79–006 

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.’’. 

2 

(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 

3 

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: 

4 


Insert offset folio 5 here HR562.001
5 

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-yougo 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. 

6 

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 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 13. Conforming amendments.¿ 

Sec. 13. Limitation on treatment of certain species as endangered species or threatened species. 

* * * * * * * 

7 

øCONFORMING AMENDMENTS

øSEC. 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.’’ 

ø(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,’’. 

ø(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: 

ø‘‘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: 

ø‘‘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.’’ 

ø(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— 

ø‘‘(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, 

ø‘‘(2) the protection of natural resources, 

ø‘‘(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 

ø‘‘(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. 

ø(e) The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 

1361–1407) is amended— 

ø(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’’; 

ø(2) by striking out ‘‘pursuant to the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of 1969’’ in section 101(a)(3)(B) thereof and 

8 

inserting in lieu thereof the following: ‘‘or threatened species 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973’’; 

ø(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 

ø(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’’. 

ø(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. 

* * * * * * * 

(9) 

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. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, Committee 

on Natural Resources. 

DARREN SOTO. 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR. 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN. 

ALAN LOWENTHAL. 

10 

JARED HUFFMAN. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. COLLEEN HANABUSA. NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N. 

Æ