Hearing of the House Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee - Why Should Americans Have to Comply with the Laws of Foreign Nations?"

Hearing

Good afternoon, today, the Subcommittee will continue its oversight examination of
the Lacey Act by focusing on the provision of that law that requires American
citizens to comply with the laws of foreign nations.

Article 1 of our Constitution stipulates that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

While I am not a constitutional expert, I find nothing in that landmark document
that allows the Congress to delegate law making authority to foreign countries. However, that is essentially what the Congress did in 1935 when the Lacey Act was
amended to prohibit the importation of all wildlife taken contrary to a foreign law.

If I had been a member of the 74th Congress, I would have voted against that
provision because it is simply wrong to force American citizens to comply with the
laws of other nations.

Regrettably, the 2008 Amendments have significantly compounded this problem.
Instead of having to comply with a limited number of foreign laws, by expanding
coverage to include plant and plant products this has triggered literally tens of
thousands of foreign laws.

In addition because of federal court decisions, the term "foreign law" has now been
greatly expanded to include foreign regulations, foreign resolutions, and foreign
decrees and thanks to the 2003 U. S. v. McNab case "other such legally binding
provisions that foreign governments may promulgate."

Based on testimony we received, there is no database of those foreign laws and frankly the federal enforcement agencies have no idea how many were triggered by
the 2008 Amendments. Yet, we are allowing our federal courts to send our constituents to overcrowded federal prisons for violating laws enacted not only by
the British Parliament but also the National People's Congress of the People's
Republic of China, the National Assembly of Venezuela and the National Congress of
Honduras.

This is truly madness and I agree with the Heritage Foundation that this "violates
one of the fundamental tenets of Anglo-American common law: that "men of
common intelligence" must be able to understand what a law means. No one should
be forced to run the risk of conviction and imprisonment for making a mistake
under foreign law."

It is one thing for an American living abroad to comply with the laws where they are
living. It is quite another to convict one of our citizens living here for violating the
laws of one of the 192 countries recognized by the United Nations. The Lacey Act
demands that you know every law - civil and administrative as well as criminal - of
every foreign land. This is simply wrong.

During the course oftoday's testimony, I am interested in finding out from our
distinguished panel of witnesses the legislative history explaining the rationale for
requiring compliance with foreign laws, why the Congress has never provided a
definition for the term "foreign law" and why this provision is even necessary in the
Lacey Act that we are willing to sacrifice the freedom and liberty of our citizens.

Source