IMPORTATION OF WILD ANIMALS AND BIRDS THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1939 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, The subcommittee met at 1 p. m., Hon. Thomas H. Cullen presiding. Mr. CULLEN. The committee will come to order. The first bill we will consider this afternoon is H. R. 2763, introduced by Mr. West, to amend paragraph 1606 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Mr. MCCORMACK. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the bill be incorporated in the record. Mr. CULLEN. If there is no objection, it is so ordered. (The bill under consideration is as follows:) [H. R. 2763, 76th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend paragraph 1606 of the Tariff Act of 193 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph 1606 of the Tariff Act of 1930 be, and it is hereby, amended to read as follows: "PAR. 1606. (a) Any animal, bird, fowl, fish, whether same be domesticated or wild and whether same be for domestic purposes or for the purpose of releasing for game purposes, imported by a citizen of the United States, specially for breeding purposes, shall be admitted free whether intended to be used by the importer himself or for sale for such purposes, except black or silver foxes: Provided, That no such animal shall be admitted free unless purebred of a recognized breed and duly registered in a book of record recognized by the Secretary of Agriculture for that breed: Provided, That the following provisions shall not apply in the case of wild species or in the case of game birds or animals or any species of fish, and such cases shall be covered by such importer making and filing an affidavit setting out the number of animals, birds, or such to be imported under such affidavit, their species or breed, the place from whence the same were originally trapped, caught, or shipped, the destination to which the importer will deliver or take same, the person to whom same are to be delivered and the purpose for which same are imported: Provided further, That the certificate of such record and pedigree of such animal shall be produced and submitted to the Department of Agriculture, duly authenticated by the proper custodian of such book of record, together with an affidavit of the owner, agent, or importer that the animal imported is the identical animal described in said certificate of record and pedigree. The Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe such regulations as may be required for determining the purity of breeding and the identity of such animal: And provided further, That the collectors of customs shall require a certificate from the Department of Agriculture stating that such animal is purebred of a recognized breed and duly registered in a book of record recognized by the Secretary of Agriculture for that breed. "(b) The Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe such additional regulations as may be required for the strict enforcement of this provision. "(c) Horses, mules, asses, cattle, sheep, and other domestic animals straying across the boundary line into any foreign country, or driven across such boundary line by the owner for temporary pasturage purposes only, together with their offspring, shall be dutiable unless brought back to the United States within eight 1 months, in which case they shall be free of duty, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury: And provided further, That the provisions of this Act shall apply to all such animals as have been imported and are in quarantine or otherwise in the custody of customs or other officers of the United States at the date of the taking effect of this Act." Mr. CULLEN. Is there anyone here who desires to speak in behalf of this bill? Mr. WEST. I am the author of it. Mr. CULLEN. Will you make a statement to the committee, Mr. West? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. MILTON H. WEST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. WEST. I will first read a letter from the State Department with reference to the bill: MY DEAR MR. DOUGHTON: Reference is made to the informal request of the House Committee on Ways and Means for a report on H. R. 2763, a bill to amend paragraph 1606 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This bill, if enacted, would extend the provisions of paragraphs 1606 and 1677 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to admit free of duty any animal (purebred as defined in the bill), except black or silver foxes, bird, fowl, or fish, domestic or wild, that is imported specially for breeding purposes, that is not now so admitted. The Department perceives no objections to the purpose of the bill. I do not, however, comment upon the problems of administration which fall within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department and the Department of Agriculture, whose views concerning its administration you may wish to obtain. Because of the urgency of the matter, this letter was not submitted to the Bureau of the Budget. Sincerely yours, CORDELL HULL. I believe the general counsel of the Customs Service is here representing the Treasury Department. Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. WEST. I might make a little further explanation of the reasons for this bill. Under the present law you may import quail for restocking purposes free of duty; but if you ask to import them for propagation purposes, then they will charge you a duty of a dollar a pair or 50 cents a bird. Now, just why that is done, I do not know. It is the same thing, restocking and propagation; but the Treasury has ruled that if they ask to import them for propagation they have to pay the duty, and if they ask to import them for restocking they do not have to pay the duty. I guess this is the distinction between the two: It may be they hold that propagation is where, for example, I have a quail farm and I bring them over here to raise them and breed the birds and sell the offspring. A lot of the game departments of the various States will buy quail in Mexico and turn the original birds loose, and they do not have to pay the duty. The University of Texas sometime back wanted to import 500 birds for propagation and experimental purposes, and they had to pay $250 duty on them. Mr. CULLEN. As I understand, there is no duty on the birds for restocking? Mr. WEST. No, sir. Mr. CULLEN. What is the difference? Mr. WEST. It is a distinction without a difference. Mr. McCORMACK. If they bring them in for restocking, can they then use them for propagation purposes? Mr. WEST. That is what restocking is. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. JOHNSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Mr. JOHNSON. I think I can explain that. Paragraph 1682, which was incorporated as new legislation in the Tariff Act of 1930, provided for the free entry of live game animals and birds imported for stocking purposes under such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe. The difficulty comes in the definition of the words "stocking purposes," and that has been held to preclude the penning of the animals. They must be liberated. The provision was enacted, as Congressman West says, for the game preserves; they would bring the animals in and turn them loose to stock the preserves, and for the huntsmen, and so forth. The privilege has been denied to the breeders who keep them in pens and sell the offspring to the game preserves or use them otherwise. Now, I have a draft of the Treasury's report on this bill, which has not cleared through the Treasury Department and has not been submitted to the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. KNUTSON. What connection has the Budget with this? This is merely letting down the bars on these animals and birds, is it not? Mr. JOHNSON. There would be some reduction in revenue. Mr. KNUTSON. As much as $5,000? Mr. JOHNSON. I doubt that it would be very serious. Mr. KNUTSON. Well, I would not hold it up for that. Mr. JOHNSON. I want to say that we believe that there are some difficulties in the language of the bill, and that the purpose could be better accomplished by inserting a new paragraph at the end of the free list rather than by amending paragraph 1606. A similar bill was introduced by the Congressman in the last session of Congress. Mr. WEST. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. And the Treasury reported with a similar recommendation. Mr. CULLEN. What happened to it? Mr. WEST. It was never reported out of the committee. Mr. WEST. No; none in the world. Mr. McCORMACK. You see no objection, if a new bill is introduced along the line that the Treasury recommended last year, to the bill being reported? Mr. JOHNSON. None; except that we would raise one question of policy, and that is whether you want to include animals for fur farming. There has in the past been considerable objection to the free entry of foxes, skunks, and things of that kind for the fur farmers. Mr. McCORMACK. What is the law now? Mr. JOHNSON. They would have to pay duty now. Mr. McCORMACK. But Mr. West is only interested in quail? |