Reptile & Amphibian Forums

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
COST ESTIMATE
January 21, 2010
S. 373

A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on December 10, 2009

CBO estimates that implementing S. 373 would have no significant cost to the federal government. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant.

S. 373 would make it a federal crime to import or ship certain snakes into the United States. Because the bill would establish a new offense, the government would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. We expect that S. 373 would apply to a relatively small number of offenders, so any increase in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 373 could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted.

Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct spending would not be significant because of the small number of cases likely to be affected.

Under S. 373, entities such as zoos would need permits to import or transport the affected species of snakes. Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), which issues permits for such activities, CBO estimates that enacting the bill could result in an increase in offsetting collections (for permits) and associated spending. We estimate that such increases would be minimal, however, and would offset each other in most years, resulting in no significant net cost.

By prohibiting the importation and interstate transport of several species of python, anaconda, and boa constrictor without a permit from USFWS, the bill would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA). USFWS is authorized to issue permits for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological reasons.

The cost to public and private entities that are eligible for permits, such as zoos or research centers, would be the expense of obtaining those permits. Fees for private entities would be $25 or $100 depending on the activity being authorized. (USFWS
regulations prohibit the agency from charging permit fees to state, local, or tribal entities.) The cost of the mandate to those ineligible for a permit, including private importers, breeders, retailers, shippers, and owners of those snakes, would be the forgone net income from the inability to sell or transport the animals across state lines. According to the USFWS, exporting those species of snakes would be allowed, however, only from ports designated by the USFWS.

Based on information about the cost of permits from the USFWS and information gathered from individuals in the industry about the value of shipments, sales, and imports of species covered by the legislation, CBO estimates that the direct costs of the mandates would fall below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($70 million and $141 million in 2010, respectively, adjusted
annually for inflation).

On October 9, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2811, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 29, 2009. The two bills are similar, and the CBO cost estimates are the same.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE - S373

Edited on January 26, 2010 at 19:48:44 by jeffb.

From what I saw on the news tonight, Capital Hill is all about our Federal Deficit doing a number on this fragile economy of ours. Seems like those in Congress beholding to the Nature Elite would think twice before destroying our little share of the economic pie.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

the data that they received! This is a PERFECT example how our Government is misusing its power, and clarifying the "shocking" notion that they are CORRUPT!

Kevin

>>CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
>>COST ESTIMATE
>>January 21, 2010
>>S. 373
>>
>>A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on December 10, 2009
>>
>>CBO estimates that implementing S. 373 would have no significant cost to the federal government. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant.
>>
>>S. 373 would make it a federal crime to import or ship certain snakes into the United States. Because the bill would establish a new offense, the government would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. We expect that S. 373 would apply to a relatively small number of offenders, so any increase in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
>>
>>Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 373 could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted.
>>
>>Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct spending would not be significant because of the small number of cases likely to be affected.
>>
>>Under S. 373, entities such as zoos would need permits to import or transport the affected species of snakes. Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>>(USFWS), which issues permits for such activities, CBO estimates that enacting the bill could result in an increase in offsetting collections (for permits) and associated spending. We estimate that such increases would be minimal, however, and would offset each other in most years, resulting in no significant net cost.
>>
>>
>>By prohibiting the importation and interstate transport of several species of python, anaconda, and boa constrictor without a permit from USFWS, the bill would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
>>Reform Act (UMRA). USFWS is authorized to issue permits for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological reasons.
>>
>>The cost to public and private entities that are eligible for permits, such as zoos or research centers, would be the expense of obtaining those permits. Fees for private entities would be $25 or $100 depending on the activity being authorized. (USFWS
>>regulations prohibit the agency from charging permit fees to state, local, or tribal entities.) The cost of the mandate to those ineligible for a permit, including private importers, breeders, retailers, shippers, and owners of those snakes, would be the forgone net income from the inability to sell or transport the animals across state lines. According to the USFWS, exporting those species of snakes would be allowed, however, only from ports designated by the USFWS.
>>
>>
>>Based on information about the cost of permits from the USFWS and information gathered from individuals in the industry about the value of shipments, sales, and imports of species covered by the legislation, CBO estimates that the direct costs of the mandates would fall below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($70 million and $141 million in 2010, respectively, adjusted
>>annually for inflation).
>>
>>On October 9, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2811, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 29, 2009. The two bills are similar, and the CBO cost estimates are the same.
>>CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE - S373
>>
>>Edited on January 26, 2010 at 19:48:44 by jeffb.
-----
"Satan™" is a registered trademark of NERD, Inc. Any copyright infringement is punishable by ETERNAL DAMNATION and some other terrible stuff.

The response that the CBO gave, had 0 actual data to support their conclusions and could have just as easily be arrived at with "magic wand" technology or "cow dropping" technology based on the supporting data they have offered.

I would like to see who the CBO contacted to submit this economic data, who in fact submitted data, and what data was submitted to draw these conclusions.

I would like to know how the economics of adding, training for, and enforcing a new federal law are negligible and can pay for itself. If so it would be a first. A law that pays for itself.

How much will it cost to round up and terminate the MILLIONS of pets across the U.S.. Because that is what will have to happen.
That will cost millions of dollars and millions of votes.

Jeff,

On the national level, the votes are important but at the local level, that depends on the economic impact. Del. Bordallo, is one of those “protected specimens” in Congress so, she doesn’t care as long as this type of legislation keeps her palm scratched. I agree with you, I’d like to see the SAWG estimate the CBO as well regarding the cost of the bill (S-373), it is amazing that their memory is selective regarding the cost of anything they do. Rather, they are a snapshot in time and not a total picture.

An example is Public Law (PL) 108-384, the Brown Tree Snake Eradication Act of 2004. It originated from HR-3479, the Brown Tree Snake Control and Eradication Act of 2004. The house bill was introduced on November 7, 2003 and was sponsored by none other than Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU) of HR-669 fame. PL 108-384 was signed into law by President George Bush on October 30, 2004. Granted this is a six year “snap shot”, the amount of money does not reflect the true total spent over time. How much money has the federal government spent on this problem on the island of Guam over how many decades?

By the CBO report in September 9, 2004, for HR-3479 states that an appropriation of $18 million annually for the next six years ($108 million total). Of this total, $450,000 was allocated to the “brown tree snake control and eradication committee”. This amounts to 0.42% going to the “eradication” and 99.58% going to “control” of the brown tree snake. By happen stance, $4.6 million goes to infrastructure on the island of Guam (4.26% of the total). Once again, a politician bringing home the “pork” but in this case, it is “conservation” pork. I imagine that the whopping 0.42% spent by the “committee” to actually eradicate the “non-native invasive species” will absolutely guarantee that they will not solve the problem. As a consequence, there will be another one of these bills in the future to continue funding Del. Bordallo’s next reelection campaign so she can bring home the “pork”. She’s essential to the animal rights agenda in Congress to sponsor these bills. Also, with this "control" money, many federal agencies share in the tax dollars to support continuing "programs" until 2010. What do you bet, we'll see another brown tree snake "pork" project very soon?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/CIA_World_Fact_Book,_2004/Guam

According to the CIA World Fact Book in 2004, the economy of Guam is based almost exclusively on tourism (and tourist supported industries) these days as the US military is downsized. As a coincidence, “tourism” is one of the activities permitted within UN’s Biosphere Reserve Program and World Heritage Programs. Note in the CIA’s estimate below, what industry takes up the slack for the previous US dollars to Guam’s economy. Is it also a coincidence that the ENP is also a UN’s Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Programs? I wonder…

“The economy depends on US military spending, tourism, and the export of fish and handicrafts. Total US grants, wage payments, and procurement outlays amounted to $1 billion in 1998. Over the past 20 years, the tourist industry has grown rapidly, creating a construction boom for new hotels and the expansion of older ones. More than 1 million tourists visit Guam each year. The industry had recently suffered setbacks because of the continuing Japanese slowdown; the Japanese normally make up almost 90% of the tourists. Most food and industrial goods are imported. Guam faces the problem of building up the civilian economic sector to offset the impact of military downsizing.”

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/108/bills.cbo/h3479.pdf

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

H.R. 3749 would specifically authorize the appropriation of $18 million annually for the next six years. Of this amount, $450,000 would be provided to the brown tree snake control and eradication committee as authorized by section 7. The remaining amounts would be authorized to be appropriated to USDA and DOI to support control, interdiction, research, and eradication measures taken by federal and nonfederal agencies and by private entities. As specified by section 5, this funding includes $7 million a year for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and $11 million a year for DOI agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Office of Insular Affairs. Of those amounts, $4.6 million a year is earmarked for construction and planning assistance to Guam for multiagency facilities such as laboratories, dog kennels, and office space.

