpretation--if you were there, you are guilty--is
fundamentally wrong. It violates one of our most basic constitutional
protections that a person is innocent until proven guilty. As a result
of strict liability, thousands of law-abiding citizens have stopped
hunting migratory game birds because they do not want to risk being
convicted of a Federal crime for shooting a snow goose or a duck over a
pond that may contain a handful of corn. Sadly, there are Fish and
Wildlife Service agents who believe that all hunters are criminals and
that it is their duty to cite them, even when they know the hunter is
unaware of any baiting problem.
In fact, we had testimony before my committee where a former agent of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that, and I quote: ``Have I
ever charged someone for hunting over bait that I truly believed they
did not know the area was baited? And I would say yes. I have in my
career. I have probably charged people for hunting over bait that truly
did not know.''
I had hoped that the Fish and Wildlife Service would administratively
fix its baiting regulations. I was anxious to see them try and on March
25th, for the first time in 25 years, the Service did issue a proposed
rule containing some modifications. While the Service deserves credit
for redefining certain terms and allowing greater State input into what
constitutes a normal agricultural activity, I am deeply disappointed
that they have chosen to retain the strict liability standard. This is
a terrible mistake and a complete reversal of their earlier support for
this change.
At our full committee markup, I offered an amendment that limited the
scope of the bill to the two issues that can only be resolved through
the legislative process. The first is to replace strict liability with
the ``knows or reasonably should know'' legal standard. This is not a
new or radical idea.
In fact, this standard was first articulated for migratory birds in
1978 in the Federal 5th Circuit Court's decision known as United States
v. Delahoussaye. In this case, the Court found that:
At a minimum, the bait must have been so situated that its
presence could have been reasonably ascertained by a hunter
wishing to check the area of his activity.
For the past 20 years, this standards has worked effectively in the
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas where migratory birds are
hunted in great numbers.
In fact, between 1984 and 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
issued 2,318 citations in these three States using the ``known or
should have known'' legal standard. The Service obtained guilty pleas
or payments of fines in 2,042 cases, which is a conviction rate of over
88 percent.
As these statistics clearly show, the Delahoussaye decision has been
effectively used to protect migratory birds. No migratory bird
population has been put at risk, there have been numerous convictions
and it is, therefore, not surprising that the Service has never
attempted to overturn or challenge the Delahoussaye decision.
While this legislation will allow a person to offer a defense in
their baiting case, if the preponderance of evidence so demonstrates, a
defendant will be found guilty. This standard is far less stringent
than the ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' which is used in all other
criminal cases.
I received a letter from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources that states:
Some opponents of your bill object on the basis that law
enforcement officers will have to work harder to make good
baiting cases. In my opinion, in a free society like ours,
ease of enforcement should not be a standard that is applied
when evaluating a law. Rather, we should seek to enact common
sense laws that treat sportsmen fairly and protect our
precious natural resources first and foremost. I believe your
amended bill meets all of these criteria.
The elimination of strict liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act is strongly supported by a diverse group of conservation
organizations including the California Waterfowl Association, the Grant
National Waterfowl Association, the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association, Safari Club
International, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. In
addition, it was supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service's Ad Hoc
Committee on Baiting that included representatives from each of the
Flyway Councils, Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, and the
Wildlife Management Institute.
My bill also improves current law by making it unlawful to place or
direct the placement of bait. This will allow the Service to cite those
commercial operators who intentionally bait a field without the
knowledge of the hunter.
Mr. Chairman, if you believe that every American is innocent until
proven guilty and that a person should be entitled to offer evidence in
their defense, then you should vote for this legislation. It is the
right thing to do and the ``knows or reasonably should know'' legal
standard will be effectively applied throughout this nation.
There is no rationale, justification or defense for the strict
liability doctrine for migratory birds. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R.
2863.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2863 is about common sense and basic
fairness.
