    [Senate Hearing 112-968]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-968

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 810, GREAT APES
       PROTECTION ACT OF 2011, S. 1249, TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP
     TRAINING SUPPORT ACT, S. 2071, PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF
    2012, S. 357, WILDLIFE DISEASE EMERGENCY ACT OF 2011, S. 1494, NATIONAL
      FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011, S. 1266,
    DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION ACT OF 2011, S. 2156, MIGRATORY BIRD
      HABITAT INVESTMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT, AND S. 2282, NORTH AMERICAN
                  WETLANDS CONSERVATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 24, 2012

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                  ________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     25-052 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York

                    Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
                                  ----------

                       Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife

                     BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    BARBARA BOXER, California (ex        JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
        officio)                             officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 APRIL 24, 2012
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland     1
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     3
    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
      Jersey.........................................................     6
    Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico.......    11
    Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado........    14
    Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska.........    15
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware,
      prepared statement.............................................    67
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island, prepared statement.....................................   207
    Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
      prepared statement.............................................   207

                                   WITNESSES

    Ashe, Hon. Daniel M., Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service...    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer.........    29
        Response to an additional question from Senator Carper.......    31
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Lautenberg.......................................    32
            Senator Cardin...........................................    33
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    35
            Senator Sessions.........................................    36
    Anderson, James M., M.D., Ph.D., Director, Division of Program
      Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives, the National
      Institutes of Health...........................................    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer............................................    50
            Senator Cardin...........................................    50
            Senator Tom Udall........................................    52
        Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe.......    53
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions......    54
    Inkley, Douglas B., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Wildlife
      Federation.....................................................    70
        Prepared statement...........................................    72
        Response to an additional question from:
            Senator Boxer............................................    79
            Senator Carper...........................................    80
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Cardin...........................................    80
            Senator Sessions.........................................    81
    Wasserman, Martin, M.D., J.D., former Secretary, Maryland
      Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and former
      Administrator, Oregon Public Health Department.................    83
        Prepared statement...........................................    85
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer............................................   101
            Senator Cardin...........................................   104
            Senator Sessions.........................................   107
    Schildwachter, Greg, Ph.D., Watershed Results LLC................   126
        Prepared statement...........................................   128
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Cardin...........................................   135
            Senator Inhofe...........................................   137
            Senator Sessions.........................................   139

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Testimony by the National Chimpanzee Research Facility Directors
      Regarding The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act........   209
    A letter from the American Littoral Society et al. to Senators
      Boxer and Inhofe, September 22, 2011...........................   226

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 810, GREAT APES
       PROTECTION ACT OF 2011, S. 1249, TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP
     TRAINING SUPPORT ACT, S. 2071, PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF
    2012, S. 357, WILDLIFE DISEASE EMERGENCY ACT OF 2011, S. 1494, NATIONAL
      FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011, S. 1266,
    DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION ACT OF 2011, S. 2156, MIGRATORY BIRD
      HABITAT INVESTMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT, AND S. 2282, NORTH AMERICAN
                  WETLANDS CONSERVATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                            Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
    Cardin (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cardin, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, and
    Udall.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. The Committee will come to order.
        Let me welcome you all to the Subcommittee hearing of Water
    and Wildlife of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I
    want to thank Senator Boxer for permitting the Subcommittee to
    hold this hearing today on a subject I think is important to
    many members of the U.S. Senate. We are taking up several
    bills.
        I want to thank Senator Sessions, who will be here shortly,
    the Ranking Republican Member of the Subcommittee on Water and
    Wildlife, for his help and cooperation, and Senator Inhofe for
    his help.
        With today's hearing we have the opportunity to discuss a
    set of critical issues to protecting the Nation's wildlife. The
    Subcommittee will consider seven bills. I would like to thank
    my colleagues who have worked so hard to craft the bills that
    are before us today. I see Senator Udall and Senator Begich who
    are here, and I want to thank them for their leadership on
    these issues.
        Among the bills we will address are the use of chimpanzees
    in medical research, a bill that would focus Federal attention
    and resources on diseases like white-nose syndrome in bats that
    are devastating an entire animal population--I want to thank
    Senator Lautenberg for his strong leadership on that particular
    issue--and several bills to provide critical support for
    wildlife conservation and habitat protection.
        Three of the bills we are considering today directly
    establish or reauthorize conservation programs; S. 1494, the
    National Fish and Wildlife Reauthorization Act, S. 1266, the
    Delaware River Basin Conservation Act, and S. 2282, the North
    America Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act.
        As we attempt to balance Federal spending with the need to
    reduce our deficit, it is important to bear in mind that these
    conservation programs are important not only to preserve the
    health and beauty of our natural environment but also because
    of the significant economic benefits they provide. A study
    commissioned by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation found
    that outdoor recreation, nature conservation, and historic
    preservation provide 9.4 million jobs and account for over $1
    trillion in the total economic activity.
        In Maryland alone the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
    has funded more than 400 projects since 2000, including such
    important conservation and restoration projects as manure-to-
    energy research at the University of Maryland, watershed
    restoration in the Wicomico River, and oyster restoration
    initiatives to restore key species of the Chesapeake Bay.
        The Delaware River Basin includes the Delaware River
    Watershed in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
    and the Delaware Bay. The basin is home to more than 8 million
    people, and 16 million depend on it as an economic engine, as a
    place for recreation, a source of clean drinking water, and a
    vital habitat for fish and wildlife.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act's matching
    grant program, which funds projects to conserve wetlands that
    benefit migratory birds and other wildlife, creates nearly
    7,500 new jobs annually in the United States, and on average it
    generates over $200 million in workers' earnings each year.
        I think everybody is getting to see the theme. These are
    programs that protect the beauty, and what makes America so
    special is unique to our species diversification, but also
    plays a critical part in our economy.
        In addition to conserving wildlife for recreation purposes,
    wildlife also plays a critical role in maintaining a healthy
    ecosystem. They pollinate plants, prey on insects like
    mosquitoes, moths, and beetles, thereby reducing the need for
    pesticides. Yet emerging diseases such as colony collapse
    disorder in bees and white-nose syndrome in bats threaten
    entire species of wildlife. S. 357, the Wildlife Disease
    Emergency Act, would focus resources and attention on diseases
    like white-nose syndrome by creating a Federal plan for
    responding to wildlife disease emergencies.
        Three of the bills we will consider today address the
    ability of marksmen, hunters, and other outdoorsmen to enjoy
    our national wild space. S. 1249, the Target Practice and
    Marksmanship Training Support Act, would give States more
    flexibility to using existing funds to create and maintain safe
    shooting ranges in national parks.
        S. 2071, the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act, would
    authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to sell Federal duck
    stamps on line. Since 1934 sportsmen have been required to
    purchase a Federal duck stamp to hunt migratory waterfowl. The
    program generates approximately $25 million per year, which is
    deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to preserve
    habitat and ensure future hunting opportunities.
        S. 2156, the Migratory Bird Habitat Enhancement and
    Investment Act, this bill also affects the Duck Stamp Program
    by permitting the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with
    the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, to set prices for
    duck stamps. The Duck Stamp Program is an important resource
    for conservation activities nationwide, and especially in my
    home State of Maryland.
        Just this past March, the Department of Interior announced
    that the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission had approved
    over $500,000 in funding to conserve 112 acres of habitat for
    waterfowl and other wildlife in Maryland's Blackwater National
    Wildlife Refuge to be funded with duck stamp proceeds. I am
    very proud of Blackwater Refuge. Its unique habitat and ecology
    make it one of Maryland's most important natural resources. The
    Duck Stamp Program is a key resource for maintaining Blackwater
    and other environmental programs.
        And finally, S. 810, the Great Apes Protection and Cost
    Savings Act, would retire approximately 500 federally owned
    chimpanzees currently in laboratories to permanent sanctuary.
    At Congress' request, the National Institutes of Health
    commissioned a study of the chimpanzees used in biomedical
    research and determined that using chimpanzees was unnecessary
    in most instances. S. 810 is an attempt to address this ongoing
    issue.
        So, we have very important bills that are before us. I am
    pleased, again, with the leadership that the Members of the
    Senate have shown on these important environmental and economic
    issues.
        With that, let me turn to the ranking Republican of the
    Committee, Senator Inhofe.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    having this.
        I want to especially welcome Dan Ashe to this hearing. Back
    during the confirmation process we had a chance to visit about
    what his goals were and what our goals were, and he agreed to
    come to Oklahoma to listen to some of the problems that our ag
    community primarily would have with the listing of the lesser
    prairie-chicken. And we were able to really--actually, he had
    two meetings, one in Woodward, way out in the Panhandle, and
    one in more of the central part of the State.
        Anyway, the listing would significantly harm agriculture,
    construction of highway infrastructure, and energy development,
    including numerous wind development projects in the Woodward
    area, which he saw when he was out there. I fly my plane out
    there quite often, and I take people who have not been up. In
    any one place you can see about 300 of these windmills going
    around. So, they have a dog in this fight, too.
        Of course, the listing is not the only option, and it
    certainly is not the best. While in Oklahoma, Director Ashe
    also had a chance to hear about how Oklahomans have invested
    millions of dollars and a great deal of time and significant
    effort and which are increasing the numbers of the lesser
    prairie-chickens without harming our economy.
        I continue to call for the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    allow these voluntary efforts to achieve results before going
    through with the listing decision. Recently, there has been
    talk of a possibility of a 6-month delay which would be most
    welcome as it would give Oklahomans a chance to continue their
    important work.
        So, let me just say thank you, Director Ashe, for your help
    out in Oklahoma.
        Today's hearing is a great opportunity to put the spotlight
    on voluntary efforts as time and time again they prove to be
    the best methods of achieving land and species conservation
    goals without destroying jobs and hurting the economy. One such
    example can be found in a bipartisan bill I sponsored with my
    good friends Senators Boxer and Vitter, the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Extension Act.
        This program has such a good track record for conservation
    precisely because it is a volunteer effort. It incentivizes
    non-Government funds for wetland and wildlife habitat
    conservation. On each, each Federal dollar is matched by $3.20
    from non-Federal contributions. In my State of Oklahoma, it
    currently has 12 projects either completed or underway. These
    projects have conserved some 26,869 acres of wildlife habitat
    and leveraged $11.3 million in partner contributions from the
    $4.9 million in the funding.
        The Hackberry Flat Project in Tillman County has led to the
    restoration of wetland habitat, and the area is now open for
    hunting waterfowl, dove, quail, rabbit, and sandhill cranes.
    When you compare the successes with the Federal mandates which
    most often do not achieve the conservation goals but give
    States unnecessary economic pain it is clear that the voluntary
    programs should be at the center of all conservation efforts.
        In addition to the NAWCA, we will be discussing several
    conservation bills today, including the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act, which is another
    promising voluntary effort. The National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation is doing important work protecting the lesser
    prairie-chicken in order to help prevent this listing under the
    Endangered Species Act. Most importantly, the bill reduces the
    authorization level by $5 million while still giving the
    Foundation the ability to leverage funds for conservation
    projects.
        The only other bill I have concerns about is S. 810, the
    Great Apes Protection Act. I look forward to hearing from Dr.
    Anderson from the National Institute of Health, his thoughts on
    this legislation.
        I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here
    today, especially Greg Schildwachter, former Staff Director of
    this Subcommittee, who now works at Watershed Results LLC. With
    his background, he will be able to provide valuable insight on
    the effectiveness of these bills. I look forward to having an
    important dialogue about how best to achieve the conservation
    goals without causing more pain.
        And by the way, I always have trouble with his last name
    because, when he was on the Committee, we just called him Greg.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. Anyway, we have the partnership programs,
    and others have been so successful, and I say to Director Ashe,
    as Oklahoma as kind of a good testing ground for these
    programs, and I think you probably came back with that same
    impression.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma

        I would like to thank Senator Cardin and Senator Sessions
    for holding this hearing on a number of important wildlife
    conservation bills.
        I would especially like to welcome Dan Ashe, Director of
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Director Ashe traveled to
    my home State late last year to hear from Oklahomans about how
    devastating a listing of the lesser prairie-chicken would be
    for Oklahoma's economy: this listing would significantly harm
    agriculture, the construction of highway infrastructure, and
    energy development, including numerous wind development
    projects in the Woodward area. But of course a listing isn't
    the only option, and it certainly isn't the best. While in
    Oklahoma Director Ashe also had the chance to hear about how
    Oklahomans have invested millions of dollars and a great deal
    of time in significant voluntary efforts which are increasing
    the number of lesser prairie-chickens without harming our
    economy. I continue to call for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    to allow these voluntary efforts to achieve results before
    going through with a listing decision. Recently there has been
    talk of a possibility of a 6-month delay, which would be most
    welcome as it would give Oklahomans more time to continue this
    important work.
        Today's hearing is a great opportunity to put the spotlight
    on voluntary efforts, as time and time again they prove to be
    the best methods of achieving land and species conservation
    goals without destroying jobs and hurting our economy. One such
    example can be found in a bipartisan bill I am sponsoring with
    my good friends Senators Boxer and Vitter: the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Extension Act of 2012 (S. 2282).
        This program has such a good track record for conservation
    precisely because it is a voluntary effort; it incentivizes
    non-Federal funds for wetland wildlife habitat conservation. On
    average, each Federal dollar is match by $3.20 of non-Federal
    contributions.
        In my State of Oklahoma NAWCA currently has 12 projects
    either completed or underway. These projects have conserved
    26,869 acres of wildlife habitat and leveraged $11.3 million in
    partner contributions from $4.9 million in NAWCA funding. The
    Hackberry Flat project in Tillman County has led to the
    restoration of wetland habitat, and the area is now open for
    hunting waterfowl, dove, quail, rabbit, and sandhill cranes.
    When you compare the success of NAWCA with Federal mandates
    which most often do not achieve conservation goals but give
    States unnecessary economic pain, it's clear that the voluntary
    programs should be at the center of all conservation efforts.
        In addition to NAWCA, we will be discussing several
    conservation bills today, including the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act (S. 1494), which is
    another promising voluntary effort. The National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation is doing important work protecting the
    lesser prairie-chicken in order to help prevent its listing
    under the Endangered Species Act. Most importantly this bill
    reduces the authorization level by $5 million while still
    giving the foundation the ability to leverage funds for
    conservation projects.
        I also support Senator Wicker's bill, S. 2071, the
    Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012, which, as stated
    in the title, allows the purchase of electronic duck stamps for
    waterfowl hunters across all 50 States. Migratory waterfowl
    hunters are required to purchase a Federal Duck Stamp from the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and the stamp grants them access to
    Federal Wildlife Refuges without any additional fees. This bill
    follows a successful pilot program by eight States that allowed
    the purchase of the Federal Duck Stamp online. Additionally,
    this bill comes at no cost to taxpayers.
        One bill, though, that I cannot support in its current form
    is S. 810, the Great Apes Protection Act. While we certainly
    want to treat animals as humanely as possible, this bill goes
    too far with an outright ban on chimpanzee research. Recently,
    the National Academies' Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a
    report regarding the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and
    behavioral research. The IOM report states, ``The committee's
    report does not endorse an outright ban on chimpanzee
    research'' and warns ``how disruptive an immediate outright ban
    would be, affecting animal care and potentially causing
    unacceptable losses to the public's health.'' It continues to
    state that ``chimpanzees may prove uniquely important to
    unraveling the mystery of diseases that are unknown today.''
        Chimpanzee research has led to the development of vaccines
    for hepatitis A and B and has helped gain important insight
    into diseases such as hepatitis C, malaria, HIV, and cancer. An
    outright ban would be very shortsighted and may endanger public
    health.
        I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here
    today, especially Greg Schildwachter, a former staff director
    of this Subcommittee who now works at Watershed Results, LLC.
    With his background he will be able to provide valuable insight
    on the effectiveness of these bills.
        I look forward to having an important dialogue about how
    best to achieve conservation goals without causing more pain in
    tough economic times.
        Thank you.

        Senator Cardin. Again, Senator Inhofe, thank you for your
    leadership on so many of these issues.
        Senator Lautenberg.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing on legislation to protect wildlife, including
    legislation that I introduced to address the threats to bats
    and other wildlife.
        Since 2006 more than 5 million hibernating bats have died
    from a disease called white-nose syndrome. And it is happening
    in 19 States across the country, particularly in New Jersey. We
    have a sanctuary for bats called the Hibernia Mine. I went down
    into that mine in 1997 and visited with a bunch of bats. To be
    precise, 30,000 of them were there, and I was very comfortable
    with them, I must tell you.
        The bat population, however, having remained constant for a
    decade, suddenly in 2009 it was discovered that the number of
    bats went from 30,000 down to just 700. Bat mortality rates in
    some caves are approaching 100 percent. You cannot make a
    mistake. The loss of these bats poses a major threat to entire
    ecosystems, with the potential to cause serious environmental
    and economic problems.
        Bats are one of nature's best exterminators, helping to
    protect the public's health and our crops. They prey almost
    exclusively on mosquitoes and other insects which spread
    disease, and moths and beetles which damage crops. A single bat
    can eat half of its body weight in insects in a single night,
    and an entire colony will consume hundreds of millions of
    insects.
        In the 6 years since the white-nose syndrome was first
    discovered in New York State, we have made some progress in the
    fight against the disease. We had a hearing in this
    Subcommittee, last Congress, and have secured more than $5
    million to address white-nose syndrome. The challenges that
    make white-nose syndrome so difficult to address are the same
    as those that affect many developing wildlife diseases. And as
    a result, Federal agencies have been able to determine the
    origin and cause of white-nose syndrome.
        Last month, Senator Leahy and I sent a letter to the
    Appropriations Committee, signed by 11 other Senators, asking
    for additional funding for white-nose syndrome. But we must do
    more, which is why I introduced the Wildlife Disease Emergency
    Act.
        So, what we have to do is, we have got to really put our
    resources into this fight. Today, we are forced to scramble to
    develop a basic response to a disease, only to find out that
    the outbreak has surpassed the scale of the response. In the
    years since the white-nose outbreak began, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service has done great work to coordinate response
    across several agencies and with State governments.
        My bill would help Federal and State agencies to be better
    prepared to respond to future outbreaks of wildlife diseases.
    It would also authorize more resources to address wildlife
    disease emergencies, including the ongoing response to white-
    nose syndrome.
        The bill still is endorsed by 17 wildlife groups, including
    Bat Conservation International, the National Resource Defense
    Council, the Defenders of Wildlife, and many other
    distinguished agencies. In a letter of support, they note
    overarching coordination is necessary to promote efficiency and
    prevent redundancy and that this bill will provide that
    coordination.
        And I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be
    included in the record.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection.
        Senator Lautenberg. Our mission is clear. We have got to do
    more to stop this deadly outbreak and be better prepared to
    stop the next wildlife disease emergency.
        I thank the witnesses for being here. I look forward to
    hearing from them today on all of these bills.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The referenced letter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Senator Udall.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Senator Tom Udall. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I will try to
    be brief since our colleagues are here. But I want to thank you
    for holding this hearing on all of these very important bills.
        This Committee has the important task of ensuring that
    wildlife throughout the Nation is appropriately managed. The
    bills before the Subcommittee today do a great deal to help
    ensure species are protected, watersheds are vibrant, and
    animals receive humane treatment.
        About 1 year ago I invited Senators Bingaman and Harkin to
    join me and ask the National Academy of Sciences to complete a
    study on the necessity for chimpanzee use in biomedical and
    behavioral research. This study was meant to lay out the
    scientific basis for the need for chimpanzees in research and
    to inform future policy decisions relating to invasive research
    on chimpanzees.
        I commend the National Academy of Sciences for taking on
    the task, which was assigned to and completed by the Institute
    of Medicine. The Institute was diligent in bringing in experts
    from diverse fields and allowing for public involvement. The
    resulting report is a non-biased resource for policymakers.
        I would also like to commend the National Institutes of
    Health for their quick and deliberate response to the report
    and look forward to hearing what progress the National
    Institutes of Health has made toward adopting the
    recommendations of the IOM.
        I also look forward to hearing from the other panelists
    today.
        The most important thing that they concluded was that, for
    the most part, chimpanzees are not needed in most research,
    which was a bit of surprise, I think, to everyone, and it looks
    like we are going to--Chairman Cardin, you mentioned this in
    your opening statement--move forward with those recommendations
    expeditiously.
        Jane Goodall just put together testimony, Chairman Cardin,
    on this particular issue, and I have a copy of that, and I
    would ask that it be put in the record. And I would also ask
    that the remainder of my opening statement be deferred and give
    the courtesy to our colleagues that are here to inform us on
    the pieces of legislation they are working on.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection, your full statement will
    be included in the record, as well as the additional comments
    from the other person mentioned.
        [The referenced testimony follows. The prepared statement
    of Senator Tom Udall was not received at time of print.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. We will now turn to our colleagues.
        First, let me welcome Senator Mark Udall to our Committee.
    Senator Udall is the sponsor of S. 1249, the Target Practice
    and Marksmanship Training Support Act.
        It is a pleasure to have you before our Committee.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Senator Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and in the
    spirit of my good cousin from New Mexico, I will also try to be
    brief.
        I want to thank you and Ranking Member Sessions for your
    support. I am also grateful to Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking
    Member Inhofe for including my bipartisan legislation into
    today's hearing. I want to also acknowledge my good friend,
    Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey.
        I have introduced the Target Practice and Marksmanship
    Training Support Act. It is designed to encourage the
    development of high quality shooting ranges which are open to
    the public by amending certain parts to the Pittman-Robertson
    Wildlife Restoration Act. That Act provides Federal support for
    certain wildlife restoration and hunter education programs.
        My bill would give the States greater flexibility over the
    Federal law than they already receive from the PR, the Pittman-
    Robertson funds, which would free up more money to build
    shooting ranges. The funds from Pittman-Robertson come from an
    excise tax on the sale of shooting and archery equipment. This
    bill helps those paying into the system, which are primarily
    sportsmen, get a better return on their investment.
        By focusing on flexibility with already allocated funds,
    the legislation will not cost taxpayers an additional dime. And
    in return, I believe it will be a tremendous boon for our
    sportsmen and our outdoor recreation communities which are not
    only an integral part of our national heritage but are a key
    component of our economy, especially in rural areas, which we
    all do represent.
        For those reasons, the bill has broad bipartisan support.
    Here, Senator Risch teamed up with me to author the bill. It
    has broad support within the sportsmen's community, and I am
    grateful for the support that we have gotten from everybody
    from the National Shooting Sports Foundation to the National
    Rifle Association.
        As you all know, often the best ideas for legislation come
    from the local communities, and I really had overwhelming
    support in Colorado from people who want to see the development
    of more high quality shooting ranges. So, I want to finish with
    some comments from two of my constituents.
        Donald in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, which is down in the
    wonderful southwestern part of the State near my cousin's State
    of New Mexico. He wrote to me, I have been a hunter education
    instructor for over 30 years and helped teach over 5,000
    students. Since we have no public shooting facilities in the
    Pagosa Springs area, it is always a challenge to find a safe
    and accessible location for the range portion of the class. We
    desperately need a range facility in our area to be able to
    continue teaching our kids and those who are new to hunting how
    to safely handle firearms.
        From Gary in Aurora, Colorado, my father helped to found
    and build a recreational shooting facility in the late 1950s. I
    was literally brought up at the range. I spent every weekend
    working there. These ranges are not just a place to shoot. They
    are a close knit family full of diverse people. Our club has
    also taught my son the love of shooting and safety along with
    me. I cannot stress this enough as we are seeing more and more
    clubs closing down. We need more places to teach, enjoy, and
    relax with fellow shooters.
        So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me an
    opportunity to present my bill to you, and I look forward to
    working with the Committee to advance this important
    legislation.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Udall. I appreciate your
    leadership on this and so many other issues.
        Senator Begich is the principal sponsor of S. 2156, the
    Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act.
        Senator Begich.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Senator Begich. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, and also the
    other members that are here for holding this hearing today,
    including S. 2156, the Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and
    Enhancement Act.
        Since it was created in 1934 the Federal Duck Stamp Program
    has been one of the most successful conservation tools in
    history. It has raised over $750 million and has preserved over
    5 million acres of wetlands to protect waterfowl habitat. It
    has preserved lands which maintain our hunting heritage and
    boosted waterfowl population for enjoyment by all.
        I introduced the bill to address two issues with the duck
    stamp. One is to adjust the price. The current price, $15, has
    not changed since 1991, and has lost over half its value due to
    inflation. Without a change, the Duck Stamp Program cannot
    continue to do the work it has been doing.
        Rather than just hike it, I propose to allow the Secretary
    of Interior, in consultation with the Migratory Bird
    Conservation Commission, to adjust the price once every 5
    years. I think you will hear from the duck hunters that even
    they support this since they benefit directly from the program.
        My bill also allows the Secretary to grant limited waivers
    from the stamp fee. That is a response to subsistence shooters
    in my State who argue they have already done their part for
    wetlands conservation. Millions of acres of native lands have
    been set aside in refuges or in some other protected status.
    Such a waiver would have minimal impact on the Duck Stamp
    Program but will relieve subsistence users who still live off
    the land for most of their diet from the cost of this Federal
    program.
        I welcome your consideration of this bill and would be
    happy to answer any questions you may have as you move forward
    on this piece of legislation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Senator Begich and Senator
    Udall. We thank both of you for your leadership on these
    important issues. And I do not see that there are any questions
    from members of the Committee, so thank you very much. You are
    both excused.
        We will now turn to our first panel. We are pleased to have
    Hon. Dan Ashe with us. He is the Director of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the Nation's principal Federal agency
    dedicated to the conservation of fish and wildlife and their
    habitats.
        Director Ashe has a long and distinguished career in
    conservation. Prior to assuming the Director's position, he
    served within the Fish and Wildlife Service as Deputy Director
    for Policy, as a science advisor, and as Chief of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. I also am pleased to note that he is a
    Maryland constituent.
        We are also pleased to have Dr. James Anderson. Dr.
    Anderson is the Director of the Division of Program,
    Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives of the
    National Institutes of Health. Dr. Anderson has expertise in
    both clinical medicine and academic research and has held key
    academic positions with the University of North Carolina,
    Chapel Hill, and the Yale School of Medicine.
        Welcome, both of you, to our Committee. We thank you for
    your service to our country, and we thank you for being here
    today.
        We will start off with Mr. Ashe.

              STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR,
                     U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator Cardin, Committee members. It
    is great to be here.
        Senator Inhofe, I would start off by again saying thank you
    for the invitation to come to Oklahoma. It was a wonderful
    opportunity. It was tragic just about 2 weeks ago when I saw
    that a tornado had occurred in Woodward, and it made me feel
    for those great people up there. So, my heart goes out to
    everyone there, Senator.
        I would like to begin by saying the Committee is
    considering a great breadth of legislation today, things that
    really touch on the breath of challenges that we are facing in
    the wildlife conservation world today. As we think about those
    challenges, we have to think about the root of those
    challenges, and it really is us.
        We see, of course, continued expansion of population at the
    world scale but also at the United States scale. And it is not
    just an expansion in the total number of people. It is the
    expansion of affluence in both the United States and in the
    world as a whole.
        We all want a better place for our children and
    grandchildren. We want a strong economy; we want an expanding
    economy. But I think we have to realize that what that means
    for the land and the water resources of our Nation and the
    world is that we will be asking more of the land and water
    resources to produce more food, more fuel, more fiber, and more
    water for our human needs. And that means, of course, less for
    the rest of what we could collectively call biological
    diversity.
        So, as you see these pieces of legislation before you today
    you are really dealing with the root of the issues and
    challenges that we face, the continued fragmentation and
    destruction of habitat.
        I will point you to the prairies, the American prairies
    where, which are really the--we call it the duck factory as we
    think about waterfowl in the United States. We are seeing a
    perfect storm in the American prairie today driven by $8 a
    bushel corn, but also new genetically modified crops that allow
    growing of crops in wetter and drier areas, new draining and
    tiling techniques that allow the removal of water from many of
    these systems. And so, we are seeing the conversion of wetland
    and grassland habitat in the prairies at rates that are
    unprecedented.
        So as you are considering today the reauthorization of the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the authorization
    for the Secretary to increase the price of the duck stamp,
    these will be vital tools to us as we seek to conserve
    America's great wetlands, expand our partnership with Canada
    and Mexico, and continue to great heritage of waterfowl hunting
    and the great tradition that it supports.
        As we see habitats diminishing, it also means that our
    wildlife populations will be more susceptible to stressors like
    wildlife disease. Senator Lautenberg has been a leader in
    raising the profile of white-nose syndrome. We are also dealing
    with the challenges of chytrid fungus in amphibians, which is
    driving worldwide decline amphibians.
        Of course, again, the root of many of these problems is
    trade. We see trade globally escalating. And many of our laws
    like the Lacey Act, which is a key wildlife enforcement law,
    was written in 1900 when trade moved by steam locomotive for
    the most part. And now we have, of course, global trade where
    we can move products and commodities across the globe on a 24-
    hour scale.
        So, as we think about the challenge of conservation, many
    times in the past we have driven our philosophy of conservation
    from a public land base, and public lands in the United States
    are about 30 percent of the land base. I mean, 70 percent is in
    private ownership.
        So, the legislation that is before you to reauthorize the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, of course, that public-
    private partnership, is essential to us as we think about
    conservation in the future, and organizations like the National
    Fish and Wildlife Foundation that provide the opportunity to
    bring and leverage public and private partnerships are
    essential as we think about conservation in the 21st century,
    and of course expanding the opportunity for outdoor recreation
    as represented in Senator Udall's legislation and Senator
    Begich's legislation.
        I think that that opportunity to use an instrument like the
    Pittman-Robertson Program and the Wildlife and Sport Fish
    Restoration Program to expand opportunities for shooting on
    public land is a great opportunity for the future.
        So, expanding challenges in an era of diminishing resources
    means that we need exceptional leadership. And I want to thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the members of the Committee, for
    your great leadership as represented by the legislation that
    you are hearing today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Ashe.
        Dr. Anderson.

    STATEMENT OF JAMES M. ANDERSON, M.D., PH.D., DIRECTOR, DIVISION
     OF PROGRAM COORDINATION, PLANNING AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES,
                   THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

        Dr. Anderson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Subcommittee.
        I am pleased to testify about NIH's efforts to implement
    the recent recommendations offered in a December 15, 2011,
    report by the Institute of Medicine [IOM] and accepted by the
    NIH regarding the use of chimpanzees in NIH-supported research.
        As the Subcommittee begins consideration of S. 810, the
    Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, I look forward to
    discussing the recommendations of the IOM and NIH's efforts to
    implement them as we continue to focus on our mission of
    improving human health and saving lives.
        The use of animals in research has enabled scientists to
    identify new ways to treat illness, extend life, and improve
    health and well-being. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives in
    the animal kingdom, providing exceptional insight into human
    biology and the need for special consideration and respect. NIH
    is deeply committed to the care and welfare of chimpanzees.
        While used very selectively and in limited numbers,
    research involving chimpanzees has served an important role in
    advancing human health in the past. Just a few examples,
    contributing significantly to the development of oral vaccine
    for polio and the vaccines for hepatitis A and B, developing
    FDA approved antibodies for the use and treatment of lymphomas
    and other cancers, and pioneering new uses for immune cells in
    cancer immunotherapy.
        However, new methods and technologies developed in the
    biomedical community have provided alternatives to the use of
    chimpanzees in several areas of research. Consequently, in
    December 2011, with the encouragement of Senator Udall on this
    Subcommittee and other Members of Congress, NIH commissioned a
    study by the IOM to assess whether chimpanzees are or will be
    necessary for biomedical and behavioral research.
        A year later, December 15, 2011, the IOM issued its
    findings and concluded, among others, that the use of
    chimpanzees in current and future research should be guided by
    specific principles and criteria. And based on these
    principles, they concluded that most current use of chimpanzees
    for biomedical research is unnecessary with the exception of
    some areas that may still require their use.
        Of special relevance to today's hearing, they also
    concluded that new, emerging, or re-emerging infectious
    diseases may present challenges that defy non-chimpanzee models
    and therefore may require that chimpanzees be used in future
    research.
        After accepting the IOM recommendations, NIH immediately
    halted issuance of any new awards for research involving
    chimpanzees until processes for implementing the
    recommendations are in place.
        In addition, the NIH has assembled a working group within
    the NIH Council of Councils--that is a Federal advisory
    committee--to provide advice on the implementation of the IOM
    recommendations and to consider the size and placement of
    active and inactive populations of NIH-owned or supported
    chimpanzees.
        The working group began their work in early February of
    this year, and NIH anticipates they will present their final
    report during a session of the Council of Councils in early
    2013. After the Council considers the working group's report
    and recommendations, the NIH will open a 60-day public comment
    period on the implementation of the report and recommendations.
        Throughout this process, NIH remains committed to
    conducting and supporting high quality science in the interest
    of advancing public health and to the humane care of animals
    used in NIH research. Animals used in federally funded research
    are protected by laws, regulations, and policies to ensure the
    greatest commitment to their physical and emotional comfort and
    welfare.
        I would like to close by thanking the Subcommittee for
    inviting NIH to provide an update on its activities to
    implement the IOM recommendations. I want to assure you, Mr.
    Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, that we place the
    appropriate care and use of animals as a fundamental principle
    at the core of all our research activities.
        I would be happy to try and answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Again, thanks to both of you for your
    presence and your testimony.
        Mr. Ashe, let me start with you if I might. You commented
    about the bills that are basically under the jurisdiction of
    your agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are
    seven bills here that generally come under your jurisdiction.
    Could you tell us specifically whether you have a position in
    support of this legislation, these bills, or whether there are
    any suggested changes that you would like to see us consider as
    we look over the seven bills that would generally come under
    Fish and Wildlife?
        Mr. Ashe. Mr. Chairman, my written testimony goes through
    each bill one by one. I would say that we either support, or
    support the intention of, each of the bills today. We have
    indicated in a couple of instances things where we might like
    to see some changes or expansion in the direction of the bills.
    And so, we are happy to work with the Subcommittee on each and
    every one of those bills. We would like to, I think we would
    enjoin to see enactment of all of them, and we look forward to
    working with the Committee as you go forward.
        Senator Cardin. And your full statement will be, both of
    your full statements, will be included in our record.
        I think that is very helpful. It is very positive. I know
    that Senator Lautenberg has worked very hard on the, dealing
    with the concerns of the wildlife disease emergencies, and it
    is well beyond just the problems with the white-nose syndrome
    for bats. There are other areas of equal concern. And the
    white-nose syndrome is far beyond just one State. There are
    many States that are involved in it.
        Do you see that bill as an opportunity for us to better
    coordinate responses to these types of emergencies?
        Mr. Ashe. We do. And the issue of wildlife disease, as I
    said, is one of the great emerging challenges for wildlife
    conservation. Of course, it always has been an issue. For
    instance, avian botulism has always been an issue that the Fish
    and Wildlife Service has had to deal with. But now we are
    seeing these exotic diseases.
        Again, the root of many of them is trade and our really
    kind of weak authorities to regulate the movement of animals in
    international trade. And so, Senator Lautenberg's bill is
    certainly a great step in the right direction to encourage and
    support a better coordination in terms of a response to disease
    emergencies.
        I think we also need to think about how we can prevent
    these exotic diseases from getting into our wildlife
    populations in the first place. And that is an area that we
    would like to work with the Committee to consider how we might
    envision more effective mechanisms of preventing these disease
    outbreaks before they occur.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        I point out that conservation programs, they are very, very
    efficient programs in getting dollars out to deal with
    conservation. The duck stamp, I think it is 98 cents of every
    dollar goes directly out to acquisition of acreage which is
    under protection, like 5 million acres have been protected
    under the Duck Stamp Program.
        So, I think it is important for us to try to modernize
    those programs and make them even more effective. And I
    appreciate Senator Begich's comments about it. Does your
    written statement deal with the waiver suggestion that he has
    made?
        Mr. Ashe. It does. We are strongly supportive of Senator
    Begich's bill. Of course, the last time the price of the stamp
    was adjusted was 1991. So we have lost purchasing power. The
    price of the stamp today, our estimate is that it would have to
    be $24 to have the same purchasing power as in 1991.
        So increasing the price of stamps, which is supported by
    all of the major waterfowling organizations and hunting
    organizations like Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl and
    others, but then the exemption process that the Senator
    envisions will allow us to deal with some of the basic
    injustice and equity issues like he mentioned with Alaska
    natives, where we have Alaska natives that are engaging in a
    subsistence hunt, not a sport hunt, and they, as the Senator
    said, they conserve millions upon millions of acres of
    wetlands.
        And so, we believe that there is an appropriate balance
    that can be made in instance like that where an exemption would
    not affect the revenue substantially or our ability to more
    broadly enforce the purchase and carry requirements for the
    duck stamp.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
        I can also mention the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation since it has funded, I have been told, over 400
    Maryland projects since 2000, is a very important program for
    us to reauthorize.
        I also have questions in regard to Dr. Anderson and the
    chimpanzees, but my time in the first round has expired, and I
    guess that some of my colleagues will be questioning on
    subjects that I may have questioned anyway, so let me turn it
    over to Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Ashe, I really do appreciate your coming out and
    talking to our constituents and also your recognition of what
    happened in Woodward, Oklahoma. It was just really tragic. I
    knew one of the persons who died in that tornado. So I will
    pass that on, your concern and your condolences at the same
    time.
        As you know, this issue is really important to the people
    of Oklahoma along with the people of the other four States
    making a very significant push to ensure the long-term
    viability of this species. That said, I know that the proposed
    listing deadline is coming up in September, and the settlement
    agreements allow the Service to grant a 6-month extension so
    biologists can continue examining this species.
        I do not want to ask you for a commitment. I just ask if
    you would be as flexible as possible to working with my office
    and other stakeholders to allow time for these efforts to
    demonstrate what they are able to do.
        Mr. Ashe. We will work with you, Senator. The law does
    provide us with some flexibility to take into account new
    information. And the State of Oklahoma, as you know, has been a
    leader. I met last week again with Secretary Gary Shearer, and
    the State is really producing a great plan for conservation of
    the lesser prairie-chicken and is leading the other four States
    within the range of the species. So we look forward to working
    with the State of Oklahoma and the other range States and we
    will provide as much flexibility as we possibly can.
        Senator Inhofe. That is great. And I appreciate that. That
    is all I could ask.
        Could you just make some comments about the reauthorization
    of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and more
    specifically, why it is important to have a voluntary program
    like that that offers the--that incentivizes the State and
    private funding? Your comments about the NAWCA.
        Mr. Ashe. Sure. First, I want to begin with thanking you
    for your leadership in introducing that legislation. The North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act has been an absolute--has
    become an absolute foundation of our ability to conserve the
    waterfowl resource in the United States. It provides a bridge
    between Canada and the U.S. and Mexico, coordinates response
    amongst all of the agencies within the three governments. So,
    in the United States, it is Interior, it is Agriculture, the
    Department of Defense. We have partners like The Nature
    Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Trust for Public Lands. All of
    our State agencies are partners in that process.
        So the North American Waterfowl Conservation Act has really
    become a singular success leveraging public dollars, 2 and 3
    and 4 to 1. At the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
    meeting last month they presented a slate of projects that were
    matched with three private dollars for every Federal dollar.
    So, just a tremendous success story, and the bill needs to be
    reauthorized so that we can continue that record.
        Senator Inhofe. OK. I appreciate that very much.
        Dr. Anderson, we had a hearing, it was not too long ago, I
    remember Senator Lautenberg and I were very interested in that.
    It was about some of the extreme animal rights groups coming in
    and trying to stop all experiments. I remember my son calling
    me, he is a medical doctor, saying well, Dad, do they not
    understand the choice may be animals or people? So, I know that
    this is something that we have to deal with.
        In that case, however, there are specific things that we
    are able to achieve and demonstrate having been done. Do you
    want to make any comments about some of the really, not any
    specific extremist groups, but this idea that they should do
    away with all that type of experimental activity put together?
        Dr. Anderson. Well, I would like to point out that the
    chimpanzee model being close to humans has been invaluable in
    the past. It has provided us with the oral Sabin vaccine. I
    just remembered the number. In 1952 there were 52,000 cases of
    polio. It is eradicated in the United States now. And there are
    similar dramatic improvements because of vaccines for hepatitis
    A and B.
        Senator Inhofe. Now, I am old enough to remember. Do you
    really think that would not have happened if we had not had the
    opportunity to use chimpanzees? Was that a major player in this
    success?
        Dr. Anderson. These were major.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes. Yes.
        Dr. Anderson. But that said, the Institute of Medicine, we
    have accepted their recommendations that there be criteria,
    really a high bar for using chimpanzees in the future. Part of
    this is because we have developed other models. There is a
    humanized mouse now that can be infected with hepatitis C. It
    is not perfect. We are not quite there in replacing all uses of
    chimpanzees.
        But the IOM pointed out that there were appropriate uses
    currently, I think most importantly, if we were to consider not
    having the model available, is, they pointed out, that there
    will be new and emerging, unexpected infectious diseases for
    which this model will be appropriate. And in the last few
    decades we have had examples of viral and bacterial infections
    where the chimpanzee has been the best model.
        Senator Inhofe. Now, on the chimpanzee, you would not
    support a total, outright ban on all experiments on the
    chimpanzee?
        Dr. Anderson. That is correct. NIH has accepted those
    recommendations from the IOM that this continue as an available
    model, but that there be high criteria for when we use it.
        Senator Inhofe. Sure, sure.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ashe, thank you both for your important testimony here.
        Over the past several years, Congress has appropriated $5
    million in funding to fight the white-nose syndrome. We are now
    fighting for more resources to conduct our campaign. What
    progress so far has Fish and Wildlife made toward addressing
    the disease? Are we making any progress?
        Mr. Ashe. I think we are making tremendous progress,
    Senator. Of course, funding has been essential to that
    progress. I think we are understanding more about the disease.
    I mean, you mentioned 19 States. We have an extensive
    monitoring framework now that is done cooperatively with our
    State and other Federal partners. We have put in place
    protocols for cave--for consideration of cave closures, and
    cave resource management. We are and have worked on rapid
    response plans. So I think we have, we have made tremendous
    strides in our understanding of the disease.
        Of course, what eludes us still is how to prevent further
    spread of the disease and really even fully understanding the
    vectors through which the disease is moving across and between
    the States. And so, we need more support. We need more
    research. We need improved partnership in the future between
    Federal, State, and private parties if we are going to attack
    the problem. But it is extremely complex.
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, we have marshaled a lot of
    resources, not just the funds but organizationally. And we know
    that in Europe there is a different version of the white-nose
    syndrome. I do not know what we are learning from them, but I
    assume that we are swapping information freely?
        Mr. Ashe. We are working with Europe. Of course, the
    fungus, the same fungus essentially in Europe does not cause
    the mortality in bats that we see in the United States. And so,
    there is always hope that bats here, that we will see an
    adaptation. There has been some indication that there may be
    some adaptation occurring, but it is way too early to tell
    whether that will be widespread.
        But what we need is to better understand how the fungus is
    moving, how it is affecting bats at the population scale, what
    kind of management can we undertake to mitigate the effects on
    bat populations.
        Senator Lautenberg. All of the questions that you just
    posed are very good, and we look to you for the answers.
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Lautenberg. The white-nose syndrome killed upwards
    of 5 million bats and continues to spread across the country.
    Now, earlier this year, the disease was confirmed west of the
    Mississippi, raising the risk for some of our largest
    agricultural States. What impact might the decimation of the
    bat population have on agriculture?
        Mr. Ashe. We speak a lot these days in the conservation
    world of ecosystem services, essentially the free service that
    healthy and vibrant ecosystems provide. We know they provide
    flood control. They provide air quality and water quality
    benefits. The bats, they provide a huge benefit to the
    agricultural industry in terms of elimination of pests, insect
    pests. And so some of the estimates are $20 billion to $25
    billion in ecosystem services that are provided by bat
    populations to the agricultural industry.
        So, the decline, a potential decline or devastation in bat
    populations is of tremendous consequence to the American
    people, not just in the economic effect but then, in order to
    replace that service, we have to use pesticides. So there would
    the corresponding increase in our reliance upon pesticides with
    the corresponding potential and wildlife effects.
        Senator Lautenberg. And obviously price increases would
    like follow, as the crops are produced in less quality.
        Dr. Anderson, I have introduced legislation to reform our
    country's broken chemical safety law. We talk about TSCA, in
    particular. Included in my Safe Chemicals Act is a provision to
    reduce animal-based testing and promote research into advanced
    toxicity testing techniques. How far along are we--we have
    talked about this fairly extensively already--in developing
    tests that provide scientifically valid data without using
    animals at all?
        Dr. Anderson. We are not quite there yet. The thing that is
    on the horizon now is the use of small, isolated units of
    biology, or a few cells that mimic something about the body
    that we can interrogate with toxins or with pharmaceuticals. We
    have several examples of that at NIH that we have recently
    developed. One is a big program with DARPA and FDA in
    regulatory science, or how do we collect the data to review
    drugs appropriately and safely move them along and hopefully
    faster. We have a way to go, but are working very hard in this
    area.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have additional
    questions I will submit for the record.
        Senator Cardin. That is perfectly acceptable.
        Senator Udall.
        Senator Tom Udall. Thank you, Chairman Cardin.
        Thank you both for your testimony. Director Ashe, in
    particular I appreciate your testimony on the population impact
    on our natural resources. I am glad that is something that you
    are concerned about, and also your concerns for diversity.
        We have, Dr. Ashe, a very important decision, as you know,
    the upcoming listing decision of the dunes sagebrush lizard, an
    extremely important issue in southeastern New Mexico. New
    Mexico ranchers, oil and gas producers, the State Land Office,
    and BLM have entered into conservation agreements covering 90
    percent of the lizards' habitat in New Mexico.
        Last week, Senator Bingaman and I sent you and Regional
    Director Tuggle a letter commending the work on these
    agreements. We encourage the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    finalize similar agreements in Texas. What do these
    conservation agreements mean for ranchers or oil and gas
    producers who have signed them?
        Mr. Ashe. I think that what we see emerging in New Mexico
    and hopefully expanding into western Texas is really a model of
    how we can approach endangered species conservation in the
    future. And those candidate conservation agreements and
    candidate conservation agreements with assurances, in
    particular, what they represent to those landowners is
    essentially insurance that if a listing does occur, that what
    they are doing, those best management practices that they are
    implementing, will be enough. That is all they will be held to.
        So, in the best case, they can help us avoid a listing
    because by implementing those best management practices they
    are abating the threat to the species. And so, we are hopeful
    that we may be able to avoid the necessity to list if we get
    similar commitments in Texas. But even if we have to list, they
    have that assurance that those practices that they have
    committed to are all that they will be held to in the event of
    a listing.
        Senator Tom Udall. And from a scientific perspective, how
    valuable are these agreements to protect the species?
        Mr. Ashe. Well, they attack the cause. The threat to the
    species is the loss and fragmentation of its habitat. And so,
    the foundation of those agreements is avoidance of the shinnery
    oak habitat that is key for the dunes sagebrush lizard,
    avoidance, minimization of damage and then mitigation of any
    damage that does occur. So, it is essential to dealing with the
    threat to the species.
        Senator Tom Udall. And from a legal perspective, how
    significant are these agreements under the Endangered Species
    Act?
        Mr. Ashe. Well, as I said, they provide the key if we are
    doing to avoid the necessity for a listing because we have to
    show that the threat to the species has been abated. And so,
    from a legal standpoint they would provide the underpinning
    that is necessary if we are going to reach a not warranted
    conclusion.
        Senator Tom Udall. As you are aware, Director Ashe, the
    Center for Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management in
    Carlsbad is a respected and independent third party non-profit
    organization responsible for holding the lizard permit as part
    of these conservation agreements. Can you explain the role of
    the Center for Excellence in Carlsbad and how valuable they
    have been in this process?
        Mr. Ashe. We have to--when we form a candidate conservation
    agreement, we have to have somebody to hold a permit, and in
    this case we have had a third party step up in New Mexico to be
    the holder of that permit. Then they will be the party that we
    go to to ensure terms are being adhered to and that we can show
    that the conservation that is supposed to occur is actually
    occurring. We have seen, thus far, an excellent track record in
    New Mexico, so reason for optimism.
        Senator Tom Udall. And their job is to go out on the ground
    and make sure that the conservation is actually occurring?
        Mr. Ashe. Occurring, correct.
        Senator Tom Udall. The third party permit holder. Have we
    ever seen conservation agreements on the scale that New Mexico
    has done for the lizard? And if they are successful, could they
    be a model to protect future species?
        Mr. Ashe. I am not aware of any application where we have
    seen candidate conservation agreements at this scale. We have
    now 2 million to 2.5 million acres of land in eastern New
    Mexico covered under candidate agreements that will help us
    conserve both the lizard and the lesser prairie-chicken. And
    this really is, I think, an emerging model for endangered
    species for candidate conservation where we get ahead of a
    listing decision, we put conservation on the ground, we are
    working with private landowners.
        And I would have to give a bit of shout out to the Bureau
    of Land Management in this case in eastern New Mexico. The
    Bureau of Land Management has been an exceptional partner in
    this endeavor. And you are also considering here today the
    reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    The Foundation has been a grantee in this case and has been a
    key partner in making this success story happen.
        Senator Tom Udall. Thank you.
        Chairman Cardin, I just have one additional question for
    Dr. Anderson, and then I would submit the rest of my questions
    for the record.
        Dr. Anderson, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, there is a primate
    facility housing approximately 200 chimpanzees formerly used in
    research. This group of chimpanzees has been described
    extensively by scientists and in the media as sick, aged,
    infected, diseased, maimed, and scarred. Many scientists have
    suggested this group, in particular, is completely
    inappropriate for invasive testing.
        Members of Congress, members of the New Mexico legislature,
    and the city of Alamogordo have expressed concerns to the
    National Institutes of Health over further invasive testing on
    this group of chimps. As you know, the vast majority of these
    chimpanzees have not been used in invasive studies since 2001.
        It is my understanding that all the Alamogordo chimpanzees
    were exposed to hepatitis C and HIV during their years in
    research, and most of the population is affected with multiple,
    chronic conditions. Does preexisting exposure to hepatitis C
    and HIV limit the usefulness of chimpanzees in future research?
    And are there areas of research where this specific Alamogordo
    population with their ongoing conditions could still be used in
    light of the IOM study?
        Dr. Anderson. Well, first, let me reassure you that there
    is no research at the Alamogordo facility, and we have charged
    the working group with making recommendations on the size and
    the placement of future populations, the size of a group of
    animals that would be needed for research, and the Alamogordo
    population will fall within their considerations.
        Senator Tom Udall. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        And Chairman Cardin, thank you for your courtesy in letting
    me go over a little bit there.
        Senator Cardin. Let me now recognize Senator Carper and
    thank him for his leadership on the Delaware River Basin
    Conservation Act, S. 1266. Before Senator Carper begins, let me
    point out that we have only heard very positive things about
    this legislation.
        Senator Carper. Could that possibly be my bill?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Well, who said them? Who said those
    positive things?
        Was that you, Mr. Ashe?
        Mr. Ashe. I think I did.
        Senator Carper. OK, good. Well thank you. Thanks very much.
        Thank you both very much for joining us. I am sorry I
    missed your testimony. My colleagues and I, we usually have
    several different hearings going on at once, and I have been
    trying to combat waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid
    downstairs for the last hour or two. Now, we are going to come
    up and try to do good things with clean water in a bunch of
    places, including the estuary that we call the Delaware River
    Estuary.
        It is a big one. And we have noted, with some pleasure, the
    river that divides our two States, the water quality is getting
    better. We continue to work on it because everything we do we
    know we could do better.
        Let me just ask, if I can, I have a statement I would like
    to enter for the record, Mr. Chairman, please.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection, your entire statement
    will be made a part of the record.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Ashe, based on your expertise as Director of the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, could you just expand for us on the
    importance for us that you mentioned in your testimony of
    protecting the Delaware Basin Watershed? What are some of the
    risks, ecological risks, economic risks, and other risks that
    could come to bear if we do not invest in protecting the
    Delaware River?
        I think when you look at how much money we invest, the
    Federal dollars that we invest in protecting the Delaware River
    Estuary, I think it is pretty modest by Federal standards, by
    like $1 million. Can you compare that with some others? Maybe
    you can give us an idea of what we are spending in some areas
    of the country if that is a modest investment. I think it is. I
    would be interested in knowing what the cost-benefit ratio is
    but it has got to be pretty good because the investment is so
    modest.
        Could you just, if you will, go back to the importance that
    you mentioned in your testimony of protecting the Delaware
    River Basin and also just share with us some of the risks?
    Thank you.
        Mr. Ashe. The Delaware River and the Delaware Bay Estuary
    are--provide a tremendous natural resource for the country. And
    when you think about the two sides, of course, even in the Fish
    and Wildlife Service we have the Cape May National Wildlife
    Refuge on the New Jersey side, we have Prime Hook and Bombay
    Hook on the Delaware side, we have a tremendous interest in
    resources like the red knot, a migratory species that goes from
    South America to the Arctic to nest. Delaware Bay is a key
    resting and foraging place for the red knot.
        Senator Carper. We like to say it is the place they like to
    stop for lunch.
        Mr. Ashe. Exactly.
        Senator Carper. Sometimes breakfast, too.
        Mr. Ashe. So it is just a key strategic resource from the
    standpoint of fisheries and wildlife management along the
    Eastern Seaboard. And you mentioned the cost-benefit ratio. I
    think what you are trying to do is preventative care, put the
    investment into the resource before we have a crisis. We can
    see places like the Everglades, where we are spending billions
    of taxpayer dollars, and the San Francisco Bay Delta, again
    billions of taxpayer dollars to restore ecological systems that
    have collapsed as a result of misguided management in the past.
    Se, we applaud your effort to really do preventative management
    and lead that effort.
        What we would like to do is work with you to see if we can
    put this into the context of some of the larger efforts that we
    are looking at along the north Atlantic, the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act and some of the larger landscape
    issues that we are working on and are represented in the
    legislation before the Committee today.
        Senator Carper. Let me just ask a question about how do we
    measure progress. One of my favorite questions of people when
    they are presenting with us ideas to spend Federal dollars is
    what do you want to accomplish, and how would you go about
    measuring progress. Could you just sort of work off of that
    question with respect to an estuary like the Delaware River
    Basin Watershed?
        Mr. Ashe. Measuring progress in our field is, of course, a
    great challenge. One of the things that we are working on in
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is can we use, can we find
    biological metrics that tell us something about ecosystem
    health on a larger scale? And so, we would like to look at
    areas like the middle Atlantic, the Delaware River Estuary, and
    say, can we establish biological markers that tell us something
    about the larger ecosystem function?
        So, we might look at things like the red knot. What is, is
    that population a good indicator of aspects of ecological
    health within the Delaware River Basin? Things that we can
    readily measure but that also tell us something about larger
    ecological function.
        Senator Carper. OK. If I could, last week Senator
    Lautenberg and I were sitting here and we were having a hearing
    on mercury, the emission of mercury and what it does when it
    gets into the water and fish, birds and waterfowl, and what is
    done with pregnant women, childbearing women and the children
    they bear in too many cases.
        And right there, sitting in your seat, was a witness from
    Michigan, the northern part of Michigan, and she is an
    outdoorswoman of some renown, and she is lovingly referred to
    in northern Michigan as the Sturgeon General.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. The Sturgeon General. So, when she
    testified, Senator Lautenberg, I called her General during the
    course of her testimony.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. She was actually quite a good witness.
        But when you look to sturgeon population in the Delaware
    River, I think is coming back a little bit. I just kind of--is
    this one of the markers that we look at to see if we are making
    some progress? I think we are.
        The last thing I would say is we have gone through, as
    Senator Lautenberg knows, a lot of discussion between Delaware,
    Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and others, environmental community
    reports up and down the river, on whether or not we can safely
    dredge the Delaware River Bay to a depth of 45 feet in order to
    make sure that our ports remain vibrant and relevant. And after
    a lot of research and thinking and talking and all, we finally
    decided that yes, we can do that.
        There is a big question, one of the questions we wrestle
    with here is, is it possible to have economic growth and job
    creation and still protect the environment? And we think in
    this case that we can, and we are going to go forward in a very
    guarded, measured way to make sure that our ports continue to
    be vibrant, active, and relevant but at the same time we do not
    despoil the water, reverse the quality that we have made in
    cleaning up the Delaware River.
        Mr. Chairman, I think it is great that you had this
    hearing. We really appreciate your giving us a chance to talk a
    little bit about the legislation some of us have introduced.
    So, thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware

        I would like to thank Chairman Cardin for scheduling this
    legislative hearing today to consider a number of important
    items, including S. 1266, the Delaware River Basin Conservation
    Act. The Delaware River Basin Conservation Act is co-sponsored
    by members of this Committee, including Senators Lautenberg and
    Gillibrand, and Senators Coons, Casey, Menendez, and Schumer.
    There is also a House version of the Delaware River Basin
    Conservation Act, which was introduced last June as well, and
    is co-sponsored by several Republican and Democrat Members of
    Congress.
        Despite being a major economic, environmental, and
    recreational asset, the Delaware River Basin watershed region
    does not have a Federal program charged with leading
    conservation and restoration efforts in the region. The
    Delaware River Basin is home to more than 8 million people, and
    more than 15 million people depend on it as a source of
    drinking water, including the populations of the first and
    fifth largest cities in our country, New York and Philadelphia.
    It is estimated that the Delaware River Basin contributes more
    than $10 billion annually to the economy, supporting critical
    economic activity in the port, shipping, agriculture, fishing,
    tourism, food and beverage, and other industries. Given the
    tremendous value of the Delaware River Basin, it makes a lot of
    sense to me that we would take the necessary steps to safeguard
    this important resource so that it can continue to provide this
    great value to our economy, environment, and our communities
    for generations to come.
        S. 1266 would establish the Delaware River Basin
    Restoration Program within the Fish and Wildlife Service. This
    program would be charged with creating a single, basin-wide
    strategy to guide conservation and restoration efforts in the
    Delaware River watershed region. The program would support on-
    the-ground conservation and restoration projects in the
    Delaware River region. These projects would create real jobs--
    jobs that not only add economic value but also improve the
    quality of our environment, resulting in a double return on our
    investment.
        S. 1266 was passed out of the Environment and Public Works
    Committee in December of last year. Prior to that, my office
    worked closely with several stakeholders that operate in the
    Delaware River watershed region, and with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, to make improvements to the bill, which were
    successfully included in the bill that was passed out of this
    Committee last December. I greatly appreciate today's
    legislative hearing as an opportunity to hear further feedback
    on S. 1266 and will take the comments offered by our witnesses
    today to heart as we continue to move this important piece of
    legislation forward.
        Thank you.

        Senator Cardin. Senator Carper, we thank you for your
    strong national leadership on great water bodies, including the
    Delaware River Basin. It is the way that I think we can really
    get a handle on preserving our biodiversity and our
    environment, and we also pointed out, our economy. It is very
    important. We appreciate your leadership.
        Dr. Anderson, before I do that, Mr. Ashe, I want to just
    compliment you on the response with Senator Udall as it relates
    to the Endangered Species Act. We are in total agreement that
    these candidates for conservation agreements are the way to
    proceed for the two reasons that you mentioned. First, they
    avoid a listing when we have management plans that are
    reversing the trends that have already taken place. And second,
    in the event that there is a listing, it also provides safe
    harbors for those who have made the proper investments. So, I
    thank you for that.
        And thank you for the leadership in New Mexico, Senator
    Udall. I think what you are doing is the right thing as it
    relates to the lizard, and we hope that we will be able to
    proceed in western Texas so that this will be an issue that
    will be handled in the spirit of why we have the Endangered
    Species Act. So we wish you well on that.
        Senator Tom Udall. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin. Dr. Anderson, I want to turn to the
    chimpanzees for one moment. I very much appreciate your
    testimony and the acceptance of the Institute of Medicine's
    recommendations. But you point out that it is going to take a
    little bit of time for you all to figure out exactly how to
    handle this as it relates to your current population of
    chimpanzees.
        I think the Cantwell bill envisions--well, it would not
    envision, it mandates that the experimentation end. It also
    points out that many of the chimpanzees would be sent to
    sanctuaries and envisions a savings of several tens of millions
    of dollars for taxpayers.
        My question to you is, or request, is that I would ask the
    National Institutes of Health to give us some direction. If
    Congress is to pass legislation, how you would want that
    legislation drafted?
        I do not want to make any assumptions. But the legislation,
    as currently drafted, if it were enacted into law, would
    prevent the further experimentation on chimpanzees. I
    understand from your testimony that is not the position of the
    National Institutes of Health at this particular moment.
        So I would ask that you focus on what would be the proper
    congressional response to help the implementation of the
    Institute of Medicine's recommendations which may be, or may
    not be, what the Congress wants to do. But I think it is a good
    starting point and probably does represent the best consensus
    that we might be able to get in Congress.
        Dr. Anderson. Thank you, Senator. We will do that. We will
    do that in writing.
        Senator Cardin. That would be, I think, helpful for us in
    our work. And also as it would relate to what your intentions
    are to do with the chimpanzees that are no longer going to be
    candidates for use and how you would recommend we handle that
    transition.
        Dr. Anderson. I would like to point out that we have asked
    for recommendations from the working group specifically on
    these issues. So, I would not want to preempt their
    conclusions. But they are asked to address those issues.
        Senator Cardin. That would be helpful if you get first
    their recommendations to you and then second your response. So
    far as I understand it, you are accepting the Institute of
    Medicine's recommendations.
        Dr. Anderson. Completely. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cardin. And if that continues, we need to know that
    because they give you additional information. My expectation is
    that you will follow their recommendations, and then we will
    need a game plan as to how you intend to implement that and how
    the Congress could be helpful so that these policies become
    institutionalized within the Government, not just from one
    Administration, but have a little bit more staying power.
        Dr. Anderson. Thank you, Senator, we will.
        Senator Cardin. And then the last point that was raised as
    to how it relates to animal experimentation beyond just
    chimpanzees. It would be interesting to keep us informed on
    that so that we can try to be a positive partner with the
    National Institutes of Health.
        Dr. Anderson. Thank you. We will.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Again, let me thank both of our witnesses for their
    testimony. We will now turn to the second panel.
        Let me welcome Dr. Doug Inkley, Senior Wildlife Biologist
    for the National Wildlife Federation. Dr. Inkley is a certified
    wildlife biologist with expertise in ecology and wildlife
    management and is the National Wildlife Federation's Senior
    Scientist.
        Let me also welcome Dr. Martin Wasserman, former Secretary
    of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, former
    Administrator of the Oregon Public Health Department. Dr.
    Wasserman is a pediatrician, a lawyer, and has served as the
    Executive Director of the Maryland State Medical Society, a
    Maryland constituent and a friend. So it is good to have Dr.
    Wasserman here. We have worked together on many issues from
    public health to policies affecting broader issues in our
    State. It is a pleasure to have you before our Committee.
        And Dr. Greg Schildwachter. Dr. Schildwachter is a
    professional conservationist with 25 years of experience in
    policy, science, and management of land, water, fish, and
    wildlife. He holds a degree in Wildlife Biology from the Boone
    and Crockett Wildlife Conservation Program at the University of
    Montana, as well as degrees from the University of Tennessee
    and the University of Georgia.
        It is a pleasure to have all three of you with us. We will
    start with Dr. Inkley.

                STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS B. INKLEY, PH.D.,
             SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

        Mr. Inkley. Good morning, Senator Cardin. As a 30-year
    resident of the State of Maryland, I have to tell you that I
    was especially pleased to receive your invitation to testify
    today.
        Senator Cardin. I do not think I had that on my
    introduction.
        Mr. Inkley. No, I kept it a secret.
        Senator Cardin. Well, let me add that to my introduction.
    It is a pleasure to have another Marylander on the panel.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Inkley. Thank you.
        The National Wildlife Federation's 4 million members and
    supporters include outdoor enthusiasts of all types, hunters
    and anglers like myself, backyard gardeners, birdwatchers, and
    many more. So, on their behalf today, and our 48 affiliated
    States, including the Baltimore Aquarium, one of our
    affiliates, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify
    for the purpose of protecting wildlife for our children's
    future. So thank you again.
        It is worth noting that four of the bills under discussion
    today pertain to three long standing laws supported largely by
    hunters and anglers. It is a testament to their commitment that
    they support providing the funding for the so-called Duck Stamp
    Act, the Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Act, which you
    and I know as the Pittman-Robertson, or PR, Act, and matching
    funds for implementation of the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act.
        As a hunter, I am especially proud that my fellow sportsmen
    and women are putting their money where their mouth is, over
    the history of those programs, some $10 billion just for those
    three programs alone to conserve some 35 million acres.
        In the interest of brevity, I ask that my entire written
    testimony be submitted for the record.
        Senator Cardin. All of your statements, all three of the
    witnesses, your full statements will be included in the record.
        Mr. Inkley. Thank you. I will briefly highlight five of the
    bills.
        The first two bills pertain to the Duck Stamp Act. The
    National Wildlife Federation has supported this Act ever since
    our founding in 1936. J.N. Ding Darling, a giant in
    conservation, helped establish the Duck Stamp Act in 1934 and
    sketched the first ever duck stamp. It is no small coincidence
    that Ding Darling was also a founder of the National Wildlife
    Federation and the artist for our first annual production of
    conservation stamps. So we feel a particular affinity for that
    law and are very supportive of it.
        The Duck Stamp Act requires all waterfowl hunters to
    purchase a duck stamp and the revenue furthers the conservation
    of wetlands and contributed to the addition of more than 6
    million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System.
    Certainly, a great success.
        So the two bills being discussed today, the Permanent
    Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012 and the Migratory Bird
    Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act, are both intended to
    strengthen the ability to continue the effectiveness of this
    program. Without going into the details of those programs, I
    will simply state that we certainly strongly support both of
    those and look forward to their being passed and enacted into
    law.
        The third bill to discuss today, and I noticed that Senator
    Carper was here earlier, is the Delaware River Basin
    Conservation Act, S. 1266. This Act provides a framework for
    protecting and restoring the Delaware River Basin. It has more
    than 200 finfish and shellfish species, and the watershed
    provides clean drinking water to 7 million people in the city
    of New York. These benefits, unfortunately, are threatened by
    changes in land use and the region's long legacy of pollution.
        The Act would help to one, restore or protect fish and
    wildlife species and habitats, and two, improve or protect
    water quality. So, we support the Delaware River Basin
    Conservation Act and applaud the Committee and you, Senator
    Carper, for favorably reporting it in December 2011. Thank you.
        The fourth bill is the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation Reauthorization Act which I will refer to as NFWF,
    which most people do. It facilitates private investments in
    fish and wildlife conservation in partnership with Federal
    conservation agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service. It
    is especially important in these economic times, and
    impressive, that NFWF leverages every Federal dollar with at
    least 3 private dollars to invest in conservation.
        Two great examples of success are efforts to restore the
    longleaf pine community in the Chesapeake. Both are described
    in greater detail in my testimony, but I would also note that
    the National Wildlife Federation and our affiliated
    organizations are both involved in those conservation efforts.
    S. 1492 will reauthorize NFWF at its existing authorization
    level and allow NFWF to continue its remarkable legacy of
    conservation successes. We urge its passage.
        The fifth and last bill that I will make my remarks on,
    briefly, is the North American Wetlands Conservation Extension
    Act. This really is a world class model for successful public-
    private cooperation, achieving on-the-ground wildlife
    conservation.
        Since its inception nearly a quarter century ago, NAWCA has
    facilitated the conservation of more than 26 million acres
    across the 50 States of the United States. Because it has such
    a strong track record in incentivizing significant investment
    in habitat conservation, we certainly support this program as
    well.
        In conclusion, we appreciate the Committee's efforts to
    address these important wildlife issues that have been the
    subject of today's hearing and look forward to working with you
    to enact them.
        And again, thank you very much for having me. As a Maryland
    resident, we finally meet.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Inkley follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. It is a pleasure to have you before the
    Committee.
        Dr. Wasserman.

     STATEMENT OF MARTIN WASSERMAN, M.D., J.D., FORMER SECRETARY,
     MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, AND FORMER
             ADMINISTRATOR, OREGON PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT

        Dr. Wasserman. Thank you, Chairman Cardin.
        Thanks for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Great Ape
    Protection and Cost Savings Act. I am Dr. Martin Wasserman, and
    I have lived in Maryland for 45 years. And I received both my
    medical and law degrees here. I have treated children on the
    Navajo Reservation in New Mexico as well as in West Baltimore
    at University Hospital.
        Particularly relevant to today's discussion, though, I have
    also been the Medical Director of Immunization Practices and
    Scientific Affairs for the Vaccine Division of GlaxoSmithKline
    Pharmaceuticals. As both a pediatrician and public health
    physician, I have always placed patients first.
        But when certain animal research or experimentation is no
    longer necessary, I have also considered my Hippocratic Oath
    which constantly reminds me to ``do no harm.'' To that end, I
    believe we have an obligation to utilize the most effective
    scientific methodologies when performing research in order to
    improve the public's health.
        The legislation before you today has many components. One,
    it recognizes the social and behavioral similarities of
    chimpanzees and humans. But even though we share 95 to 98
    percent of each other's genetic material, the expression of
    these genes can be dramatically different in our two species.
        Two, it acknowledges chimpanzee contribution to past
    medical research, like polio, as stated, in 1950. But because
    of recent advances in scientific methodology, it recognizes
    that continuing to use them is unnecessary. Three, it rewards
    these animals' service by phasing out invasive experimentation
    as we gain new knowledge and methodologies and provides
    lifetime care in a Federal sanctuary.
        Four, it codifies and provides the force of law, the force
    of law--the force of law--to the current NIH voluntary breeding
    moratorium and ends breeding of chimpanzees for the purpose of
    invasive research. And fifth, it will save the Government $300
    million over the next 10 years.
        Four months ago the Institute of Medicine released a report
    on the necessity of chimpanzee research, initiated at the
    request of Senators Harkin, Udall, and Bingaman. As Dr.
    Anderson stated, Dr. Collins and NIH have taken the IOM report
    seriously, and they are to be applauded for their efforts.
        But theirs is the response of the current NIH leadership.
    And as we well know, administrations change, leaders change,
    and policies change. Passing this bill will exclusively focus
    on chimpanzees. It will ensure that invasive experimentation in
    chimpanzees will be phased out in the future and will encourage
    researchers to adopt alternative, more timely, and more
    fruitful research approaches.
        In the IOM report, the authors did not find a single area
    of human health research for which chimpanzees are necessary.
    Even during their discussions of hepatitis C disease, the
    authors concluded that chimpanzees are not necessary for either
    anti-viral drug discovery or development or the development and
    testing of a therapeutic vaccine, and also that it is both
    possible and ethical to bring a preventive vaccine to human
    testing without using chimpanzees.
        Although hepatitis C remains a serious worldwide public
    health problem, further chimpanzee research will not be helpful
    in our battle against this disease. A variety of alternative
    research approaches for hepatitis C are available, including
    the VaxDesign MIMIC system. This human-based, in vitro system
    is appropriate for every stage of drug and vaccine development.
    Some businesses are developing new research methodologies
    already, and I am proud that my former company,
    GlaxoSmithKline, is no longer using chimpanzees in its
    research.
        Let me clear up a misunderstanding with regard to the Food
    and Drug Administration and chimpanzee research. The FDA does
    not require the use of chimpanzees for either drug or vaccine
    testing. In fact, during the past year the FDA approved two new
    drugs for hepatitis C, Bociprevir and Telaprevir, neither of
    which used chimpanzees in either the development or testing
    phase.
        In the beginning of my comments I mentioned the Hippocratic
    Oath, to ``do no harm.'' Consider the following. The United
    States is the only Nation in the world known to use captive
    chimpanzees for large scale invasive research. These animals
    respond to stress and trauma as we do. Published studies reveal
    that they suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder,
    and when used in research they become clinically depressed and
    demonstrate multi-organ diseases.
        Since there is little we will gain by continuing to use
    them in research, there is no need to continue to keep them in
    costly laboratories where complex social and psychological
    needs cannot be met.
        In conclusion, concerns have been expressed that passing
    this bill would preclude the use of chimpanzees in the case of
    a national emergency. During the IOM hearings, experts in
    biodefense stated that chimpanzees would make poor models for
    future emerging diseases because of their slow response times,
    in terms of months rather than days.
        The bill's sponsors have agreed to include an amendment
    inserting an emergency clause in case of a dire public health
    crisis. Provided it remains transparent, the clause should
    sufficiently address any public health concern about the future
    need for chimpanzees in research.
        I respectfully request that you pass the Great Ape
    Protection and Cost Savings Act. It will end a cycle of
    wasteful and unnecessary research, save money, and protect
    chimpanzees who have already given so much of their lives to
    research in the past.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Wasserman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Dr. Wasserman.
        Dr. Schildwachter.

                STATEMENT OF GREG SCHILDWACHTER, PH.D.,
                         WATERSHED RESULTS LLC

        Mr. Schildwachter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for your excellent pronunciation. I appreciate that as much as
    I appreciate Senator Inhofe's welcome though it was remarkable
    more for enthusiasm than for accuracy in pronunciation.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Schildwachter. And I thank you for taking up the
    measures before you today. They are nearly all about active
    conservation, which gets less publicity usually than
    environmental conflicts, perhaps because it is less noticeable
    in the out of the way places where it takes place and less
    attractive with the actual physical labor involved in habitat
    restoration. But it is more important than what divides us.
        We cannot live without wildlife or the places where they
    live. And active conservation is how we ensure that we have
    them. It is a starting point for where we can all agree. It is
    a standard for resolving our disagreements over regulatory
    protections. And it has been the historical commitment for
    sportsmen for more than a century in American history. And
    though I speak today for myself, I know for sure that many
    sportsmen's organizations will share in the views that I share
    with you today, especially in thanking you for the bipartisan
    agreement on the agenda today.
        Active conservation comes down to someone who must do the
    work, and often that is the landowner. In fact, it must be a
    landowner if we are to succeed. We also need Federal support to
    share this responsibility. The costs must be shared because the
    values are also shared, and the benefits that are created from
    habitat conservation.
        The programs you consider today show that responsibilities
    are being shared in a way resembling infrastructure policy.
    That is appropriate because habitat is the infrastructure for
    wildlife, and the principle at work is that those who enjoy the
    benefits most directly pay most directly to support them. The
    general benefits fall on everyone, and therefore a share of
    Federal funds is right and proper. The sportsmen's ethic has
    always been to create and cultivate that which we seek to enjoy
    and to pay our way.
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an example,
    and I support Senate 1494 to reauthorize it. NFWF is a true--
    not rhetorical--investment in that $1 of Federal expense
    returns multiple dollars back from the private sector. It
    returns an actual return. NFWF has proven successful in its
    nearly 30+ year history, nearly 30-year history, and the bill
    refines the authority according to that experience. For
    example, the provision authorizing how funds can be exchanged
    between NFWF and the agencies will make it more efficient.
        NFWF is a valuable mixed model of public and private
    conservation to leverage the strengths of the governmental role
    and the abilities of the private sector. Likewise, NAWCA, the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act, is a cost share
    arrangement between private and State partners that raise money
    for wetland conservation, and I support S. 2282 and recommend
    its reauthorization. NAWCA is one of the six major wetland
    programs we have and part of the reason we are on track to
    regaining prevalent wetlands in this country.
        The Duck Stamp Program for which we have both Senate 2071
    and Senate 2156 is similar, and I support these bills as well.
    With these measures, more people will be able to purchase the
    duck stamp more easily, and the inflation adjustment likely to
    follow will restore some of the buying power of these
    conservation dollars.
        I support Senate 1249 for similar reasons. Shooting ranges
    are a different form of infrastructure for conservation, but
    these are places where training and competition in the skills
    of marksmanship become either a hobby or the avocation of fair
    chase hunting. Arms and ammunition pay an excise tax into the
    fund that would support these ranges and which, in turn, would
    create more revenue for the fund and recruit more participants
    in the sports that support wildlife and habitat conservation.
        I have fewer observations on the other measures, Mr.
    Chairman, but I have provided these in my written statement.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to appear. I look
    forward to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schildwachter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cardin. Well, I thank all three of you for your
    testimony.
        First, let me just ask a general question on the
    conservation bills, five specific, and then you also added the
    range issue in our parks. Do I understand from Dr. Inkley and
    Dr. Schildwachter, from your testimonies, that you support
    these conservation bills? Are there any amendments or any
    changes that you would want to see us consider, or are you
    satisfied by the way they are drafted and you give basically
    unqualified support for those five bills, in Dr. Inkley's case,
    six bills in Dr. Schildwachter's case?
        Mr. Inkley. Go ahead, Greg.
        Mr. Schildwachter. Yes, sir. I am on board. I would only
    add that another feature that I would urge the Senate to
    consider as they are looking at these programs with the cost
    share basis and the matching funds and the mechanisms by which
    they work in that these programs really need to be prized as we
    do the necessary work of balancing the budget because the
    programs not only leverage dollars from the private sector, but
    in creating the infrastructure as I described, they also become
    places where sales of services and equipment can then proceed
    and in their way contribute to economic recovery as well.
        Mr. Inkley. Thank you for asking. Yes, we do support these
    wildlife bills and their passage.
        The one bill, Wildlife Disease Emergency Act, S. 357, we
    would like to see several discussions pertaining to some
    possible amendments. One of those is that the bill currently
    would apply only to native species, and while invasive species
    are a huge problem in this country, invasive species also can
    carry disease which may be transmitted to native species. So,
    it would seem appropriate that this bill also apply to some of
    the non-native species that may present a problem by carrying
    diseases to native species.
        Second, we would like to see the definition of the Wildlife
    Disease Committee, or the members of that committee, further
    defined to make sure there is a balance of government and non-
    government members on that committee to make recommendations.
    Those are our two primary recommendations for the wildlife----
        Senator Cardin. Well, we thank you for that. I would seem
    to me that if an invasive species disease is affecting native
    species that it would probably be covered under the provisions.
    But it is a point that might be worth us reviewing.
        Mr. Inkley. We would like to see that clarified, sir.
        Senator Cardin. OK. Thank you.
        The point about the economic issues is right on target. I
    mean, we do look at conservation as helping, first of all, the
    economic activities that you have already talked about. So, we
    do see this as a plus on the economic side.
        What we want to make sure is that the monies that are being
    generated are used for their intended activities; they are not
    taken for other purposes. We have had a great track record on
    all of these programs. The funds have actually gotten to their
    intended use, and we would certainly want to make sure that
    continues as we look at reauthorizations or expansions of the
    different conservation programs.
        Dr. Wasserman, let me turn to the chimpanzee issue for a
    moment, if I might. I think you have been pretty clear about
    your position. It does seem to be contrary to what the National
    Institutes of Health are suggesting to us and that is that
    there could be a potential use of chimpanzees for research in
    the future and therefore that capacity needs to be maintained,
    admittedly at a different level and under different protocols
    for future use that we have been using currently, but that
    there is this ongoing potential need that we would not want to
    see legislation prevent. I take it you disagree with that?
        Dr. Wasserman. Not completely, Senator Cardin. First of
    all, thank you for having this hearing and for considering this
    subject, which is so important.
        We met in your office and you expressed a similar concern.
    In reviewing the Institute of Medicine report, they brought in
    biodefense testimony just on this specific question, what if
    there is an emergency--you have to have chimpanzees available.
        During that discussion, it was stated that we could never
    consider, never consider where that emergency could come from
    because using a chimp, it takes so long for a chimpanzee to
    respond, and we have so much better and more viable non-
    chimpanzee models to use.
        Nevertheless, I recognize the concern that you express and
    that others have expressed, and there has been an amendment
    that has been submitted that under certain situations, with
    transparency, with an opportunity for public comment, then we
    think that the public's health could be protected and the
    inclusion of that amendment should satisfy those concerns.
        Again, I must reiterate that all of the research and all of
    the testimony suggested that there is really no need for the
    chimpanzee model. We are not talking about other animals at
    this point because this bill is exclusively focusing on
    chimpanzees.
        I could go through a litany of differences between how the
    chimpanzee as a biological model differs from the human despite
    the sharing of genetic materials. And particularly in hepatitis
    C and HIV research, which is why we had so many chimpanzees in
    the past several decades, it was learned that chimpanzees could
    be infected with HIV but the disease does not progress to AIDS
    the way it does with humans.
        In testing approximately 85 promising vaccines in
    chimpanzees, there were 200 clinical experiments in humans,
    none of which proved fruitful. And in fact, that is how one
    wastes time in doing research where we focus on the wrong model
    and spend unnecessary time on it.
        So, we feel very confident that there will not be the need
    for chimpanzee research in any kind of a public health
    emergency and would urge that we do not amend this legislation
    in a way that could be taken abuse of and not really effectuate
    what this legislation proposes to do.
        Senator Cardin. Well, I thank you for that. And while we
    appreciate the spirit of the amendment that you are suggesting,
    we will wait to see. We will not wait long. And Dr. Anderson
    indicated that he will have written comments to us, I think he
    said timely. We would welcome your thoughts as we get
    additional information, not only from the National Institutes
    of Health but also from the Institute of Medicine as they are
    looking at ways of transitioning to a new policy. We would
    welcome your response to that information.
        Dr. Wasserman. Thank you. I would be delighted.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. Let me point out that the record
    of the Committee will remain open for 2 weeks. That allows for
    questions by members of the Committee to our witnesses. It is
    more likely we are going to get questions for the first panel,
    but it could also be for the second panel. We ask that if there
    is a written request for information that you respond to that
    in a timely fashion.
        I would also point out that we have received written
    testimony from Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation, the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive
    Species, the Humane Society, and the American Society for the
    Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Without objection, their
    statements will be included in our records as well as, as
    pointed earlier without objection, the full testimonies of all
    of our witnesses today.
        Once again, I want to thank you all for your cooperation.
        And with that, the Subcommittee will stand adjourned.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [The referenced testimonies follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

                     Statement of Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
                  U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island

        I want to thank Senator Cardin for scheduling this hearing
    to discuss legislation relevant to this Committee, particularly
    the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act
    of 2011 (S. 1494), which I am happy to be a co-sponsor of.
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) enjoys
    bipartisan support for its ability to use Federal funding to
    leverage non-Federal support for conservation purposes--often
    at well over a 2 to 1 ratio--by creating successful
    partnerships with the Federal Government, State and local
    governments, and private entities.
        At a time when Federal funding is difficult to come by and
    our coastal ecosystems are under stress from chemical and
    nutrient pollution, marine debris, energy extraction,
    overfishing, overdevelopment, and climate change, programs like
    NFWF are especially important.
        NFWF has awarded 46 grants in Rhode Island since 2000. This
    $4.8 million in Federal funding has leveraged $6.6 million in
    matching funds, totaling $11.4 million invested in
    conservation.
        For example, NFWF has provided funding to implement a
    marine science program for elementary schools in Newport, Rhode
    Island, to conduct biological surveys and management plans for
    acquisition of land trusts in Narragansett Bay. These
    management plans are being developed with private landowners in
    order to both protect natural resources and maintain a working
    landscape.
        NFWF grantees in Rhode Island include the Rhode Island
    Party and Charter Boat Association, Rhode Island Natural
    History Survey, and Save the Bay. Among other things, these
    projects are focused on fisheries conservation, collection of
    marine debris, and improving essential marine and coastal
    habitats for a variety of native wildlife species.
        I'd also like to speak in favor of another piece of
    legislation being discussed today, the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Extension Act (S. 2282). By restoring wetlands we
    also protect a variety of species, including migratory birds,
    that depend on these at risk ecosystems. More than half
    (roughly 55 million acres) of wetlands in the U.S. have been
    destroyed, including 95 percent of the San Francisco Bay's
    original wetlands, 22 percent of Rhode Island's wetlands, 85
    percent of seagrass meadows in Galveston Bay, and 25,000 acres
    annually of coastal marshes in Louisiana.
        The destruction of wetlands also harms the recreation,
    tourism, and fishing industries that rely on the species
    supported by this critical habitat. S. 2282 would extend the
    authorization of this successful conservation program through
    2017.
        Thank you again to everyone who is here to speak on behalf
    of these important programs, and I look forward to future
    action on both pieces of legislation in this Committee.

                       Statement of Hon. Jeff Sessions,
                     U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama

        Good morning.
        Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for holding today's hearing. We
    have a long list of bills on the agenda.
        Before considering new bills--particularly if they will
    result in new spending--we should give serious consideration to
    our Nation's fiscal situation. In fiscal year 2013 our
    Government will run the fifth consecutive deficit over $1
    trillion. We have to act now to ensure that all Federal
    agencies and programs are operating as efficiently as possible;
    that means at the lowest possible cost. In all programs we need
    to look for new ways to maximize the return on Federal taxpayer
    dollars. We also need to consider the costs and benefits very
    carefully before creating new programs. We should not ask
    taxpayers to authorize spending more than is absolutely
    necessary. I believe that until the Senate and this
    Administration get serious about passing a budget that sets
    spending priorities and addresses our debt problem the American
    people should not be asked to send one more dime in new taxes
    to Washington.
        With that said, there are several bipartisan bills on
    today's agenda that merit this Committee's full consideration.
    Several bills on our agenda deal directly with issues of
    importance to our Nation's hunters and sportsmen. For instance,
    S. 1249, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support
    Act, which is sponsored by Senators Baucus, Begich, Bennett,
    Hagan, Klobuchar, McCaskill, Risch, and Tester, would amend the
    Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to expand the
    availability of target practice facilities on Federal lands. I
    think we should give this legislation a close review.
        I also agree with the concept of allowing States to use
    electronic duck stamps instead of the more expensive paper
    stamps. S. 2071, the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of
    2012, which is sponsored by Senators Wicker, Baucus, and Pryor,
    would authorize the States to issue electronic duck stamps
    instead of the current paper form.
        The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) program has
    also been an effective program that has helped conserve
    wildlife across the Nation. As just one example, NFWF partnered
    with Southern Company to invest over $7 million in projects to
    restore more than 61,000 acres of longleaf pine forest in the
    southeastern United States. I look forward to hearing more
    about the NFWF program this morning.
        I also appreciate the work of Senator Inhofe in introducing
    the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
    reauthorization bill. Alabama currently has several NAWCA
    projects in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta that are conserving more
    than 47,000 acres of wildlife habitat. NAWCA is a voluntary
    program that does not seek to impose unwarranted new
    regulations on landowners.
        Voluntary, cooperative wetlands programs like NAWCA stand
    in stark contrast to the Obama administration's command and
    control environmental agenda that is reflected in many of the
    Administration's recent initiatives, including their ``wetlands
    guidance document.'' Last month, I joined Senators Inhofe,
    Barrasso, and Heller in introducing S. 2245, the Preserve the
    Waters of the U.S. Act, which would block the Administration's
    new ``wetlands guidance'' document from going into effect. Our
    bill, which has 32 cosponsors, would prevent the Administration
    from bypassing Congress and the regulatory approval process to
    vastly expand its jurisdiction over lands and waters across the
    country. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that our
    Committee include the Preserve the Waters of the U.S. Act on
    the agenda of our next legislative hearing or markup.
        Finally, I understand that many people are concerned about
    the treatment of chimpanzees in research facilities. S. 810,
    the Great Apes Protection Act, is intended to end invasive
    research on great apes. Scientific research that can cure
    diseases for humans and animals is so important that we must
    think this issue through carefully. I have heard from
    stakeholders on both sides of this important issue, and I look
    forward to hearing the testimony this morning.
        Thank you.

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]