In addition to the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated by H.R. 3479, CBO estimates that there would be additional costs to administer and enforce new quarantine
procedures for travelers, baggage, and cargo leaving Guam and other locations infested with brown tree snakes. Section 6 of the bill would require USDA and DOI to develop protocols for the predeparture quarantines but would prohibit implementing the protocols unless funds are appropriated specifically for that purpose. CBO expects that APHIS and DOI would develop the required protocols using a portion of the funds authorized for 2005 by section 5. Assuming additional appropriations to implement the protocols, we estimate that APHIS would spend a total of $3 million annually beginning in 2006 for inspections and other enforcement activities.

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the entire amounts authorized by sections 5 and 7 or estimated to be necessary to carry out section 6 will be appropriated for each fiscal year. We further assume that the amounts authorized to be appropriated to DOI and USDA by section 5 will be used to support control and eradication measures on military and other federal lands; no additional amounts are estimated to be necessary to carry out the
responsibilities of DoD and other agencies under section 4. This estimate is based on information provided by the USFWS, the National Invasive Species Council, DoD, and other federal and local agencies.

ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

H.R. 3479 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. State and territorial governments, particularly Guam, would benefit from federal funds authorized by this bill for efforts to control and eradicate brown tree snakes. Any participation by these governments in the programs funded by the bill would be voluntary.

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

That was an incredible overview - thank you

Jeff,

You're very welcome...I'm just trying to keep informed with this stuff as it is clear that unless we, the citizens do this ourselves (information), we can be assured that this madness will continue...The media's first response is to the "experts" for comment and we're (the tax payers) the last to know...

After all, "experts" have mortgages too and with this "stuff", they can stay gainfully employed until retirement! If this just happens to be a "civil servant", we, the tax payers will be funding two people to do the job...One that is retired and the one that is now doing the work.If the "expert" is from a DOT.ORG, well they have to justify grant money for those "vacation" in exotic places and their mortgages as well...

Sorry for the cynicism but after researching this stuff it is clear that a problem solved is not good for retirement programs of either government or DOT.ORG experts…

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

Hi Jim, I would like to say, I echo Jeff B's sentiments I find your post to be very interesting and appreciate the time you put in to try and bring some of the more "technical " aspects of the game to light. You certainly "get it ."

Heres a link to the 2008 Report to the Congress, all I can say is wow,... This report is certainly worth looking over..................

I also included a link to a recent piece by Srel/ team Gordon Rodda member Whit Gibbions.I couldnt put the two links a single post but you can past the web address into your browser.

http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoviews/ecoview090315.htm

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

2008 Brown Tree Snake Report to the Congress

I second that thanks Jim. That was an excellent overview of how much was spent. Now what I would really like to know is what individuals/programs that money went to and what they actually did with it. Let's see results of all that money and let's see if it was worth it!

Every taxpayer should be interested in this stuff.

Someone (I assume the appropriate entity would be USARK) needs to file a "Freedom of Information Act" request to obtain the data and documents which will shine some light on the decision process that was used in this determination.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

Breeder of:
Green Tree Pythons
Jungle Carpet Pythons
Pastel, Pinstripe, FIRE, Piebald, Clown, Lavender Albino, Leucistic, and Spider Ball Pythons
Striped Colombian Boa Constrictors
Kenyan, Rufescens, and Conicus Sand Boas
Red Phase Western Hognose Snakes
Spider Western Hognose Snakes
Albino Western Hognose Snakes
Locality Trans-Pecos Mexican Hognose Snakes
Southern Hognose Snakes
Eastern Hognose Snakes
Tricolor Hognose Snakes
Hypo Checkered Garter Snakes
Eastern Blackneck Garter Snakes
Stillwater Hypo Bullsnakes
Patternless Bullsnakes
S. GA Eastern Kingsnakes
Locality Desert Kingsnakes
Albino Desert Kingsnakes
Hypo Desert Kingsnakes
Mexican Black Kingsnakes
Desert Phase, Striped Desert, Newport, and Coastal California Kingsnakes
Locality Mexican Milksnakes
Spotted Mexican Milksnakes
Tangerine Mexican Milksnakes
Locality Alterna
Abbott Okeetee Cornsnakes
Mexican Baird's Ratsnakes
Cape Housesnakes
Tangerine Albino African Fat -Tailed Geckos
Locality Spotted Turtles

Not real sure what kind of action could be taken to get some facts on the record with testimony from the players, as to the communication between those various entities and their choreographed media blitz. Someone is writing the script and sending out the cast.

We need some deposed testimony to impeach these spokespeople for what they truly are. I'm pretty sure motive (money) should float to the surface with a little digging. And yes, "float to the surface" is a metaphor.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer