[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2057 and H.R. 2416
=======================================================================
JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
joint with the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 19, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
87-804 PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
officio ex officio
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Jeff Flake, Arizona VACANCY
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana VACANCY
Rick Renzi, Arizona Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico ex officio
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 19, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Prepared statement on H.R. 2057 and
H.R. 2416.................................................. 54
Green, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, Oral statement on H.R. 2057.................. 3
McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Massachusetts................................. 35
Prepared statement on H.R. 2416.......................... 37
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 2057.......................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 2416.......................... 3
Ryan, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, Prepared statement on H.R. 2057.............. 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Acord, Bobby R., Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 2057.......................... 13
Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and
Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 43
Prepared statement on H.R. 2416.......................... 44
Forster, Catherine A., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology.................................... 45
Prepared statement on H.R. 2416.......................... 47
George, Hon. Russell, Director, Division of Wildlife,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources................... 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 2057.......................... 17
Groat, Charles G., Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior................................. 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 2057.......................... 8
Lamb, Robert J., Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of
Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 2416.......................... 40
Taylor, Gary J., Legislative Director, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.................. 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 2057.......................... 22
Vlamis, Ted J., Amateur Paleontologist....................... 49
Prepared statement on H.R. 2416.......................... 50
JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2057, TO PROVIDE FOR A MULTI-AGENCY
COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE FURTHER RESEARCH REGARDING THE CAUSES
OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE AND METHODS TO CONTROL THE FURTHER SPREAD OF
THE DISEASE IN DEER AND ELK HERDS, TO MONITOR THE INCIDENCE OF THE
DISEASE, TO SUPPORT STATE EFFORTS TO CONTROL THE DISEASE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2416, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON FEDERAL LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, June 19, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife
and Oceans, joint with the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McInnis, Inslee, McGovern, Tom
Udall, Mark Udall, Gilchrest, Green, Tancredo, Ryan, Rehberg,
Kind, Renzi, Pearce, and McCollum.
Mr. McInnis. It is getting toward the end of the week,
which means that my patience is very short, which means that if
you have a cellular phone, take my advice and turn it off. The
same thing with pagers.
Put them on vibrate or something else, but I don't want our
witnesses being rudely interrupted by somebody's cell phone. So
if you would follow that rule, I would appreciate that. This
morning we are doing a joint hearing, and what I intend to do
if the appropriate members show up at the time that their time
slot arrives is to give 10 minutes to the Chairman, and the
respective Chairman of the two subcommittees, and give 10
minutes to the respective Ranking Members.
I also would allow either of those, or any of those four
people to reserve the right to yield some of that time, as I
intend to yield some to Mr. Green for some brief opening
remarks. OK. We will go ahead and begin the hearing.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. McInnis. Today this joint Subcommittee hearing will
take its second look in as many years at Federal, State, and
local efforts to contain and ultimately eradicate chronic
wasting disease. Just over a year ago, Mr. Gilchrest and I,
pulled all the best and most knowledgeable minds into the same
room to begin the process of developing an integrated and long
term vision focused on protecting North America's wild and
captive deer and elk populations from this disease.
I would also at this point in time like to leave my
remarks, and just openly acknowledge my long time friend, and
who I consider one of the leading experts in the country in
regards to this particular problem, and that is Russell George,
the Director of the State Wildlife for the State of Colorado.
Russ, thank you. I know that you made the effort to come
out there today and we appreciate your expertise and your
assistance. Now, I am going to submit the rest of my statement
for the record, and at this point in time yield to Mr. Green,
if Mr. Green has some remarks that he would like to put in the
record.
[The prepared statements of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 2057
Today this Joint Subcommittee hearing will take its second look in
as many years at Federal, state and local efforts to contain and
ultimately eradicate Chronic Wasting Disease. Just over a year ago, Mr.
Gilchrest and I pulled all of the best and most knowledgeable minds
into the same room to begin the process of developing an integrated and
long-term vision focused on protecting North America's wild and captive
deer and elk populations from this disease.
I think that there were three take home messages from that
exhaustive and informative dialogue last year. The first was that our
friends in the States are best-equipped to spearhead efforts to stem
the spread of CWD, particularly when it comes to managing the disease
in wild cervid populations. But that doesn't mean there isn't an
important Federal role, which leads to the second policy staple that
emerged from last year's hearing. In order to effectively suppress the
proliferation of CWD, Federal agriculture and wildlife agencies must
pro-actively support the States by providing financial support and
technical assistance in the research, management and surveillance of
the disease. But in order to support the States in an effective manner,
we discovered that the multitude of Federal agencies with a
jurisdictional stake in this issue needed to more thoroughly coordinate
and prioritize the various overlapping and redundant Federal
activities. The need for a more unified Federal response was the third
upshot of the hearing. With that understanding, last year I charged all
of the relevant agencies to come up with an integrated game-plan so
that the Federal-support structure is efficient, effective and
responsive to the needs of our friends in the States.
In the year since our hearing, results on the Federal side have
been mixed. To its credit, the Departments of Agriculture and Interior
have done an exemplary job of assisting the States in testing many
thousands of deer and elk samples submitted for CWD screening. These
Departments and their subordinate agencies have also done laudable work
in bringing urgency and progress on the research front.
Where progress has been less impressive is in formalizing and
finalizing the inter-agency CWD game-plan that I demanded at last
year's hearing. After our hearing, a joint task force was convened by
the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service to develop a Federal-State CWD road-map. And while that group
formalized the broad outlines of an intergovernmental CWD program,
Congress is still waiting for the implementation plan, and budget
requests, that would give this program form, substance and meaning. My
understanding is that the implementation report is essentially done,
but awaiting approval somewhere in the administrative chain-of-command.
I look forward to hearing from our government witnesses about the
status of that report.
So in the absence of that unified Federal game-plan, today we
consider H.R. 2057. The bill, authored with the substantial input of my
colleagues from Wisconsin Mr. Green and Ryan, creates a broad Federal
framework to support State efforts to contain and eradicate CWD in both
captive and wild deer and elk populations. Colleagues, I consider this
bill a starting point in this discussion, and I look forward to working
with all of our witnesses and other interested Members to refine the
bill as needed to make sure that the Federal Government gets the
maximum bang for its scarce buck as it supports State-led efforts to
remove the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease to deer and elk
populations around the country.
______
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 2416
The upsurge of public interest in paleontology has created an
opportunity for paleontologists to share more of their research and
findings with the general public. Learning of these findings and
observing fossils in museums and educational institutions has become an
introduction to Science for countless American students. Fossils are
for everyone--children and adults, amateurs and professionals. From
fossils we learn about the history of life, but much of the story is
yet to be written. Fossils from public lands are an educational and
scientific resource for our generation and those yet to come.
Scientifically significant fossils on Federal lands belong to all
the people of the United States. They should not be removed from the
public domain, but preserved for the enjoyment and education of all
Americans for all time. In my own district in Colorado there are
several fossil sites and museums that support learning about
paleontological sciences. The Wasatch and Green River Formations within
the region have produced important fossilized resources which have been
collected and studied by the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago, the University of Colorado Museum in Boulder, The Smithsonian
Institute and the Museum of Western Colorado. Vertebrate fossils have
been identified, collected and studied and the area has been identified
as one with a rich fossil record.
Another site is the Cretaceous limestone site near Fort Hays just
south of Pueblo, the Creede Formation, near Creed, Colorado, has plant
and insect fossils. There are many plant fossils such as pine needles,
cones, willow leaves, and many more located in road cuts along the Rio
Grande. Most significant is the site of Dinosaur National Monument,
which had 299,142 visitors last year. This museum is home to over 1500
dinosaur bones. Today, many ideas about dinosaurs are changing, and the
fossils at Dinosaur National Monument continue to help us learn more
about these fascinating prehistoric animals. The fossils that give the
monument its name were discovered in 1909 by Earl Douglass. He was a
paleontologist who worked for the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. President Woodrow Wilson heard about the great dinosaur
quarry that Douglass had started, and proclaimed the site as Dinosaur
National Monument in 1915. Years later, the National Park Service began
to develop the quarry as it is today. The rock layer containing the
fossil bones forms one wall of the Quarry Visitor Center. On this wall,
scientists have carefully chipped away the rock to uncover the bones
and leave them in place.
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) will ensure
that fossils from Federal lands will be used for the benefit of all the
people of the United States by fostering the maximization of
information that is gained from these fossils and by providing access
to these fossils for researchers and the public.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much for
yielding time for the courtesy of allowing me to sit on this
Subcommittee for the day. And of course I appreciate the
hearing itself on H.R. 2057.
As I know this body is aware, chronic wasting disease is a
significant and growing problem in a growing number of States
from a wildlife management perspective, but also an economic
perspective.
In my home State of Wisconsin, which has received I think
the most attention recently in terms of the chronic wasting
disease challenge, we estimate that chronic wasting disease
presents a one billion dollar economic impact.
And a State the size of Wisconsin, you can imagine what
that means potentially. It is critically important that we get
our arms around this challenge. I am proud to join Congressman
McInnis, Congressman Ryan, and others in introducing H.R. 2057.
It creates a comprehensive Federal framework for assisting the
States.
The key points of this are, first, it is comprehensive, and
I think that is critical. It seems to me that if we are going
to tackle this challenge in the long run that we have to be
comprehensive.
We have to involve a wide range of agencies and
institutions, institutions like APHIS, if we are going to
succeed. There is no single silver bullet out there to this
problem. Instead, we hope that by crossing agency lines, and by
pulling the best minds in from agencies and institutions that
we can develop the plan that will lick this problem in the long
run.
And the second key point to this legislation that I believe
is so critical is about assistance to the States. Whether this
legislation passes or even better, the Administration moves
quickly enough to administer and implement the principles that
are in this legislation, we have to do everything we possibly
can to shift more resources out to the States.
It is the States where this problem will truly be fought.
They are on the front lines, and they are the ones who are
dealing with this year around, and especially during hunting
season.
So I do believe that it is important that we do everything
that we can to get the monies, including the monies that have
already been appropriated, as quickly as possible out to the
States for comprehensive plans so that we can make a very
important difference.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for yielding time. I do
appreciate it, and strongly support this legislation, and look
forward to working with you to see that its principles are
implemented. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Since none of the other members
that are entitled to opening remarks are here, we are going to
proceed directly to the witnesses. I would ask the witnesses
that you keep your comments to 5 minutes.
We have a vote that we expect to take place in about 50
minutes. I would like everyone to--I realize this, but I want
to get our witnesses out.
Mr. ryan. I would just want to ask for unanimous consent to
have my statement be included in the record.
Mr. McInnis. There is no problem with that. Of course. Are
there any objections or any unanimous consents? No? They are
all in.
Which also includes Mr. Ryan permission to sit where you
are sitting, but we went ahead and granted that, too. So you
are welcome to the Committee. At any rate, we want to get the
witness statements in, and I want to leave plenty of time for
the panel to ask these questions. I think that is where we are
going to get the most out of this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul Ryan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin, on H.R. 2057
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to this Committee
to share my concerns about Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which affects
my home state of Wisconsin and 11 other states. Last year, Wisconsin
became the first state east of the Mississippi River to have confirmed
cases of Chronic Wasting Disease. This discovery indicated that the
disease was spreading, and that quick and thorough action was
imperative. Since we last held a hearing on this issue in May 2002, six
more states have reported discovering CWD in either their captive or
wild herds. Obviously this is a problem that continues to grow and
requires a serious response.
CWD is a deadly disease that affects deer and elk by penetrating
the brain with millions of microscopic holes, infecting the tonsils,
spinal cord, and lymph nodes, and is always fatal. Unless this disease
can be controlled soon, it could be damaging to Wisconsin's deer
hunting industry. Every year, sportsmen in the state spend over $2.3
billion and support 45,000 jobs throughout the state. It is vital to
Wisconsin to preserve and support this industry by ensuring the good
health of the deer.
As an avid sportsman, I am deeply concerned about CWD and will
continue to support the Federal and state CWD programs to contain and
eradicate the disease. Over the past year, Wisconsin has worked hard to
manage the spread of CWD. My colleague Mark Green and I joined our
fellow hunters in Wisconsin for one of the four one-week hunting
sessions held last summer and an extended hunting season in the fall.
These hunts contributed to the 41,245 deer samples that have been
analyzed. This is more testing than any other state has conducted. Of
those samples, 207 animals have tested positive for the fatal deer
disease. Almost all of the infected deer--201--came from the 411-square
mile eradication zone of Dane, Iowa, and Sauk counties, indicating good
disease management. However, officials believe the disease may be far
more widespread within that zone.
The testing of these deer samples has provided information to
hunters, farmers, and recreationalists who depend on the health of the
deer herds. Wisconsin has used this information to calm the concerns of
citizens who worried whether it was safe to hunt and eat the meat,
whether cattle were at risk, or whether this disease could be passed on
to humans. Wisconsin's intensive testing effort consumed thousands of
hours, involved 1,200 people, and has cost millions of dollars.
I believe that the most effective role for the Federal Government
is to support states like Wisconsin with the burdens of this effort by
providing for surveillance, management, and research programs. Most of
all, our backing of sound scientific research is critical to finding
all of the necessary answers to the many unanswered questions
surrounding CWD. If we are to manage this disease properly, if we are
to calm citizens' concerns, and if we are to ultimately end the spread
of this disease, scientific research will show us the way.
Our legislation, H.R. 2057, which is the result of a bipartisan
collaboration between Mr. Green, Mr. McInnis, and myself and
Wisconsin's two U.S. Senators, establishes a strong alliance between
the states and the Federal Government to combat CWD. This comprehensive
approach will benefit the states by expanding the resources and support
available within the Federal Government.
In closing, I am more confident than ever that this disease can be
controlled and eradicated. In just over a year, we have taken important
strides towards managing CWD and learning about the disease. I will
work to see that state and Federal agencies are provided the support
they need to overcome obstacles in eradicating CWD. More resources
should be dedicated towards testing, and extensive, collaborative
research is especially needed to determine the cause of this problem.
Lastly, we need to continue to manage the current problem while
focusing efforts on discovering a live test, a vaccine, or a cure for
the disease.
______
Mr. McInnis. So I would call up the first witnesses on H.R.
2057. On panel one, we have Mr. Groat, who is the Director,
U.S. Geological Survey. You have got name tags up there, and if
you would take your place.
Mr. Bobby Acord, and he is the Administrator of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Services; Mr. George--Russ, I
introduced you earlier--Director, Colorado Division of
Wildlife; Mr. Taylor, Legislative Director, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and I understand
that Mr. Fisher, or Dr. Fisher, and Dr. Fisher, thank you, and
he is with the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study.
And since we called them in that order, we will go ahead
and begin in that order. Mr. Groat, you may proceed. You have 5
minutes. And by the way, thank you to all of the witnesses
today for making this effort.
I will tell you that Thursday is a very active day. I, for
example, have Ways and Means going on right now. So the lack of
presence of some of the members should not be indicative of
their lack of interest. There is a lot of interest in this.
This is very, very important.
There will be lots of statements that will be entered in
the record, and there will be lots of review of the comments
that you make into the record by people not able to be present
here today. Again, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in
attending.
And, Mr. Groat, with that, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHIP GROAT, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Groat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to present
the Department of Interior's views on H.R. 2057. We so share
your concern, both for the wildlife populations, the captive
herds, as well as Mr. Green's point for the economic impacts
that this is having.
At the outset the Department strongly supports the concepts
embodied in H.R. 2057, particularly the recognition and the
facilitation of the critical role that State Wildlife
Management Agencies, universities, and non-governmental
organizations, play.
There may be a couple of instances in the legislation where
the mechanisms that are called upon in the Department of the
Interior are already in place, but we do strongly support the
efforts to make the best use of those.
We also recognize that there are varied roles for different
Federal agencies, as well as State agencies, and those that are
outlined for the Department of the Interior, and USGS in
particular, are by and large appropriate as you have described
them.
We have already committed in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget
the Administration's requested $3.8 million for chronic wasting
disease efforts within the USGS. That will allow us to expand
one of the main contributions we make, and that has to do with
research and technical assistance to partners dealing with the
biological information and understanding of the disease itself.
Within this appropriations year, the Park Service will
continue to monitor and do surveillance on the disease in the
parks and provide for chronic wasting disease response teams.
Also, the national refuge system will be watched over by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and they will do surveillance there.
We are also working cooperatively with Colorado, Wisconsin,
and other State and Fish and Wildlife Agencies, providing
technical assistance manpower, and participating in
collaborative research.
For example, we recently initiated collaborative research
studies with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and
the University of Wisconsin to enhance scientific knowledge
about chronic wasting disease and the development of management
strategies.
Over the past year the department embarked on an aggressive
program of research into the biology of chronic wasting
disease, its host, and its avenues of transmission, clearly one
of the least understood aspects of the disease.
And as was pointed out, where there is a need for lots of
people with good ideas to participate in trying to understand
that. In addition, we and our partners are working to develop
methods needed to identify diseased animals in the pre-clinical
stages.
During 2003, we have augmented our ongoing program of
chronic wasting disease projects with over a million dollars in
new research, and $300 thousand in new activities initiated in
cooperation with the States. That brings our total commitment
to $2.7 million for this year.
The recent addition of detection of chronic wasting disease
in free ranging deer in additional States points to the need
for continued Federal, State, and tribal coordination to manage
the disease. I want to speak now specifically very quickly to
the provisions of H.R. 2057, which relate to instructions to
the Secretary of the Interior.
It directs the Secretary of the Interior through the USGS
to use existing authorities to establish and maintain a
national data base for chronic wasting disease related
information, which is to include surveillance and monitoring
data for both wild and captive herds.
We agree that information is an extremely important part of
the program, and through our national biological information
infrastructure, the USGS has recently implemented a prototype
wildlife disease information network to develop a chronic
wasting disease national data repository for scientific,
technical and geospacial information.
However, in terms of the data base suggested by this
legislation, we believe that it should be developed in close
coordination with the Department of Agriculture, and that we
provide a national prospective by working cooperatively with
them on providing this capability.
Under the provisions of H.R. 2057, we are also, the USGS,
is charged with using existing authorities in a chronic wasting
disease surveillance and monitoring program in cooperation with
the State and tribal agencies, and also in cooperation with the
Department of the Interior.
We really strongly believe that the surveillance and
monitoring program is an extremely important component of any
national strategy, particularly as it relates to wild herds in
our area of responsibility.
I am pleased to report, Mr. Chairman, that on May 1 of this
year that the USGS released a report called Surveillance
Strategies for Detecting Chronic Wasting Disease in Free
Ranging Deer and Elk.
This 41-page document is a culmination of a 3 day workshop
that involved several agencies and many disciplines, and it was
held at our wildlife health center in Madison, Wisconsin. This
is the first of its kind, and it provides one of the kinds of
tools that you envision in your legislation. It allows States
and others to deal with it effectively.
We also note that in Section 103 that it directs the
Secretary to allocate funds directly to State and tribal
wildlife agencies for the purpose of developing and
implementing management strategies, and as you pointed out, the
States are where the action is, and this is where the need is
for the resources.
Our only concern there, Mr. Chairman, is that the grant
program that is authorized appears somewhat duplicative of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's State wildlife grants, and that
mechanism is in place, and doesn't necessarily fit within the
USGS mission.
And finally Section 104 directs the Secretary to expand
and accelerate research through the USGS regarding detection,
genetic resistance, tissue studies, and environmental studies
of chronic wasting disease. We believe the Department's role in
providing basic and applied research is extremely important and
share the opinion expressed earlier that this is a multifaceted
effort which many organizations, and many universities, have to
be involved.
We can never be too short on good ideas and good
approaches, and as we only have one institution dealing with
cancer, we don't need only one institution dealing with this.
So hopefully our involvement, and Agriculture's involvement,
and many universities, will bring that to a successful
conclusion. Our understandings will be advanced.
So in conclusion we fully support the concepts in H.R.
2057. We are eager to work with you and the Department of
Agriculture, and with the States, in achieving the goal of
understanding and eliminating this important disease, and we
will do everything that we can to be supportive of that effort.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I submit my formal
testimony for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groat follows:]
Statement of Charles G. Groat, Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2057
Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees, I am Chip Groat,
Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). I thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior's (Department)
views on H.R. 2057, the ``Chronic Wasting Disease Support for States
Act of 2003.''
The Department shares your concern regarding the impact of Chronic
Wasting Disease (CWD) on captive and free-ranging deer and elk and on
the economies of states and local communities. Increased surveillance
and awareness have resulted in the identification of this disease in
free-ranging deer or elk populations in eight states. The detection of
this disease in additional states increases the urgency of finding
effective means of control.
At the outset, I want to say that the Department strongly supports
the concepts embodied in H.R. 2057, particularly the recognition and
facilitation of the critical role state wildlife management agencies,
universities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in
limiting the distribution and occurrence of CWD. However, we note that
several of its provisions direct the Secretary to carry out programs
which appear, at least in part, duplicative of ongoing efforts within
the Department. Moreover, the new funding required for implementation
must compete with other priorities in the context of the President's
Budget.
Recent Departmental Accomplishments
The Department manages roughly one in every five acres of land in
the United States and has a variety of stewardship responsibilities for
natural resources on these lands Through the National Park Service
(Park Service), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and Wildlife
Service), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), the Department provides assistance to, cooperates with
and, in some cases, co-manages wildlife with states to ensure healthy,
viable wildlife populations.
While the Department recognizes that the states possess primary
responsibility for management of resident fish and wildlife within
their borders, to successfully combat CWD we must employ an approach
that recognizes the varied roles of Federal and state agencies In this
vein, the Department conducts basic and applied research into the
biology and management of this disease, provides wildlife-related
laboratory services, and offers technical advice and assistance to our
partners We recognize that we must also work closely with private
landowners and incorporate their needs into surveillance strategies and
outbreak responses.
In an effort be good neighbors, proper land stewards, and to
provide assistance to the states, the Administration requested a total
of $3.8 million in their Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for CWD
efforts If funded at the requested level, USGS will expand research and
deliver technical assistance and pertinent biological information about
the disease to both Federal and state agencies The Park Service will
continue monitoring and surveillance and will establish a CWD Response
Team, modeled after the highly successful exotic plant management
teams, to continue and expand on its ability to respond quickly and
professionally to CWD issues in units of the National Park System The
Fish and Wildlife Service will use requested funding to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act and to develop surveillance and
disease contingency plans for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS).
As a further example of our commitment to cooperation with states
on this issue, the Department is working with Colorado, Wisconsin, and
other state fish and wildlife agencies, providing technical assistance,
manpower, and participating in collaborative research studies For
instance, USGS recently initiated collaborative research studies with
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of
Wisconsin to enhance scientific knowledge about CWD and to assist in
the development of management strategies During the fall 2002 big game
hunting season, volunteers from the Fish and Wildlife Service
contributed over 440 hours of assistance to the State of Colorado by
gathering data from hunter harvested deer and elk. As a result of
positive cases of CWD in one elk and two deer in Wind Cave National
Park, the National Park Service is stepping-up CWD surveillance and
planning efforts with the State of South Dakota on an elk management
plan.
Over the past year, the Department has embarked on an aggressive
program of research into the biology of CWD, its hosts, and avenues of
transmission In addition, USGS and its partners are working to develop
the methods needed to identify diseased animals at pre-clinical stages
During fiscal year (FY) 2003 alone, USGS is augmenting its ongoing
program of CWD-related projects with over $1.0 million in new research
and over $300,000 in new activities initiated in cooperation with
states This brings the total Fiscal Year 2003 USGS commitment to its
CWD program to $2.7 million.
In testimony before this Committee last May, I reported that Rocky
Mountain National Park was the only unit of the National Park System
(NPS) that was known to have elk and deer infected with the disease,
and that Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota was at high risk of
the disease As noted above, increased surveillance led to the detection
of CWD in deer and elk at Wind Cave National Park CWD also threatens
other NPS units--including Dinosaur National Monument in northwestern
Colorado and Agate Fossil Beds and ScottsBluff National Monuments in
western Nebraska--due to proximity to wild deer and elk herds where CWD
has been detected or in nearby facilities for captive rearing of deer
and elk.
Based on samples taken in Rocky Mountain National Park, the
prevalence of infection for deer is calculated at about 5 to 6 percent,
the same for animals surrounding the park. The prevalence of the
disease in elk adjacent to the park was estimated by the State of
Colorado to be between 1 and 4 percent and is likely similar within the
park. The park is continuing tactical management activities for CWD,
and is continuing collaborative efforts on research and joint strategy
development with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). In addition,
the park is removing deer and elk with clinical signs of the disease,
as well as deer that test positive for CWD using tonsillar biopsy. The
Park Service has also entered into an agreement with Colorado State
University to fund a Chronic Wasting Disease Coordinator to assist high
risk parks in planning, sample collection and diagnostics, management,
and research of CWD over a 2-year period.
Finally, the Department has also worked in conjunction with the
Department of Agriculture, as well as universities, state wildlife
management agencies, and agricultural agencies, to develop a
coordinated management approach to addressing CWD. This approach,
released in June 2002, includes, among other things, surveillance,
diagnostic, and research action items.
The recent detection of CWD in free-ranging deer in additional
states points to the need for continued Federal, state, and tribal
coordination in efforts to manage this disease. H.R. 2057 attempts to
addresses this need by directing the Department, through the USGS, to
undertake work on several fronts that are important to limiting the
distribution and occurrence of CWD. I am proud to inform the Committee
that we have already initiated work on several of these important
initiatives.
Departmental Views on H.R. 2057
Section 101(a) of H.R. 2057 directs the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary), through the USGS and using existing authorities, to
establish and maintain a national database for CWD-related information,
and to include surveillance and monitoring data for both wild and
captive animal populations that is collected by Federal agencies,
foreign governments, Indian tribes, and state agencies that receive
assistance under the proposal. This database would be made available to
government agencies attempting to manage and control CWD, universities
and other public and private institutions conducting research on CWD,
and cooperating international wildlife authorities.
The Department supports the development of a national database,
because the need for sharing information is critical to making
informed, science-based, management decisions. This database will take
full advantage of our existing capabilities in biology, mapping, and
scientific database development. Maintaining CWD-related data on both
wild and captive populations will facilitate integrated analyses and
allow practical ``lessons learned'' in diagnosis, surveillance, and
control to be shared rapidly among a wide range of users. In fact,
through its National Biological Information Infrastructure, the USGS
has recently implemented a prototype Wildlife Disease Information
Network to develop a CWD national data repository for scientific,
technical, and geospatial information. Contributed CWD data will be
collected through state and Federal agencies, tribes, and other
sources. However, in terms of the database suggested by this
legislation, we believe that it should be developed in coordination
with Department of Agriculture, which has oversight responsibility for
captive cervids.
Under the provisions found in section 102 of H.R. 2057, USGS is
charged with developing, using existing authorities, a national CWD
surveillance and monitoring program in cooperation with state and
tribal agencies and in coordination with the Department of Agriculture.
The Department is also to provide financial and technical assistance to
states and tribes to implement the program for wild herds of deer and
elk.
The Department views this program as an important component of a
national strategy to identify the rate of CWD infection in wild herds,
the geographic extent of its spread, and potential reservoirs of
infection and mechanisms promoting the spread of CWD. In fact, on May
1, 2003, the USGS released a report called ``Surveillance Strategies
for Detecting CWD in Free-Ranging Deer and Elk.'' The 41-page document
is the culmination of a 3-day interdisciplinary, interagency workshop
held at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin.
This document is the first tool of its kind, and it provides general
guidance on the development and conduct of scientifically sound
surveillance programs to detect CWD in free-ranging populations of both
deer and elk.
The Department's extensive scientific resources provide us with the
ability to synthesize data from multiple sources and conduct local,
regional, and national analyses, as needed. As you can see, we believe
that the Department's role in providing technical assistance and
coordinating surveillance and monitoring efforts is both appropriate
and essential.
Section 103 directs the Secretary to allocate funds directly to
state and tribal wildlife agencies for the purpose of developing and
implementing CWD management strategies. The criteria provided for the
allocation of funds address the need to prioritize this financial
support based on the relative rate of incidence, state and tribal
financial commitment to CWD programs, integration of state or tribal
agency policies related to CWD management, and the need to respond
rapidly to disease outbreaks in new areas of infection. The grant
program authorized by this section appears duplicative of the Fish and
Wildlife Service's state wildlife grants, and the administration of
these grants does not fit within the USGS's mission.
Finally, section 104 directs the Secretary to expand and accelerate
research, through USGS, regarding detection, genetic resistance, tissue
studies, and environmental studies of CWD. We believe that the
Department's role in providing basic and applied research is both
appropriate and essential to understanding and managing this disease.
Conclusion
The Department's traditional stewardship role and cooperative
relationship with states and other partners make it ideally situated to
facilitate development of a coordinated strategy to combat CWD. We
fully support the concepts advanced by H.R. 2057--recognition of state
roles and responsibilities in the management of resident wildlife
populations; the Department's scientific and technical expertise and
ability to coordinate across an array of interested partners--and
pledge to work with the Committee to ensure that our resources and
authorities are used in the most efficient manner in addressing CWD in
free-ranging cervids.
Mr. Chairmen, this concludes my written statement and I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you might have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Groat, and I again reemphasize
the comments you made about--and as Mr. Green made earlier--and
that is the emphasis on the States and their lead. They are the
people who have their hands on every day of the week. So I
appreciate your comments.
Mr. Acord, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY ACORD, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL AND PLANT
HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Acord. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's views on
H.R. 2057, a bill to provide for multi-agency cooperative
efforts to combat chronic wasting disease.
I would like to start off my testimony with a quick
announcement. The USDA recently made $4 million available to
assist State Wildlife Agencies in addressing CWD. We are happy
to announce that we have just approved Colorado's surveillance
plan for CWD in wild populations.
And following the funding formula that we developed in
conjunction with the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, we are right now working to transfer
$218,750to the States so that they can begin that work. And I
know that Russ will appreciate that.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Acord, we can grant unanimous consent for
you to sit up here, too, if you would like. Thank you. We
appreciate that.
Mr. Acord. As you know, CWD is a transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy or TSE of deer and elk, in the same family of
disease as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, and
scrapie.
it was just about a year ago I think that Dr. Jim Butler
updated you on our efforts to manage CWD in deer and elk. Many
things have moved forward since 2002, and I would like to take
a moment to discuss some of these with you.
To ensure a coordinated and cooperative approach in
assisting States, a task force, including USDA and the
Department of the Interior, along with State Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, Departments of Agriculture, Universities, drafted a
national management plan for assisting States, Federal
Agencies, and tribes, in managing CWD in wild and captive
cervids.
The plan was shared with Congress, I think, in June of last
year. With input from the industry and States, the USDA is
developing a national voluntary herd certification program to
eliminate CWD from farm cervids.
Although initially aimed at farmed elk, the program will
not include susceptible farmed deer species as well. We are
planning for an implementation to occur by the end of this
year.In addition, USDA continues to pay for all laboratory
costs associated with CWD in testing the farm cervid
population.
Positive and exposed farm cervids are eligible for
indemnity, and USDA also pays the cost for depopulation and
disposal. The USDA has also moved ahead in assisting States to
deal with the wildlife aspect of the disease. In 2003, USDA
received $14.8 million for CWD in captive and wildlife, or in
free-ranging populations.
As I mentioned earlier, we are providing $4 million of this
to the States, and a detailed breakout of how the $14.8 million
was spent is available for your review. As a matter of fact, I
believe that we have shared it with you already.
USDA has also paid laboratory costs for hunter surveillance
testing from the 2002 and 2003 hunting season for all States
submitting approved surveillance plans. In addition our
wildlife services program is working closely with several
states, including Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, and others, to
assist them in their surveillance of monitoring the wild
population.
Our personnel have assisted in harvesting deer for test
samples and have also guided landowners in the removal of deer
from their property. Testing has also been an important issue
related to CWD, and with the increased testing for CWD,
laboratory capacity has been an issue.
We realize that increased testing capacity was necessary
and expanded the number of laboratories that we would be able
to use to run the IHC or the Immunohistochemistry assay for
CWD. We now have 26 laboratories that can run the IHC test. The
estimated capacity is now at a quarter-of-a-million samples,
more than adequate to meet the current demand.
This past year has also seen progress on the development of
new tests. Our center for veterinary biologics recently
approved two new diagnostic kits, one for use on elk, mule
deer, and pot-tail deer, and another has been approved for mule
deer and white-tailed deer.
These tests run on a system that allows multiple samples to
be processed at once. Until further data can be obtained on
their effectiveness, IHC still remains the international
recognized standard, or the gold standard, for this particular
kind of testing.
Research continues to be an important part of our activity
here. We continue to work with the Agriculture Research
Service, the Cooperative State Research Service, as well as our
national wildlife research center, is doing a number of pieces
of research on this.
As you can see, USDA has been moving steadily forward on
its program to combat CWD. However, we feel that even though
2057 has good intent, much of what is required in the bill is
already being done.
For example, the bill requires that Federal facilities be
upgraded to facilitate the processing of samples from
surveillance and monitoring. As stated earlier, we have the
capacity to run 250,000 samples now.
The bill also requires that an official data base for CWD
reside with DOI, including information on the farm cervid
population. Under the Animal Health Protection Act, the USDA
has the lead, or is the lead department for livestock diseases.
We do not believe that a data base for livestock should reside
at the Department of Interior.
CWD is an important issue to USDA. There is a lot of work
being done and it will continue. And with our working together
with our Federal and State counterparts, we can get a handle on
this disease.
And I would also just conclude by saying that I think that
we have had a wonderful working relationship with the State
Fish and Wildlife agencies, particularly with the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, that has provided a
lot of leadership on this issue.
We look forward to continuing that good work. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks and my statement will
be submitted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Acord follows:]
Statement of Bobby R. Acord, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2057
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to speak with you on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) about H.R. 2057, a bill to provide for a multi-
agency cooperative effort to combat chronic wasting disease (CWD).
CWD is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) of deer and
elk, in the same family of diseases as bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) and scrapie. It has been diagnosed in farmed elk and deer herds
in eight States; known positive or exposed herds remain only in
Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. CWD has also been identified in
free-ranging deer and elk in areas of Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, New
Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The origin and mode
of transmission of CWD are unknown.
It was just about a year ago that Dr. Jim Butler updated you on our
efforts to manage CWD in deer and elk. Many things have moved forward
since 2002, and I'd like to take a moment to discuss some of these with
you.
First and foremost is the management plan for CWD. To ensure a
coordinated and cooperative Federal approach to assisting States, a
task force including USDA and the Department of the Interior (DOI),
along with universities and State wildlife management and agriculture
agencies, drafted a national management plan for assisting States,
Federal Agencies, and tribes in managing CWD in wild and captive
cervids. The plan was shared with Congress in June 2002. The plan's
components include action items for surveillance, diagnostics, and
research, among other things.
With input from industry and States, USDA is developing a voluntary
national herd certification program to eliminate CWD from farmed
cervids. Although initially aimed at farmed elk, the program will now
include susceptible farmed deer species. Rulemaking must be completed
before the plan is implemented and we expect publication of the
proposal shortly. We are planning for implementation to occur by the
end of this year. In addition, USDA continues to pay for all laboratory
costs associated with CWD testing in the farmed cervid population.
Positive and exposed farmed cervid herds are eligible for indemnity.
USDA also pays the costs of depopulation and disposal. Our goal is
nothing less than eradication of the disease in the farmed cervid
population.
USDA has also moved ahead in assisting the States to deal with the
wildlife aspect of the disease. In Fiscal Year 2003, USDA received
$14.8 million for CWD in captive and wildlife herds. USDA recently made
$4 million of that available to assist State wildlife agencies in
addressing CWD. Funding is being distributed according to a formula
developed in conjunction with the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. Under this formula, States are classified according
to tiers. Tier 1 States, which have known occurrences of CWD in free-
ranging cervids as of March 1, 2003, are eligible for the highest sums.
States falling in the Tier 2 and 3 are eligible for lower amounts. A
detailed breakout of the $14.8 million is available for your review.
USDA has also paid laboratory costs for hunter surveillance testing
from the 2002-03 hunting season for all States submitting approved
surveillance plans.
In addition, our Wildlife Services program is working closely with
several States, including Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin, to assist
them in the surveillance and monitoring of deer in the wild population.
Our personnel have assisted in the harvesting of deer for test samples,
and have also guided landowners on the removal of deer from their
property.
