[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.

                          ____________________