[House Report 112-604]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-604

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



 
                               RELIEF ACT

                                _______
                                

 July 17, 2012.--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. 3210]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 3210) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 
to limit the application of that Act with respect to plants and 
plant products that were imported before the effective date of 
amendments to that Act enacted in 2008, 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 ``Retailers and Entertainers Lacey 
Implementation and Enforcement Fairness Act'' or the ``RELIEF Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds the following:
          (1) Amendments to the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 were 
        enacted as part of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
        2008 (Public Law 110-246).
          (2) The 2008 amendments were intended to level the playing 
        field for American businesses engaged in the responsible 
        harvest, shipment, manufacture, and trade of plants and plant 
        products whose prices had been undercut by a black market 
        fueled by irresponsible and illegal taking of protected plants 
        around the globe.
          (3) The 2008 amendments were overly broad and their 
        enforcement as enacted could criminalize actions of a good-
        faith owner, purchaser, or retailer of a plant or plant 
        product, subjecting them to penalties that include forfeiture, 
        fines, and imprisonment.
          (4) Sanctions for violating the 2008 amendments should be 
        proportional to the act in violation. An individual who is not 
        in the commercial shipping business should not be held to the 
        same standard of compliance under that Act.
          (5) Individuals fear that they risk incurring those penalties 
        by merely owning or traveling with a vintage musical 
        instrument, antique furniture, or another wood product.
          (6) The Department of the Interior and Department of Justice 
        have stated ``people who unknowingly possess a musical 
        instrument or other object containing wood that was illegally 
        taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of law and 
        who, in the exercise of due care would not have known that it 
        was illegal, do not have criminal exposure.''.
          (7) It is necessary to clarify the 2008 amendments so that 
        legally harvested new plant products can enter the market 
        place.
          (8) Declaration requirements for plant products imported or 
        manufactured prior to May 22, 2008, are unreasonable since the 
        sourcing of plant products was not previously required by law.
          (9) Federal law enforcement officials should not engage in 
        overzealous enforcement action under the 2008 amendments.
          (10) It is important to ensure that the appropriate agencies 
        have the necessary funding to implement the current phases of 
        the declaration requirement before considering any future 
        phases.
          (11) The appropriate agencies have the responsibility of 
        providing a publicly accessible database so that everyone can 
        be notified of the foreign laws of countries as they apply to 
        the importation of plants.

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF PLANTS AND PLANT PRODUCTS UNDER LACEY ACT 
                    AMENDMENTS OF 1981.

  (a) Limitation on Application of Act to Certain Plants and Plant 
Products.--The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) is 
amended by redesignating section 9 as section 10, and by inserting 
after section 8 the following:

``SEC. 9. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION TO CERTAIN PLANTS AND PLANT 
                    PRODUCTS.

  ``This Act does not apply with respect to--
          ``(1) any plant that was imported into the United States 
        before May 22, 2008; or
          ``(2) any finished plant or plant product the assembly and 
        processing of which was completed before May 22, 2008.''.
  (b) Limitations on Application of Plant Declaration Requirement.--
Section 3(f) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372(f)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``that is entered for 
        consumption (as that term is defined in part 141.0a of title 
        19, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of 
        enactment of the Retailers and Entertainers Lacey 
        Implementation and Enforcement Fairness Act)'' after ``plant''; 
        and
          (2) in paragraph (3)--
                  (A) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``Paragraphs (1)''; 
                and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(B)(i) In the case of a plant product that is derived from 
        a tree, a declaration under paragraph (1) or (2) is not 
        required to include information referred to in subparagraph 
        (A), (B), or (C) of that paragraph unless the plant product is 
        solid wood.
          ``(ii) The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
        Inspection Service shall issue regulations that define the term 
        `solid wood' for purposes of this subparagraph.''.
  (c) Application of Civil Forfeiture Laws.--Section 5(d) of such Act 
(16 U.S.C. 3374(d)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Civil'';
          (2) by inserting ``, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
        (3) of this subsection'' before the period at the end; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(2) Subsection (d)(4) of section 983 of such chapter, and the 
second sentence of subsection (a)(1)(F) of such section, shall not 
apply to plants or plant products.
  ``(3) This section is the sole authority for civil seizure or 
forfeiture actions alleging, or predicated upon, a violation of section 
3.''.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAWS.

  (a) Prohibited Acts.--Section 3(a) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372(a)) is 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (2)(B), in clause (ii) and in clause (iii), 
        by striking ``foreign law'' and inserting ``foreign law that is 
        directed at the protection, conservation, and management of 
        plants''; and
          (2) in paragraph (3)(B), in clause (ii) and in clause (iii), 
        by striking ``foreign law'' and inserting ``foreign law that is 
        directed at the protection, conservation, and management of 
        plants''.
  (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 4(a)(1) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
3373(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``foreign law'' and inserting 
``foreign law that is directed at the protection, conservation, and 
management of plants''.

SEC. 5. REVIEW AND REPORT.

  Section 3(f) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372(f)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Not later than two years 
        after the date of enactment of this subsection,'' and inserting 
        ``Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the 
        Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement 
        Fairness Act,''; and
          (2) in paragraph (5)--
                  (A) by striking ``Not later than 180 days after the 
                date on which the Secretary completes the review under 
                paragraph (4), the Secretary'' and inserting ``Not 
                later than 180 days after the date the Secretary 
                completes the review under paragraph (4), the Director 
                of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service'';
                  (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the 
                end of subparagraph (B);
                  (C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph 
                (C) and inserting ``; and''; and
                  (D) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(D) an evaluation of the feasibility of creating 
                and maintaining a publicly available database of laws 
                of foreign countries from which plants are exported.''.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 3210, as ordered reported, is to amend 
the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to limit the application of 
that Act with respect to plants and plant products that were 
imported before the effective date of amendments to that Act 
enacted in 2008.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    In 1900, Congress enacted legislation to support the 
efforts of states to protect their resident wildlife. The law, 
known as the Lacey Act, was designed to prevent hunters from 
killing game in one state and escaping prosecution by moving it 
across state lines. It accomplished that goal by criminalizing 
both the delivery for shipment and the shipment of parts or 
bodies of ``wild animals or birds'' killed in violation of a 
state law. If convicted of violating of what became the first 
federal law to address wildlife protection nationwide, the 
maximum fine was $200 for those receiving ``such articles'' and 
$500 for those who transport them.
    In the past 112 years, the Lacey Act has been amended with 
significant modifications in 1935, 1981 and 2008. In the 1935 
amendments, the Act was expanded to include foreign laws which 
in the case of fish and wildlife meant about 100 foreign 
statutes. It defined entities covered by the Act to include 
``person, firm, corporation or association,'' targeted 
interstate shipments ``by any means whatsoever,'' covered 
animals or birds ``captured, killed, taken, shipped, 
transported, carried, purchased, sold or possessed'' in 
violation of an underlying law and increased the maximum fine 
to $1,000 and up to six months in jail.
    In 1981, the Lacey Act was further amended to establish a 
criminal penalty for those who knowingly committed an act 
prohibited by the law and knew, or in the exercise of due care 
should have known, of the illegal nature of the wildlife at 
issue. It established the principle of ``strict liability'' 
which means that the government no longer has to prove that a 
person knew of the Lacey Act prohibitions and intended to 
violate them. Federal wildlife agents were also allowed to 
carry firearms, make warrantless arrests for felony violations 
and execute search and arrest warrants. The United States 
became the first nation to ban the importation and sale of 
illegally obtained timber and other plant products.
    While never specifically debated in either the U.S. House 
of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, significant 
modifications to the Lacey Act were incorporated within Section 
8204 of the 2008 Farm bill. Under the guise of the Lacey Act, 
it is now unlawful to acquire, import, export, transport, sell, 
receive, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any 
plant, with some limited exceptions, taken in violation of the 
laws of a state or any foreign law that protects plants. A 