It would replace the ``strict liability'' standard with the ``knew or
should have known'' standard that is being enforced in the Fifth
Circuit, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
What it means is that anyone cited for an alleged baiting violation
can put on a defense and present evidence to a judge in their case of
alleged baiting violations. Both the Fifth Circuit and Fourth Circuit
have both agreed this is not presently an option under the ``strict
liability'' requirement.
Further, the bill clearly makes it unlawful for anyone who places or
directs the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area where hunting
for migratory game birds takes place.
That's just plain common sense to ensure that those involved in these
cases have the same rights that are available throughout our system of
justice. It also continues to recognize the stewardship
responsibilities hunters share relative to the conservation of
migratory game bird species.
Indeed, enforcement over the past decade in those states with the
``knew or should have known'' standard has been at least as successful
as in those states where ``strict liability'' is the threshold. Nearly
90 percent of baiting cases prosecuted in Mississippi, Texas, and
Louisiana during the 11-year period ending in 1996-97 resulted in
convictions and fines.
This legislative solution is needed because while the Service has
proposed other regulatory changes to existing baiting regulations and
recognized as we have that some of those regulations need to be
examined particularly in light of recommendations made by the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' Ad Hoc
Committee on Baiting, it expressly omitted the ``strict liability''
issue saying in the Federal Register that ``no changes are proposed in
the application of the strict liability to migratory game bird baiting
regulations.
No one here today is advocating with this bill that season lengths
and bag limits should be changed except by those in the Office of
Migratory Bird Management working with their counterparts in state fish
and wildlife agencies and input from the public. If someone illegally
baited a field they should be punished, but they should also have the
opportunity to present a defense when they go before a judge.
Indeed, the Law Enforcement Advisory Commission created by the
Service in 1990 described the rules governing baiting as both
``confusing'' and ``too complex.''
This common sense change has been recommended by the International's
Ad Hoc Committee on Baiting, whose members include:
Representatives of all four Flyway Councils, the Illinois Department
of Natural Resources, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the
Alabama Game and Fish Division, the North American Wildlife Enforcement
Officers Association, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife
Federation, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, and the Wildlife
Management Institute.
The goal of this bill coupled with issues raised by the Service's
regulatory proposal are aimed at addressing the very real concerns
about fairness and confusion that many have raised over the past 10 to
15 years.
My colleague Representative George Miller, who has done a little
hunting himself, spoke articulately in support of the bill when it was
marked-up and unanimously approved by the Resources Committee by voice
vote. I was disappointed that he saw fit to change his mind, but that
is certainly his prerogative.
You know, hunters provide more money for wildlife conservation than
virtually any other single group and they deserve the same fairness we
all expect as citizens when it comes to alleged violations of the law.
It should be noted that hunters were and are among the strongest
advocates of the implementation of these rules to prohibit baiting to
attract migratory game bird species.
With that Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues to support
this common sense appeal to basic fairness. Vote for H.R. 2863.
MR. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
[[Page H7506]]
H.R. 2863
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Migratory Bird Treaty Reform
Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATING STRICT LIABILITY FOR BAITING.
Section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704)
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 3.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to--
``(1) take any migratory game bird by the aid of baiting,
or on or over any baited area, if the person knows or
reasonably should know that the area is a baited area; or
``(2) place or direct the placement of bait on or adjacent
to an area for the purpose of causing, inducing, or allowing
any person to take or attempt to take any migratory game bird
by the aid of baiting on or over the baited area.''.
The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Diaz-Balart) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2863) to
amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify restrictions under that
Act on baiting, to facilitate acquisition of migratory bird habitat,
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 521, she reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 322,
nays 90, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 420]
YEAS--322
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--90
Abercrombie
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dixon
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Stark
Tauscher
Tierney
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--22
Barcia
Berry
Dunn
Engel
Furse
Gonzalez
Hefner
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
McDade
Moakley
Morella
Paxon
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Schumer
Shadegg
Stokes
Tauzin
Towns
Young (AK)
{time} 1117
Messrs. PASCRELL, SERRANO, ANDREWS, HASTINGS of Florida, SHAYS,
MEEHAN, MATSUI, and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. SCOTT and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________