Testing has also been an important issue related to CWD. With the
increased testing for CWD, laboratory capacity has been an issue. USDA
realized that an increased testing capacity was necessary and expanded
the number of laboratories that would be able to run the
immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay for CWD. We now have 26 laboratories
that can run the IHC test; the estimated capacity is now a quarter of a
million samples, more than adequate to meet current demand.
Official diagnosis of CWD continues to be performed exclusively by
Federal and State regulatory agency laboratories and this remains the
current USDA policy. With ever-increasing international trade, it is
essential that we can guarantee the integrity of our diagnostic
laboratory network in the United States. A ``false positive'' for any
disease, not just CWD, could result in unnecessary public concern and
costly regulatory action. And in the case of a disease like bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, a false positive could be devastating,
costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars in unnecessary domestic
and international market disruption from which it could take years to
recover.
This past year has also seen progress in the development of new
tests. Our Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) recently approved two
new diagnostic test kits: one for use on elk, mule deer, and white-tail
deer and another kit that has been approved for mule deer and white-
tailed deer. These new tests run on an ELISA system, which allows more
samples to be processed at once. Until further data can be obtained on
their effectiveness, IHC remains the internationally recognized method
of choice. CVB officials are also reviewing a number of other test kits
and have placed a high priority on the evaluation of CWD test kits.
Research into the area of CWD has continued as well. Our National
Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) is researching the possibility of
vaccines for CWD. NWRC is also continuing to research ways to identify
improved barriers and repellents to keep wild deer and elk separated
from captive cervids and other livestock. This research is being
conducted to control bovine tuberculosis, but much of the information
will apply to CWD. NWRC also plans to examine new decontamination
methods for CWD-affected facilities
The Agriculture Research Service has also undertaken several
projects, including assessing the interspecies transmission of TSEs
among livestock species and cervids, assessing herbivore susceptibility
to TSE, and identifying and developing new methods for detecting prion
protein molecules in the environment and feedstuffs.
The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service is
also continuing to support research projects through both competitive
and formula-funded programs to determine the causes and methods of
control for CWD. In Fiscal Year 2002 the National Research Initiative
Competitive Grant Program awarded $250,000 to Case Western Reserve
University to understand how CWD causes disease and is transmitted
between animals. The University of Wisconsin has dedicated resources
from its CSREES-supported Agricultural Experiment Station to the
management of white-tailed deer, with a special emphasis on CWD. The
National Research Initiative once again requested proposals related to
CWD in fiscal year 03, and at this time staff is currently reviewing
proposals.
As you can see, USDA has been moving steadily forward on its
program to combat CWD. However, we feel that even though H.R. 2057 has
good intent, much of what is required in the bill is already being
done. The bill, if passed, requires that USDOI and USDA conduct certain
activities regarding CWD. The USDOI activities include a national
database for wild and captive cervid information, surveillance and
monitoring programs in wild populations, money for State programs, and
the expansion of USGS research. In total, the bill authorizes $17.5
million for USDOI activities.
The USDA activities include the development of a surveillance and
monitoring program, and the expansion of diagnostic testing capability
and ARS and CSREES activities. In total, the bill authorizes $9.5
million for USDA activities. The bill also requires USDA and USDOI to
enter joint rulemaking when promulgating rules to implement the Act.
Again, we agree with the intent of the bill, which is to establish
a program to combat CWD. However, many aspects of the program are
already in place at USDA. In addition, the bill does not take into
account changes that have been made to the USDA program in the past
year.
For example, the bill requires that Federal facilities be upgraded
to facilitate the timely processing of samples from the surveillance
and monitoring. As stated earlier, we currently have the capacity to
run 250,000 samples and USDA is working to expand testing capacity for
all TSEs, which would also benefit CWD. We should also point out that
because the States have not submitted as many wild cervid samples as
APHIS had anticipated, $500,000 that was allocated for testing is being
used to set up cooperative agreements with Tribal Nations.
The bill also requires that the official database for CWD reside
with DOI, including information on the farmed cervid population. Under
the Animal Health Protection Act, USDA is the lead Department in
livestock diseases. We do not believe that a database for livestock,
such as farmed cervids, should reside with another Department,
especially since we must be conscious of the privacy concerns of
producers. In addition, we are currently working with industry on an
animal identification program for livestock; both the North American
Deer Farmers Association and the North American Elk Breeders
Association have been a part of that process. We are concerned about
the impact that this provision may have on a livestock animal
identification program.
CWD is an important issue to USDA. There is a lot of work being
done and it will continue as we implement our herd certification
program and expand our testing capabilities. By continuing to work
together with our Federal and State counterparts, we can get a handle
on this disease.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Acord.
Mr. George, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL GEORGE, DIRECTOR,
STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committees. I am Russell George, Director of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
this morning to talk about the potential for increased Federal
assistance to the States to manage chronic wasting disease.
I appreciate the support and leadership of Congress on this
subject of chronic wasting disease, and as you can imagine, it
is of utmost importance to us in the State of Colorado. We are
uniquely positioned to take advantage of any Federal grants or
other assistance relative to managing and studying the disease.
Thus far our State agencies have invested heavily in
tackling the challenge of CWD, and we have done so largely with
State funds, especially using revenues that we receive from the
sale of hunting licenses. So we can welcome and can use
increased Federal financial support.
This is why I especially applaud Chairman McInnis' bill for
two particular reasons. One is that it provides significant new
funds for State wildlife managers, and second, it asserts the
primacy of the States in policymaking authority with regard to
wildlife management, both in general terms and specifically
with respect to chronic wasting disease.
We have been concerned with the second point of State
primacy and wildlife management has often been overlooked by
some Federal agencies. States that have had outbreaks of
chronic wasting disease, such as Colorado and Wisconsin, have
aggressively responded to the threats that it poses to
wildlife, both free roaming and captive.
States should continue to remain at the forefront of
preventing or responding to chronic wasting disease. What
States like Colorado really need from the Federal Government
are additional resources, and not new programs or institutions.
The needs of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Colorado
Department of Agriculture, and Colorado State University, are
extensive and beyond the ability of the State to fully fund.
Federal assistance is crucial at this time. The knowledge
that we have gained and the programs that we have initiated in
Colorado are often used as a model for other States who are
just starting to respond to chronic wasting disease issues.
The innovative and aggressive approach that Colorado has
taken allows other States to save their scarce funds and
limited personnel time by enabling them to focus on
initiatives, technologies, and approaches that we have
demonstrated already to be effective.
Let me take a moment to highlight specifically actions
taken by Colorado over the past 2 years in response to the
spread of chronic wasting disease. First and foremost, we have
coordinated with local governing authorities and private
landowners to reduce deer populations in areas of especially
high prevalence.
Secondly, we have significantly redirected existing funding
and personnel to chronic wasting disease control efforts, and
the numbers themselves are important for me to share with
you.Two years ago, we were investing around $700,000 in the
work that we were doing on chronic wasting disease.
This year's budget will be nearly $4 million. So in 2
years, going on to the third year, we would have jumped from
$700,000 to near $4 million. This is hunter paid license fees
and revenues that the State of Colorado is investing in this
issue. There is no question that we take chronic wasting
disease as a most serious threat.
By the way, $4 million is about 4 percent of our budget to
invest in one issue, one disease, and this takes away from all
the other things that we are called upon to do as the State's
wildlife managers.
Increased coordination and cooperation between agriculture
public health, and environment, public State university, and
the Division of Wildlife, we have learned in Colorado how to
overcome our historical and jurisdictional institutional
barriers among these entities.
We think that having overcome these barriers is a model
that the Federal agencies can follow. We believe that since we
have done it that the Federal agencies can overcome those
traditional barriers as well.
We have created eight new positions in the Colorado
Division of Wildlife devoted solely to chronic wasting disease.
We have a field coordinator for culling activities, a State-
wide wildlife disease coordinator, staff veterinarian, four lab
technicians, and a lab supervisor, for new wildlife health
unit.Again, all using hunting license fee revenues.
Eight new people may not sound much, but when you
understand that there have been no new FDEs created anywhere in
State government in Colorado for a number of years, you can see
that the State also generally recognizes the importance of the
work that the Division of Wildlife is doing.
In the few moments I have left, let me focus upon what we
would like you to help us do. First of all, we need to upgrade
certified labs. We think that $3-1/2 million of Federal funds
will help us to do that, particularly to build a new diagnostic
lab at Colorado State University that can be shared by the
Division of Wildlife, the Department of Agriculture, and the
University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.
We would expect to find $4 million to upgrade disposal
processes at four sampling/testing facilities. The key to
dealing with chronic wasting disease, wherever it is, is to
test sufficiently to know everywhere it is, and to what degree
it exists.
So the more testing that we can do across every State, the
more we can know about that. Colorado jumped from 5,000 tests
statewide a year ago, to 27,000 tests this past year. We intend
to step that up again to as much as 40,000 tests.
And the other thing that has happened is that we have moved
getting the timing for the results from 6 months down to 2
weeks. For us to provide good customer service and good
science, we needed to know exactly and quickly whether the
animals were positive or negative.
Research. There is no question that we need more research.
We would ask for $2 million for research on therapeutics, live
animal diagnostics, environmental detection, field diagnostics,
genetic resistance, and enhanced rapid laboratory tests.
Surveillance monitoring and management of wild deer and elk
needs to occur, and surveillance monitoring and management of
captive deer and elk must also occur. Some of this can be done
together and some of it must be done separately. So we like to
focus on both.
Finally, education and outreach. You all know the
importance of telling the public everything that we know and
telling them as quickly as we know it what there is to learn
from this.
The public cares a great deal about TSEs, and our
responsibility is to be as accurate and as open about that as
we can, and that takes time and resources to do it. My time is
up. Let me just say again that we support the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the position that
they, and where they have helped us.
We support the comments from Wisconsin. The main thing I
want to say is that we are dealing with a disease here. Time
matters. The sooner we get on this, learn what we can about it,
the sooner the opportunity we can get our arms around it,
contain it, and maybe eventually eliminate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have used the time. My formal
statements will be offered for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]
Statement of Russell George, Director, Division of Wildlife,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, on H.R. 2057
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Russell George, Director of the
Colorado Division of Wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to share my thoughts about the potential for increased
Federal assistance to States attempting to manage Chronic Wasting
Disease, commonly referred to as CWD. I appreciate the support and
leadership of Congress on the subject of CWD, an issue of considerable
importance to the State of Colorado.
Colorado is uniquely positioned to take advantage of any Federal
grants or other assistance relative to managing and studying this
disease. Thus far, our state agencies have invested heavily in tackling
the challenge of CWD and we have done so largely with state funds,
especially revenues derived from the sale of hunting licenses.
Therefore, we welcome increased Federal financial support.
That is why I especially applaud Chairman McInnis' bill. It
provides significant new funds for state wildlife managers and it
asserts the primacy of the States in policy-making authority with
regard to wildlife management, both in general terms and specifically
with respect to CWD. We have been concerned that this point has been
overlooked too often by some Federal agencies.
States that have had outbreaks of CWD, like Colorado and Wisconsin,
have aggressively responded to the threats it poses to wildlife, both
free-roaming and captive. States should continue to remain at the
forefront of preventing or responding to chronic wasting disease. What
states like Colorado really need from the Federal Government are
additional resources, not new programs or institutions.
The needs of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Colorado
Department of Agriculture (CDOA) and Colorado State University (CSU)
are extensive and beyond the ability of the state to fully fund.
Federal assistance is crucial at this time. The knowledge that we have
gained and the programs we have initiated in Colorado are often used as
a model for other states just starting to respond to CWD issues. The
innovative and aggressive approach that Colorado has taken allows other
states to save scare funds and limited personnel time by enabling them
to focus on initiatives, technologies and approaches that we have
demonstrated to be effective.
I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the actions
taken by Colorado over the past two years in response to the spread of
CWD. We have:
LCoordinated with local governing authorities and private
landowners to reduce deer populations in areas of especially high
prevalence.
LSignificantly redirected existing funding and personnel
to CWD control efforts.
LIncreased coordination and cooperation between the CDOA,
Colorado's Department of Public Health and the Environment, CSU and the
Division of Wildlife on CWD issues.
LCreated 8 new positions devoted to CWD within the
Division of Wildlife (a field coordinator for culling activities, a
statewide wildlife disease coordinator, a staff veterinarian, 4 lab
technicians and a lab supervisor for a new wildlife health unit--all
using hunting license fee revenues).
In addition, we joined with CSU and CDOA, to implement an extensive
CWD surveillance and testing program for wild elk and deer. Members of
the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and volunteers from several
Federal agencies, conservation organizations and the general public
also provided significant assistance. With this cooperation, we were
able to offer statewide testing of hunter-killed deer and elk while
validating a new rapid test that provided results in hours instead of
months and allowed for large-volume testing. As a direct result of our
experience, we understand that the new test is now being considered by
the USDA and Canada for screening large numbers of cattle for Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
With this integrated effort, we succeeded in testing more than
27,000 wild deer and elk for CWD with most results available within two
weeks of receipt of the sample. The CDOA and the Division of Wildlife
continue to coordinate, develop, and adopt comprehensive regulations
that govern the importation, intrastate transportation and surveillance
of captive deer and elk. As you can see, we already have in place
programs to monitor and manage CWD.
Despite the unprecedented actions taken by Colorado and other
states, it is clear much more work remains to be done. What we need
most are additional financial resources with few strings attached.
Federal funding for this work is a wise investment. We already have a
proven track record of success.
In concert with CDOA and CSU, Colorado has identified several
initiatives and program that are in need of additional support. Those
needs include:
Upgrading Certified Labs
$3.5 million to initiate the planning and construction of a new
diagnostic lab on the CSU campus in Fort Collins that has the potential
to share laboratory space and equipment and co-house staff from the
CDOW, the CDOA and the University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, a
CWD-certified testing laboratory. A proposed program plan (that
currently includes CSU and CDOA in one new building) has already been
approved by the CSU Board of Governors and awaits funding to proceed.
$4 million to upgrade disposal processes at four CWD sampling/
testing facilities--in Grand Junction, Craig, Fort Collins and Rocky
Ford. I would like to emphasize that these upgrades will be necessary
if regulations under consideration by Region 8 of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are imposed. The regulations
would govern our CWD labs' waste streams and our methods of carcass
disposal. We urge the EPA to proceed slowly and cautiously, and only
after consulting with external third party prion disease experts, other
Federal agencies and all potentially affected states (including their
wildlife, public health and agriculture agencies).
Research
$2 million for research on therapeutics, live animal diagnostics,
environmental detection, field diagnostics, genetic resistance and
enhanced rapid laboratory tests.
$5 million to relocate and upgrade our live animal research
facility. The existing facility is located on property that is under a
lease that will expire soon and is not likely to be renewed by the
property owner. This project will provide several Colorado institutions
the capability to continue a strong tradition of collaborative animal
research.
Surveillance, Monitoring and Management of Wild Deer and Elk
Colorado needs assistance with our annual expenses directly related
to CWD operations (expanded surveillance, testing, reporting, culling,
carcass disposal, etc.). Expenditures are estimated to be about $3
million in the coming state fiscal year.
Surveillance, Monitoring and Management of Captive Deer and Elk Herds
We estimate Colorado would require $150,000 for detecting,
measuring and monitoring incidence of CWD in captive Colorado herds. We
also anticipate needing as much as $1 million for reducing the
incidence of CWD in captive herds (depopulation, indemnification, and
carcass disposal).
Education and Outreach
Finally, states like Colorado need money for the development of
brochures, fact sheets, videos, training clinics, website enhancement,
etc. for agency staff, hunters, veterinarians, meat processors,
taxidermists, conservation groups and the general public.
As I conclude, I feel it is important to note that the Colorado
Division of Wildlife anticipates spending an estimated $3 million on
chronic wasting disease-related actions in our upcoming fiscal year
which begins on July 1, 2003. To enable us to accomplish this, our
state legislature authorized us to use funds from our dwindling reserve
balance. We are doing so in addition to diligently reprioritizing
existing resources, at the expense of other programs, for CWD work.
H.R. 2057 would authorize programs that could help Colorado, and
many other states, meet the significant challenges presented by CWD. My
state has been at the forefront of efforts to understand and control
CWD in the wild. We have made tremendous progress in those efforts, but
we are at the point that Federal assistance is urgently needed to help
us, and a growing number of other states, respond to CWD.
In summary, I would like to emphasize that there are many
opportunities for the Federal Government to assist States in CWD
management and research. I urge congressional support for legislation
and funding that will allow Colorado's needs to be met. I also urge you
to consider the most streamlined and efficient mechanisms for making
such funding available, including grant programs already well-
established.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share my thoughts
with you and your distinguished colleagues. Colorado's deer and elk are
among our state's most treasured natural resources. Your efforts to
help us protect this valued resource are greatly appreciated.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. George.
Mr. Taylor, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GARY L. TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES,
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JOHN FISHER, SOUTHEAST COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE
DISEASE STUDY
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
share with you the Association's perspectives on the management
of chronic wasting disease. Also for permitting Dr. Fisher, who
chairs the Association's Fish and Wildlife Health Committee, to
join us at the witness table.
As you know, all 50 State Fish and Wildlife Agencies are
members of the Association. The Association looks forward to
continuing to work with you, and in particular to provide the
State and Federal agencies with the fiscal resources that they
need to manage this disease.
Further, we continue to urge that decisions with respect to
the management of this disease be well grounded in science. And
finally we see the need for even more comprehensive Federal
agency cooperation and coordination to effectively manage this
disease.
Let me start by commending Chairman McInnis, Congressman
Kind, Congressman Ryan, Congressman Green, and others, in
particular for your diligence in ensuring that a coordinated
Federal and State effort is directed at this issue. What is
most needed are adequate Congressional appropriations to the
Federal agencies for both their efforts and to pass through to
the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, State universities, and
State Departments of Agriculture, to manage chronic wasting
disease.
The Association looks forward to working with you to
increase appropriations for these purposes. As Bobby Acord
shared with you about the national plan, under his
chairmanship, and that of Steve Williams, Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, they quickly recognized the need for
adding State Fish and Wildlife Agency representatives to the
Federal Task Force.
That was expeditiously done and six working groups,
comprised of Federal, State, and university representatives,
ultimately drafted a national plan that the task force released
to the public in June of 2002.
