Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-882

======================================================================



 
                      LEGAL TIMBER PROTECTION ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 24, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1497]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1497) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to 
extend its protections to plants illegally harvested outside of 
the United States, 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 ``Legal Timber Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL LOGGING PRACTICES.

  (a) In General.--The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 are amended--
          (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 3371)--
                  (A) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the 
                following:
  ``(f) Plant.--
          ``(1) In general.--The term `plant' means any wild member of 
        the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, and products 
        thereof.
          ``(2) Exclusions.--The term `plant' excludes any common food 
        crop or cultivar that is a species not listed--
                  ``(A) in the Convention on International Trade in 
                Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 
                1087; TIAS 8249); or
                  ``(B) as an endangered or threatened species under 
                the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
                seq.).'';
                  (B) in subsection (h), by inserting ``also'' after 
                ``plants the term''; and
                  (C) by striking subsection (j) and inserting the 
                following:
  ``(j) Take.--The term `take' means--
          ``(1) to capture, kill, or collect; and
          ``(2) with respect to a plant, also to harvest, cut, log, or 
        remove.'';
          (2) in section 3 (16 U.S.C. 3372)--
                  (A) in subsection (a)--
                          (i) in paragraph (2), by striking 
                        subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
                  ``(B) any plant--
                          ``(i) taken, transported, possessed, or sold 
                        in violation of any law or regulation of any 
                        State, or any foreign law, that protects plants 
                        or that regulates--
                                  ``(I) the theft of plants;
                                  ``(II) the taking of plants from a 
                                park, forest reserve, or other 
                                officially protected area;
                                  ``(III) the taking of plants from an 
                                officially designated area; or
                                  ``(IV) the taking of plants without, 
                                or contrary to, required authorization;
                          ``(ii) taken, transported, or exported 
                        without the payment of appropriate royalties, 
                        taxes, or stumpage fees required for such plant 
                        by any law or regulation of any State or by any 
                        foreign law; or
                          ``(iii) exported or transshipped in violation 
                        of any limitation under any law or regulation 
                        of any State or under any foreign law; or''; 
                        and
                          (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking 
                        subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
                  ``(B) to possess any plant--
                          ``(i) taken, transported, possessed, or sold 
                        in violation of any law or regulation of any 
                        State, or any foreign law, that protects plants 
                        or that regulates--
                                  ``(I) the theft of plants;
                                  ``(II) the taking of plants from a 
                                park, forest reserve, or other 
                                officially protected area;
                                  ``(III) the taking of plants from an 
                                officially designated area; or
                                  ``(IV) the taking of plants without, 
                                or contrary to, required authorization;
                          ``(ii) taken, transported, or exported 
                        without the payment of appropriate royalties, 
                        taxes, or stumpage fees required for such plant 
                        by any law or regulation of any State or by any 
                        foreign law; or
                          ``(iii) exported or transshipped in violation 
                        of any limitation under any law or regulation 
                        of any State or under any foreign law; or''; 
                        and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(f) Plant Declarations.--
          ``(1) In general.--Effective 180 days from the date of 
        enactment of this subsection and except as provided in 
        paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to import 
        any plant unless the person files upon importation where 
        clearance is requested a declaration that contains--
                  ``(A) the scientific name of any plant (including the 
                genus and species of the plant) contained in the 
                importation;
                  ``(B) a description of--
                          ``(i) the value of the importation; and
                          ``(ii) the quantity, including the unit of 
                        measure, of the plant; and
                  ``(C) the name of the country from which the plant 
                was taken.
          ``(2) Declaration relating to plant products.--Until the date 
        on which the Secretary promulgates a regulation under paragraph 
        (6), a declaration relating to a plant product shall--
                  ``(A) in the case in which the species of plant used 
                to produce the plant product that is the subject of the 
                importation varies, and the species used to produce the 
                plant product is unknown, contain the name of each 
                species of plant that may have been used to produce the 
                plant product; and
                  ``(B) in the case in which the species of plant used 
                to produce the plant product that is the subject of the 
                importation is commonly taken from more than 1 country, 
                and the country from which the plant was taken and used 
                to produce the plant product is unknown, contain the 
                name of each country from which the plant may have been 
                taken.
          ``(3) Exclusions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to 
        plants used exclusively as packaging material to support, 
        protect, or carry another item, unless the packaging material 
        itself is the item being imported.
          ``(4) Review.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall review the 
        implementation of each requirement described in paragraphs (1) 
        and (2) and the effect of the exclusions in paragraph (3).
          ``(5) Report.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
                date on which the Secretary completes the review under 
                paragraph (4), the Secretary shall submit to the 
                appropriate committees of Congress a report 
                containing--
                          ``(i) an evaluation of--
                                  ``(I) the effectiveness of each type 
                                of information required under 
                                paragraphs (1) and (2) in assisting 
                                enforcement of section 3; and
                                  ``(II) the potential to harmonize 
                                each requirement described in 
                                paragraphs (1) and (2) with other 
                                applicable import regulations in 
                                existence as of the date of the report;
                          ``(ii) recommendations for such legislation 
                        as the Secretary determines to be appropriate 
                        to assist in the identification of plants that 
                        are imported into the United States in 
                        violation of section 3; and
                          ``(iii) an analysis of the effect of the 
                        provisions of subsection (a) and (f) on--
                                  ``(I) the cost of legal plant 
                                imports; and
                                  ``(II) the extent and methodology of 
                                illegal logging practices and 
                                trafficking.
                  ``(B) Public participation.--In conducting the review 
                under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall provide public 
                notice and an opportunity for comment.
          ``(6) Promulgation of regulations.--Not later than 180 days 
        after the date on which the Secretary completes the review 
        under paragraph (4), the Secretary may promulgate regulations--
                  ``(A) to limit the applicability of any requirement 
                described in paragraph (2) to specific plant products;
                  ``(B) to make any other necessary modification to any 
                requirement described in paragraph (2), as determined 
                by the Secretary based on the review under paragraph 
                (4); and
