39–006 

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). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

(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. DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:32 Sep 20, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR596.XXX HR596

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

spite 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(6) 

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. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING