```

[House Report 115-562]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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]
```