[House Report 113-596]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-596
======================================================================
EXPEDITED DEPARTURE OF CERTAIN SNAKE SPECIES ACT
_______
September 15, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2158]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2158) to exempt from the Lacey Act Amendments of
1981 the expedited removal from the United States of certain
snake species, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Expedited Departure of Certain Snake
Species Act''.
SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT.
(a) In General.--For purposes of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), a qualified stop of a covered snake shall not be
treated as occurring in interstate commerce.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered snake.--The term ``covered snake'' means any--
(A) Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus);
(B) Indian python (Python molurus molurus);
(C) Northern African python (Python sebae);
(D) Southern African python (Python natalensis); and
(E) Yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus).
(2) Designated airport.--The term ``designated airport''
means an airport located at a designated port as defined by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service under section 14.12 of
title 50, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Qualified secure container.--The term ``qualified secure
container'' means a container that--
(A) contains the covered snake in a closely woven,
double-seam sewn, cloth sack that is in a second cloth
sack of similar construction; and
(B) on which there is a prominent label that states
``Dangerous Reptiles''.
(4) Qualified stop.--The term ``qualified stop''--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (C), means any
intermediate stop in a designated airport of a covered
snake in a qualified secure container in the course of
transport of such snake that--
(i) begins in a designated airport; and
(ii) ends at a place outside of the United
States not later than 48 hours after such
transport begins;
(B) may include transfer of the qualified secure
container in an airport between aircraft used for such
transport outside of the United States; and
(C) does not include any stop in Hawaii.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 2158 is to exempt from the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 the expedited removal from the United States
of certain snake species.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
In 1900, Congress enacted legislation now termed the Lacey
Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) to support the efforts of states
to protect their resident game and birds. It prevented hunters
from killing game in one state and escaping prosecution by
moving it across state lines. It criminalizes the shipment of
parts or bodies of ``wild animals or birds'' killed in
violation of a state law. In addition, the law established an
``injurious wildlife'' category where non-native wildlife that
were causing problems for native wildlife or habitat can be
controlled by prohibiting the importation and interstate
commerce of these species.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 230
species that have been listed as ``injurious wildlife''
including 142 species of fish, mollusks, crustaceans; 79 mammal
species; five species of reptiles; and four species of birds.
The Lacey Act does not regulate intrastate commerce,
possession, the breeding of a listed species or the export of a
listed species. According to the Service, ``this means that you
can export a listed snake without acquiring authorization under
the Lacey Act. While you can export specimens of these four
species, you cannot pass State lines while transporting
specimens to an airport, and the plane cannot land in another
State while in transit to its final destination.''
It is this interpretation that has caused great difficulty
for individuals and companies who desire to sell these listed
species to customers outside of the United States. It is even
counterproductive to the stated goals of the Service to reduce
the population of these four species by removing them from this
country. For example, a small business owner in the State of
Florida had completed a sale of ten listed Burmese pythons to a
reptile breeder in Indonesia, which ironically is the native
habitat of these snakes. Unfortunately, he was told that he
could not ship these snakes on a plane leaving the ``designated
port'' of Miami, Florida, because that flight had to stop in
Anchorage, Alaska, which is also a designated port, to take on
fuel to complete its transit to Jakarta, Indonesia. Despite the
fact that the shipper had obtained all of the necessary
permits, the Service defined the stop in Alaska as interstate
commerce. In addition, small businesses in California are
having great difficulty shipping their listed snake species to
Europe because many flights from the West Coast must stop in
Newark, New Jersey, or JFK Airport in New York.
H.R. 2158 is a narrow modification of the Lacey Act. It
only affects these five snake species. Prior to its listing,
the Burmese python was widely held and traded throughout the
United States. There are no other species on the ``injurious
wildlife'' list that even remotely approached the $1 billion
economic value of these snakes. The bill limits the
transportation of three snakes outside of the United States in
a commercial air plane. The measure does not expand the list of
designated ports identified in federal regulations (50 CFR
14.12) and removes Honolulu, Hawaii, as an eligible port. It
does not alleviate the need to obtain appropriate export
permits nor does it forgive the payment of export permit fees,
wildlife inspection fees or other required costs. All
appropriate state laws must be complied with prior to shipment.