plant is specifically defined as ``any wild member of the plant 
kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof, 
and including trees from either natural or planted forest 
stands.'' It is also unlawful for any person to submit 
falsified documents related to any plant or plant product and 
to import a covered item without filing an accompanying 
declaration form that identifies the scientific name of the 
plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant and the 
name of the country from which the plant was harvested.
    A fundamental goal of this 2008 law was to stop the 
importation of illegally harvested trees. The World Bank had 
estimated that ``illegal logging costs governments 
approximately $5 billion annually in lost royalties and an 
additional $10 billion in lost revenues.'' One of the 
cosponsors of the 2008 amendments, Senator Lamar Alexander of 
Tennessee, discussed the economic impact of illegal timber 
imports and stated that, ``It is estimated [this practice 
results in] $1 billion a year in depressed prices and reduced 
exports. It depresses prices $500 million to $700 million 
annually. It means the people who play by the rules in the 
United States are having money taken from them by criminals who 
don't play by the rules in other countries.''
    The 2008 amendments also tried to reaffirm the ``innocent 
owner'' defense that was established in the Civil Asset 
Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). This effort, which was 
supported by the proponents of the bill, was ultimately 
unsuccessful because products potentially in violation of the 
Lacey Act are still considered ``contraband'' or otherwise 
``illegal to possess'' by the Department of Justice. Therefore, 
these items, which now include wood products, are treated the 
same way as illegal drugs, stolen pieces of art or bald eagle 
feathers. CAFRA makes it clear that ``no person may assert an 
ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other 
property that it is illegal to possess.''
    The 2008 amendments also did not overturn the 2005 decision 
of the Ninth Circuit Court of the United States v. 144,774 
Pounds of Blue King Crab case. In that case, the court found 
that ``King crab taken in violation of Russian fishing 
regulations is subject to forfeiture under the Lacey Act.'' The 
court went on to say that ``although the language of CAFRA is 
ambiguous with regard to the definition of contraband, we need 
not resolve this issue because if the crab at issue here was 
imported, received, or acquired in violation of the Lacey Act, 
it constitutes `property that is illegal to possess.'''
    With the expanded Lacey Act definition to include all plant 
and plant products, thousands of American businesses who had 
little exposure to the Lacey Act have now become part of the 
regulated community. This would include musical instrument 
makers, furniture manufacturers, flooring companies, toy 
manufacturers, the auto industry, boat builders, and textile 
manufacturers. These companies must now comply with not only 
all federal, state and tribal laws but thousands of foreign 
laws, regulations, resolutions, decrees and ``other such 
legally binding provisions that foreign governments may 
promulgate.'' This is despite the fact that there is no 
database of these laws and no one in the federal government who 
can conclusively state how many ``foreign laws'' were triggered 
by the 2008 amendments.
    During the public hearing on H.R. 3210, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks within the 
Department of the Interior was asked how many foreign laws were 
triggered by the 2008 amendments. Her response was that ``I 
don't have that number. We don't know the exact number of laws 
that are triggered.'' In addition, she was asked if there was a 
clearinghouse or Web site with this information where one can 
go to a single Web site. Her response was ``I don't believe--
there is not a government-sponsored clearinghouse or list, and 
there is not a government translation of all of the foreign 
laws, and as far as I am aware, there is not a comprehensive 
one-stop-spot provided outside of the government for those 
laws.''
    Furthermore, according to the Congressional Research 
Service, ``the 2008 Amendments allow enforcement of foreign 
laws that are not directly related to conservation or U.S. 
jobs, such as failure to pay foreign stumpage fees, or shipping 
wood in violation of a country's export restrictions.''
    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has, 
because of the complexity of obtaining and filing the necessary 
information, been careful in implementing the new declaration 
requirement of the 2008 amendments. APHIS has issued 
regulations covering 24 of what may end up being 24,000 
categories of products listed on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
Codes that will be covered by the Lacey Act. Even with this 
limited number, APHIS is receiving 40,000 declaration forms 
each month and it has calculated that it is costing the 
regulated community some $56 million to comply with this 
requirement. When fully implemented, the agency believes it 
could receive up to 1 million documents a month at an estimated 
cost in excess of $500 billion annually.
    As part of the 2008 amendments, APHIS was directed to 
submit a report to the Congress by November 22, 2010, on the 
effectiveness of the declaration document and to provide any 
suggested improvements to the Act. Regrettably, this report is 
now nearly two years overdue, and the Committee urges the 
agency to transmit its findings to Congress at its earliest 
convenience.
    In an effort to correct some unintended aspects of the 2008 
amendments that are hurting U.S. businesses and costing jobs, 
H.R. 3210, the Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation 
and Enforcement Fairness (RELIEF) Act was introduced by 
Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Congresswoman Marsha 
Blackburn (R-TN). The major provisions of this bill, as 
introduced, are to reestablish an ``innocent owner'' defense 
under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act; limit the 
declaration requirement to solid wood items and direct the 
Administrator of APHIS to define the term ``solid wood''; 
reduce the penalties for first time violations of the Lacey 
Act; direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the 
feasibility of creating and maintaining a public database of 
all foreign laws; require the issuance of regulations on the 
creation of a product certification process; require the 
Federal Trade Commission to complete a report on the 
competitiveness in the domestic market for raw materials used 
in the manufacture of musical instruments; and exempt from the 
Lacey Act any plant imported into the United States prior to 
May 22, 2008, or plant product assembled and processed before 
that date.
    During Full Committee consideration of the bill, the 
Committee adopted an amendment offered by Congressman John 
Fleming (R-LA) that modified one provision of the legislation, 
added a new provision on foreign law application and deleted 
four sections of the underlying bill.
    Specifically, the reported bill would restore the 
``innocent owner'' defense by declaring that in all civil asset 
forfeiture cases under the Lacey Act, the suspected products 
are not immediately deemed contraband or illegal to possess. 
The burden will remain with the claimant, and the language has 
no effect on criminal investigations or efforts to bring felony 
charges against a defendant who is accused of trafficking in 
illegal wood under the Lacey Act. It simply allows an 
individual to have his day in court to prove he acted with 
``due care,'' which is defined as ``that degree of care at 
which a reasonable prudent person could exercise under the same 
or similar circumstances.''
    Second, H.R. 3210 as reported simply states that the Lacey 
Act would not apply to any plant imported and any finished 
plant or plant products that were assembled and processed prior 
to May 22, 2008--the effective date of the 2008 amendments. 
Despite the fact that over four years have passed, there has 
been no attempt to clarify this issue through the regulatory 
process. As a result, there remains a significant risk to 
individuals and companies who may have products, like guitars 
made with exotic woods, seized by the federal government. This 
provision, which is broadly supported, will statutorily solve 
this issue.
    Third, the measure would restrict the application of a 
``foreign law'' to those ``directed at the protection, 
conservation and management of plants.'' This is a simple 
clarification of an existing practice. The Fish and Wildlife 
Service has stated that ``the Service has traditionally pursued 
investigations under the wildlife trafficking provisions of the 
Lacey Act only in circumstances where the underlying law 
(whether foreign, federal, state or tribal) on which Lacey Act 
charges are predicated is directly related to the protection, 
conservation and management of fish or wildlife. The agency 
takes the same approach in implementing its enforcement 
responsibilities with respect to plants protected under foreign 
law.''
    Fourth, despite the questionable value of the documents, 
the RELIEF Act does not call for the elimination of 
declarations but does limit their application to ``solid wood'' 
products. During Subcommittee consideration of H.R. 3210, 
opponents of the legislation repeatedly stated that this would 
result in a ``tiny'' number of additional documents being 
filed. Like much of the criticism of this bill, those comments 
are unfounded. In fact, APHIS has submitted a document to the 
Committee indicating that the number of documents as a result 
of the legislation would grow from 40,000 a month to 330,000 
declarations per month. While the agency was unable to quantify 
the financial impact of these increased documents, it is 
difficult to objectively argue that an eight-fold increase in 
the number of filed documents is a ``tiny'' amount.
    In addition, the comments of the Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) agency on the importance of the declaration 
documents are telling. In a document provided to the Committee, 
the following conclusion appears:

          As stated previously, CBP supports the overall goal 
        of combating illegal logging; as such, it is 
        exceptionally onerous to require information from the 
        trade that may be beyond their ability to collect, when 
        such data collection seems to provide no useful 
        purpose. For the stated purpose of suppression of 
        illegal foreign logging, an importers' detailed 
        knowledge of the genus/species of wood products have no 
        logical nexus. If wood products are illegally 
        harvested, then genus/species is wholly immaterial.

    Finally, the federal government would be required to 
evaluate the feasibility of creating and maintaining a publicly 
available database of the laws of foreign countries relating to 
plant and plant products. If we are going to send an American 
citizen to prison for violating a law enacted by one of the 193 
nations recognized by the United Nations, then at least there 
should be some public document containing a list of those 
foreign laws that he should not violate.
    Despite unfounded rhetoric from the opponents of these 
modest changes, there is nothing in H.R. 3210, as amended, 
which in any way overturns, weakens or eviscerates the Lacey 
Act. This legislation does not affect any ongoing Lacey Act 
investigations and will not stop or hamper any efforts by the 
law enforcement community to arrest and prosecute those 
individuals or companies who engage in the trafficking of 
illegal harvested trees or products made from illegal wood. It 
will encourage sound business practices, save thousands of 
American jobs and most importantly, allow the federal 
government to focus on shutting down the crime syndicates that 
are the heart of illegal logging worldwide. The RELIEF Act is a 
modest effort to correct some unintended consequences of the 
changes made to the Lacey Act in 2008.
    It is for this reason that the bill is supported by the 
American Association of Exporters and Importers, American Home 
Furnishings Alliance, Express Association of America, The 
Hosiery Association, International Wood Products Association, 
National Home Builders, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the National Association of Music Merchants, 
National Songwriters Association, National Lumber and Building 
Materials, National Marine Manufacturers Association, National 
Retail Federation, Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Window and Door Manufacturers 
Association. These organizations represent small and large 
businesses employing millions of Americans that provide 
trillions of dollars in goods and services to the U.S. annual 
Gross National Product.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 3210 was introduced on October 14, 2011, by 
Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN). 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 May 8, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
bill. On June 7, 2012, the Full Natural 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 amendment 
designated .001; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. 
Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to the 
bill; the amendment was not adopted by a rollcall vote of 19 to 
24, as follows:


    Congressman John Garamendi offered amendment designated 
.002 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a rollcall 
vote of 18 to 25, as follows:


    The bill, as amended, was then adopted and ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a 
rollcall vote of 25 to 19, as follows:


            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    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. 3210--RELIEF Act

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3210 would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the 
legislation could reduce revenues from civil penalties 
collected under the Lacey Act (a law that prohibits trade in 
wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, 
possessed, transported, or sold); thus, pay-as-you-go 
procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any such 
reduction would be minimal. Enacting the bill would not affect 
direct spending.
    H.R. 3210 would amend the Lacey Act to make it legal to 
possess certain plants that were imported and certain plant 
products that were produced prior to May 22, 2008. The bill 
also would exempt individuals from having to declare certain 
imported plant and tree products. Finally, the bill would 
require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to evaluate 
certain enforcement procedures under the Lacey Act and report 
its findings to the Congress.
    Based on information provided by the USFWS, CBO estimates 
that implementing the bill would have no significant impact on 
the agency's workload because it would not significantly change 
the way the agency enforces the Lacey Act. In addition, because 
the agency focuses its enforcement efforts on commercial 
trafficking and illegal logging, CBO estimates that reducing 
the number of plant products that are illegal to possess under 
the Lacey Act would have a minimal effect on the amount of 
civil penalties collected under the act.
    H.R. 3210 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 Peter H. Fontaine, 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. CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 3210 would have no significant impact on the 
federal budget. Enacting the legislation could reduce revenues 
from civil penalties collected under the Lacey Act (a law that 
prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been 
illegally taken, possessed, transported, or sold); thus, pay-
as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any 
such reduction would be minimal. Enacting the bill would not 
affect direct spending.
    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, as ordered reported, is to amend the 
Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to limit the application of that 
Act with respect to plants and plant products that were 
imported before the effective date of amendments to that Act 
enacted in 2008.

                           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.

                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. 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--
                          (i) * * *
                          (ii) taken, possessed, transported, 
                        or sold without the payment of 
                        appropriate royalties, taxes, or 
                        stumpage fees required for the plant by 
                        any law or regulation of any State or 
                        any [foreign law] foreign law that is 
                        directed at the protection, 
                        conservation, and management of plants; 
                        or
                          (iii) taken, possessed, transported, 
                        or sold in violation of any limitation 
                        under any law or regulation of any 
                        State, or under any [foreign law] 
                        foreign law that is directed at the 
                        protection, conservation, and 
                        management of plants, governing the 
                        export or transshipment of plants; 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--
                          (i) * * *
                          (ii) taken, possessed, transported, 
                        or sold without the payment of 
                        appropriate royalties, taxes, or 
                        stumpage fees required for the plant by 
                        any law or regulation of any State or 
                        any [foreign law] foreign law that is 
                        directed at the protection, 
                        conservation, and management of plants; 
                        or
                          (iii) taken, possessed, transported, 
                        or sold in violation of any limitation 
                        under any law or regulation of any 
                        State, or under any [foreign law] 
                        foreign law that is directed at the 
                        protection, conservation, and 
                        management of plants, governing the 
                        export or transshipment of plants; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Plant Declarations.--
          (1) Import declaration.--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 that is entered for 
        consumption (as that term is defined in part 141.0a of 
        title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
        the date of enactment of the Retailers and Entertainers 
        Lacey Implementation and Enforcement Fairness Act) 
        unless the person files upon importation a declaration 
        that contains--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Exclusions.--(A) 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.
          (B)(i) In the case of a plant product that is derived 
        from a tree, a declaration under paragraph (1) or (2) 
        is not required to include information referred to in 
        subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of that paragraph unless 
        the plant product is solid wood.
          (ii) The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
        Inspection Service shall issue regulations that define 
        the term ``solid wood'' for purposes of this 
        subparagraph.
          (4) Review.--[Not later than two years after the date 
        of enactment of this subsection,] Not later than 180 
        days after the date of enactment of the Retailers and 
        Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement 
        Fairness Act, the Secretary shall review the 
        implementation of each requirement imposed by 
        paragraphs (1) and (2) and the effect of the exclusion 
        provided by paragraph (3). In conducting the review, 
        the Secretary shall provide public notice and an 
        opportunity for comment.
          (5) Report.--[Not later than 180 days after the date 
        on which the Secretary completes the review under 
        paragraph (4), the Secretary] Not later than 180 days 
        after the date the Secretary completes the review under 
        paragraph (4), the Director of the United States Fish 
        and Wildlife Service shall submit to the appropriate 
        committees of Congress a report containing--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) 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 
                this section; [and]
                  (C) an analysis of the effect of subsection 
                (a) and this subsection on--
                          (i) * * *
                          (ii) the extent and methodology of 
                        illegal logging practices and 
                        trafficking[.]; and
                  (D) an evaluation of the feasibility of 
                creating and maintaining a publicly available 
                database of laws of foreign countries from 
                which plants are exported.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4. PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS.

  (a) Civil Penalties.--
          (1) Any person who engages in conduct prohibited by 
        any provision of this Act (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, and any person 
        who knowingly violates subsection (d) or (f) of section 
        3, 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] foreign law that is directed at the 
        protection, conservation, and management of plants, 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, or 
        $10,000, whichever is less.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5. FORFEITURE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Civil Forfeitures.--(1) Civil forfeitures under this 
section shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of 
title 18, United States Code, except as provided in paragraphs 
(2) and (3) of this subsection.
  (2) Subsection (d)(4) of section 983 of such chapter, and the 
second sentence of subsection (a)(1)(F) of such section, shall 
not apply to plants or plant products.
  (3) This section is the sole authority for civil seizure or 
forfeiture actions alleging, or predicated upon, a violation of 
section 3.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 9. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION TO CERTAIN PLANTS AND PLANT PRODUCTS.

  This Act does not apply with respect to--
          (1) any plant that was imported into the United 
        States before May 22, 2008; or
          (2) any finished plant or plant product the assembly 
        and processing of which was completed before May 22, 
        2008.

SEC. [9.]  10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    The Lacey Act is our nation's oldest federal law protecting 
wildlife and has a long history of bipartisan support. The 
Lacey Act is considered America's premier conservation statute 
because it protects a broader array of wildlife and plants than 
any other law. The Act includes provisions that ban the 
importation or sale of any species obtained in violation of 
state, tribal, or foreign law. It also prevents `injurious' 
species from being imported or sold in the U.S. Injurious 
species are mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, 
crustaceans, mollusks, plants and their offspring that are 
harmful to the interests of human beings, agriculture, 
horticulture, forestry, wildlife or wildlife resources of the 
United States.
    The Lacey Act is critical to our nation's economy because 
it prevents ``black market'' products from undercutting U.S. 
industries. For example, the Lacey Act 2008 amendments are 
designed to decrease the amount of illegally-harvested wood on 
the global market. In 2006, our trade deficit to China for 
forest products was $20.6 billion. In 2010, we achieved a $600 
million surplus. Experts attribute much of this increase to the 
2008 amendments. Further, illegal logging activities are 
inextricably linked to organized, illegal trafficking of 
narcotics, weapons, and people and the 2008 Lacey Act 
amendments are a strong deterrent to criminals.
    H.R. 3210, the so-called RELIEF Act, seeks to roll back the 
2008 Lacey Act amendments by limiting the universe of foreign 
laws that could trigger a violation of Lacey, thus inviting 
organized crime to gravitate toward illegal logging. H.R. 3210 
would also exempt all products not classified as ``solid wood'' 
from import declaration requirements, removing an important 
protection for our domestic pulp and paper industry, and would 
allow people and companies to retain illegally harvested, 
imported, or stolen wood or other plant products. Finally, H.R. 
3210 would ``grandfather'' any plant products assembled or 
imported before the 2008 amendments, creating a massive 
loophole that criminals will exploit.
    Contrary to the claim that the music industry supports H.R. 
3210 because musicians are afraid of having their instruments 
confiscated, a host of high-profile musicians signed a pledge 
supporting the Lacey Act as it is currently written and 
opposing any attempt to weaken it. This includes Willie Nelson, 
David Crosby, Bonnie Raitt, Mick Jagger, the Dave Matthews 
Band, and Sting, among others. Additionally, a coalition of 
over thirty conservation groups, including the League of 
Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, and the 
Nature Conservancy wrote members of Congress urging them not to 
pass H.R. 3210.
    Further, the U.S. forest products industry sent a letter to 
Congress on June 6th opposing H.R. 3210. The letter stated that 
the industry produces approximately $175 billion in products 
annually, employs nearly 900,000 men and women in good paying 
jobs, and is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 
47 states. Additionally, an industry study prior to passage of 
the 2008 Lacey Act amendments estimated that illegal logging 
cost the U.S. forest products industry some $1 billion annually 
in lost export opportunities and depressed U.S. wood prices.
    Even after being amended in committee to remove the 
reduction in civil penalties contemplated in the original bill, 
H.R. 3210 is bad for the environment, bad for national 
security, and bad for U.S. jobs. Ranking Member Markey offered 
an amendment to prohibit H.R. 3210 from applying to plant 
products from any country identified by the State department as 
having significant trade in illegal drug materials, poor 
records on human trafficking, or that qualified as state 
sponsors of terrorism. This amendment had bipartisan support, 
but was defeated. Similarly, Representative Garamendi offered 
an amendment to bar H.R. 3210 from taking effect if the 
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Governors 
of timber producing states, certified that the law would have a 
negative effect on the U.S. timber industry; the Majority also 
defeated that amendment.
    While H.R. 3210 passed out of committee, there was 
bipartisan opposition, and not a single Democratic member voted 
for its passage. Without appropriate safeguards for our 
domestic industries or our public safety, H.R. 3210 does much 
more harm than good. The 2008 Lacey Act amendments are working 
to conserve plant species and reduce illegal logging worldwide 
and to give our timber producers a level playing field. For 
these reasons, we oppose H.R. 3210 as reported.

                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Raul M. Grijalva.
                                   Peter A. DeFazio.
                                   Grace F. Napolitano.
                                   Paul Tonko.
                                   Rush D. Holt.
                                   John Garamendi.

                                  
