{
  "id": "R42119",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R42119",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 428437,
      "date": "2014-02-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:37:58.572588",
      "title": "The Lacey Act: Compliance Issues Related to Importing Plants and Plant Products",
      "summary": "The Lacey Act regulates the trade of wildlife and plants and creates penalties for a broad spectrum of violations. In 2008, the Lacey Act was amended to include protections for foreign plants and to require adherence to foreign laws as they pertain to certain conservation and other activities involving plants. Further, the 2008 amendments make it unlawful to submit falsified documents related to any plant or plant product covered by the act, and to import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration.\nThe primary drivers behind the Lacey Act amendments of 2008 (2008 amendments) were to reduce illegal logging globally and increase the value of U.S. wood exports. Illegal logging is a pervasive problem with economic and environmental consequences. Some estimate that illegal logging accounts for 15%-30% of the volume of all forest extraction activities globally, and has an estimated worth of $30 billion-$100 billion of the global wood trade. Further, if there were no illegally logged wood in the global market, it has been projected that the value of U.S. exports of roundwood, sawnwood, and panels could increase by an average of approximately $460 million each year. A halt to illegal logging would also raise the value of domestic wood production. If this is added to exports, some estimate the increase in revenue for companies in the United States at approximately $1.0 billion annually.\nA highly publicized raid on Gibson Guitar Corporation brought to light several existing policy issues related to the 2008 amendments to the Lacey Act. Some issues are broad and address the intent of the act. For example, some question why U.S. importers should be held responsible for violations of foreign law or if the requirements under the Lacey Act actually reduce illegal logging. Other issues are narrow and address certain requirements in the act. For example, several suggest that the declaration requirements for importing plants and plant products are cumbersome and cannot be met in some cases. Further, some contend that the 2008 amendments should not apply to plants harvested or plant products fabricated before the 2008 amendments were enacted. In contrast, some reiterate the benefits of the 2008 amendments, primarily reducing illegal logging and increasing the value of legally obtained plants and plant products on the market.\nThe 113th Congress is attempting to address some of these issues in proposed legislation. H.R. 3324 would amend the Lacey Act so that importers would need to possess and make available certain information about the plant or plant products being imported. Currently, importers are required to file this information. Further, the bill would amend the rulemaking authority of the Secretary to give more flexibility for specifying the applicability of declaration requirements. H.R. 3280 would amend the Lacey Act to exempt plants and plant products imported before May 22, 2008, from the Lacey Act. \nEfforts to address implementation issues could also be pursued through regulations. The law requires a review of the implementation of the Lacey Act by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and a report evaluating and analyzing some implementation requirements and providing recommendations to improve plant identification. Further, the Secretary (e.g., Secretary of Interior, Commerce, or Agriculture) may promulgate regulations that aim to improve implementation as discussed in the review.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42119",
          "sha1": "4b0a1ef3f3b8debc77f47fdabb7206a73fd33f78",
          "filename": "files/20140225_R42119_4b0a1ef3f3b8debc77f47fdabb7206a73fd33f78.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42119",
          "sha1": "f84e94ff5e67a0f9e34093ea285780403167a626",
          "filename": "files/20140225_R42119_f84e94ff5e67a0f9e34093ea285780403167a626.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 312,
          "name": "Endangered Species"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4412,
          "name": "International Environmental Law"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820421/",
      "id": "R42119_2012Jul24",
      "date": "2012-07-24",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "The Lacey Act: Compliance Issues Related to Importing Plants and Plant Products",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20120724_R42119_6cb8234aaa786a97227156546363cc3834628e3e.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20120724_R42119_6cb8234aaa786a97227156546363cc3834628e3e.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}