[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 45 (Friday, April 2, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY REFORM ACT OF 2004: MARCH 31, 
                                  2004

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 1, 2004

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to 
reform the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to clarify that human 
introduced exotic avian species are not covered by the provisions of 
this landmark law.
  The United States is currently a party to four international treaties 
to protect and conserve populations of migratory birds. Two years after 
the signing of the first treaty with Great Britain, Congress enacted 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This act is our domestic 
implementing law and it statutorily commits this Nation to the proper 
management of certain families and species of birds.
  After reviewing these treaties, it is clear that the list of covered 
species is not exhaustive, there is an inconsistency between migratory 
and nonmigratory birds and no distinction is made between exotic and 
native species.
  Despite this fact, for over 80 years, there has never been a debate 
over whether exotic species should be protected under this act. Federal 
wildlife authorities have consistently treated exotic birds as falling 
outside of the provisions of the MBTA.
  However, three years ago, a U.S. District Court of Appeals Judge, in 
the Hill v. Norton case turned this policy on its head by ruling that 
exotic mute swans, which are native to Europe and Asia, are covered 
because they are in the same avian family as native tundra and 
trumpeter swans.
  As a result, neither the States nor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service can effectively manage mute swans. This species contributes to 
the degradation of Chesapeake Bay habitats by consuming large amounts 
of submerged aquatic vegetation and has destroyed nests and young of 
Maryland-stated listed native colonial waterbirds: least terns and 
black skimmers. The population of exotic mute swans has dramatically 
increased in the Chesapeake Bay from five birds that escaped captivity 
in 1962 to more than 3,600 today. There are more than 14,000 mute swans 
living in the Atlantic flyway.
  As a result of this Federal court decision, an argument can now be 
made to apply the MBTA provisions to other introduced, feral 
populations of exotic birds, such as, Eurasian collared doves, house 
sparrows, English starlings, Muscovy ducks, pigeons and a host of other 
species. These species were introduced by humans after the enactment of 
the 1918 Act and to varying degrees they are extremely destructive to 
the ecosystems in which they reside. Pigeons, or rock doves, are alone 
responsible for up to $1.1 billion annually in damages to private and 
public property. They are the single most destructive bird in the 
United States.
  On December 16th of last year, my Subcommittee on Fisheries 
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans conducted an oversight hearing on 
exotic bird species and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. At that hearing, 
a diverse group of witnesses testified that Congress must reform the 
1918 statute. For instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
testified that ``affording the protection of the MBTA to introduced 
birds that are not native to the United States is ecologically unsound, 
contrary to the stated purposes of the MBTA and contrary to efforts by 
the Federal government to control invasive species''.
  It is my firm belief that it makes absolutely no sense to spend 
millions of dollars trying to control nonnative invasive species like 
the snakehead, brown tree snake, nutria, mitten crab, asian carp and 
zebra mussels, while at the same time expending precious resources to 
achieve the same conservation standards afforded native species under 
the MBTA for introduced avian species. States are ready to work with 
Federal and local governments to control populations of exotic birds. 
Following this hearing, the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies, which represents all 50 States, submitted a 
statement indicating that ``The Association would strongly support 
congressional intervention to clarify that certain exotic species of 
birds are not covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act''.
  Exotic, invasive species are having a huge impact on this Nation's 
native wildlife and fisheries, economic interests, infrastructure and 
human health. In fact, it has been estimated they are costing our 
economy about $100 billion each year.
  Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read the testimony and concluded that 
we can not idly sit by and allow exotic species to undermine the 
fundamental core of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which is to conserve 
native species. My bill is a simple common sense solution. It will 
restore a nearly century-old policy that reserves the application of 
the MBTA to native species. It will again allow Federal and State 
wildlife biologists to effectively manage exotic species at levels that 
do not conflict with the Federal and State obligations to conserve 
native species and habitats.
  My bill has been endorsed by a number of governmental, conservation 
and environmental groups including the International Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Bird Conservancy, the Izaak 
Walton League, the Maryland Ornithological Society, Environmental 
Defense, the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation. I 
urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Reform Act of 2004.




                          ____________________