Upon arrival at one of the 17 designated ports, the snakes
and their permits will be examined by a Service wildlife
inspector, the snakes must be transported in a secure
container, and the snakes are held in a secure cargo location
prior to being placed on an airline. In addition, an
international airway bill must be obtained. This is a receipt
issued by an international airline for goods and it is evidence
of the contract of carriage. It is the most important document
issued to the shipper either directly by the airline or its
authorized agent.
This legislation will stipulate that the export of these
five species of nonnative snakes will not trigger the
interstate commerce restrictions of the Lacey Act as long as
these snakes leave the United States from one of the 17
designated ports, only stops at another designated port, and
their transit ends in a foreign country no later than 48 hours
after leaving the first designated port. The remaining eligible
``designated ports'' include Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta,
Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago,
Illinois; Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Houston, Texas; Los
Angeles, California; Louisville, Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee,
Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York;
Newark, New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco,
California; and Seattle, Washington.
According to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and
the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers, there are at least 30
small businesses in this country who would find the
clarification contained within the Expedited Departure of
Certain Snake Species Act helpful. The majority of these
companies are located in Florida, California and Texas.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2158 was introduced on May 23, 2013, by Congressman
John Fleming (R-LA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs. On July
25, 2013, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and
Insular Affairs held a hearing on the bill. On July 16, 2014,
the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman John
Fleming (R-LA) offered an amendment designated .001 to the
bill; the amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The bill
as amended was then adopted and ordered favorably reported to
the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 2158--Expedited Departure of Certain Snake Species Act
H.R. 2158 would allow exporters of certain species of
snakes to transport those snakes between airports within the
United States en route to foreign countries. The bill also
would allow those snakes to be transferred between planes at
airports in the United States. Because those species, which
include the Burmese python, Indian Python, Northern and
Southern African pythons, and the yellow anaconda, are
classified as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act, they must
be transported from certain airports in the United States
directly to foreign airports under current law.
Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the agency responsible for enforcing the Lacey Act,
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2158 would not affect the
federal budget. Because enacting the bill would not affect
direct spending or revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures do not
apply.
H.R. 2158 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget
authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase
or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. Based on
information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
agency responsible for enforcing the Lacey Act, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 2158 would not affect the federal
budget.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to exempt from the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 the expedited removal from the United States
of certain snake species.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 2158 would exempt from certain interstate commerce
restrictions for four species of large constrictor snakes
listed as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. While
amendments added at Committee markup improved this legislation
significantly over the introduced version, we cannot support
the core concept of the bill: exporting invasive species to
other countries.
In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
proposed listing nine large constrictor snake species as
injurious under the Lacey Act, which would have banned their
import, export, and movement across state lines. A report by
the U.S. Geologic Survey noted that while individuals of these
species had only established themselves in the wild in South
Florida and Puerto Rico, a number of southern states, Hawaii,
and all of the U.S. insular areas have suitable habitat and
climate to support their survival. In particular the Burmese
python, which can grow to over 18 feet in length, could
potentially establish populations throughout the South, and as
far north as Delaware and Oregon. After public comment and
review of the proposed rule by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), the final rule, established in January 2012, was
limited to four species: the Burmese python, the yellow
anaconda, and the northern and southern African pythons.
H.R. 2158 was introduced by Fish, Wildlife, Oceans and
Insular Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Fleming (R-LA) on May 23,
2013. It exempts the four injurious species of constrictor
snakes from Lacey Act interstate commerce restrictions if the
snakes are being shipped to a destination outside the United
States. Airplanes carrying the snakes would be allowed to make
stops within the United States, with the exception of Hawaii,
for the purposes of refueling or taking on cargo or passengers.
One major concern with the bill as introduced was the
likelihood of snakes escaping during transport. At markup, the
Committee adopted an amendment to define the type of secure
container necessary for transporting the snakes, and to clarify
that stops may only be made at one of the 18 designated ports
for wildlife trade (excepting Honolulu). This amendment was a
welcome addition, but does not address all of our concerns with
the bill.
By allowing this exemption, the United States would be
encouraging owners of these dangerous and environmentally
destructive reptiles to export their problems to other
countries whose laws have not yet caught up with ours. That is
not responsible public policy. It is also likely that the
Service will soon list as injurious several more of the
constrictor snake species originally proposed in 2010, which
would create a confusing inconsistency for law enforcement and
snake owners should this bill become law. For these reasons, I
oppose H.R. 2158 as reported.
Peter DeFazio.