                  ``(C) to limit the scope of exclusion in paragraph 
                (3) if warranted as a result of the review under 
                paragraph (4).'';
          (3) in section 7(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 3376(a)(1)), by striking 
        ``section 4'' and inserting ``section 3(f), section 4,'';
          (4) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 3373)--
                  (A) by striking ``subsections (b) and (d)'' each 
                place it appears and inserting ``subsections (b), (d), 
                and (f)'';
                  (B) by inserting ``or section 3(f)'' after ``section 
                3(d)'' each place it appears; and
                  (C) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``or who 
                violates subsection 3(f) other than as provided in 
                paragraph (1)'' after ``subsection 3(b)''; and
          (5) by adding at the end of section 5 (16 U.S.C. 3374) the 
        following:
  ``(d) Civil Forfeitures.--Civil forfeitures under this section shall 
be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, United States 
Code.''.
  (b) Technical Correction.--
          (1) Correction.--Section 102(c) of Public Law 100-653 is 
        amended--
                  (A) by inserting ``of the Lacey Act Amendments of 
                1981'' after ``Section 4''; and
                  (B) by striking ``(other than section 3(b))'' and 
                inserting ``(other than subsection 3(b))''.
          (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall be effective 
        immediately upon the effectiveness of section 102(c) of Public 
        Law 100-653.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1497 is to amend the Lacey Act 
Amendments of 1981 to extend its protections to plants 
illegally harvested outside of the United States, and for other 
purposes.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    According to the World Bank, widespread failure of forest 
governance--characterized by illegal logging, associated 
illegal trade, and corruption--directly undermines any nation's 
attempt to achieve sustainable economic growth, societal 
equity, and environmental conservation. Within developing 
countries, one billion extremely poor people depend on forests 
for part of their livelihoods and as many as 350 million people 
living in and around forests are heavily dependent on forests 
for their livelihoods and security. These vulnerable 
populations are at risk from the illegal logging that removes 
timber from their forests.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\World Bank, Strengthening Forest Law Enforcement and Governance: 
Addressing a Systemic Constraint to Sustainable Development. Report No. 
36638-GLB, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Illegal logging also undermines responsible forest 
enterprises in these countries by distorting timber markets 
with unfair competition and price undercutting. It also 
threatens the conservation of forest resources, wildlife, and 
biodiversity as forests are converted to grasslands, plant 
species are depleted, and animal species dependent on forest 
habitat are either killed during the logging efforts or decline 
once the habitat is destroyed. Finally, illegal logging results 
in a loss of revenue from taxes and royalties that could be 
invested in sustainable forest management or economic 
development. In fact, the World Bank estimates the (global) 
annual market value of losses from illegal cutting of forests 
at over $10 billion U.S.--more than eight times the total 
official developmental assistance that is spent on sustainable 
forest management efforts.\2\ In short, the impacts are 
staggering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\World Bank Report No. 36638-GLB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many regard Indonesia as one of the most dramatic examples 
of the impacts that result from illegal logging. The rate of 
deforestation in Indonesia is among the worst globally, and 
commercial logging, most of which is illegal, is the primary 
cause of that deforestation. In 1950, forests covered 84 
percent of the country, but more recently, it has been 
estimated that at least 40 percent of the forests have been 
cleared.\3\ Currently, illegally cut wood is estimated to 
comprise 73-88 percent of the total supply coming from 
Indonesia,\4\ and the country continues to lose about five 
million acres of forests per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Forest Watch Indonesia and Global Forest Watch, The State of the 
Forest: Indonesia, 2002.
    \4\Schroeder-Wildberg, E. and A. Carius. Illegal Logging, conflicts 
and the business sector in Indonesia, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a recent summary of studies compiled by the 
Congressional Research Service, the situation in Indonesia is 
hardly unique. In Cambodia, 90 percent of the logging is 
estimated to be illegal. In the Philippines, sixteen million 
hectares of forests that once existed have been reduced to less 
than 100,000 today, largely due to illegal logging, and in 
Brazil, 80 percent of the logging in the Brazilian rainforest 
is considered illegal. These are just a few examples of the 
impacts that are being felt throughout Southeast Asia and Latin 
America.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\CRS Report for Congress, Illegal Logging: Background and Issues, 
Order Code RL33932, March 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Illegal logging and the importation of wood and wood 
products that come from illegally harvested logs also unfairly 
compete with U.S. wood and wood products industries and 
undercut U.S. prices. According to a recent report published by 
the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA;), illegal 
logging costs the U.S. roughly $1 billion every year in lost 
exports and lower domestic prices due to the importation of 
illegal wood. Specifically, the AF&PA; report found that 
illegally harvested logs can be processed for as much as 50 
percent less than legal logs and cheap, illegal timber 
artificially depresses world timber prices on average between 
7-16 percent and U.S. prices from 2-4 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\American Forest & Paper Association, ``Illegal'' Logging and 
Global Wood Markets, November 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are several relevant multilateral and international 
agreements intended to address illegal logging and the illegal 
timber trade, ranging from voluntary to legally binding 
multilateral agreements that enable signatory governments to 
seize illegal products. The recent CRS report summarizes the 
advantages and disadvantages of these agreements which include 
wood certification programs, the United Nations Forum on 
Forests, the International Tropical Timber Organization, 
several World Bank efforts, and the G8 Illegal Logging 
Dialogue.\7\ Yet despite these many efforts, the problems of 
illegal logging continue to persist as described above, driven 
by the demand for products that are developed from illegally 
harvested wood and the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms 
in both exporting and consumer countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\CRS Report, Order Code RL33932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is estimated that the European Union, for example, 
imports three billion British pounds' worth of illegally logged 
wood each year from the Amazon Basin, the Baltic, the Congo, 
East Africa, Indonesia, and Russia.\8\ China is a major 
importer of timber from Gabon, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and 
Mozambique--all of which export illegally harvested timber. 
Much of that timber is manufactured into products that are 
exported to the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\World Wildlife Fund, Failing Forests: Europe's Illegal Timber 
Trade, November 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States is the world's largest wood products 
consumer and one of the top importers of tropical hardwoods, 
primarily from Latin American and Southeast Asia. For example, 
the U.S. imports approximately one-third of its tropical 
plywood and tropical furniture, as well as a significant amount 
of paper, from Indonesia. Imports come directly from Indonesia 
and via other countries such as China.\9\ We are also the 
largest importer of Peruvian bigleaf mahogany, estimated by 
some to be as much as 80 percent illegally logged.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Hewitt, J., ``The USA's Direct and Indirect Imports of Products 
Based on Wood from Indonesia's Forests: A Statistical Assessment and an 
Introduction to the Supply Chain in the USA.'' World Wildlife Fund 
report, 2003.
    \10\Natural Resources Defense Council, Trade in Bigleaf Mahogany: 
The Need for Strict Implementation of CITES, September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the Department of Justice, however, there is 
no legal mechanism that currently exists in U.S. law to 
preclude the importation of wood and wood products known to be 
illegally harvested in other countries.
    The illegal timber trade is not the only trade involving 
illegally harvested plants that are entering the United States, 
however. Federal agencies regularly receive information 
regarding the illegal export of plants such as yuccas, agaves, 
and ocotillos from Mexico, and devils claw from southern 
Africa. In such cases, plants that are protected in foreign 
countries are being illegally collected and then imported into 
the United States. These countries pass on the information 
regarding illegal shipments seeking assistance to stop the 
illegal trade. Like illegal timber, unfortunately, there are no 
enforcement mechanisms under current law to stop these 
shipments unless the species are listed under the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora or the Endangered Species Act.

