What changed between these versions
A complete substitute amendment. v2 fundamentally alters the approach to clarifying the treatment of Alaska Native handicrafts by removing the direct amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and instead directing administrative actions focused solely on the U.S.-Japan treaty. The scope of applicable treaties was significantly narrowed from four to one, and the mechanism shifted from statutory change to regulatory and bilateral procedures.
Overview
Extensive changes throughout the bill, representing a fundamental shift in legislative approach. · v2 significantly narrows the scope of applicable international treaties and shifts the legislative mechanism from a direct statutory amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to a directive for administrative and bilateral procedures, effectively restructuring the bill's policy direction.
v2 represents a fundamental restructuring of H.R. 6021. The most significant change is the removal of the direct amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) that would have statutorily clarified the treatment of Alaska Native articles of handicraft. Instead, v2 directs the Secretary of State and Interior to engage in bilateral procedures and modify regulations, but only concerning the U.S.-Japan Migratory Bird Treaty, a substantial narrowing from the four treaties originally covered. The definitions for 'Alaska Native' and 'Authentic Alaska Native article of handicraft' are also moved from being part of the MBTA to being defined within this Act, further indicating a shift away from direct MBTA amendment.
Major additions
This new subsection grants the Secretary of the Interior the authority to modify regulations to remove species from application under this section if those species show significant population declines or are determined to be Birds of Conservation Concern.
This addition introduces a mechanism for conservation-based adjustments to the regulatory framework, allowing for the protection of vulnerable migratory bird species even if they are currently used in handicrafts. It provides an important safeguard that was not present in v1.
This new subsection mandates the Secretary of the Interior to collaborate with the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council and other stakeholders to develop outreach and communication resources regarding the rules for selling authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft.
This addition aims to improve understanding and compliance with the regulations by providing clear guidance to Alaska Native communities and others involved in the sale of handicrafts. It addresses potential implementation challenges by ensuring affected groups are informed.
This new subsection explicitly defines 'Alaska Native', 'Authentic Alaska Native article of handicraft', and 'Indian Tribe' within H.R. 6021 itself. The definition of 'Authentic Alaska Native article of handicraft' also includes a clause stating it does not include items with parts taken wastefully or illegally.
While similar definitions existed in v1, their placement here as definitions for 'this Act' rather than as an amendment to the MBTA is highly significant. It clarifies the terms for the administrative actions directed by v2, but it means these definitions are not being directly incorporated into the permanent text of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, unlike in v1. This reinforces the shift from statutory amendment to administrative guidance.
Deletions
v1 directly amended the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by adding a new subsection (c). This subsection contained definitions for 'Alaska Native' and 'Authentic Alaska Native article of handicraft' and, crucially, a clarification that nothing in the MBTA prohibits the possession, sale, or shipment of authentic Alaska Native articles containing nonedible migratory bird parts, subject to a limitation on wastefully or illegally taken parts.
This is the most significant deletion. Its removal means v2 no longer directly amends the MBTA to create a statutory exemption or clarification for Alaska Native handicrafts. Instead, v2 relies on administrative and bilateral procedures, which fundamentally changes the legal basis and certainty for the treatment of these articles. The direct statutory protection provided in v1 is eliminated.
Modifications
This change reflects the shift in the bill's approach from directly amending the MBTA to clarifying its application through administrative means. It signals a less direct legislative intervention.
Before
The short title of the Act was 'Archie Cavanaugh Migratory Bird Treaty Amendment Act'.
After
The short title of the Act is 'Archie Cavanaugh Migratory Bird Treaty Clarification Act'.
This modification drastically narrows the geographic and legal scope of the bill's intended effect. The administrative actions directed by v2 will only apply to issues arising under the U.S.-Japan treaty, leaving the treatment of handicrafts under the other three treaties unaddressed by this legislation. This limits the potential for broader clarity for Alaska Natives engaged in traditional handicrafts.
Before
The purpose of the Act was to clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft under four specific international treaties: US-Great Britain, US-Mexico, US-Japan, and US-Soviet Union.
After
The purpose of the Act is to clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft offered for sale under only one specific international treaty: the Convention between the United States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their Environment.
This modification significantly reduces the mandatory nature and breadth of administrative action. By making regulation modification discretionary and limiting it to the U.S.-Japan treaty, the bill's impact on clarifying the legal status of handicrafts is substantially reduced and confined. The added consultation requirements introduce more stakeholders into the regulatory process, potentially slowing or altering outcomes, while the specific considerations provide more detailed guidance for regulatory development.
Before
v1's Section 3(b) (titled 'Administration') mandated that the Secretary of State and Interior shall work to enter into bilateral procedures with countries party to all four treaties listed in Section 2, and the Secretary of Interior shall modify regulations to implement the direct MBTA amendments made by Section 3(a).
After
v2's Section 3(a) (now titled 'In General') directs the Secretary of State and Interior to work on bilateral procedures with the foreign country (singular, referring to Japan) party to the treaty described in Section 2, specifically for articles to be offered for sale. It also states the Secretary of the Interior may modify regulations, consistent with the U.S.-Japan treaty, in consultation with specific entities (Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, Pacific Flyway Council, USFWS Law Enforcement Office), and includes conditions for consignment, re-sale, certification, and species of conservation concern.
This modification to the bill's title reflects the substantive change in the bill's approach. It no longer explicitly states an intent to 'amend' the MBTA, aligning with the removal of the direct statutory amendment in the bill's text. Instead, it indicates a goal to 'clarify treatment... under' the Act, which is consistent with the new focus on administrative and bilateral procedures rather than direct statutory change.
Before
The original bill title was 'To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft containing nonedible migratory bird parts, and for other purposes.'
After
The amended bill title reads: 'A bill to clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft containing nonedible migratory bird parts under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and for other purposes.'
Scope
Fundamental restructuring — Changes are concentrated in the core operative sections (Purpose and Clarification for Alaska Native Articles), but these changes fundamentally alter the bill's mechanism and reach. — v2 represents a fundamental change in policy direction. It shifts from directly amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to provide statutory clarification for Alaska Native handicrafts to directing administrative and bilateral procedures, and it drastically narrows the scope of international treaties addressed. — The changes in v2 remove the direct interaction with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act's statutory text that was present in v1. Instead, v2's directives for administrative action will interact with existing regulations implementing the MBTA, potentially leading to modifications of those regulations rather than the statute itself.
Impact analysis
Alaska Natives who create and sell authentic articles of handicraft containing nonedible migratory bird parts
Procedural change with potential for reduced clarity and scope of protection.
In v1, these individuals would have received a direct statutory clarification within the MBTA regarding the legality of their articles across four treaties. In v2, the statutory clarification is removed. Instead, the treatment of their articles will depend on the outcome of bilateral procedures and discretionary regulatory modifications, limited to the U.S.-Japan treaty.
U.S. federal agencies (Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, USFWS Law Enforcement Office)
Reduced scope of mandatory action, increased discretion, and new procedural requirements.
In v1, these agencies were mandated to implement a direct statutory amendment to the MBTA and engage in bilateral procedures for four treaties. In v2, the direct MBTA amendment is removed. The Secretary of State is now directed to engage in bilateral procedures for only one treaty, and the Secretary of the Interior may modify regulations, with new consultation requirements and specific considerations.
Migratory bird species of conservation concern
Increased potential for protection and conservation measures.
v2 introduces a new provision allowing the Secretary of the Interior to modify regulations to remove species from application if they show significant population declines or are Birds of Conservation Concern. This provision was not present in v1.
Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council and Pacific Flyway Council
Increased participation and influence in policy implementation.
v2 explicitly includes these entities in the consultation process for modifying regulations and in developing outreach resources. This direct involvement was not specified in v1.