PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-562
======================================================================
SAVING AMERICA'S ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
_______
February 15, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2603]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2603) to amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 to provide that nonnative species in the United States
shall not be treated as endangered species or threatened
species for purposes of that Act, 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 ``Saving America's Vulnerable and
Endangered Species Act'' or the ``SAVES Act''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON TREATMENT OF NONNATIVE SPECIES IN THE UNITED
STATES AS ENDANGERED SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES.
(a) Limitation.--Section 13 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(relating to amendments to other laws, which have executed) is amended
to read as follows:
``limitation on treatment of certain species as endangered species or
threatened species
``Sec. 13. (a) Limitation.--The species described in subsection (b)
shall not be treated or listed as endangered species or threatened
species for purposes of this Act.
``(b) Covered Species.--The species referred to in subsection (a) are
species that are not native to the United States.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section
of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to section 13 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 13. Limitation on treatment of certain species as endangered
species or threatened species.''.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 2603 is to amend the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 to provide that nonnative species in the United
States shall not be treated as endangered species or threatened
species for purposes of that Act.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) includes protections for nonnative endangered species in
an effort to encourage foreign nations to protect jeopardized
species and their habitats abroad. Nonnative endangered species
are regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under
the ESA through the captive bred wildlife (CBW) program.
Legal captive breeding of nonnative endangered species is a
conservation measure that can create healthy populations of
animals to augment recovery of wild populations, decrease
illegal wildlife trafficking, and increase educational
opportunities relating to the species. While no federal permit
is required to own listed nonnative species, those wishing to
sell or buy nonnative endangered species across state lines,
including zoos and private breeders, must obtain a CBW permit
from FWS. This permit applies only to living, exotic wildlife
born and held in captivity in the United States and requires
that such activities ``enhance the propagation or survival of
the affected species'' (FWS, Captive-bred Wildlife Registration
under the ESA, 50 C.F.R. 17.3).
Delays or denials in CBW permit processes can jeopardize
the viability of captive breeding operations and compromise the
genetic diversity of the involved species. Such delays or
denials often present a conservation loss for the species at a
financial loss to the owners. Those in the industry have
publicly expressed the difficulties they face under the current
implementation of the ESA. One such group, the Parrot Fund,
stated in a July 7, 2017, letter to Congressman Louie Gohmert
that ``it is nearly impossible to maintain viable populations
of non-native species in captivity because of the time
consuming, costly and often conflicting regulations that owners
must contend with.''
Many zoos, animal breeders, and private owners that
participate in captive breeding efforts have expressed concerns
about the onerous permit and permit maintenance procedures
required by FWS and have expressed support for this measure.
For example, the owner of the Zoo of Acadiana, stated in a July
7, 2017, letter to Congress that his zoo's access to genetic
diversity has been hampered by the listing of nonnative species
as endangered and that managed breeding programs such as theirs
``are truly stifled by ESA listings as interstate movement is
largely prohibited and the licenses to allow this, called CBW
permits, are becoming difficult to renew''. Stakeholders also
are concerned that the CBW program does not consider their
species expertise in CBW permit or programmatic decisions.
According to the President of the National Aquaculture Program
in a July 7, 2017, letter to Congress, there is currently
little flexibility within the ESA to allow for recognition of
the expertise that exists within the aquaculture community,
which could help further conservation and recovery of at-risk
species.
H.R. 2603 would effectively eliminate the duplicative
requirement for CBW permits for nonnative endangered species in
the United States and held in captivity. Ease of transfer
across State lines would enhance conservation and welfare of
the species by allowing owners, breeders, and conservators of
the species to ensure robust, and genetically diverse
populations continue to exist in the United States.
This bill would not increase the likelihood of
international wildlife trafficking because such matters are
regulated under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, an international
agreement between 183 member nations that protects endangered
nonnative species from the perils of international wildlife
trafficking.
Section-by-Section Analysis of Text Ordered Reported
Section 1. Short title
The Act may be referred to as the Saving America's
Vulnerable Endangered Species Act or the SAVES Act.
Section 2. Limitation on treatment of nonnative species in the United
States as endangered species or threatened species
Subsection (a) amends Section 13 of the ESA to restrict
species not native to the United States from being treated as
endangered or threatened for purposes of this Act.
Subsection (b) amends the ESA table of contents to reflect
the limitation contained in this Act.
Committee Action
H.R. 2603 was introduced on May 23, 2017, by Congressman
Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources. On July 19, 2017, the Committee held a
hearing on the bill. On October 3, 2017, the Natural Resources
Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman Louie Gohmert
offered an amendment designated #1; it was adopted by voice
vote. No further amendments were offered and the bill, as
amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives on October 4, 2017, by a roll call vote of 23
ayes and 16 noes, as follows:
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 and Congressional Budget Act
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 13, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2603, the SAVES
Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2603--SAVES Act
H.R. 2603 would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) from treating nonnative species as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That change
would eliminate certain permitting requirements under the ESA
related to the handling of those species. Based on an analysis
of information provided by USFWS, CBO estimates that
implementing the bill would have no significant effect on the
federal budget.
Enacting H.R. 2603 would reduce offsetting receipts, which
are treated as reductions in direct spending, from fees for
permits issued under the ESA related to the handling of non-
native species; those fees can be subsequently spent without
appropriation action. Because enacting the bill would affect
direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO
estimates that the net effect on direct spending would be
negligible. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2603 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $2.5
billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods
beginning in 2028.
H.R. 2603 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. 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 provide that nonnative species in
the United States shall not be treated as endangered species or
threatened species for purposes of that Act.
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. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
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 Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Endangered Species Act of 1973''.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 13. Conforming amendments.]
Sec. 13. Limitation on treatment of certain species as endangered
species or threatened species.
* * * * * * *
[conforming amendments
[Sec. 13. (a) Subsection 4(c) of the Act of October 15,1966
(80 Stat. 928, 16 U.S.C. 668dd(c)), is further amended by
revising the second sentence thereof to read as follows: ``With
the exception of endangered species and threatened species
listed by the Secretary pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 in States wherein a cooperative agreement
does not exist pursuant to section 6(c) of that Act, nothing in
this Act shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to
control or regulate hunting or fishing of resident fish and
wildlife on lands not within the system.''
[(b) Subsection 10(a) of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act
(45 Stat. 1224, 16 U.S.C. 715i(a)) and subsection 401(a) of the
Act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 383,16 U.S.C. 715s(a)), are each
amended by Striking out ``threatened with extinction,'' and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``listed pursuant to
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as endangered
species or threatened species,''.
[(c) Section 7(a)(1) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601--9(a) (1)) is amended by striking
out:
[``Threatened Species.--For any national area which
may be authorized for the preservation of species of
fish or wildlife that are threatened with extinction.''
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
[``Endangered Species and Threatened Species.--For
lands, waters, or interests therein, the acquisition of
which is authorized under section 5 (a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, needed for the purpose
of conserving endangered or threatened species of fish
or wildlife or plants.''
[(d) The first sentence of section 2 of the Act of September
28,1962, as amended (76 Stat. 653, 16 U.S.C. 460k-l), is
amended to read as follow:
``The Secretary is authorized to acquire areas of land, or
interests therein, which are suitable for--
[``(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development,
[``(2) the protection of natural resources,
[``(3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species listed by the Secretary pursuant to
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or
[``(4) carrying out two or more of the purposes set
forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section,
and are adjacent to, or within, the said conservation
areas, except that the acquisition of any land or
interest therein pursuant to this section shall be
accomplished only with such funds as may be
appropriated therefor by the Congress or donated for
such purposes, but such property shall not be acquired
with funds obtained from the sale of Federal migratory
bird hunting stamps.
[(e) The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1361-1407) is amended--
[(1) by striking out ``Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969'' in section 3(1)(B) thereof
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``Endangered Species Act of 1973'';
[(2) by striking out ``pursuant to the Endangered
Species Conservation Act of 1969'' in section
101(a)(3)(B) thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: ``or threatened species pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973'';
[(3) by striking out ``endangered under the
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969'' in
section 102(b)(3) thereof and inserting in lieu thereof
the following: ``an endangered species or threatened
species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973''; and
[(4) by striking out ``of the Interior such revisions
of the Endangered Species List, authorized by the
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969,'' in
section 202(a)(6) thereof and inserting in lieu thereof
the following: ``such revisions of the endangered
species list and threatened species list published
pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973''.
[(f) Section 2(l) of the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-516) is amended by striking
out the words ``by the Secretary of the Interior under Public
Law 91-135'' and inserting in lieu thereof the words ``or
threatened by the Secretary pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act of 1973''. ]
LIMITATION ON TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SPECIES AS ENDANGERED SPECIES OR
THREATENED SPECIES
Sec. 13. (a) Limitation.--The species described in subsection
(b) shall not be treated or listed as endangered species or
threatened species for purposes of this Act.
(b) Covered Species.--The species referred to in subsection
(a) are species that are not native to the United States.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 2603 would eliminate Endangered Species Act (ESA)
permitting requirements for breeding and transporting exotic
animals in the United States, even if those species are on the
brink of extinction. The Majority argued at markup that the
bill would help captive breeding efforts that recover species,
but the Association of Zoos and Aquariums--the highly respected
authority on captive breeding of endangered wildlife--disagrees
and opposes the bill.
In reality, the bill's aim is to make it easier for
roadside zoos that lack meaningful standards for animal care to
mistreat and commercialize imperiled species, and to facilitate
breeding and hunting of three species of African antelope that
have been established at game ranches in Texas.
The bill would also overturn regulations put in place by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2016 to restrict domestic
sales of African elephant ivory, and would create a major
loophole for wildlife traffickers, as non-native threatened and
endangered species would no longer be treated as such once
imported into the United States. These species could then be
traded or re-exported without an ESA permit. This would be true
not only for live specimens but also for parts and products.
H.R. 2603 would undermine decades of progress toward
fighting wildlife trafficking and associated organized crime
syndicates and terrorist groups. The involvement of Chinese
triads in the rhino horn trade has been well documented, as has
the link between poached elephant ivory and organizations like
Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army and the al-Qaeda affiliate
al-Shabaab. Central and South American drug cartels have also
been implicated in wildlife trafficking. Doing our part to
protect foreign endangered species is important to public
safety and regional stability, in addition to being good
conservation policy.
The Majority's argument that species would still be
protected under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) shows a fundamental misunderstanding
of the law. Not every species listed under CITES has the same
protections as species listed under the ESA, and not every
species listed under the ESA is listed under CITES. For these
reasons, we oppose the bill as reported.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources.
Darren Soto.
Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
A. Donald McEachin.
Alan Lowenthal.
Jared Huffman.
Grace F. Napolitano.
Colleen Hanabusa.
Nanette Diaz Barragan.
[all]