[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 29717-29718]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2009

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2062) to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to provide for 
penalties and enforcement for intentionally taking protected avian 
species, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2062

       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 Act 
     Penalty and Enforcement Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT.

       Section 6 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 707) 
     is amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e), 
     and by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Except in the case of hunting and other activity 
     allowed under section 3, whoever in violation of this Act 
     kills or wounds a migratory bird in an aggravated manner 
     shall, in lieu of any penalty for such violation--
       ``(A) for the first violation, be fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, imprisoned for not more than one year, or 
     both; and
       ``(B) for the second and any subsequent violation, be fined 
     under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned for not 
     more than 2 years, or both.
       ``(2) The authority under section 3(k) of the Fish and 
     Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 742l(k)) applies 
     with respect to a violation described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term 
     `aggravated manner' means deliberately and in a manner that--
       ``(A) demonstrates indifference to the pain and suffering 
     of the bird; or
       ``(B) involves actions that would shock a reasonable 
     person.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Larsen of Washington). Pursuant to the 
rule, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Brown) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.


                             General Leave

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Guam?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 29718]]


  Ms. BORDALLO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2062 would amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to 
establish new penalties and fines for instances when migratory birds 
are deliberately killed or wounded in an aggravated manner.
  In 2007, a 14-month, multi-State undercover investigation initiated 
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revealed that thousands of 
protected species of hawks and falcons had been killed illegally. 
Worse, despite the fact that those who had done the killing had used 
horrific methods, including trapping, poisoning, suffocating, clubbing, 
and baiting birds with pigeons rigged with fishing hooks, many of the 
defendants who pleaded guilty to the only applicable charge under the 
MBTA, a class B misdemeanor, escaped with minor fines or were merely 
granted probation.
  These events confirm that the Congress should amend the MBTA to 
authorize new felony penalties to deter future offenses and to allow 
the Fish and Wildlife Service to recommend charges appropriate for the 
brutal nature of these actions when they do occur.
  I commend our colleague from Oregon, Representative Peter DeFazio, 
for his leadership in developing this narrowly tailored legislation 
that does not diminish in any way the MBTA's existing ``strict 
liability'' standard.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides to support the passage 
of this important bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 91 years ago, in an effort to protect certain avian 
species, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. That law 
established criminal penalties for certain illegal activities, such as 
hunting over a baited field, using a live decoy to hunt waterfowl, or 
simply killing a protected migratory bird. In most instances, the 
punishment for these offenses is limited to 6 months in jail, a $15,000 
fine, or both.
  What H.R. 2062 is designed to address are inhumane and shocking 
violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For example, during the 
past 3 years, a number of protected hawks and peregrine falcons have 
been killed by pigeon hobbyists in retaliation for these raptors eating 
their prized pets. While those involved in this illegal activity were 
tried and convicted under Federal law, not a single defendant received 
jail time, and none of the fines approached the maximum level. This is 
despite the fact that these pigeon hobbyists shot, poisoned, gassed, 
strangled, and clubbed thousands of protected birds and then bragged 
about it on the Internet.
  In an effort to respond to future cases which would shock a 
reasonable person, H.R. 2062 establishes a new two-tiered penalty 
system under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For the first offense under 
this new standard, a defendant could receive up to 1 year in jail, a 
$100,000 fine, or both. For subsequent convictions of the same type, 
the penalties could increase to 2 years in jail, fines of up to 
$250,000, or both. These would be available, but not mandatory, 
penalties that a United States Attorney could seek in future migratory 
bird prosecutions.
  Let me emphasize that this will not be the new legal standard for all 
violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We are not talking about 
protected birds that are killed by a cell tower. We are not talking 
about hunters who kill too many ducks or geese. We are not talking 
about someone who steals goose eggs from a golf course. We are not 
talking about your grandmother who may shoot a protected woodpecker 
because its constant tapping on her house is annoying her. There is 
also absolutely no intention that these new penalties would affect in 
any manner the authorized hunting of migratory birds or the taking of 
migratory birds under a depredation order established by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.
  These enhanced penalties in H.R. 2062 will send a clear message to 
individuals throughout this Nation that egregious behavior, like the 
roller pigeon cases, will not be tolerated in the future.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, just over 2 years ago, Fish and Wildlife 
Service arrested a dozen individuals for repeatedly and deliberately 
killing protected raptors under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In many 
cases, the individuals used cruel and shocking methods of torture, 
mutilation, poisoning, suffocation, and clubbing to kill and wound 
these birds. They then bragged about their egregious behavior on the 
internet and to members of their organizations.
  Despite the horrific nature of the crimes, the defendants who pleaded 
guilty to the Class B Misdemeanor--the same penalty ascribed to 
unauthorized uses of the Woodsy Owl and Smokey Bear characters--escaped 
with fines far smaller than the maximum allowances and were granted 
probation or given community service.
  I and thousands of Oregonians were outraged by the nature of these 
wanton and senseless crimes. Yet, the individuals responsible only 
received a stiff slap on the wrist, demonstrating that courts often do 
not take wildlife crimes seriously enough. Regrettably, horrific 
violence against protected migratory birds continues across the 
country.
  I introduced H.R. 2062 to provide Fish and Wildlife Service with a 
law enforcement tool that would allow the agency to prosecute the most 
egregious violations of the MBTA with serious penalties. This bill 
would also send a clear message to courts that Congress does take 
wildlife crimes seriously and expects courts to apply penalties that 
measure up to the shocking nature of some of these crimes.
  The bill before the House today is the consensus product of over 6 
months of discussion with conservation groups, hunting associations, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, the States, and the Republican minority. The 
bill was passed unanimously by the House Committee on Natural Resources 
on November 18th. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I again urge Members to support this 
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2062, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________