                         THE LACEY ACT OF 1981

    The Lacey Act was first enacted in 1900. Amendments in 1981 
repealed the Black Bass Act and sections 43 and 44 of the Lacey 
Act of 1900 (18 U.S.C. 43-44), replacing them with a single 
comprehensive statute. The law has been amended several times 
since then.
    Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful for any person to--(1) 
import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase any fish, wildlife 
or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation 
of U.S. law or regulation or in violation of any Indian tribal 
law; or (2) import, export, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase 
in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife, taken, 
possessed, transported, or sold in violation of State or 
foreign law or any plant taken, possessed, transported or sold 
in violation of any State law. There are misdemeanor felony 
criminal and civil penalties for violations of the Act, and 
strict liability is established for forfeiture of illegal fish, 
wildlife or plants.
    The law applies to all fish and wildlife and their parts or 
products, but is much more narrow in its protection of plants. 
The Lacey Act currently only applies to species of plants that 
are native to the United States and that are specifically 
protected either under State law or the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora, and it currently does not apply to plants that are 
protected under foreign laws.
    Because the Lacey Act does not extend to plants that are 
taken, transported, or sold in violation of foreign laws, the 
U.S. government is not able to use the criminal and civil 
penalties of the Act to preclude the importation of wood and 
wood products or other plants and plant products harvested in 
violation of the laws of foreign governments or to seize such 
illegally harvested plants and products when they enter the 
United States. According to Justice Department enforcement 
officials, changes to the Lacey Act that would extend its 
coverage to plants taken in violation of foreign laws would 
allow law enforcement officers to initiate actions similar to 
those they now use for fish and wildlife products taken in 
violation of foreign laws.
    H.R. 1497 would make such changes to the Lacey Act. 
Specifically the bill would amend the prohibited acts section 
of the law to make it unlawful to import any plant taken in 
violation of foreign laws related to the harvest, taking and 
protection of plants or any product made from such a plant.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 1497 was introduced by Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR) 
on March 13, 2007 and has 43 co-sponsors. The bill was referred 
to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee 
to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. H.R. 
1497 was the subject of a Subcommittee hearing on October 16, 
2007. A witness for the Department of Justice testified that 
the Administration supported amending the Lacey Act to provide 
enforcement agencies with adequate and clearly defined legal 
tools to address illegal logging and trafficking of foreign 
timber. The Administration also identified some concerns with 
specific provisions in the bill, many of them technical in 
nature.
    In addition, the Environmental Investigation Agency, the 
American Forest & Paper Association, and the Hardwood 
Federation all testified in favor of the legislation with some 
suggested changes.
    A representative of the International Wood Products 
Association (IWPA) opposed the bill, citing concerns with the 
broad reach of the definition of ``any foreign law,'' the 
documentation requirements, and the strict forfeiture 
requirements of the Lacey Act.
    On November 7, 2007, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, 
Wildlife and Oceans was discharged from further consideration 
of H.R. 1497, and the Committee on Natural Resources considered 
the bill. Chairman Rahall offered an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute that made the following changes to address many of 
the concerns that had been raised about the bill as introduced. 
First, it narrowed the scope of the bill to clarify that it 
applies to the violation of laws or regulations related to the 
protection of plants from harvesting, cutting, logging, removal 
and shipment without legal authority, and not to the violation 
of ``any'' foreign or State law. Second, it made clear that the 
penalties related to plant declarations requirements would be 
similar to those applicable for fish and wildlife declarations. 
It also excluded packing materials used to ship goods, like 
paper and pallets, from the declaration requirements and made 
other minor technical changes suggested by the Administration.
    Finally, the amendment included language that reaffirmed 
the application of the civil forfeiture provisions of Chapter 
46 of Title 18 to the forfeiture provisions of the Lacey Act. 
According to the Justice Department, these provisions already 
apply to all forfeiture laws unless a law is explicitly 
exempted--which the Lacey Act is not.
    The amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted by 
voice vote. The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 cites this Act as the ``Legal Timber Protection 
Act''.

Section 2. Prevention of illegal logging practices

    Section 2 of the bill makes several changes to the Lacey 
Act Amendments of 1981.
    First, it amends the definition of plant in Section 2 of 
the Act (16 U.S.C. 3371) to include all plants and plant 
products, including those that are protected under foreign 
laws. It maintains, however, the exemption in current law for 
common food crops and cultivars unless they are listed under 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora or under the Endangered Species Act. The 
Committee notes that none of the amendments to the term 
``plant'' are intended to diminish the authority of the 
Secretaries to enforce the provisions of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora or the Endangered Species Act.
    The bill also expands the definition of ``take'' with 
respect to plants to include ``harvest, cut, log, or remove.'' 
It further amends the definition of Secretary to include the 
Secretaries of Commerce and Interior with respect to the plant 
provisions.
    Next, it amends Section 3 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3372), the 
Prohibited Acts section, to make it unlawful for any person to 
import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase 
in interstate or foreign commerce any plant taken, transported, 
possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign laws enacted 
to protect plants from harvest, shipment, or export without 
legal authority. It also makes it unlawful to possess plants 
within the maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 
States that were taken, transported, possessed, or sold in 
violation of such State or foreign laws. These provisions are 
intended to identify the particular violations that are 
prohibited acts with respect to plants and to differentiate 
them from the violations in the Act that apply to fish and 
wildlife.
    Specifically, paragraph (i) covers laws that regulate the 
theft of plants, the taking of plants from national parks and 
``other officially designated areas,'' and the taking of plants 
in violation of a required authorization. The reference to 
``other officially designated areas'' is intended to include 
laws relating to the taking of plants from specific geographic 
features such as stream beds as well as any specific locations 
or areas other than national parks or nature reserves. 
Paragraph (ii) covers laws that require appropriate royalties, 
stumpage fees, or export taxes and is intended to address 
reported concerns regarding under-reporting of exports or 
cutting for the purposes of avoiding payments. Paragraph (iii) 
covers laws limiting the export of plants, e.g. log export bans 
or quotas, or the ``transshipment'' of plants, which can be 
utilized to mask the origin of the plant during transportation 
through an intermediate port.
    It also adds a new subsection (f) to Section 3, making it 
unlawful for any person to import a plant without filing an 
accompanying declaration that identifies the scientific name of 
the plant, the value and quantity of the plant being imported, 
and the name of the country from which the plant was taken. 
Where the species and country of origin cannot be specified 
because the shipment contains products with multiple possible 
species and/or countries of origin, the declaration may list 
the possibilities. These declaration requirements become 
effective 180 days after enactment.
    The bill excludes from the declaration requirement wood and 
paper packing materials used exclusively to support, protect, 
or carry another item. This exclusion does not apply if the 
packing materials are the actual item being imported.
    The Secretary is directed to review within two years of 
enactment, with public participation, the declaration 
requirements and exclusions. Within 180 days of completion of 
the review, the Secretary must report to Congress with an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the information collected, 
any recommendations for further legislation, and an analysis of 
the effect of the bill on the cost of legal imports and on 
illegal logging.
    Also within 180 days of the completion of the review, the 
Secretary may issue regulations to limit or modify the use of 
the provision for declarations involving multiple species and 
countries of origin and to adjust the exclusion for packing 
materials.
    Amendments to Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3373) make 
clear that the penalties related to violations of plant 
declarations requirements would be similar to those applicable 
for fish and wildlife declarations.
    Amendments to Section 5 (16 U.S.C. 3374) add a new 
subsection (d) to reaffirm, as has been the case since 2000, 
that the civil forfeiture provisions of the Act are governed by 
the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code. 
This reference is technical and is intended to aid the reader 
of title 16 who may not be familiar with the civil forfeiture 
procedures in title 18. It is not intended to make any 
substantive change in the law that governs civil forfeiture 
actions under the Lacey Act. Nor does the Committee intend for 
it to call into question existing legal precedent as it relates 
to the application of the Lacey Act in criminal, civil or 
forfeiture proceedings. Since 1981, when substantive amendments 
were adopted, the Act has provided for forfeiture of fish, 
wildlife, and plants on a strict liability basis when 
violations of the Lacey Act are found.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\See Senate Report No. 97-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill amends the rulemaking authority in section 7 of 
the Act (16 U.S.C. 3376) to allow the Secretary to issue 
regulations to establish the process for submission of 
declarations. The responsibility and cost of compilation and 
review of these declarations is a matter exclusively assigned 
to the Secretary.
    Finally, the bill makes a technical correction to Public 
Law 100-653, executing an amendment to the Act that was made in 
that law, but that could not execute as written, because the 
words that the amendment struck did not appear in the statute. 
Without this technical correction, an amendment in H.R. 1497 to 
the same provision would not execute.

            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.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority 
to enact this bill.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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)(3)(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.
    2. 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.
    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 amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 
1981 to extend its protections to plants illegally harvested 
outside the United States and for other purposes (16 U.S.C. 
3371 et seq.).
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. 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. 1497--Legal Timber Protection Act

    Summary: H.R. 1497 would expand the Lacey Act to protect 
certain plant species, including trees. Currently, the Lacy Act 
generally prohibits interstate and international trafficking in 
protected wildlife. Violators of prohibitions imposed by this 
bill would be subject to criminal and civil penalties. CBO 
estimates that implementing the bill would cost the federal 
government $40 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill could 
increase revenue collections from penalties, but we estimate 
that any such increases would be small and largely offset by 
direct spending of those collections.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 
direct costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 1497 contains private-sector mandates, as defined in 
UMRA, on importers of timber and timber products. CBO cannot 
determine whether the aggregate cost of the mandates in the 
bill would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for 
private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1497 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 350 
(agriculture) and 750 (administration of justice).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  By fiscal year in millions of dollars--

                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level...       5      10      10      10      10
Estimated Outlays...............       3       7      10      10      10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: H.R. 1497 would make it illegal to 
harvest, import, export, transport, sell, receive, or possess 
timber and other plants (including products made from them) 
that were taken or transported in violation of any state or 
foreign law. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would 
enforce the prohibitions.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 1497 would cost about $40 
million over the 2008-2012 period. That amount includes $10 
million over the first two years for up-front costs to 
promulgate regulations, develop a legal and technical database 
and hire, equip, and train CBP and APHIS staff. We estimate 
that the remaining $30 million would be spent over the 
following three years to conduct inspections and investigations 
to enforce the legislation. This estimate is based on the cost 
of other enforcement activities conducted under the Lacey Act 
and on information provided by the affected agencies.
    Enacting H.R. 1497 could increase revenues from civil and 
criminal fines. Based on information obtained from APHIS about 
the relatively small number of violations likely to occur, CBO 
estimates that any such increase would be less than $500,000 
annually. Moreover, such changes would be fully offset by 
increases in direct spending, primarily for enforcement 
expenses.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 1497 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no direct costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1497 contains 
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. It would prohibit 
importing timber taken in violation of foreign laws specified 
in the bill and prohibit importing products made from such 
timber. According to testimony by the Department of Justice, 
importing such timber currently does not violate U.S. laws. In 
addition, the bill would require importers to report additional 
information when importing timber or timber products.
    CBO expects that the administrative costs incurred by 
importers would be relatively small. However, because of 
uncertainty about the U.S. markets for imports of timber 
obtained in violation of foreign laws or products made from 
such timber, CBO cannot estimate the loss in net income to 
importers of those commodities. Consequently, CBO cannot 
determine whether the aggregate cost of all the mandates in the 
bill would exceed the annual threshold ($131 million in 2007, 
adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrill; 
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                           Earmark Statement

    H.R. 1497 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9(d), 9(e) or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                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 italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this Act:
  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) The terms ``plant'' and ``plants'' mean any wild member 
of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, and other parts 
thereof (but excluding common food crops and cultivars) which 
is indigenous to any State and which is either (A) listed on an 
appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or (B) listed pursuant to any 
State law that provides for the conservation of species 
threatened with extinction.]
  (f) Plant.--
          (1) In general.--The term ``plant'' means any wild 
        member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, 
        parts, and products thereof.
          (2) Exclusions.--The term ``plant'' excludes any 
        common food crop or cultivar that is a species not 
        listed--
                  (A) in the Convention on International Trade 
                in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
                (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); or
                  (B) as an endangered or threatened species 
                under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
                U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) The term ``Secretary'' means, except as otherwise 
provided in the Act, the Secretary of the Interior or the 
Secretary of Commerce, as program responsibilities are vested 
pursuant to the provisions of Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 
1970 (84 Stat. 2090); except that with respect to the 
provisions of this Act which pertain to the importation or 
exportation of plants the term also means the Secretary of 
Agriculture.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(j) The term ``taken'' means captured, killed, or 
collected.]
  (j) Take.--The term ``take'' means--
          (1) to capture, kill, or collect; and
          (2) with respect to a plant, also to harvest, cut, 
        log, or remove.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS.

  (a) Offenses Other Than Marking Offenses.--It is unlawful for 
any person--
          (1) * * *
          (2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, 
        acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign 
        commerce--
                  (A) * * *
                  [(B) any plant taken, possessed, transported, 
                or sold in violation of any law or regulation 
                of any State; or]
                  (B) any plant--
                          (i) taken, transported, possessed, or 
                        sold in violation of any law or 
                        regulation of any State, or any foreign 
                        law, that protects plants or that 
                        regulates--
                                  (I) the theft of plants;
                                  (II) the taking of plants 
                                from a park, forest reserve, or 
                                other officially protected 
                                area;
                                  (III) the taking of plants 
                                from an officially designated 
                                area; or
                                  (IV) the taking of plants 
                                without, or contrary to, 
                                required authorization;
                          (ii) taken, transported, or exported 
                        without the payment of appropriate 
                        royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees 
                        required for such plant by any law or 
                        regulation of any State or by any 
                        foreign law; or
                          (iii) exported or transshipped in 
                        violation of any limitation under any 
                        law or regulation of any State or under 
                        any foreign law; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) within the special maritime and territorial 
        jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in 
        section 7 of title 18, United States Code)--
                  (A) * * *
                  [(B) to possess any plant taken, possessed, 
                transported, or sold in violation of any law or 
                regulation of any State; or]
                  (B) to possess any plant--
                          (i) taken, transported, possessed, or 
                        sold in violation of any law or 
                        regulation of any State, or any foreign 
                        law, that protects plants or that 
                        regulates--
                                  (I) the theft of plants;
                                  (II) the taking of plants 
                                from a park, forest reserve, or 
                                other officially protected 
                                area;
                                  (III) the taking of plants 
                                from an officially designated 
                                area; or
                                  (IV) the taking of plants 
                                without, or contrary to, 
                                required authorization;
                          (ii) taken, transported, or exported 
                        without the payment of appropriate 
                        royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees 
                        required for such plant by any law or 
                        regulation of any State or by any 
                        foreign law; or
                          (iii) exported or transshipped in 
                        violation of any limitation under any 
                        law or regulation of any State or under 
                        any foreign law; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Plant Declarations.--
          (1) In general.--Effective 180 days from the date of 
        enactment of this subsection and except as provided in 
        paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to 
        import any plant unless the person files upon 
        importation where clearance is requested a declaration 
        that contains--
                  (A) the scientific name of any plant 
                (including the genus and species of the plant) 
                contained in the importation;
                  (B) a description of--
                          (i) the value of the importation; and
                          (ii) the quantity, including the unit 
                        of measure, of the plant; and
                  (C) the name of the country from which the 
                plant was taken.
          (2) Declaration relating to plant products.--Until 
        the date on which the Secretary promulgates a 
        regulation under paragraph (6), a declaration relating 
        to a plant product shall--
                  (A) in the case in which the species of plant 
                used to produce the plant product that is the 
                subject of the importation varies, and the 
                species used to produce the plant product is 
                unknown, contain the name of each species of 
                plant that may have been used to produce the 
                plant product; and
                  (B) in the case in which the species of plant 
                used to produce the plant product that is the 
                subject of the importation is commonly taken 
                from more than 1 country, and the country from 
                which the plant was taken and used to produce 
                the plant product is unknown, contain the name 
                of each country from which the plant may have 
                been taken.
          (3) Exclusions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not 
        apply to plants used exclusively as packaging material 
        to support, protect, or carry another item, unless the 
        packaging material itself is the item being imported.
          (4) Review.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
        review the implementation of each requirement described 
        in paragraphs (1) and (2) and the effect of the 
        exclusions in paragraph (3).
          (5) Report.--
                  (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days 
                after the date on which the Secretary completes 
                the review under paragraph (4), the Secretary 
                shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
                Congress a report containing--
                          (i) an evaluation of--
                                  (I) the effectiveness of each 
                                type of information required 
                                under paragraphs (1) and (2) in 
                                assisting enforcement of 
                                section 3; and
                                  (II) the potential to 
                                harmonize each requirement 
                                described in paragraphs (1) and 
                                (2) with other applicable 
                                import regulations in existence 
                                as of the date of the report;
                          (ii) recommendations for such 
                        legislation as the Secretary determines 
                        to be appropriate to assist in the 
                        identification of plants that are 
                        imported into the United States in 
                        violation of section 3; and
                          (iii) an analysis of the effect of 
                        the provisions of subsection (a) and 
                        (f) on--
                                  (I) the cost of legal plant 
                                imports; and
                                  (II) the extent and 
                                methodology of illegal logging 
                                practices and trafficking.
                  (B) Public participation.--In conducting the 
                review under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall 
                provide public notice and an opportunity for 
                comment.
          (6) Promulgation of regulations.--Not later than 180 
        days after the date on which the Secretary completes 
        the review under paragraph (4), the Secretary may 
        promulgate regulations--
                  (A) to limit the applicability of any 
                requirement described in paragraph (2) to 
                specific plant products;
                  (B) to make any other necessary modification 
                to any requirement described in paragraph (2), 
                as determined by the Secretary based on the 
                review under paragraph (4); and
                  (C) to limit the scope of exclusion in 
                paragraph (3) if warranted as a result of the 
                review under paragraph (4).

SEC. 4. PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS.

  (a) Civil Penalties.--
          (1) Any person who engages in conduct prohibited by 
        any provision of this Act [(other than subsection 
        3(b))] (other than subsections (b), (d), and (f) of 
        section 3) and in the exercise of due care should know 
        that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, 
        possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in 
        a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty, or 
        regulation, may be assessed a civil penalty by the 
        Secretary of not more than $10,000 for each such 
        violation: Provided, That when the violation involves 
        fish or wildlife or plants with a market value of less 
        than $350, and involves only the transportation, 
        acquisition, or receipt of fish or wildlife or plants 
        taken or possessed in violation of any law, treaty, or 
        regulation of the United States, any Indian tribal law, 
        any foreign law, or any law or regulation of any State, 
        the penalty assessed shall not exceed the maximum 
        provided for violation of said law, treaty, or 
        regulation, and any person who knowingly violates 
        section 3(d) or section 3(f), or $10,000, whichever is 
        less.
          (2) Any person who violates subsection 3(b) or who 
        violates subsection 3(f) other than as provided in 
        paragraph (1) may be assessed a civil penalty by the 
        Secretary of not more than $250.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Criminal Penalties.--
          (1) Any person who--
                  (A) knowingly imports or exports any fish or 
                wildlife or plants in violation of any 
                provision of this Act [(other than subsection 
                3(b))] (other than subsections (b), (d), and 
                (f) of section 3), or
                  (B) violates any provision of this Act 
                [(other than subsection 3(b))] (other than 
                subsections (b), (d), and (f) of section 3) by 
                knowingly engaging in conduct that involves the 
                sale or purchase of, the offer of sale or 
                purchase of, or the intent to sell or purchase, 
                fish or wildlife or plants with a market value 
                in excess of $350,
        knowing that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, 
        possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in 
        a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty or 
        regulation, shall be fined not more than $20,000, or 
        imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. Each 
        violation shall be a separate offense and the offense 
        shall be deemed to have been committed not only in the 
        district where the violation first occurred, but also 
        in any district in which the defendant may have taken 
        or been in possession of the said fish or wildlife or 
        plants.
          (2) Any person who knowingly engages in conduct 
        prohibited by any provision of this Act [(other than 
        subsection 3(b))] (other than subsections (b), (d), and 
        (f) of section 3) and in the exercise of due care 
        should know that the fish or wildlife or plants were 
        taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, 
        or in a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, 
        treaty or regulation shall be fined not more than 
        $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or 
        both. Each violation shall be a separate offense and 
        the offense shall be deemed to have been committed not 
        only in the district where the violation first 
        occurred, but also in any district in which the 
        defendant may have taken or been in possession of the 
        said fish or wildlife or plants.
          (3) Any person who knowingly violates section 3(d) or 
        section 3(f)--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Permit Sanctions.--The Secretary may also suspend, 
modify, or cancel any Federal hunting or fishing license, 
permit, or stamp, or any license or permit authorizing a person 
to import or export fish or wildlife or plants (other than a 
permit or license issued pursuant to the Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act of 1976 ), or to operate a quarantine 
station or rescue center for imported wildlife or plants, 
issued to any person who is convicted of a criminal violation 
of any provision of this Act or any regulation issued 
hereunder. The Secretary shall not be liable for the payments 
of any compensation, reimbursement, or damages in connection 
with the modification, suspension, or revocation of any 
licenses, permits, stamps, or other agreements pursuant to this 
section.

SEC. 5. FORFEITURE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Civil Forfeitures.--Civil forfeitures under this section 
shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, 
United States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.

  (a) Regulations.--
          (1) The Secretary, after consultation with the 
        Secretary of the Treasury, is authorized to issue such 
        regulations, except as provided in paragraph (2), as 
        may be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
        [section 4] section 3(f), section 4, and section 5 of 
        this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                     SECTION 102 OF PUBLIC 100-653

SEC. 102. PENALTY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4 of the Lacey Act 
Amendments of 1981 is amended in subsections (a)(1), (d)(1)(A), 
(d)(1)(B), and (d)(2) by striking ``[(other than section 3(b))] 
(other than subsection 3(b))'' each place those words appear 
and inserting in lieu thereof ``(other than subsections (b) and 
(d) of section 3)''.



                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    While the House Natural Resources Committee favorably 
reported this legislation to the House of Representatives by 
voice vote, I wanted to express my views on several important 
features of this measure. I am first of all deeply disappointed 
that the Department of Justice has consistently refused to even 
try to enforce existing laws to stop the illegal importation of 
logs or other wood products. In fact, during our Subcommittee 
hearing on H. R. 1497, the Department testified that: ``We 
believe that existing U. S. laws do not adequately address this 
problem.'' In my questions for the record, I asked the 
Department why they have not utilized the National Stolen 
Property Act of 1948, the Cultural Property Act of 1983 and 
existing money-laundering statutes which are designed to stop 
illegal logging. It is my hope that before this legislation 
becomes law, we will hear a credible explanation as to why 
these laws were inadequate.
    H.R. 1497 includes language applying the General Rules for 
Civil Forfeiture Proceedings known as the Civil Asset 
Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). Inclusion of this 
language in this bill clearly reaffirms that Congressional 
intent is for CAFRA to apply to Lacey Act forfeiture 
procedures. Adding this language to H.R. 1497 reinforces 
Congress' intent to provide ``innocent owner'' forfeiture 
liability protection within the Lacey Act.
    ``Innocent owner'' provides to claimants in forfeiture 
proceedings an opportunity to mount--as an affirmative 
defense--their assertion that disputed shipments were acquired 
lawfully, through the exercise of ``due care''. Otherwise, as 
in the current Lacey Act, claimants are held to a ``strict 
liability'' standard, where mere possession of disputed goods 
constitutes grounds for forfeiture. Without access to an 
``innocent owner'' defense, importers and supply chain members 
are vulnerable to seizure and civil forfeiture without the 
opportunity to demonstrate ``due care'' in their acquisition of 
disputed shipments. Owing to prosecutorial abuse in forfeiture 
cases, the Congress in 2000 enacted the Civil Asset Forfeiture 
Reform Act, making clear that ``innocent owner'' is available 
to all claimants, except in cases involving possession of 
contraband or goods which are inherently illegal to possess.
    Under Lacey, the entire supply chain handling imported 
plant material is held responsible for illegal acts of which 
they would have no reasonable expectation to know the violation 
much less know the underlying laws that exist in all foreign 
countries. Amending the Lacey Act to include reaffirmation of 
CAFRA provides important forfeiture liability protection for 
``innocent owners.''
    Despite enactment of CAFRA in 2000, presumably superseding 
the strict liability provisions of the Lacey Act, there is an 
unmistakable trend toward diminution of the innocent owner 
provisions. Recent case law had effectively exempted Lacey Act 
forfeitures from the ``innocent owner'' defense, through an 
expansive interpretation of contraband and goods which it is 
inherently illegal to possess. In U.S. v. 144,774 Pounds of 
Blue King Crab, crab was taken in violation of Russian vessel 
tracking laws, about which the U.S. importer had no knowledge. 
The importer argued that blue king crab did not constitute 
``property that it is illegal to possess'', and that he was 
therefore entitled to utilize the ``innocent owner'' defense 
under forfeiture law.
    The federal Court of Appeals disagreed, stating: ``we hold 
that Deep Sea may not raise an innocent-owner defense here 
because, if the government can establish (under the Lacey Act) 
that the crab was taken, possessed, transported, or sold in a 
way that rendered it illegal under Russian law, the crab is 
`property that it is illegal to possess' for the purposes of 18 
U.S.C. Section 983(d)(4). This interpretation effectively 
expanded to all Lacey Act violations the bar to availability of 
the ``innocent owner'' defense, even when an importer can 
demonstrate that he is without knowledge of a foreign 
violation, and had exercised ``due care'' to assure the 
legality of a given shipment.
    Importantly, Customs also has brought Lacey Act forfeiture 
actions against importers who believed they had legitimate 
exception permits to export illegal animals or animal products. 
The specificity of language in H.R. 1497 and specific reference 
to CAFRA subsequent to the Blue Crab case are intended to 
clearly show that it is Congress' intent to provide ``innocent 
owner'' in forfeiture proceedings under the Lacey Act.
    It is also important to note that Lacey Act does not define 
the term ``foreign law.'' In the absence of such definition, 
the courts have interpreted the phase ``any foreign law'' 
extremely broadly in the content of fish and wildlife taken in 
contravention of any foreign law. See e.g. United States v. 
McNab, 331 F.3d 1228, 1235-39 (11th Cir. 2003) (interpreting 
``any foreign law'' to include non-statutory provisions such as 
foreign regulations, resolutions, or decrees); United States v. 
One Afghan Urial Ovis Orientalis Blanfordi Fully Mounted Sheep, 
964 F.2d 474, 477-78 (5th Cir. 1992) and United States v. Lee, 
937 F2d 1388, 1390-92 (9th Cir. 1991).
    In an effort to provide more specific guidance to U.S. 
importers, and to constrain the broad interpretations that 
Federal courts have placed on the term ``any foreign law,'' the 
language in H.R. 1497 defines equally both ``State'' and 
``foreign law'' in 16 U.S.C. Section 3372 to include only those 
laws which relate to policy objectives of the Lacey Act, those 
intended specifically to promote the protection or conservation 
of threatened or endangered plants.
    Finally, it is my hope that prior to bringing this 
legislation to the House of Representatives, we will have an 
additional opportunity to meet with the various representatives 
of the Executive Branch who will be charged with the 
responsibility of investigating, enforcing and collecting the 
various data regarding the importation of illegal logs and 
other wood products. Since there has been considerable 
realigning of responsibilities, including the reassignment of 
agricultural inspectors, since the creation of the Department 
of Homeland Security, it is essential that we ensure that the 
correct federal agencies have the authority and resources to 
effectively accomplish the goals of this legislation. In 
addition, we need to ensure that the measure correctly defines 
the term ``plant''. We can all agree that illegal logging 
should be stopped.

                                                Henry E. Brown, Jr.