Admin raises concerns about 4 GOP bills to amend Lacey Act

E&E News
By Jessica Estepa
February 28, 2014

Witnesses and members of a House Natural Resources subpanel yesterday hotly debated proposed changes to a federal law meant to protect wildlife, curb trafficking and keep invasive species out of the United States.

The disagreements came over four pieces of legislation that would make changes to the Lacey Act, under which it's illegal to import, export, sell, acquire or purchase wildlife or plants that were illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold.

The most contested piece was Rep. Rick Crawford's (R-Ark.) H.R. 3105. The measure, known as the "Aquaculture Risk Reduction Act," was written to exempt from federal penalties people who accidentally transfer across state lines undocumented animals that are considered injurious under the Lacey Act.

Crawford said he introduced the legislation because of concerns from his constituents who are involved in the aquaculture industry. They worried that they would face high fines as well as jail time.

But William Woody, chief of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Office of Law Enforcement, said that would never happen. His officers only enforce such penalties if the people who have transferred injurious species across state lines intended to do so, he said.

What the legislation would actually do is create an "unacceptable loophole," he said. He was backed up by Democrats on the subcommittee, who repeatedly asked witnesses to confirm that no one had actually faced penalties for accidentally moving injurious species.

But Crawford refused to take Woody at his word.

"I don't think my constituents have just cooked up this notion," he said.

His beliefs were seconded by Mike Freeze, president of the National Aquaculture Association. Freeze noted that the Lacey Act, written in 1900, existed long before aquaculture did. His point: The act itself does not specifically state that it will not convict people who accidentally transferred invasives.

"Why not codify this?" he asked.

Obama administration witnesses also took issue with H.R. 3280, a measure from subcommittee Chairman John Fleming (R-Ga.) that would exclude plants imported into the United States before May 22, 2008 -- the date when the 2008 Lacey Act amendments became law -- from the Lacey Act.

Fleming said it was simply a provision supported by federal agencies that could not be done administratively.

But Woody and Michael Watson, executive director of the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said that they believe the issue would be best dealt with through policy, not legislation.

Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) expressed concerns that the measure would end up allowing more illegally harvested timber to enter the U.S. market.

The subcommittee also looked at:

H.R. 3324, sponsored by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and known as the "Lacey Act Paperwork Reducation Act." The bill was opposed by FWS. Woody said there were concerns about the legislation's elimination of document filing requirements, which are meant to discourage illegal logging and put an end to timber trafficking.
H.R. 4032, from Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas). The bill would allow the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority to transfer water out of a lake that sits on the Oklahoma-Texas border, even if it contains invasive species. Despite the enaction of similar legislation that specifically addressed zebra mussels in the 112th Congress, Woody said the administration opposed the legislation because it would set a precedent for site-specific legislative exemptions.