89–010 

Calendar No. 365 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–180 

A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO 

INCLUDE CONSTRICTOR SNAKES OF THE SPECIES 

PYTHON GENERA AS AN INJURIOUS ANIMAL 

MAY 5, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 373] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred a bill (S. 373) to amend section 42 of title 18, United 

States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python 

molurus (including Python bivittatus (also known as ‘‘Python 

molurus bivittatus’’)), Broghammerus reticulatus (also known as 

‘‘Python reticulatus’’), Python sebae, Python natalensis (also known 

as ‘‘Python sebae natalensis’’), Boa constrictor, Eunectes notaeus, 

Eunectes deschauenseei, Eunectes murinus, or Eunectes beniensis 

after ‘‘polymorpha’’ as injurious animals, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

This bill, as introduced, would amend the Lacey Act to add constrictor snakes of the species Python genera to the list of injurious 

species, found in 18 U.S.C. § 42(a)(1). This action would halt the 

importation and interstate trade of the listed species. 

Thousands of Burmese Pythons are now breeding in the Florida 

Everglades, and threaten many imperiled species and other wildVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:16 May 07, 2010 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR180.XXX SR180

sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

life. In addition other species of large snakes are or may be breeding in the Everglades including the Boa Constrictors and Northern 

African Pythons. Addressing the threat of invasive species is a key 

component of protecting and restoring the rich biological diversity 

of the Everglades ecosystem. 

In June 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) received a request from the South Florida Water Management District to list Burmese Pythons as an injurious species under the 

Lacey Act. At the time the petition was submitted, no scientific information had been compiled on Burmese Pythons that would enable a rigorous assessment of risk and potential impacts to the Everglades and other ecosystems. As a result, in 2007, USFWS 

partnered with the National Park Service to jointly provide funds 

to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) towards completion of a risk 

assessment of nine non-native boa, anaconda, and python species 

considered invasive or potentially invasive in the United States. 

USGS finalized the risk assessment report entitled: Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment 

Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and 

the Boa Constrictor on October 13, 2009. The assessment considered what effects these species could have on the ecology of the 

United States if they became established in the wild. 

According to the assessment, of the nine large constrictor snakes 

that were evaluated, five were shown to pose a high risk to the 

health of the ecosystem, including the Burmese Python, Northern 

African Python, Southern African Python, Yellow Anaconda, and 

Boa Constrictor. The remaining four large constrictors—the Reticulated Python, Green Anaconda, Beni or Bolivian Anaconda, and 

Deschauensee’s Anaconda—were shown to pose a medium risk. 

None of the large constrictors that were assessed was classified as 

low risk. As compared to many other vertebrates, giant constrictors 

pose a relatively high risk as potential invasive species, especially 

in terms of risk to stability of native ecosystems. There are currently no tools available that appear adequate for eradication of an 

established population of giant snakes once they have spread over 

a large area. 

The introduced version of S. 373 proposed listing species of the 

entire Python genus as injurious. During a hearing of the Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water 

and Wildlife on December 3, 2009, USFWS testified that some of 

the species in the genus Python are not considered large constrictors and may not pose a threat. The USFWS recommended that S. 

373 be amended to specifically include the nine species of large constrictor snakes that USGS evaluated in its risk assessment. In a 

letter dated December 7, 2009, to Senator Bill Nelson, the bill’s 

sponsor, Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, also recommended 

that S. 373 be amended to include only the nine species of giant 

constrictor snakes included in the USGS risk assessment. The full 

committee considered the bill and adopted an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute to list only the nine species of constrictor 

snakes addressed in the October 13, 2009, USGS risk assessment 

as injurious species. 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

Amends the Lacey Act to include nine species of giant constrictor 

snakes to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from 

being traded in interstate commerce or imported into the United 

States. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Importation of shipment of injurious species 

Section 1 amends the Lacey Act to add the following non-native 

constrictor snakes to the list of injurious species that are prohibited 

from being traded in interstate commerce or imported into the 

United States: Burmese Python (Python molurus including Python 

bivittatus (also known as ‘‘Python molurus bivittatus’’)), Reticulated 

Python (Broghammerus reticulatus (also known as ‘‘Python 

reticulatus’’)), Northern African Python (Python sebae), Southern 

African Python (Python natalensis (also known as ‘‘Python sebea 

natalensis’’)), Boa Constrictor (Boa constrictor), Yellow Anaconda 

(Eunectes notaeus), DeSchauensee’s Anaconda (Eunectes 

deschauenseei), Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus), and Beni or 

Bolivian Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis). 

Parenthetical references for species names were included in the 

amended text to reference the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species (CITES) taxonomy and thereby minimize 

confusion for enforcement and prosecution of violations of the Act. 

It is the Committee’s intent that the USFWS amend its regulations, as necessary, to reflect any future taxonomic re-designations 

of the included species. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On February 3, 2009, Senator Bill Nelson (FL–D) introduced legislation to amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to list 

all species of the entire Python genus as injurious. The bill was received, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. A companion bill was introduced in the 

House of Representatives on June 10, 2009, by Representative 

Meek (D–FL–17). 

The Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Environment and 

Public Works Committee held a legislative hearing on December 3, 

2009, entitled ‘‘Threats to Native Wildlife Species,’’ to consider a 

number of wildlife bills, including S. 373. 

On December 10, 2009, the full Environment and Public Works 

Committee met to consider the bill and adopted an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to add the nine species of constrictor 

snakes addressed in the October 13, 2009, USGS risk assessment. 

S. 373 as amended was reported favorably by voice vote with Senator Inhofe recorded as voting no. 

HEARINGS

On July 8, 2009, the Senate Committee Environment and Public 

Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife and Subcommittee on 

Oversight held a joint oversight hearing entitled ‘‘Threats to Native 

Wildlife Species.’’ This hearing examined threats to native wildlife 

species from disease and from invasive species. Senator Bill Nelson 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

testified at this hearing on his bill and the dangers Burmese 

Pythons pose to Florida’s ecosystems and to human safety. 

On December 3, 2009, the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of 

the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a legislative hearing on multiple wildlife and invasive species bills, including S. 373. The Deputy Director of the USFWS as well as a 

representative of The Nature Conservancy testified in support of 

the legislation provided it was limited to the nine species of nonnative constrictor snakes evaluated by the USGS. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 373 on December 10, 2009. The bill was ordered to be reported favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 

by voice vote with Senator Inhofe recorded as voting no. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee finds that S. 373 does not create any additional regulatory burdens, nor will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the committee noted that the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO) has found, ‘‘the direct costs of the mandates 

would fall below the annual thresholds established in UMRA [Unfunded Mandates Reform Act] for intergovernmental and privatesector mandates ($70 million and $141 million in 2010, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation).’’ 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JANUARY 21, 2010. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on the Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 373, a bill to amend title 

18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species 

Python genera as an injurious animal. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, I will be pleased to 

provide them. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 373—A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 373 would have no significant cost to the federal government. Enacting the bill could affect 

direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant. 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

S. 373 would make it a federal crime to import or ship certain 

snakes into the United States. Because the bill would establish a 

new offense, the government would be able to pursue cases that it 

otherwise would not be able to prosecute. We expect that S. 373 

would apply to a relatively small number of offenders, so any increase in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. Any such costs would be subject 

to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 373 could be 

subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded 

as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. 

CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct spending 

would not be significant because of the small number of cases likely 

to be affected. 

Under S. 373, entities such as zoos would need permits to import 

or transport the affected species of snakes. Based on information 

provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which 

issues permits for such activities, CBO estimates that enacting the 

bill could result in an increase in offsetting collections (for permits) 

and associated spending. We estimate that such increases would be 

minimal, however, and would offset each other in most years, resulting in no significant net cost. 

By prohibiting the importation and interstate transport of several species of python, anaconda, and boa constrictor without a permit from USFWS, the bill would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act, UMRA, USFWS is authorized to issue permits for scientific, 

medical, educational, or zoological reasons. 

The cost to public and private entities that are eligible for permits, such as zoos or research centers, would be the expense of obtaining those permits. Fees for private entities would be $25 or 

$100 depending on the activity being authorized. (USFWS regulations prohibit the agency from charging permit fees to state, local, 

or tribal entities.) The cost of the mandate to those ineligible for 

a permit, including private importers, breeders, retailers, shippers, 

and owners of those snakes, would be the forgone net income from 

the inability to sell or transport the animals across state lines. According to the USFWS, exporting those species of snakes would be 

allowed, however, only from ports designated by the USFWS. 

Based on information about the cost of permits from the USFWS 

and information gathered from individuals in the industry about 

the value of shipments, sales, and imports of species covered by the 

legislation, CBO estimates that the direct costs of the mandates 

would fall below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for 

intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($70 million and 

$141 million in 2010, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). 

On October 9, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

2811, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal, 

as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 

July 29, 2009. The two bills are similar, and the CBO cost estimates are the same. 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(6) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR INHOFE 

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held 

a series of hearings on S. 373, along with several other bills that 

addressed the possible threats posed by particular non-native species to the environment. In the context of S. 373, I believe we must 

be cautious about new laws that interfere with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management practices, as they could impose changes 

to environmental laws with little or no input from stakeholders, industry and other federal agencies. As we chart a course of action 

to address harmful species, we must be careful to avoid subverting 

or overturning established processes within the Department of Interior for determining the threat a particular species may have on 

the environment. 

Any policy that Congress considers for invasive species should include a reasonable ‘‘risk analysis’’ process with input from states 

and industry. Unfortunately, S. 373 takes a different and less effective approach and was reported out of Committee on December 10, 

2009 despite my opposition. 

PROPOSED RULE FOR LISTING GIANT CONSTRICTOR SNAKES AS

INJURIOUS WILDLIFE

On March 11, 2010, the United States Fish and Wildlife service 

announced that it would move forward with the official administrative process of banning the importation, export and interstate 

transport of 9 species of constrictor snakes. I believe this is the appropriate way to proceed in assessing the threats posed by various 

constrictor snake species. Unlike S. 373, this rule-making process 

will ensure that all stakeholder views and sound peer-reviewed 

science are given fair consideration. 

This bill circumvents the established process for listing a species 

as ‘‘injurious’’ under the Lacey Act and sets a dangerous precedent 

for future instances of legislative fiat as it pertains to scientific determinations of species and their habitats. I would oppose moving 

forward with this bill, in light of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s ongoing rule making process to address the potential threats constrictor snakes may pose to human health and the environment. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(7) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in øblack brackets¿, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 42. Importation or shipment of injurious mammals, birds, 

fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibia, and reptiles; 

permits, specimens for museums; regulations. 

(a)(1) The importation into the United States, any territory of the 

United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, or any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession 

of the United States, of the mongoose of the species Herpestes 

auropunctatus; of the species of so-called ‘‘flying foxes’’ or fruit bats 

of the genus Pteropus; of the zebra mussel of the species Dreissena 

polymorpha; of any existing or subsequently discovered member of 

the species Python molurus (including Python bivittatus (also 

known as ‘‘Python molurus bivittatus’’)), Broghammerus reticulatus 

(also known as ‘‘Python reticulatus’’), Python sebae, Python 

natalensis (also known as ‘‘Python sebae natalensis’’), Boa constrictor, Eunectes notaeus, Eunectes deschauenseei, Eunectes 

murinus, or Eunectes beniensis and such other species of wild 

mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, reptiles, brown tree snakes, or the offspring or eggs of 

any of the foregoing which the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation to be injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States, is hereby prohibited. All such 

prohibited mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and 

crustacea), amphibians, and reptiles, and the eggs or offspring 

therefrom, shall be promptly exported or destroyed at the expense 

of the importer or consignee. Nothing in this section shall be construed to repeal or modify any provision of the Public Health Service Act or Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Also, this section 

shall not authorize any action with respect to the importation of 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

any plant pest as defined in the Federal Plant Pest Act, insofar as 

such importation is subject to regulation under that Act. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING