[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]