The plan proposes goals and serves as a blueprint for
future activities to identify the extent of the disease and
management actions needed to eliminate or prevent its
spread.Let me commend Chairman McInnis and others for acting as
a catalyst to get this done; Bobby Acord and Steve Williams,
for their patience and vigilance in overseeing it, and all of
the task force participants for their dedication and diligence
in completing the plan.
Subsequently an implementation documentation for this plan
was produced in October of 2002 by a team of three State Fish
and Wildlife Agency representatives, four USDA, and four USDI
representatives working with input from a myriad of wildlife
management and animal health professionals from across the
Nation.
The implementation document steps down the goals in the
national plan to action items, and it assigns agency
responsibilities, and identifies time lines and budgets for
each of the six categories of diagnostics, disease management,
communications, research, surveillance, and information
dissemination.
The implementation plan represents what we believe is the
best and most current thinking with respect to what is
necessary to successfully manage this disease. The budget
recommendations in the plan were thoughtfully constructed under
the constraint of reasonable and realistic. They are not pie in
the sky requests.
As Bobby also indicated, in April of this year, APHIS made
available $4 million to the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
for surveillance and management of chronic wasting disease. As
he indicated, collectively with APHIS, we arrived at a formula
that established three tiers of States.
And while one could argue the need for more money in one
tier versus the other, we felt that this was equitable, and it
advanced our knowledge of presence absence of this disease,
which is one of the most critical pieces of information we
need, and it assisted the States with the tremendous costs of
managing this disease.
The solution of getting more funds to States with chronic
wasting disease and free-ranging cervids, of course, is to grow
the appropriated dollars. Let me just now reflect a little bit
on the need for engaging yet other Federal agencies, and in
particular the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, in a more coordinated effort
to manage chronic wasting disease based on sound science.
In November of last year, and then again more formally in
May of this year, FDA proposed guidance for the rendering
industry regarding the use and material from deer and elk in
animal feed.
Unfortunately, this draft guidance as currently written
hinders animal health and wildlife management agency efforts to
identify new areas where the disease occurs and it
simultaneously increases, rather than decreases, the likelihood
of chronic wasting disease positive carcasses entering the non-
ruminant animal food chain.
The Association believes that the draft guidance is an
overreaction and simply cannot be supported with good science.
In addition to the inaccurate message, we are concerned about
recommendations in the draft guidance that would trigger a
recall of feed or feed ingredients containing material from a
CWD positive animal.
This actually hinders our ability to find new areas where
the disease occurs, because it promotes avoidance of chronic
wasting disease testing, thereby increasing the chances for the
disease to go undetected, and positive animals to enter the
animal feed system.
Early detection offers greater opportunities to eliminate
the disease, and early detect depends on the cooperation of
hunters, meat processors, taxidermists, and renders.
Unfortunately, the draft guidance we believe perpetuates a
highly undesirable situation that inhibits this cooperation.
Finally, we would like to express our concerns about some
draft recommendations that EPA has been working on in their
Region 8 office that could likewise seriously impede our
ability to detect and manage the disease in wild and captive
cervids.
The proposal would require certain standards and permits
for treatment of waste water from lab facilities handling
animals, or samples from animals, with the disease. Labs
wishing to continue or initiate work with chronic wasting
disease would incur huge costs to come into compliance, or
would have to cease their efforts.
Once again, we believe that this proposal is not science-
based, and would seriously affect the cooperation of hunters,
meat processors, taxidermists, and renders, thereby impeding
our ability to detect the disease in a new area.
Finally on the issue of funding, Mr. Chairman, we all agree
that more is needed, and we are committed to working with
Congress to make that happen. With respect to expeditiously
getting money to the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, let me
suggest that you look to agencies that already have existing
mechanisms and machineries for granting money to the State Fish
and Wildlife Agencies.
All of our agencies have a cooperative agreement with APHIS
for that purpose, and in the Department of the Interior, the
Fish and Wildlife Service has a longstanding office machinery
and process for annually granting funds from several different
programs to the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
We think that there is great utility in using these
existing grant mechanisms. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and
we look forward to working with you to effectively address
solutions to this problem.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
Statement of Gary J. Taylor, Legislative Director,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on H.R. 2057
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share with you the
Association's perspectives on H.R. 2057 and the status of management of
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in general. I am Gary Taylor, Legislative
Director of the Association, and accompanying me today is Dr. John
Fischer, Director of the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease
Study, and Chair of the Association's Fish and Wildlife Health
Committee. All 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members of the
Association. The Association looks forward to continuing to work with
you in particular to provide the state and Federal agencies with the
fiscal resources that they need to manage this disease. Further, we
continue to urge that decisions with respect to management of this
disease be well grounded in science. And, finally, we see the need for
even more comprehensive (than just USDA and USDI) Federal agency
cooperation and coordination to effectively manage this disease.
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was
founded in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies
charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and
wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members include the
fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal
Governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members.
The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource
management and strengthening Federal, state, and private cooperation in
protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the
public interest.
While we are not convinced of the need for further authorizing
legislation, the Association wishes to commend Chairman McInnis,
Congressman Kind, Congressman Ryan and others in particular for their
diligence in ensuring that a coordinated Federal-state effort is
directed at this issue. What is most needed are adequate Congressional
appropriations to the Federal agencies involved for both their efforts
and to pass through to the state fish and wildlife agencies, state
universities and state agriculture departments, to manage CWD. The
Association looks forward to working with you to increase
appropriations for these purposes.
Let me summarize where we are in management of this disease by
reflecting on the good progress that has been made over the last year.
Just a little over a year ago, as a result of a hearing before these
same two subcommittees, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of the Interior convened a Federal task force to coordinate
CWD management. Under the chairmanship of Bobby Acord, Administrator,
APHIS, and Steve Williams, Director, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, they
quickly recognized the need for and utility of adding state fish and
wildlife agency representatives to the Task Force. That was
expeditiously done and 6 working groups each comprised of Federal,
state and university representatives, ultimately drafted the national
plan that the Task Force released to the public (``A Plan for Assisting
States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting
Disease in Wildlife and Captive Cervids'') on June 26, 2002. The plan
proposes goals and actions and serves as a blueprint for future
activities to identify the extent of the disease and management actions
needed to eliminate it or prevent its spread. Let me commend Chairman
McInnis and others for acting as a catalyst to get this done, Bob Acord
and Steve Williams for their patience and vigilance in overseeing it,
and all participants for their dedication and diligence in completing
the plan.
Subsequently, an Implementation Document for said plan was produced
on October 11, 2002 by a team of 3 State fish and wildlife agency
representatives, 4 USDA, and 4 USDI representatives working with input
from a myriad of wildlife management and animal health professionals
from across the nation. The Implementation Document steps down the
goals in the national plan to action items, assigns agency
responsibilities, and identifies timelines and budgets for each of 6
categories of diagnostics, disease management, communications,
research, surveillance, and information dissemination. This
Implementation Plan effort chaired by Bruce Morrison, NE Game and Parks
Commission, represents what we believe is the best and most current
thinking with respect to what is necessary to successfully manage this
disease. The budget recommendations were thoughtfully constructed under
the constraint of ``reasonable and realistic''--they are not ``pie in
the sky'' requests. These budget recommendations are the basis for the
Association's appropriations request that we have asked each of our
State Directors to encourage their members of Congress to support.
In April 2003, APHIS made available $4 Million in Fiscal Year 2003
appropriated funds to the State fish and wildlife agencies for
surveillance and management of CWD. In designing the protocol for
distribution of the funds, APHIS engaged Dr. John Fischer, Dr. Tom
Thorne (WY Game and Fish Department) and myself to ensure an
appropriate and effective process. Collectively with APHIS we arrived
at a formula that established 3 tiers of States: Tier 1 includes states
with known occurrence of CWD in free ranging cervids; Tier 2 includes
states adjacent to Tier 1 states or states with known CWD occurrence in
farmed or captive cervids; and Tier 3 includes all other states. While
one could argue the need for more money in one tier versus the other,
we felt this was equitable, advanced our knowledge of presence/absence
of the disease which is one of the most critical pieces of information
we need, and assisted with the tremendous cost of managing the disease.
The solution to getting more funds to states with CWD in free-ranging
cervids, of course, is to grow the appropriated dollars, a goal to
which we are all committed. Many thanks to Bob Acord and his staff at
APHIS for both making these funds available and for enlisting the State
fish and wildlife agencies in designing an equitable protocol that will
expeditiously get money to them through a cooperative agreement.
Let me now reflect a little bit on the need for engaging yet other
Federal agencies--in particular the Food and Drug Administration and
the Environmental Protection Agency--in a more coordinated effort to
manage CWD based on sound science. Attention to all Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) has increased dramatically in the
last year, not just because of CWD, but most recently due to the
diagnosis of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in a domestic cow
in Canada. Unfortunately there is a great deal of misinformation and
anxiety among the general public that may be eliciting ill--founded
proposals from these Federal agencies.
In November 2002, and then again more formally in May 2003, FDA
proposed guidance for the rendering industry regarding the ``Use of
Material from Deer and Elk in Animal Feed''. Unfortunately, this draft
guidance, as currently written, hinders animal health and wildlife
management agency efforts to identify new areas where CWD occurs and it
simultaneously increases, rather than decreases, the likelihood of CWD
positive carcasses entering the non-ruminant animal food chain.
The Association believes the draft guidance is an overreaction and
simply cannot be supported with good science. CWD is not BSE. BSE is
known to be a food-borne disease and consumption of material containing
BSE--contaminated tissues is the only known natural mode of
transmission of BSE. For this reason, the use of materials derived from
any ruminant, including cattle, sheep, deer and elk, cannot be fed to
ruminant animals according to 21CFR589.2000. By contrast, CWD is known
to be transmitted laterally from affected deer and elk to susceptible
deer and elk; and there is no evidence CWD is a food borne disease
transmissible to non-ruminant animals.
In addition to the inaccurate message it portrays, the Association
is most concerned about the recommendation in the FDA draft guidance
that would trigger a recall of feed or feed ingredients containing
material from a CWD positive animal. This actually hinders our ability
to find new areas where CWD occurs because it promotes avoidance of CWD
testing, thereby increasing the chances for CWD to go undetected and
for positive animals to enter the animal feed system. Experience has
demonstrated that current CWD surveillance techniques can detect the
disease in a new area while at relatively low prevalence but it takes
higher prevalence before discovery if detection is delayed. Early
detection offers greater opportunities to eliminate the disease and
early detection depends on the cooperation of hunters, meat processors,
taxidermists and renderers. This cooperation was severely impacted by
FDA's action in November 2002, and the draft guidance will perpetuate
this highly undesirable situation.
Finally, the Association is concerned about some draft
recommendations that the USEPA has been working on in their Region 8
Office that could likewise seriously impede our ability to detect and
manage CWD in wild and captive cervids. The Region 8 proposal would
require certain standards and permits for treatment of wastewater from
laboratory facilities handling animals or samples from animals with
CWD. Labs wishing to continue or initiate work with CWD would incur
huge costs to come into compliance or would have to cease their efforts
related to CWD. Should this come to fruition, the Association is
concerned that the next application of these standards and permit
requirements would be to meat processors, taxidermists, and rendering
plants. Once again, the Association believes this proposal is not
science-based and seeks to impose a standard of ``no risk'' as opposed
to acceptable ``low risk''. Action of this type would seriously affect
the cooperation of hunters, meat processors, taxidermists and renderers
and thereby impede our ability to detect the disease in a new area.
Furthermore, these same standards do not now, nor is EPA proposing that
they apply to scrapie, another TSE that has been around for centuries,
and for several decades in the United States. While EPA has slowed-down
the internal process leading to agency endorsement of these
recommendations pending further discussion with the State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, State Departments of Agriculture, and State
Departments of Environmental Quality, we remain concerned that
ultimately a regulation would be promulgated that is poorly grounded in
science.
Both the FDA and EPA proposals compel the need for greater
communication and coordination among all of the Federal and state
agencies involved in managing CWD. We would strongly encourage Bob
Acord and Steve Williams to convene the Federal task force and invite
FDA and EPA to participate in a forthright discussion of anticipated
agency actions on CWD.
On the issue of funding, Mr. Chairman, we all agree that more is
needed, and the Association is committed to working with you and
Congress to make that happen. With respect to expeditiously getting
money to the state fish and wildlife agencies, we will work with any
Federal agency, but let me suggest the utility of using an agency that
has an existing mechanism for getting grant money to the State fish and
wildlife agencies as the most effective mechanism. As I indicated,
USDA-APHIS has or is executing cooperative agreements for granting CWD
dollars to the State fish and wildlife agencies. In the Department of
the Interior, the USFWS has a long-standing office, machinery and
process for annually granting funds from several programs to state fish
and wildlife agencies. It seems to us that using these existing grant
mechanisms would be the most expeditious way to deliver funds to the
State fish and wildlife agencies.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Association looks forward to
working with you to improve our capability to manage this disease. We
sincerely appreciate your support in the past, and I would be pleased
to answer any questions.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, and once again I thank the panel
for their testimony. Now what I would like to do--and I will
begin the process--is to allow the Committee to ask questions
and have an exchange here for the time that we have remaining.
I am only going to ask one question in order to transfer
that time to my colleagues, but Mr. George, and Mr. Taylor, I
am specifically interested--obviously the Administration is
supportive of working directly with the States, and my sense is
that the best thing we can do is kind of exclusively provide
direct financial assistance, and Mr. George, as you very well
stated in your comments, and as you and I have discussed in
numerous conversations.
In rewriting my legislation, to make a straightforward
grant and aid program, who would--each of you, if you would
just give me your suggestion, what agency would be the best
agency to administer that grant type of program? Mr. George and
Mr. Taylor, please.
Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, I would say it would be the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service. We have a number of ongoing
programs. I would venture to say that the relationship between
Colorado and the region Fish and Wildlife Agency has never been
better.
We would welcome the opportunity to add another program. We
believe that the relationship is such that we could step in
quickly, file the applications, get the money out and on the
ground in the front line of the battle. So that would work for
us.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. I certainly concur with Director George's
assessment of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In Interior, for
Agriculture appropriated dollars, I would strongly suggest that
it continue to be APHIS, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. I have no questions.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acord, I think you
have heard over and over again that the critical issue that we
have is doing what is necessary to get resources out obviously
to the States.
You delivered some very good news to our Chairman about
where things are at with the State of Colorado. Can you tell me
from the money in last year's Omnibus Bill how much of that
money is slated to go this year to the State of Wisconsin?
Mr. Acord. Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Green, I think there is--we
do not yet have from the State of Wisconsin their request under
the surveillance plan that we had talked about, and the plans
that the States were going to submit by July 1.
We hear from them that they are clearly going to meet the
July 1 deadline and will have a request. I believe in total
that they will wind up with somewhere in the neighborhood of a
half-a-million dollars.
Mr. Green. But the request has not been made yet?
Mr. Acord. The request has not been made. We have already
provided some assistance, but the request has not yet been made
at this point.
Mr. Green. But we should get it by July 1st. OK. Can you
tell me what the turnaround time is then from the time that you
get such a request to processing it, and getting money out?
Mr. Acord. Well, we are trying to process the request as we
get them, and while the deadline is July 1, as we have seen in
the case of Colorado, we had their plan already, and we acted
on that based on what we saw in the plan.
We believe that it will be a matter of just a few weeks
before we could turn that around, and I think certainly for the
Tier One States, which is the category that Wisconsin fits
into, we would move quickly I think on those States to get it
done.
Mr. Green. Great. And finally, Mr. George, you began to
talk about it. As policymakers here, again, what is it that we
can do to be most effective in assisting States like Colorado
in fighting this problem?
Mr. George. Thank you. I would like to recognize that the
States are on the front line, and that I think that those
States who are involved have already shown an ability and a
capacity to deal with this disease but for resources.
So what we are suggesting is to help us pay the costs.
Right now we are moving other resources around, and we are not
doing things that we would otherwise do or should do in
managing wildlife because we are using our resources to focus
on this very important task.
But we need help with those resources. And we would ask
that you do it in a way that gets it to us quickly and without
a lot of strings attached. Time matters and money matters, and
I think if we do this with a good and strong partnership
between the States and the Federal agencies that we might
actually have a chance to get ahead of this disease before it
really gets unmanageable.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
thanking you for holding the hearing and for the important
leadership that you have demonstrated on this issue, a great
concern to Coloradans. I want to thank you for the good work on
your bill, and I would like to be added as a co-sponsor to your
important legislation.
I also want to welcome my good friend, Russ George. It is
always great to have you here in Washington, although it is a
long trip, and Colorado in many ways is closer to our hearts.
But it is great to have you here and to see the leadership that
you are providing on this important issue.
Mr. George. Thank you.
Mr. Mark Udall. You talked about the educational efforts
that we have to put forward. What would be included in those
efforts, and what have you found already in Colorado when it
has come to the hunting community and the general public in
their response to this situation?
Mr. George. One of the concerns that we have with education
is that there is a lot of confusion among the media, and
therefore, probably in the general public, about the
differences amount the different types of TSEs.
They are different, and it is a matter of science, and it
is not always the science that is brought forward to educate
the public. So that what the public hears causes them to worry
about human health concerns, and that breeds a level of fear
that then distorts the way that we react to the disease.
So what we need to do is first of all remember that we are
dealing with science, and science means specific fact, and we
need to know as much about that as we can, but we need to
communicate that to everyone who is interested so that that is
the first information that they hear, that it is accurate, and
then they can form opinions about how does it affect them and
their lives.
So it just needs to be managed in such a way that we can
communicate at all levels to all the public who would care. So
many programs from all levels of government.
Mr. Mark Udall. Russ, you talked about the science that is
unfolding right now. Have we gained any additional insights
over the last year or year-and-a-half that you could share with
the Committee?
Mr. George. There is a lot of activity throughout the
country. USDA is engaged in a number of research projects with
USGS, and several States. One new bit of information, and I
would defer to Dr. Fisher on the science of this, but because
of the number of samples that we were able to take this year,
and these were all classified according to location, and type
of animal, and gender of animal, so that we could then process
that data.
And we have actually learned that there may be something to
gender differences in this disease which we had not seen
before. That is new and we don't know quite where that goes.
But that is just an example of what can happen if we can step
up the numbers of tests available all across infected areas,
and then be able to process that data.
So that is why time is important. As I said, this year we
are going to double once again the data points that we are
going to object, and that should help teach us more about the
disease.
Mr. Mark Udall. If I might direct this question to the
entire panel, including you, Russ. There has been some
sensitive discussions about captive versus wild game, and
whether CWD is more apt to be discovered in a captive game
situation or in the wild. Is there any additional thoughts or
perspectives on that question at this point?
Mr. George. Let me begin, and then others can follow. Of
course, the disease knows no difference among captive or wild,
and that is the key, and that is what we have tried to do in
Colorado, is to let that be the target, and not the
jurisdictional differences, and not the economic differences.
And what we have accomplished in Colorado is that now the
Colorado Department of Education, of Agriculture, excuse me,
and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, maybe for the first time
in history have joint regulations on the issue, so that we are
both going the same direction at the same time.
We are sharing each other's jurisdiction so that when we
make decisions about chronic wasting disease that we have
considered what does this do to the captive population, and
what does this mean to the wild population. I think that is a
good model.
Mr. Mark Udall. Is there anybody else on the panel who
would like to comment?
Mr. Acord. I would certain echo what Russ has said. I think
that one of the benefits, if there is ever a benefit to
something like this, is the closer working relationship that
the Departments of Agriculture and Departments of Natural
Resources have fostered in an effort to combat this disease,
and I think that has been key to a lot of the success.
It keeps resources used efficiently, and I think it causes
everybody to work in a common spirit, and we have not always
seen that. So I certainly agree with everything that Russ has
said.
Mr. Mark Udall. I want to thank the panel and thank the
Chairman, and I would just note, Chairman McInnis, that the
bill has also been assigned to the Ag Committee, and I am on
the Ag Committee and would like to work with you over there in
any way that I can to help. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for including
us in this hearing as well. Mr. Taylor, I wanted to ask you
about the rendering regulations from FDA and EPA. Can you just
quickly summarize how they are harmful toward testing and
advancing the rendering concept?
Mr. Taylor. I will try to do it quickly, Congressman. With
respect to the rendering proposal, the concern that we
principally have is the threat of recall for feed or products
that would be manufactured from carcasses submitted to
renderers, and we experienced in the last--our States
experienced in the last hunting season several rendering
facilities who refused to take deer or elk simply because they
were concerned that if a recall--that if an animal subsequently
was diagnosed as positive with chronic wasting disease that it
could affect them by compelling them to recall products that
went through their plant, and that came into contact with that
infected animal.
So first of all, it discourages the sportsmen from having
their animals tested, because rendering facilities are saying
that if an animal comes in that you have submitted the head for
testing, we won't take it. On the other hand, if you bring us
an animal in with the head attached, that's fine, or if you
bring us an animal in with documentation that you have taken it
to a taxidermist, but that it is not being tested for CWD--
Mr. Ryan. There is a disincentive attached to it.
Mr. Taylor. So it would discourage testing, and as I said,
early detection is predicated on the cooperation of everybody,
and we have the same concern about the proposal that EPA is
considering because it again would impede our ability to detect
the prevalence of the disease because if laboratory facilities
detecting it can't measure up to the no risk standards that it
would impose, then we have fewer places where it can be
detected.
Also, quite honestly, if they are going to apply this
standard to laboratories, then we are concerned that next they
are going to start applying it to butchering facilities, the
taxidermists, and to rendering plants. Then you are going to
see a lot of those go out of business, and it is just going to
snowball.
Mr. Ryan. Well, in Wisconsin, the rendering industry is
willing to take deer carcasses, and they are willing to
dedicate separate facilities to process those carcasses, and
not to put the food or the rendered material back in the food
chain, but use it for fuel to burn in power plants.
So there is a concept that has been advanced. It means that
we don't have to put carcasses in landfills. You don't have the
lecithin issues that arise with that. So the industry is coming
up with novel ideas on how to handle these things, and get some
use out of it without even having the threat of putting it into
a food chain where you would have that problem.
It sounds like EPA and the FDA need to be brought in the
loop on the task force. Then that brings me to you, Mr. Acord.
Have you considered bringing the EPA and the FDA in on the
joint task force so that they can come on board with the whole
strategy here?
Mr. Acord. Yes, we have. As a matter of fact the FDA has
been added to that task force. We have had a number of
discussions with the FDA about this issue. We have also had
meetings with the EPA about it, and we will soon add the EPA to
this effort.
Mr. Ryan. When was the FDA added?
Mr. Acord. Well, we brought them into the discussions. We
have not had a formal meeting of the task force recently and so
there has been no formal on paper addition if you will, but if
we have another meeting anytime soon, they will be included.
Mr. Ryan. You will bring the FDA and EPA in on the meeting?
Mr. Acord. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. OK. And will this be, I hope, one of your agenda
items that you are going to discuss on how to make the
rendering option a workable option?
Mr. Acord. That is certainly an issue that we have to work
with.
Mr. Ryan. I see that I still have a little bit of time. I
just wanted to ask, that you said in your testimony that you
developed a new test. Can you give us a few little details on
that?
Mr. Acord. Well, we approved one that was developed by
private industry, and it is simply a rapid test that the
industry can use, and it is available for purchase.
Mr. Ryan. And what is the turnaround time on that
particular test?
Mr. Acord. I think the turnaround time is somewhere in the
neighborhood of 6 hours, I believe, or something like that.
Mr. Ryan. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. I welcome the Ranking Member, Mr. Inslee. Mr.
Inslee, you may proceed.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I am sorry that I missed your
earlier testimony. You may have covered this, but could you
give me just a description on either of the bills under
consideration what percentages or coverage there may be for
testing of game farm animals transferred interstate?
And whether that would occur, and if so, on what
percentages; and if not, what yo think we should be thinking of
as far as routine screening of interstate game farm animals,
which at least appear to me to be a considerable vector for
transmission.
And that is an open question to any of the gentlemen, and
if you can help me with that.
Mr. Acord. Well, one of the things that we are undertaking
on at least the farm cervid side is a herd certification
program, where we will have herds that will be registered.
The animals will be identified, and we will run testing
over a period of time to determine if there is any disease that
exists in those herds, and if there are, then we will dispose
of them and pay the owners an indemnity for those animals that
are taken.
Over a period of time then, we can begin to certify those
herds as free of chronic wasting disease, provided that there
is no new introductions of animals or anything like that. I
would think that perhaps for game farms or those kinds of
animals that a similar system could be adopted for that.
Mr. Inslee. Now, what you just described, is that taking
place without passage of this legislation?
Mr. Acord. Yes. Yes. Under the Animal Health Protection
Act, we have rather broad authority to deal with those kinds of
issues.
Mr. Inslee. So at the moment if a game farm in Colorado
wants to ship 20 deer to a deer farm in Texas, is there any
mandatory inspection process in that transfer now?
Mr. Acord. No, not that I am aware of.
Mr. Inslee. Is there any contemplated by the Service, at
least without new legislation?
Mr. Acord. There is none contemplated by--well, one of the
things that we are contemplating is requiring some testing when
animals are moved between States, but that is an issue that is
still to be worked out with the State Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, and State Departments of Agriculture.
Mr. Inslee. And would either of these bills affect that
issue?
Mr. Acord. I don't believe so, sir, or at least not from
the perspective of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Inslee. Now, it appears to me, and again I am just a
lay person, but that this is a considerable vector for
transmission of fairly contagious disease. Should we have a
system for at least some percentage of testing of interstate
conveyance of these game farm animals; and if so, what should
we expect in that regard?
Mr. Acord. Well, I personally believe that we should have--
and a number of States have enacted restrictions, or put
regulations in place, to prohibit the movement of farm cervids,
or the translocation of wild cervids from one State to the
other.
And frankly I think that it is a needed addition. I think
that it can be done under existing authority I guess is my
view. At least we could in the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Inslee. Yes? Russ.
Mr. George. May I just add a point here that let's not
forget the underlying assumption. Remember that there is no
live test today, and so you cannot order testing in advance of
movement. It is always after the fact. The only time we know an
animal was infected is after that animal is dead and tested.
So the only thing you could do under today's science is as
Mr. Acord has indicated, you look backward over time so that we
have a 5-year certification period. That is imposed in a number
of States. Colorado started it, and we reached 5 years ago this
past May.
I think that North Dakota has already reached 5 years. So
what that does is look at the history of what is happening in
that herd. Five years is scientifically founded, that we have
not found animals who have lived longer than 5 years once
having been infected.
Mr. Inslee. So should we consider a prohibition of
interstate transfer if you had a 5 year experience in your
herd, and should that be a Federal obligation rather than a
State one? And is this a national issue that should require a
Federal rule in this regard?
Mr. George. The States are doing that. The States can
control importation and exportation. Colorado has already
established a rule that unless there is 60 months of
certification that there will be no importation.
Mr. Inslee. How many States have similar prohibitions? Does
anybody know?
Mr. Taylor. Virtually all of them, Congressman. I mean,
every State has very restrictive regulations relative not only
to the import-export of live cervids, but the interstate
movement of live cervids as a response to the need to manage
this disease.
And many States in fact outright prohibit the importation
of live cervids for any purpose into their State, and let me
acknowledge that while there is a lot that we don't know about
this disease, we do know that greatly restricting the movement
of live cervids is an effective way to contain it. And so the
States have acted proactively to try and address that.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. I noticed that Mr. McGovern is in the
audience, and if you would like to, Mr. McGovern, you are
welcome to sit at the dais while you are awaiting your bill.
Mr. McGovern. I'm fine.
Mr. McInnis. All right. Mr. Renzi.
[No response.]
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall. Tom.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How many cervids
nationwide are currently carrying chronic wasting disease
according to the best estimates, and I guess I am directing
this to Mr. Groat and Mr. Acord, but anybody else can chip in
here.
Mr. Acord. I don't think you can put a number with that,
sir.
Mr. Tom Udall. There is no number that can be put on that
at all?
Mr. Acord. I don't believe that we have that kind of a
number in either farmed animals or in the wild.
Mr. Tom Udall. How many States--does everybody agree with
that, all the panelists? Nobody is willing to put a number on
the table?
Mr. George. Let me enlarge on that, Mr. Udall, why that is
so.
Mr. Tom Udall. Russ.
Mr. George. Because there is no way to test a live animal
to know. There is just simply no way to know, unless the animal
happens to be in the later stages, where you see the clinical
symptoms. You have no way of knowing other than what type of
overall screening you can do, which is the point of having as
many tests of hunter-killed animals each year as you can get,
and test those, and know where those animals were taken, and
then you found the negatives and the positives.
For example, in Colorado, just to use some numbers, we know
that we have 300,000 live elk, wild elk. In our Statewide
sampling, we found something less than 1 percent in some parts
of the State, but not everywhere.
So that is as close as we could get to an answer to your
question. And we do the same thing for deer. We know that we
have 500,000 wild deer in some places of the State, and we
found somewhere around 1 percent infectivity. But there is no
other way to know that.
And we don't know every State that has it. The only way we
know is when some captive or wild cervid has died and been
tested, and been found positive. On then do you know that it is
there in some number. Not every State has tested and so we
don't know all the States.
Mr. Tom Udall. But what I am trying to get at is has
anybody looked at, let's say, a herd in a particular area, and
from the testing that you have done been able to extrapolate in
a statistical way, or in an epidemiological way, to say that in
this particular area we are talking about certain percentages.
So based on that, you can look at Statewide numbers or
something, the estimates that I am talking about. We have not
been able to do that, I guess?
Mr. George. Well, the Colorado and Wyoming experience has
the most time in it. We have been aware of the existence of the
disease in Northeast Colorado, Southeast Wyoming, for 20 to 30
years. And both States have invested time and resources in
trying to get to the very question that you are asking.
And we can. We can show you drawings that say, all right,
we think--here is the center and here as it spreads from that
center what the prevalence rate is. But it can only be done by
successive years of testing of any given number of samples. You
cannot from that geographical area say anything about any other
area of the United States.
Mr. Groat. And I would support that. I think that the
infection rates in studied areas is something that we are
getting a handle on, but the extrapolation of it is either
cannot be done or has not been done.
Mr. Tom Udall. And do we know from this testing and
observation that has gone in the last 20 or 30 years how many
States are affected and which States are at highest risk?
Mr. George. Well, again, unless a State has tested its own
population, you don't know. So the only way we know is when
either a captive or wild cervid has for whatever reason died,
or been killed, and then tested and found positive. That is the
only way you know.
But there isn't any way to predict it, because--well, wild
movements are somewhat known, and so you can at least imagine
that if you have it in one area, could the migration patterns
take it to another. But across the country there is not any way
to know that.
Mr. Tom Udall. What factors have contributed to the
increasingly rapid spread of CWD over the last 5 years in both
captive and wild populations? Is this primarily due to
transport, in terms of human transport, or is it more due to
natural migration? What are your thoughts on that, any of you?
Mr. Acord. I don't think--again, I think the thing that you
demonstrate by all the questions it has been asking is the
importance of research to this particular disease and what we
know, and what we don't know, and we don't have enough
information to put forth answers to these kind of questions.
At this point, it is really speculation, and there are a
lot of theories about how this has happened, but I don't think
that there are any real facts associated with it that I am
aware of. I can tell you that right now there are eight States
that have had cases of chronic wasting disease.
Mr. Tom Udall. What are those States?
Mr. Acord. Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, South
Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, and I thank the panel. I yield
back to the Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. All right. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I believe it
was Mr. George who in the last hearing we had on this made the
statement that unfortunately there is a lot more that we don't
know about the disease than there is that we do know about the
disease, and that is the importance of this research.
A lot of your questions were very meritorious, but we don't
have answers for them. Mr. Kind.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
panelists for your testimony. This is the second hearing that
we have had on this very important issue of CWD, and Mr.
George, I have had a couple of conversations with you already,
and we have always been very impressed with the aggressive
stance that you have taken there in Colorado in light of the
history of the disease in that area, too.
Obviously there is a lot more education going on here on
Capital Hill about the disease, and the effect that it is
having, not only on quality of life issues, but economic issues
in our respective States that are directly affected.
Obviously the State of Wisconsin has come into play in a
big sort of way over the last couple of years, and we have been
trying to move aggressively on that front, too. And I am glad
to see my friend, Mark Green, here and the whole Wisconsin
delegation working hard to try to find the best answer on how
to deal with this.
The southern part of my Congressional District is ground
zero for the outbreak of CWD. We probably had the most
extensive testing of deer in the white-tail herd in the history
of our Nation over the last deer-hunting season.
All 72 counties had submitted test samples to find out
whether it spread outside the containment zone that has been
established in Wisconsin, and fortunately it has not to date,
which is good news. But there is still a lot of work that needs
to be done.
And I am sure that it has been mentioned in the panel
earlier, but I think it needs reiterating, that we need to be
cautious in regards to the hype surrounding this disease. I
mean, the World Health Organization has indicated that there is
no known transmission of CWD to any humans that is documented,
or any known transmission to any livestock that has been
documented, which is good news.
But I agree with Mr. McInnis that with the legislation that
he has introduced and that I am co-sponsoring with him, and I
have comparable legislation, but the long term answer to this
is research, research, research. We need to get the research in
place, and we need to get the answers so that we know how best
to react.
So that we know the pathology of this disease, and how it
is contracted and transmitted, and whether we can ultimately
say to the American people that humans are safe, that other
livestock are safe, and that is why it is so important that we
work together in trying to move this bipartisan legislation and
get the research in place.
I have introduced a couple of bills myself. I think the
main difference between mine and Mr. McInnis' legislation is
that I have tried to avoid the jurisdictional conflict that was
created in the last session with the Agriculture Committee, and
some reluctance by some of the members there on the Committee
to delve into this issue and have hearings, and to try and move
the legislation as it effects USDA and APHIS jurisdiction, and
Mr. Acord in particular.
But last year we saw in Wisconsin about a 15 percent
decline in hunters because of the misinformation that is in the
field right now. So part of the legislation that we are calling
for is public outreach and education campaign, so that we do a
better job with the hunting community, and the families, and
the spouses of hunters, who are very reluctant to leg people go
out, let their spouses go out in the field and take the deer
and bring it home.
So there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We formed
a task force as part of the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus to
further educate our colleagues, and to further provide focus on
this very important issue.
And obviously when you get a 15 percent decline in hunter
participation in a State like Wisconsin, where we approximate a
million hunters in the field during the deer season, that has a
tremendous economic effect on all of our communities. So there
is a lot at play with this.
Mr. Groat, I am glad to see you, because I know that USGS
has been doing some very important work on it. I had a chance
to visit your lab in Madison, and be brought up to speed on the
type of research that is taking place there, the development of
a live diagnostic test.
Maybe I can ask you in regards to your assessment in the
state of research, and more importantly the coordination of the
research that is being done between the Federal agencies, and
State, and universities, that are dealing with some form of
paleon research right now, and if there is room for improvement
in regards to the coordination and collaboration in this
research field.
Mr. Groat. Thank you for the kind words, Mr. Kind. I would
like to feel that we are involved in the heart of the research,
and feel that the multifaceted aspect of the problem itself
calls for lots of people to pay attention to it, and I think
that one thing that scientists have a tendency to do is that
when they have the resources. whether they be university
scientists, or government scientists, is to attack the problem.
And one thing they do by their natural selves is to
associate with each other, and coordinate, and interact, and we
have had a couple of workshops recently with multiple agencies
and university participation that demonstrate that that is
happening.
And I think that it is also particularly important to
attack that side of it, not only for the reasons that are
outlined here today, but the fact that we don't understand some
pretty fundamental things about CWD itself amongst the wild and
farm populations, but with a growing concern that the public
has about the interaction between wild life diseases and human
diseases, the civets and SARS, and the monkey pox, and so
forth.
There is this increased concern about wild life disease and
its human interactions, and in this case where we don't have
any demonstrated becomes even more important that we do
demonstrate that we do understand this, and that aspect of CWD
needs a lot of attention as well.
So in sum I think the research community is energized, and
I think that there are lots of strong participants, and I think
that as the resources flow that we will get further along the
way, and I don't think there will be any problem in getting
interaction and coordination among those institutions.
Mr. Kind. All right. And thank you, and let me just commend
Mr. McInnis again for your interest and your leadership on this
issue, and thank you all for your input, and obviously it is an
ongoing working relationship that we have developed, and so I
look forward to working with you and the rest of our colleagues
here to try to move some of this important legislation and get
it in place so that we can finally find the answers that we are
all craving for out there in the field. Thank you again for
coming.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Kind. I also want to thank the
Committee. We have had a lot of bipartisan communication and
support in trying to do whatever we can do to assist those of
you out there in the field that are on the front lines of this.
I want to thank each member of the panel. Mr. Acord, I
appreciate the grant of the State of Colorado. I am sure that
Russ will buy you lunch as a result of that. He is a kind guy.
Mr. Groat, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Fisher, all of you, thank you
again very much for making your appearance today. The panel
will be dismissed.
Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acord. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Groat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. All right. We will go ahead and bring up our
panel on 2416, our colleague, Mr. McGovern, Dr. Forster, Mr.
Lamb, and Ms. Estill. Members, if you could take your
conversations out in the hallway, we are trying to get this
other panel put on before we have a vote, which could come at
any moment.
I want to thank our panel, our second panel today, and I
appreciate you coming in on this bill, H.R. 2416. I appreciate
the time that you are going to spend with us in the next few
minutes.
I will tell the panel that as you know from the previous
panel--there goes the vote. So what we are going to attempt to
do here is we will go first to Mr. McGovern, and we will go
ahead and waive any opening statements if that is all right
with Mr. Inslee, and we will go straight to you for your
opening statements, and then we will try and get a couple of
the panel in.
We will have to leave here in about 8 minutes, maybe 9. Mr.
McGovern, and thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
I want to thank you, Chairman McInnis, and I also want to thank
Chairman Gilchrest for your support of this bill. I also want
to thank the professional and amateur paleontologists,
including Ted Vlamis, who you will hear from shortly, for
helping to push this issue forward, and for his thoughtful
guidance in drafting this legislation.
I am also grateful to our friends at the Department of
Interior who have been very helpful, and Chairman McInnis, I
also want to single out Amy Brown of the Forests and Forest
Health Subcommittee staff for the tireless work that she has
done on this bill.
She is a credit to you and this entire Committee, and so I
appreciate that. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify
before this joint Subcommittee today on H.R. 2416, the
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act.
Like most people, I have always been and continue to be
fascinated with dinosaurs and natural history, and with the
evolving awareness of our planet's history. As both a
conservationist and a former member of the House Resources
Committee, I am committed to promoting fossil research and
preserving our natural heritage for future generations.
In that spirit, many of my colleagues and I on both sides
of the aisle have introduced legislation again in this session
of Congress to protect the irreplaceable and historically
significant resources that are found on public land.
Neither the rarity of these fossils, nor the growing
problem of theft and vandalism of these resources should be
estimated. Far less than 1 percent of all organisms that have
ever lived become fossils, and these fossils provide clues that
help us solve the mysteries of life on earth.
They are one of the few ways we can study evolutionary
patterns and environmental change. These fossils are an
educational and scientific research tool for not only our
generation, but for generations to come.
Simply stated, fossils teach us about the history of life
on earth, and it is unlikely that history will ever be fully
written without the most complete fossil record possible.
Protecting that fossil record is precisely why this legislation
is so urgently needed.
As we sit here today the most significant threat to
vertebrae fossil resources, like dinosaurs, is the illegal
collection of specimens from Federal lands. The commercial
value of America's fossils has spawned an international black
market trade that is exploding.
The sale of fossils has become a highly profitable industry
that has led to the theft of fossils from both public and
private land. The National Park Service conducted a service-
wide study in 1999 that revealed an alarming 721 documented
incidents of fossil theft or vandalism between 1995 and 1998.
A study commissioned by the Forest Service produced even
more shocking results. The Forest Service found no less than
one-third of paleontological sites surveyed in the Oglala
National Grassland in Nebraska showed evidence of unauthorized
collecting.
These are public resources on public lands, and they belong
to all of us, and we must not allow them to disappear into the
hands of unscrupulous dealers and black-marketeers.
Unfortunately, as illegal fossil collection has flourished, we
have failed to develop a clear, consistent, and unified policy
that gives Federal land managers the authority to properly
protect these resources.
The Paleontological Preservation Resources Act is the
product of bipartisan Congressional collaboration, which has
included numerous Federal agencies, respected members of the
professional and amateur paleontologists community, and
distinguished research scientists, including many from
Massachusetts, most notably the Peabody Museum at Harvard
University.
It begins by identifying the fundamental and intrinsic
value of these public resources. The bill provides still
penalties for crimes involving the theft and vandalism of
fossils of national significance, in order to deter the illegal
collection of these resources on public lands.
It is important to note that the bill seeks only to
penalize those who seek to profit illegally from these public
resources. It does not place any new restrictions on amateur
collectors, who by and large respect the value of these
fossils. And furthermore the bill requires that all such
fossils taken from Federal lands be curated at museums or
suitable depositories.
Lastly, this bill standardizes the excavation permitting
practices on public land to ensure that fossils are not
needlessly damaged. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act represents the best
chance we have to guard our shared history on this planet from
being stolen us any further, and to protect the legacy for
future generations.
And last for those of us who have kids, and I have a 5 year
old boy who loves Jurassic Park almost as much as I do, there
is a special reason for us to move forward on this bill. I
mean, for my son, if he can't have the real thing, the bones
are the second best thing to be able to have.
And if you have ever seen the face of a kid at a museum, or
at The Smithsonian, in looking at a dinosaur skeleton, the
wonderment and the fascination in their eyes, you can begin to
understand how vitally important this bill is.
And it is within our grasp to solve this problem. The other
body in the last session passed this legislation unanimously,
and I hope that we can do the same here today and move this to
the President's desk, and I thank you very much for this
hearing and for all of your support. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James P. McGovern, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Massachusetts, on H.R. 2416
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this Joint
Subcommittee Hearing today on H.R. 2416, The Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act. Like most people, I have always been and continue to
be fascinated with dinosaurs, with natural history and with the
evolving awareness of our planet's history. As both a conservationist
and a former member of the House Resources Committee, I am committed to
promoting fossil research and preserving our natural heritage for
future generations.
In that spirit, many colleagues and I--on both sides of the aisle--
have introduced legislation again in this session of Congress to
protect the irreplaceable and historically significant resources that
are found on public land. Neither the rarity of these fossils nor the
growing problem of theft and vandalism of these resources should be
underestimated.
Far less than 1% of all organisms that have ever lived become
fossils. These fossils provide clues that help us solve the mysteries
of life on earth. They are one of the few ways we can study
evolutionary patterns and environmental change. These fossils are an
educational and scientific research tool for not only for our
generation but for generations to come. Simply stated, fossils teach us
about the history of life on earth. And, it is unlikely that that
history will ever be fully written without the most complete fossil
record possible.
Protecting that fossil record is precisely why this legislation is
so urgently needed. As we sit here today, the most significant threat
to vertebrate fossil resources like dinosaurs is the illegal collection
of specimens from Federal lands. The commercial value of America's
fossils has spawned an international black-market trade that is
exploding. The sale of fossils has become a highly profitable industry
that has led to the theft of fossils from both public and private land.
The National Park Service conducted a service wide study in 1999 that
revealed an alarming 721 documented incidents of fossil theft or
vandalism between 1995 and 1998. A study commissioned by the Forest
Service produced even more shocking results. The Forest Service found
no less than one-third of paleontological sites surveyed in the Oglala
National Grassland in Nebraska showed evidence of unauthorized
collecting.
These are public resources on public lands. They belong to all of
us, and we must not allow them to disappear into the hands of
unscrupulous dealers and black marketers.
Unfortunately, as illegal fossil collection has flourished, we have
failed until to develop a clear, consistent and unified policy that
gives Federal land managers the authority to properly protect these
resources. The Paleontological Preservation Resources Act is the
product of bi-partisan congressional collaboration which has included
numerous Federal agencies, respected members of the professional and
amateur paleontologist community and distinguished research scientists,
including many from Massachusetts. It begins by identifying the
fundamental and intrinsic value of these public resources. The bill
provides stiff penalties for crimes involving the theft and vandalism
of Fossils of National Significance (FONS) in order to deter the
illegal collection of these resources on public lands. It is important
to note that the bill seeks only to penalize those who seek to profit
illegally from these public resources. It does not place any new
restrictions on amateur collectors who by and large respect the value
of these fossils. Furthermore, the bill requires that all such fossils
taken from Federal lands be curated at museums or suitable
depositories. Lastly, this bill standardizes the excavation permitting
practices on public land to ensure that fossils are not needlessly
damaged.
I am convinced that the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
represents the best chance we have to guard our shared history on this
planet from being stolen from us any further, and to protect that
legacy for future generations to enjoy.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I find your comments
interesting, that if your son can't have the real thing that he
had to get the bones. So if something happens to you, we will
remember that, and we will remember that he gets your bones.
Panel, I am sorry to do this to you, but we are going to
have to recess. It will probably be about 20 minutes. We will
get back here as soon as we can, and so if you will be patient,
we will return. The panel is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. McInnis. The Committee will come to order. I would ask
anyone with a cell phone to please turn it off, or just put it
on the vibrate mode. And before we recessed, we had just heard
from Mr. McGovern, and now we will go to the panel, and we will
begin with Mr. Lamb. Mr. Lamb, and the panel, you will have 5
minutes each, and you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LAMB, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. I will abbreviate my remarks in the interest of
time. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Department.
We strongly support the intent of the Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act. We support its purposes, and we
wish to work with the Committee as we have been doing to
continue to perfect this legislation, which we think is vitally
important.
I am subbing for our Deputy Assistant Secretary, who has
worked hardest and longest on this, and in talking to our
paleontology staff in the last 2 days, I have discovered that
this is a work in progress, some 25 years in the making.
The Department has long sought this legislation, and I
think there is rising support for it. There certainly is a
need. H.R. 2416 adopts the recommendations contained in a
report submitted to the Congress at its request in 2000, called
The Fossils on Federal and Indian Lands Report, the so-called
Interagency Fossil Report.
The report identified a significant problem. The lack of
unified policies and standards for the management of fossils on
Federal lands was resulting in the deterioration and the loss
of fossils.
During the preparation of that report there was significant
public involvement, and there was strong support for three
principles. First, that the majority of people who commented
knew that fossils on Federal lands were an essential part of
America's heritage.
Secondly, the public recommended that vertebrae fossils
continue to be protected as rare and within the ownership of
the Federal Government. And, third, they supported the
involvement of amateurs in the science and enjoyment of
fossils, including the availability of most plant and
invertebrated fossils for casual collections on lands managed
by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
Public interest in fossils has grown rapidly as we heard
this morning, and with this interest the commercial value of
fossils has also increased. The unfortunate consequences is
that there has been a loss of fossils from Federal lands
through insensitive and at times criminal acts, including theft
and vandalism, and from the United States itself through the
international trafficking of these resources.
These factors reduce scientific and public access to
fossils and destroy the contextual information that is so
critical to interpreting them. H.R. 2416 provides a unified
Federal policy to ensure that scientifically significant
fossils on certain Federal lands are inventoried, monitored,
protected, and curated consistently, while accommodating the
Agency's distinct missions.
The provisions of this bill do not apply to private lands,
nor do they apply to Indian lands that are held in trust. The
bill provides a unified approach for Federal agencies, and
enhances overall management of fossils on Federal lands, and
approves the collaboration and cooperation that exists between
agencies, scientists, and the public that we serve.
Today, vertebrated fossils located on Federal lands may
only be collected with a permit for scientific and educational
purposes. H.R. 2416 would codify this policy and standardize
the permitting requirements among the various Federal agencies,
thus assisting the public.
It would ensure that these fossils are retained as public
property and curated in suitable repositories for current and
future generations. H.R. 2416 also provides one important
exception to the permitting requirement. It allows for casual
collection of certain paleontological resources for personal
scientific educational and recreational uses.
This is a very important provision, which would authorize
the Secretary to allow the public to casually collect common
invertebrated and plant fossils without permit on certain
Federal lands.
In other words, under this bill visitors to BLM lands who
enjoy paleontology could continue to collect and keep for their
personal use a wide variety of common plant and invertebrate
fossils.
The casual collection of such fossils can be an important
component for the public's enjoyment of Federal lands, and is
generally consistent with scientific and educational goals. We
have included an amendment at the end of my testimony to
clarify this and other small provisions of the bill.
This would provide the secretary in the amendment through
regulation the ability to define the amount and kind of fossils
to be casually collected. H.R. 2416 would also codify the land
management agency's existing prohibition on commercial fossil
collecting from Federal lands.
It also would provide additional protection by prohibiting
the excavation, damaged, transport or sale, of paleontological
resources located on Federal lands. Penalties for these acts
would be set by classification following fine and imprisonment
penalties imposed under Federal law.
H.R. 2416 would also provide the Secretary with the
flexibility to keep an inventory and monitor exposed fossils
based onsite specific geology and the paleontology of
management units.
It would balance the need for public access to fossils with
the recognition that the unlimited disclosure of certain
information about particularly significant fossils can lead to
theft and vandalism of these fossils, and it would mirror
similar provisions in the National Park Omnibus Management Act
of 1998.
We have included several amendments as I mentioned for the
Committee's consideration. We look forward to working with the
Committee on these changes to ensure the bill achieves the
purposes of this act.
As the price of fossils rise, the Federal Land Managing
Agencies will be under increased pressure to both protect
scientifically significant fossil resources, and to assure
their appropriate availability to the general public. We
commend the Committee for its consideration of 2416, and we
look forward to working with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamb follows:]
Statement of Robert J. Lamb, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary
of Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
H.R. 2416
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2416, the Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act. The Department supports the purpose of H.R.
2416 to protect paleontological resources on Federal lands but would
like to work with the Committee on amendments consistent with those
provided at the end of this testimony.
H.R. 2416 adopts the recommendation of a report submitted to
Congress in May 2000, titled ``Fossils on Federal and Indian Lands''
(the Interagency Fossil Report). Concerned about the lack of unified
policies and standards for the management of fossils on Federal lands
and the resulting deterioration and loss of fossils, Congress directed
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau
of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the
National Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S.
Geological Survey to develop a report assessing the need for a unified
Federal management policy. During development of the report, three
major themes emerged from the public comments received. First, a
majority of people who commented viewed fossils on Federal lands as
part of America's heritage. Second, they recommended that vertebrate
fossils continue to be protected as rare and within the ownership of
the Federal Government. Third, they supported the involvement of
amateurs in the science and enjoyment of fossils, including the
availability of most plant and invertebrate fossils for casual
collection on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the
Forest Service. To meet these and other goals, the report recommends
the establishment of a framework for fossil management, analogous to
the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA).
Fossils are non-renewable and often fragile resources which, with
the exception of microfossils and those that make up commercially
developed minerals, such as coal, are relatively rare and have
significant scientific, educational and recreational values. Federal
lands, the majority of which are in the drier western part of the
United States, contain a rich array of plant, invertebrate and
vertebrate fossils. For more than a century, Federal agencies have
managed fossils from their lands within their unique missions. These
agencies have protected all vertebrate fossils from Federal lands,
requiring permits for their excavation and removal, with the
stipulation that the resources remain in Federal ownership in
perpetuity.
In recent years, public interest in fossils has grown rapidly, and
with this interest, the commercial value of fossils also has increased.
The unfortunate consequence has been a loss of fossils from Federal
lands, through insensitive and criminal acts, including theft and
vandalism, and from the United States itself through international
trafficking. These factors reduce scientific and public access to
fossils and destroy the contextual information critical for
interpreting the fossils.
H.R. 2416 should provide a unified Federal policy to ensure that
scientifically significant fossils on certain Federal lands are
inventoried, monitored, protected, and curated consistently, while
accommodating the agencies' distinct missions. The provisions in this
bill do not apply to Indian lands or private lands. As we understand
it, the bill, in large measure, reflects the current practice of
agencies in the management of fossils on Federal land. Streamlining the
practices of the various land management agencies into a unified
approach will enhance overall management of fossils on Federal lands by
reducing public confusion and improving collaboration and cooperation
among agencies, scientists, and the public.
Under the agencies' existing regulations and policies, vertebrate
fossils located on Federal lands may only be collected with a permit
for scientific and educational purposes. H.R. 2416 would codify this
collection policy and standardize the permitting requirements among the
various agencies, as recommended in the Interagency Fossil Report. It
would ensure that these fossils are retained as public property and
curated in suitable repositories for current and future generations of
scientists and the public to study and enjoy. Scientists use the
information from specimens in repository collections to build on our
understanding of the history of life and the physical environment on
Earth. Millions of visitors enjoy the displays offered by public
repositories of the most spectacular and educational fossils, many
originating from Federal lands.
One exception to the permitting requirements under H.R. 2416 is for
casual collection of certain paleontological resources for personal,
scientific, educational and recreational uses. This important provision
would authorize the Secretary to allow the public to casually collect
common invertebrate and plant fossils without a permit on certain
Federal lands. In other words, under this bill, visitors to BLM lands
who enjoy paleontology as a hobby could continue to collect and keep
for their personal use a wide variety of common plant and invertebrate
fossils. The casual collection of such fossils can be an important
component of the public's enjoyment of some Federal lands and is
generally consistent with scientific and educational goals. We have
included an amendment at the end of this testimony to clarify this
provision.
H.R. 2416 would codify the land managing agencies' existing
prohibition on commercial fossil collecting from Federal lands. By
prohibiting such collecting, this legislation ensures that vertebrate
fossils on Federal lands, a rich part of America's heritage, remain in
public hands, that they are not bought or sold, and that the Federal
Government does not have to use taxpayer funds to purchase fossils
found on lands that it owns.
H.R. 2416 would provide additional protection by prohibiting the
excavation, damage, transport or sale of paleontological resources
located on Federal lands. Criminal penalties for these acts would be
set by classification, following fine and imprisonment penalties
imposed under Federal law.
Keeping an appropriate inventory and monitoring are crucial
components of fossil management. H.R. 2416 would provide the Secretary
with the flexibility to keep an inventory and monitor exposed fossils
based on the site-specific geology and paleontology of management
units. The exposure of fossils by erosion varies, based on the type of
rock in which they are found and local climate. Some fossils remain
exposed at the surface for decades or centuries, while others weather
away soon after exposure depending on the nature of their preservation.
H.R. 2416 would balance the need for public access to fossils with
the recognition that unlimited disclosure of certain information about
particularly significant fossils can lead to the theft or vandalism of
those fossils. In the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998,
Congress authorized the National Park Service to withhold information
about the nature and specific location of paleontological resources in
park units unless certain criteria were met. H.R. 2416 would extend
this same authority to the other Federal land managing agencies.
At the end of this testimony, we have included several amendments
for the Committee's consideration. We look forward to working with the
Committee on these and other changes to ensure that this bill achieves
the purposes of this Act.
As the prices of fossils rise, the Federal land managing agencies
will be under increasing pressure to both protect scientifically
significant fossil resources and ensure their appropriate availability
to the general public. H.R. 2416 would create a single legislative
framework for paleontological resource management that will facilitate
sharing of resources, personnel and partnership opportunities across
agency lines.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
Proposed Amendments for H.R. 2416
On p. 3, line 2, strike ``of a reasonable amount''.
On p. 3, line 4, after ``resources'' insert ``,as determined by the
Secretary and in an amount determined by the Secretary to be
reasonable,''.
On p. 4, line 19, strike (7) and renumber accordingly.
--Lcreates ambiguity with regard to vertebrates and is
addressed in amendment on p. 3, line 4.
On p. 4, line 23, strike (8) and renumber accordingly.
--Lcreates ambiguity and is addressed in amendment on p. 3,
line 4.
On p. 5, line 3, insert new (9):
``(9) QUALIFIED APPLICANT.--The term ``qualified applicant'' means
a person who demonstrates relevant scientific training and scientific
field experience; who is formally associated with a reputable
scientific or educational institution or Federal, tribal, or state
agency; and who has any other qualifications determined necessary by
the Secretary.''
On p. 3, line 16, after ``means lands'' insert ``controlled or''.
--Lclarifies the bill's inclusion of all lands (except Indian
lands) managed by the Departments.
On p. 6, line 13, after ``Federal lands'' insert ``controlled or''.
--Lclarifies generally where casual collecting may be allowed
On p. 8, line 5, after ``of'' insert ``a''.
On p. 8, line 15, after ``permit'' insert ``issued under this
Act''.
--Lensures that the permit referenced is the permit established
under this Act
On p. 8, line 19, after ``Acts;'' insert ``Criminal''
--Lclarifies that Section 9 addresses criminal penalties, in
contrast with Section 10 which addresses civil penalties
On p. 11, line 5, after ``involved.'', insert ``, as determined by
the Secretary.''.
On p. 11, line 22, strike entire subsection (b), insert:
``(b) PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW; COLLECTION OF UNPAID
ASSESSMENTS.-
(1) JUDICIAL REVIEW--Any person against whom an order is issued
assessing a penalty under subsection (a) may file a petition for
judicial review of the order in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia or in the district in which the violation is
alleged to have occurred within the 30-day period beginning on the date
the order making the assessment was issued. The Secretary shall
promptly file in such court a certified copy of the record on which the
order was issued. The court shall hear the action on the record made
before the Secretary and shall sustain the action if it is supported by
substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
(2) FAILURE TO PAY--If any person fails to pay a penalty under this
section within thirty (30) days-
(A) after the order making the assessment has become final and
the person has not filed a petition for judicial review of the
order in accordance with paragraph (1); or
(B) after a court in an action brought in paragraph (1) has
entered a final judgment upholding the assessment of the
penalty,
the Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil
action in a district court of the United States for any district in
which the person is found, resides, or transacts business, to collect
the penalty (plus interest at currently prevailing rates from the date
of the final order or the date of the final judgment, as the case may
be). The district court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any
such action. In such action, the validity, amount, and appropriateness
of such penalty shall not be subject to review. Any person who fails to
pay on a timely basis the amount of an assessment of a civil penalty as
described in the first sentence of this paragraph shall be required to
pay, in addition to such amount and interest, attorneys fees and costs
for collection proceedings.
--Lis the standard enforcement provision found in other laws
including the Clean Water Act
On p. 13, line 18, strike ``may be subject to forfeiture...involved
in the violation.'' insert
``shall be subject to civil forfeiture, or upon conviction, to
criminal forfeiture. All provisions of law relating to the seizure,
forfeiture, and condemnation of property for a violation of this Act,
the disposition of such property or the proceeds from the sale thereof,
and remission or mitigation of such forfeiture, as well as the
procedural provisions of Chapter 46 to Title 18, United States Code,
shall apply to the seizures and forfeitures incurred or alleged to have
been incurred under the provisions of this Act.''.
--Lmakes a distinction between civil forfeiture and ensures
that criminal forfeiture only could occur upon conviction
--Lmakes clear that the protections of the Civil Asset
Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), an act to provide a more just
and uniform procedure for Federal civil forfeitures, would
apply
On p. 14, after line 3, insert new (c):
``(c) TRANSFER OF SEIZED RESOURCES.--The Secretary is authorized to
transfer ownership or administration of seized paleontological
resources to Federal or non-Federal educational institutions to be used
for scientific or educational purposes.''
--Lallows the establishment of partnerships with schools and
other entities to transfer seized resources (for example, some
resources that are recovered with no record of their context
may have lost value to a museum, but may still have educational
value)
On p. 14, line 8, strike ``withheld . . . the responsible
Secretary'', insert:
--Lexempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United
States Code and any other law, unless the Secretary''.
--Lclarifies the existing provision and more closely follows
other exemption language
On p.15, line 22, strike ``public'' insert ``Federal''.
On p. 15, line 20, after ``time'' insert ``under''.
On p. 15, line 23, strike ``amateur'' insert ``casual''.
______
Mr. Renzi [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lamb.
Ms. Estill.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS,
LEGISLATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Estill. Thank you again very much for the opportunity
for the opportunity to present USDA's position on this very
important piece of legislation that will help us not only
recognize paleontological resources as a real opportunity for
the public to learn more about ecosystems and early life on
earth, but will also help us protect those into the future.
The Department supports the purpose of this bill, but we
would like to continue to work with the Committee on some
aspects of it. H.R. 2416 directs the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture to manage and protect
paleontological resources using scientific principles.
It recognizes the non-renewable nature of fossils, and
defines paleontological resources as fossilized remains
preserved in or on the earth's crust. This distinguishes
paleontological resources from archeological resources covered
under the Archeological Resource Protection Act, and culture
items, covered under the Natural Historic Preservation Act, and
Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and
Mineral Resources.
An important aspect of this bill is its formal recognition
that casual collection of invertebrate and plant fossils for
recreational, non-commercial, use is a valid public activity on
National Forest system lands, unless there is some other
overriding land use designation.
if enacted this bill would establish collection provisions
for paleontological resources, including permitting
requirements for scientific and educational purposes, as well
as recreational collection of rocks and minerals for personal
use.
Currently there is a very complex mix of laws, regulations,
and guidelines that have created significant jurisprudential
challenges. We support penalties that are consistent with
recent amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines of the
U.S. Sentencing Commission for increased penalties for cultural
heritage resources.
H.R. 2416 also provides that the proceeds arising from
civil and criminal penalties established under the bill may be
available for payment to those who provided information in
investigations that might lead to civil violations or criminal
convictions for which the penalties were assessed.
However, the currently worded language in Section 11
provides a maximum reward amount that we believe would
ineffective in most cases. We believe that the appropriate
reward amount to be offered or paid for assistance in
investigations would be best determined by the agency and the
prosecutor based on the significance of the case and the
assistance provided or needed.
In addition to the recommendations that I just mentioned,
we would like to work with the Subcommittee to make several
minor technical improvements. This concludes my testimony, and
I have submitted my full testimony for the record, and I would
be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Estill follows:]
Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation, and
Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R.
2416
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief for Programs, Legislation, and
Communications, USDA Forest Service I would like to present the
Department's views on H.R. 2416 -- the Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act.
H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
recognizes that paleontological resources, especially vertebrate
fossils, are heritage resources which provide opportunities for the
public to learn more about ancient ecosystems and the development of
life. The Forest Service, as steward of these heritage resources is
committed to their protection while providing opportunities for
research, education, and recreation. The Department supports the
purpose of this bill, but would like to work with the Subcommittee on
some aspects.
H.R. 2416 directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources using
scientific principles. The bill recognizes the non- renewable nature of
fossils and defines paleontological resources as fossilized remains
preserved in or on the Earth's crust. This distinguishes these
resources from archeological resources, covered under the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA); cultural items, covered
under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); and mineral resources.
An important aspect of this bill is its formal recognition that
casual collection of invertebrate and plant fossils for recreational
non-commercial use is a valid public activity on National Forest System
lands unless there is an overriding land-use designation. If enacted,
the bill would establish collection provisions for paleontological
resources including permitting requirements for scientific and
educational purposes as well as recreational collection of rocks and
minerals for personal use. Currently, there is a complex mix of laws,
regulations and guidelines that have created significant
jurisprudential challenges. We support penalties that are consistent
with recent amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines of the U.S.
Sentencing Commission for increased penalties for cultural heritage
resources.
H.R. 2416 also provides that the proceeds arising from civil and
criminal penalties established under the bill may be available for
payment to those who provided information in investigations that lead
to the civil violations or criminal convictions for which the penalties
were assessed. However, the current reward language in Section 11
provides a maximum reward amount that we believe will be ineffective in
most cases. We believe that the appropriate reward amount to be offered
or paid for assistance in investigations is best determined by the
agency and prosecutor based on the significance of the case and
assistance provided or needed.
In addition to the recommendations just mentioned we would like to
work with the Subcommittee to make several minor technical
improvements.
This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer your
questions.
______
Mr. Renzi. Thank you.
Dr. Forster.
STATEMENT OF DR. CATHERINE A. FORSTER, MEMBER AT LARGE, SOCIETY
OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
Ms. Forster. I am extremely pleased to be here to talk to
you about his bill today as a professional paleontologist. This
bill has tremendous support among the paleontology community,
both professional and amateur, and also great support among the
public.
It is endorsed by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology,
which is an organization that contains over 2,000 professional
and amateur paleontologists, and by the American Association of
Museums, which represents 11,500 individuals, and they belong
to 3,100 institutions.
Vertebrate fossils, which are the remains of animals with
backbones, are being illegally collected and vandalized on
Federal lands at ever-increasing rates. For example, between
1995 and 1998 the National Park Service documented 721
incidents of paleontological resource theft or vandalism in
National Parks alone.
Although it is already illegal to collect fossils on
Federal lands, the current penalties are so low, and the market
value for fossils so high that current law offers little
deterrent to fossil thieves.
For example, a man who had been stealing fossils from a
National Park over a number of years, when he was finally
caught, was fined only $50. This gap between resource value and
penalty has grown so large that it is well worth of taking the
risk of illegally collecting fossils on Federal land.
This is making it increasingly difficult for local land
managers to police their paleontological resources. We really
need to put some teeth into penalizing fossil theft and this
bill will help do that.
Fossils on Federal lands should be collected, but they need
to be collected legally by experienced people. There are three
reasons for this. First of all, fossils must be properly
collected to maximize the preservation of the fossil itself.
Fossils are always complex, and they are very often fragile.
Specimens collected improperly usually come out of the
ground in irreparable pieces and missing crucial parts, their
scientific value greatly compromised. And while the fossil
itself contains a wealth of information, the rock in which the
fossil is found provides additional data, such as clues to the
ancient environment and climate in which the animal lived, the
age of the fossil, the attending plant life, and its precise
geographic location.
This crucial contextual data must be carefully collected
along with the fossil, and often requires a collaboration of
other professionals, such as geologists and paleonal botanists.
Therefore, even if an illegally collected fossil is recovered,
it is likely to be in less than optimal condition, and half of
its scientific value is loss without proper contextual data.
Number 2, once properly collected, the fossils must be
deposited in a museum or university collection where it will be
cared for and held in perpetuity in the public trust. In such
collections, the fossil is available for scientific study and
for public exhibition, or for use in educational programs.
Illegally collected fossils end up in private hands, and
they are sold commercially to the highest bidder, and many are
exported from this country illegally. None of these fossils end
up in the public trust and none of them contribute to our
understanding of past life.
And importantly, number 3, fossils are historical objects
that inform us about past life on earth. When collected by
professionals and deposited in a public institution for
safekeeping, they become widely available for study. The fossil
bones themselves can teach us what the animal looked like when
it was alive, the speed it ran, how quickly it grew, what it
might have eaten, and which other animals it was most closely
related to.
Even fossils that have been in collections for over 100
years are still revealing new information to us. This is
because as time goes on new techniques and new technologies are
developed that can help us glean additional information from
these specimens.
So it is not good enough just to look at a fossil once. It
must be kept in the public trust so that years from now, or
generations from now, they are still available for study. And
this is not just esoteric information for the edification of a
few paleontologists.
You all know from reading newspapers every day that
information on fossils in past life shows up in the news very,
very often. For instance, over the last few years there have
been many, many articles documenting the evolution of modern
birds from small meat eating dinosaurs, and this is something
that the public is extremely interested in hearing about.
They are fascinated by dinosaurs and other remains of past
life, and fossils, especially dinosaurs, serve as an entre in
science for thousands of Americans, possibly millions of
Americans, especially for children.
And I know that it had this effect on me. When I was a
little girl, I was absolutely awe-inspired by the triceratops
skeleton at the Science Museum of Minnesota, and it is one of
the reasons that I ended up becoming a paleontologists. That
specimen also is collected on Federal land.
The more fossils that end up in the public trust, the more
information we paleontologists have regarding past life, and
the better we can inform the public about this. So fossils on
Federal land are part of our heritage, and they are also part
of a global heritage of the history of life on our planet.
And as Americans, I think we have a responsibility to
protect these historical treasures that we have. They are on
Federal land and they belong to all of the American people, and
I think they should remain that way. So we need Bill 2416 to
help ensure that these fossils are kept in the public trust for
the good of us all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Forster follows:]
Statement of Catherine Ann Forster, Associate Professor,
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, on H.R. 2416
I am very honored to testify in support of H.R. 2416, The
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. This bill has been endorsed
by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, an organization of more than
2000 professional and amateur paleontologists and by the American
Association of Museums, which counts in its membership 11,500
individual museum professionals and volunteers, 3100 institutions, and
1700 corporate members.
A heightened public interest in dinosaurs and other extinct life
forms has given paleontologists an unprecedented opportunity to share
with the public the excitement of recent advances in this fascinating
science that records the history of life on our planet. Dinosaurs and
fossils have become the window through which many young children get
their first introduction to science, oftentimes inspiring a life-long
interest or career in science. The fossil record is our only way of
learning about the history of past life on our planet, and it is
important for all Americans to have the opportunity to learn from this
record. For this reason I'm pleased to see that H.R. 2416 calls for the
establishment of a program to increase public awareness about the
significance of paleontological resources on Federal lands. As we
confront important public policy issues including global climate change
and the extinction of countless species of animals and plants, the
fossil record provides a critical historical basis to help guide our
decisions.
While it is gratifying that the public has become more interested
in the history of life on our planet, and while paleontologists have
become increasingly eager to share this knowledge, heightened
visibility has also led to the increased commercialization of fossils.
This has led to a black market trade in fossils from foreign countries
(in violation of export laws) and to the theft of fossils from public
and private lands in the United States.
I would like to share a little bit of information with you about
how paleontological research is done and why this legislation is
essential to ensuring maximal public benefit from this research.
Many kinds of fossils, including those of most vertebrates
(backboned animals), are rare for several reasons. Many organisms are
not readily preserved as fossils because they do not have hard parts.
Only rather unusual sedimentary rock environments preserve soft parts
long enough to become fossilized. Also, organisms can only be preserved
where sediments accumulate at a fairly high rate. Most organic remains
are not buried fast enough to contribute to the fossil record.
Vertebrate fossils are much less common than invertebrate and plant
fossils. Although we are fortunate to have some exceptions, spectacular
deposits of diverse and complete organisms are rare over the history of
the earth. The majority of fossil vertebrate species are extremely rare
or are represented by a single unique specimen. For these reasons the
chances of any vertebrate becoming a fossil are very small. Thus,
individual vertebrate fossils are extremely valuable as bearers of
information about the past. Furthermore, fossils of extinct groups are
not renewable. More fossils will be discovered and collected, but
always from a finite supply. More than 99% of all life forms that have
ever lived on Earth are already extinct and are only potentially known
by fossils.
Fossils themselves cannot tell the full story of life on Earth and
they must be supplemented with contextual data. The rocks in which the
fossils are found provide information about ancient environments and
climates, the age of the fossils, position in a historical sequence,
and their paleogeographic location. Fossil assemblages can also provide
information about ecological interactions and communities.
A fossil collected without this information has lost much of its
value, and we know little more than that this animal lived and died. In
contrast, when contextual data are collected and studied, we begin to
understand how the animal lived and its place in the balance of nature.
As paleontologists and geologists learn more ways to interpret ancient
environments and ecological communities from fossil assemblages in
their original context, this information becomes more and more valuable
and important. These contextual data allow us to bring these animals to
life for tens of millions of visitors to our museums, to the many young
children who have hands-on experience with original specimens, and to
the American public.
Our understanding of evolutionary processes and the tree of life
comes primarily from comparing the skeletons from different animals to
each other. In order to do this researchers must be able to compare new
specimens with those previously unearthed. Oftentimes a new analysis
many years later shows our earlier understanding was incomplete or
mistaken. For example, when Dr. John Ostrom was doing research on
Deinonychus, a dinosaur similar to the Velociraptor popularized in
Jurassic Park, he found that a specimen thought to be a carnivorous
dinosaur was actually the rare early bird Archaeopteryx. Ostrom's
research was critical in establishing the link between dinosaurs and
birds that became a proudly recited fact for every young dinosaur
aficionado. Only when specimens are properly collected and permanently
preserved in public institutions can researchers access these specimens
in order to make these comparisons. And when these comparisons and
interpretations are made education and the general public greatly
benefit by having access to this new interpretive knowledge through
media reports, books, and the Internet.
In a poll taken in 1991 of America's major museums, more than 49%
of the 1.8 million specimens of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates
in their collections were from public lands. Of the overall total,
amateurs had donated more than 100,000 specimens to museums and
significantly less than 1 % of the specimens came from commercial
collectors (Stucky and Ware, 1991).
H.R. 2416 does not change any current aspect of access to fossils
on public lands on the part of amateurs, educators, or professional
scientists. It does codify current land management authority and
practice into uniform guidelines. This will help paleontologists to
ensure that they are complying with the law when doing research on
Federal lands. It also will help increase the awareness of the
cooperative spirit of amateurs and professionals and provides for
stronger penalties for those who would destroy or permanently remove
valuable fossils from our public heritage.
We urgently need stronger penalties for theft and destruction of
fossils from public lands. Sadly, some of the most egregious cases of
theft and vandalism have occurred on Federal lands belonging to all
Americans.
The rapidly increasing commercial value of fossils has created a
situation where the limited penalties that exist are not sufficient to
deter illegal collecting. In the Report ``Fossils on Federal and Indian
Lands'' it was noted that ``the fines currently imposed on fossil
thieves are usually low compared to the lost resources. For example,
one man who had stolen fossils from a national park over a period of
years was fined a total of $50.'' (Babbitt, 2000 p. 29)
In many cases the theft of fossils is so widespread and occurs so
rapidly that we do not even know what is being lost. In a study
commissioned by the Forest Service, it was found that almost one-third
of the paleontological sites surveyed in the Oglala National Grassland
showed evidence of unauthorized collecting. In 1999, the National Park
Service identified 721 documented incidents of paleontological resource
theft or vandalism, many involving many specimens, in the national
parks between 1995 and 1998. (Babbitt, 2000 p. 28)
The increased commercial market for fossils worldwide has sometimes
led to distortion of the fossil record. In some cases fossils have been
altered in order to inflate their commercial value. And we have lost
significant specimens from further scientific investigation and
exhibit, making it harder for people to see and examine for themselves
the authentic objects in our museums. It is critical that
scientifically significant fossils from Federal lands, i.e. that
portion of the fossil record that belongs to the American people,
remain in the public domain so that everyone--children and adults,
amateur and professional paleontologists--may benefit from this
irreplaceable resource.
I would like to conclude by telling you about one example of the
kind of cooperation, which exists between Federal agencies, amateur
paleontologists and professional paleontologists. Figure 1 shows a
Tyrannosaurus rex that was found on Federal land by amateur
paleontologist Kathy Wankel. She reported this find to dinosaur
paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana
State University, Bozeman. The MOR was able to collect this fossil and
the contextual data and to learn much more about this animal known to
all schoolchildren. Dr. Horner is currently in the fifth year of a
field study in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in
eastern Montana. To date eight Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons have been
discovered. The field study is yielding valuable information about this
most famous of the dinosaurs and the environment in which it lived. The
work of the Museum of the Rockies has made it possible for the National
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, to collect one of
these specimens. Thus, our National Museum will be able to display an
actual specimen of this celebrated American dinosaur for the first
time. The passage of H.R. 2416 will foster more and more opportunities
like this and inspire the long-term preservation of these priceless
national resources.
References:
Babbitt, B. 2000. Report of the Secretary of the Interior: Fossils
on Federal and Indian Lands
Stucky, R.K., and S. Ware. 1991. Questionnaire concerning fossil
collecting on Federal Lands. DMNH, Denver.
______
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Dr. Forster, for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Vlamis for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TED J. VLAMIS, AMATEUR PALEONTOLOGIST
Mr. Vlamis. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify here today. I am in favor of H.R. 2416, the
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. One of the most
gratifying things for me as an amateur paleontologist has been
the opportunity to collaborate with professional scientists, to
learn from them, and to make my own small contribution to the
advancement of scientific knowledge.
H.R. 2416 puts no new restrictions on amateur
paleontologists like me. We can continue to collect for
personal use common plant and invertebrate fossils on multi-use
lands without a permit, and our colleagues who are amateur rock
and mineral collectors will benefit from the provisions of
Section 14.
H.R. 2416 impacts neither private lands nor existing
private collections. The PRPA has been endorsed by both the
Western Interior Paleontological Society, an organization of
over 300 amateur paleontologists, and by the Dry Dredgers, the
Cincinnati area amateur group.
Because of my personal interest in Paleontology, and the
nexus between paleontology and public policy, I have studied
the problems of illegal collection and theft of fossils from
Federal lands for the past several years.
I would like to share with you a couple of case histories
that illustrate what is happening to this valuable public
resource, beginning with the story of three allosaurus
specimens, and this would be what allosaurus is, a large meat-
eating dinosaur from the Jurassic period.
In 1991 the BLM discovered an illegal commercial collection
taking place on Federal land. They contacted the Museum of the
Rockies at Montana State University at Bozeman, and asked them
to collect the specimen and hold it in the public trust.
As a result of this the most complete Allosaurus ever
found, which this commercial collector intended to sell to a
private collector overseas, has now been saved for all the
people of the United States.
The commercial collector who had attempted to steal this
fossil and the information that it tells us was never
prosecuted. Unfortunately, the American people were much less
fortunate in the case of another Allosaurus find illegally
collected from BLM land near Fremont Junction, Utah.
The collector was not prosecuted because of the lapse of
the statute of limitations. The commercial fossil dealer, who
purchased the Allosaurus for $90,000 and sold it to a Japanese
collector for $400,000 plead guilty to the receipt of stolen
property and was sentenced to 1 year probation. His company was
fined $50,000.
A profit of $260,000 is not an effective deterrent. We must
have stronger penalties and specific laws protecting fossils on
Federal lands to deter this type of illegal activity and this
Allosaurus remains in Japan today and has not been able to be
recovered for the people of the United States.
A paleontological area near Grand Junction, Colorado, is
the first management area specifically protected by the Bureau
of Land Management solely because of fossils. During a trip
there, I was able to learn much about the important research
that is being done at that site.
Unfortunately, I also witnessed the damage that is
occurring there because of theft and vandalism. Here in Figure
2, this kind of gray area that you see here is all that remains
of what was once a largely intact Allosarus vertebrae.
The remainder of the vertebrae, which protruded from this
rock, has been hacked away by people illegally harvesting
this.Here in Figure 3, we see the gray here is part of what was
once a major portion of an Allosaurus skeleton, and over the
years people have just lopped off pieces of it to take home and
put on their mantles, or sell to people, or whatever, but most
of it has disappeared.
And here you can see a depression in the rock, and this is
from Dinosaur Hill, which is near the paleontological area.
There was once a deplodicus femur there, but somebody has
carted that away.
The paleontological community is strongly in favor of laws
protecting fossils on public lands and of prohibiting their
collection for commercial use. The Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology collaborated with the Paleontology Society several
years ago and issued a joint statement regarding fossils on
public lands, which is consistent with 2416.
Together these two societies represent several thousand
individuals, including more than 90 percent of the professional
paleontologists, and a very large proportion of amateur
paleontologists.
Similar, the American people support the type of
stewardship of fossils on Federal lands that is embodied in
H.R. 2416. In a survey, 85.3 percent agreed with the statement
that, quote, fossils of animals with backbones are part of our
national heritage and should be protected in much the same way
that archeological remains are not protected.
And 88 percent agree, quote, that if laws are created to
restrict the collection of fossils on public lands, the only
people who should be allowed to collect them are people with
appropriate skills for doing so, and with a permit for that
purpose. All the fossils that they find should go into museums
and universities prepared to protect them.
These are exactly the principles that we see in H.R. 2426.
So the amateur and professional paleontological communities,
and the general public, need the information from fossils found
on Federal lands, and they want these fossils to be protected
by theft and vandalism so that this part of our natural
heritage is preserved as a national treasure for all Americans.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify
here. I have entered further remarks in the written record, and
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vlamis follows:]
Statement of Ted J. Vlamis, Amateur Paleontologist, on H.R. 2416
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of
H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. I am an
amateur paleontologist, and have seen firsthand how the increased
public interest in paleontology has motivated many Americans to make an
avocation of the fascinating field of study.
One of the most gratifying things for me has been the opportunity
to collaborate with professional scientists--to learn from them, and to
make my own small contribution to the advancement of scientific
knowledge. I have had the pleasure in participating in fieldwork with
the Dinamation International Society, the Universidad Autonoma de
Mexico, the Shuler Museum of Paleontology at Southern Methodist
University, and the Ft. Worth Museum of Nature and History. I have been
an active member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, including
serving as a member of its Government Affairs Committee since 1996 and
as Affiliated Societies Liaison from 1997-2002. By having amateurs like
me serve in significant positions, the SVP has ensured that it reflects
the interests of both professional and amateur paleontologists.
H.R. 2416 puts no new restrictions on amateur paleontologists like
me. We can continue to collect for personal use common plant and
invertebrate fossils on multi-use lands without a permit. And our
colleagues who are amateur rock and mineral collectors will benefit
from the provisions of Section 14, which recognizes that casual
collecting of rocks and minerals for personal use is a valid use of
National Forest System lands. H.R. 2416 impacts neither private lands
nor existing private collections. The PRPA has been endorsed by both
the Western Interior Paleontological Society, an organization of over
300 amateur paleontologists, and by the Dry Dredgers, a Cincinnati area
amateur group.
Because of my personal interest in paleontology, and the nexus
between paleontology and public policy I have studied the problems of
illegal collection and theft of fossils from Federal lands for the past
several years. I'd like to share with you a couple case histories that
illustrate what is happening to this valuable public resource. I'm
going to begin with the story of three Allosaurus specimens. Allosaurus
was a large carnivorous dinosaur of the Jurassic period (fig. 1).
In 1991, the BLM discovered an illegal commercial collection taking
place on Federal land. The BLM contacted the Museum of the Rockies at
Montana State University--Bozeman and asked them to collect the
specimen and hold it in the public trust. As a result of this, the most
complete Allosaurus ever found, which this commercial collector
intended to sell to a private collector overseas, now has been saved
for all the people of the United States. As a result of careful
analysis of injuries sustained by this dinosaur and preserved in the
bones, this particular specimen has yielded a treasure trove of
information about how Allosaurus lived. The commercial collector, who
had attempted to steal this fossil and the information it tells us, was
never prosecuted.
Unfortunately, the American people were much less fortunate in the
case of another Allosaurus find. This Allosaurus was illegally
collected from BLM land near Fremont Junction, Utah. The collector was
not prosecuted because the lapse of the statute of limitations. Last
year the commercial fossil dealer, who purchased the Allosaurus for
$90,000 and sold it to a Japanese collector for $400,000, plead guilty
to receipt of stolen property and was sentenced to 1 year probation.
His company was fined $50,000. A profit of $260,000 is not a deterrent.
We simply must have stronger penalties and have specific laws
protecting fossils on Federal lands in order to deter this type of
illegal activity.
The Fruita Paleontological Area near Grand Junction, Colorado
became the first management area specially protected by the Bureau of
Land Management solely because of fossils in 1976. Specimens from this
area include Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Ceratosaurus,
Dryosaurus, and Stegosaurus. It has also yielded numerous
microvertebrate and invertebrate remains and has facilitated
reconstruction of the ecological community in which these animals
lived. During a trip to the Fruita Paleontological Area I was able to
learn much about the important research being done there.
Unfortunately, I also witnessed the damage that is occurring there
because of theft and vandalism.
Figure 2 shows the remains of what was once a largely intact
allosaur vertebrae. The entire portion of the vertebrae that was
protruding from the surrounding matrix has been sheared off.
Figure 3 shows what was probably once a major portion of an
allosaur skeleton. We will never know what scientific information this
specimen would have yielded.
In Figure 4 we see the imprint showing where a Diplodocus femur was
stolen from Dinosaur Hill, a quarry just a short distance from the FPA.
The paleontological community is strongly in favor of laws
protecting fossils on public lands, and of prohibiting their collection
for commercial use. Several years ago, the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP) added a Statement of Ethics to its bylaws to help
the society and its members handle ethical issues such as those raised
by increasing commercialization. I summarized the SVP Ethics Statement
and a subsequent Joint Position Statement by the Paleontological
Society as follows: ``The SVP Ethics Statement contains several
principles that are particularly noteworthy for their public policy
implications. It begins by recognizing that vertebrate fossils are
usually unique or rare, and that they are part of our natural heritage.
The Ethics Statement assigns to vertebrate paleontologists the
responsibility of ensuring that pertinent detailed contextual data are
recorded when vertebrate fossils are collected and notes that
collection and preparation should be done by properly trained
personnel. The importance of proper curation and the assurance of
access for future researchers are recognized by the Ethics Statements'
provision that scientifically significant vertebrate specimens should
be curated and accessioned in institutions charged in perpetuity with
conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study and education. The
Ethics Statement further recognizes the responsibility of
paleontologists to expeditiously disseminate information to other
paleontologists and to the general public. Perhaps the most important
part of the SVP Ethics Statement from a public policy perspective is
the conclusion that ``The barter, sale, or purchase of scientifically
significant vertebrate fossils is not condoned unless it brings them
into, or keeps them within, a public trust'' (SVP, 1994).
In order to ensure that the SVP's public policy recommendations and
initiatives regarding fossils on Federal lands were also reflective of
the wider paleontological community, the SVP initiated a dialogue with
the Paleontological Society. Together these two scientific societies
include several thousand individuals, representing more than 90% of
professional paleontologists and a very large proportion of amateur
paleontologists. This dialogue culminated in 1999 when the two
societies issued the joint position statement Paleontological Resources
on U.S. Public Lands. The PS-SVP joint statement advocates public
policy which, like the SVP Ethics Statement, recognizes that fossils
are part of our scientific and natural heritage. It goes on to find
that fossils on public lands belong to all the people of the United
States and that, as such, they need special protection, and should not
be collected for commercial purposes. The joint statement concludes
that the two societies strongly support actions which ``protect fossils
on public lands as finite natural resources; encourage responsible
stewardship of fossils for educational, recreational, and scientific
purposes; promote legitimate access to, and responsible enjoyment of,
paleontological resources on public lands by the public and amateur
paleontologists for personal use, and by the professional
paleontological community, including professional paleontologists from
outside the U.S.; and bring fossils from public lands into public
institutions where they are available for purposes of education and
scientific research'' (PS and SVP, 1999).'' (Summary from Vlamis, 2001)
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has endorsed The Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act.
Similarly the American people support the type of stewardship of
fossils on Federal lands which is embodied in H.R. 2416. MKTG, INC., a
market research firm that has conducted over 10,000 studies since its
founding in 1979, conducted a survey of American public opinion
regarding fossils. This survey of 300 American adults analyzed public
responses both to a hypothetical situation involving the discovery of a
fossil, and to a series of more general questions pertaining to
fossils. A random calling program was utilized which gave every
telephone in the U.S. the same probability of being called. The survey
results have an accuracy rate of +/- 7%. The findings of this survey
are detailed in Vlamis (2001).
Several key points that demonstrate public support for the
principles embodied in H.R. 2416. When the hypothetical find is assumed
to have been made on public land 86.6 percent agree with the statement
that ``The fossil is part of our heritage, it belongs to everyone in
the United States'', 80.0 percent with the statement that ``There
should be a law against my selling the fossil'', 81.0 percent with the
statement that ``There should be a law against my taking the fossil out
of the United States'', and 81.0 percent disagree with the statement
that ``The fossil is mine, finders keepers''. The consistency of
responses when asked in a variety of different ways is striking.
In the second part of the survey, 85.3 percent agreed with the
statement that that ``Fossils of animals with backbones are part of our
national heritage and should be protected in much the same way that
archeological remains (human artifacts) are now protected''; and, 88.0
percent agreed that ``If laws are created to restrict the collection of
fossils on public lands, the only people who should be allowed to
collect them are people with appropriate skills for doing so and with a
permit for that purpose. All the fossils that they find should go into
museums and universities prepared to protect them'' (Vlamis, 2001). The
American people want our natural heritage preserved as a national
treasure.
The amateur and professional paleontological communities and the
general public need the information from fossils found on Federal lands
and they want these fossils to be protected from theft and vandalism.
References:
Paleontological Society and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
1999. Joint Position Statement by The Paleontological Society and The
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology on Paleontological Resources on U.S.
Public Lands
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1994. Bylaws, Article 9
Vlamis, T.J., 2001, in Proceedings of the 6th Fossil Resource
Conference Santucci, V.L. and McClelland, L. (eds) Geologic Resources
Division Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-01/01 September 2001
Appendix 1
society of vertebrate paleontology by-law on ethics
article 9. statement of ethics.
Several goals for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology follow
from its mission statement (Constitution Article 1): to discover,
conserve, and protect vertebrate fossils and to foster the scientific,
educational, and personal appreciation and understanding of them by
amateur, student and professional paleontologists, as well as the
general public. Fossil vertebrates are usually unique or rare,
nonrenewable scientific and educational resources that, along with
their accompanying contextual data, constitute part of our natural
heritage. They provide data by which the history of vertebrate life on
earth may be reconstructed and are one of the primary means of studying
evolutionary patterns and processes a s well as environmental change.
It is the responsibility of vertebrate paleontologists to strive to
ensure that vertebrate fossils are collected in a professional manner,
which includes the detailed recording of pertinent contextual data
(e.g. geographic, stratigraphic, sedimentologic, taphonomic).
It is the responsibility of vertebrate paleontologists to assist
government agencies in the development of management policies and
regulations pertinent to the collection of vertebrate fossils, and to
comply with those policies and regulations during and after collection.
Necessary permits on all lands administered by Federal, state, and
local governments, whether domestic or foreign, must be obtained from
the appropriate agency(ies) before fossil vertebrates are collected.
Collecting fossils on private lands must only be done with the
landowner's consent.
Fossil vertebrate specimens should be prepared by, or under the
supervision of, trained personnel.
Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with
ancillary data, should be curated and accessioned in the collections of
repositories charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates
for scientific study and education (e.g. accredited museums,
universities, colleges, and other educational institutions).
Information about vertebrate fossils and their accompanying data
should be disseminated expeditiously to both scientific community and
interested general public.
The barter, sale, or purchase of scientifically significant
vertebrate fossils is not condoned unless it brings them into, or keeps
them within, a public trust. Any other trade or commerce in
scientifically significant vertebrate fossils is inconsistent with the
foregoing, in that it deprives both the public and professionals of
important specimens, which are part of our natural heritage.
Appendix 2
joint position statement by the paleontological society and the society
of vertebrate paleontology on paleontological resources on u.s. public
lands
The Paleontological Society and The Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology are committed to increasing scientific knowledge,
educational benefits, and appreciation of the natural world based on
fossils--for everyone--child or adult, the general public, or amateur
or professional paleontologists. Fossils are an invaluable part of our
scientific and natural heritage. They yield detailed information about
the history of life and of our planet, and provide lessons for the
modern world and our future.
Many important fossil localities occur on U.S. public lands and
belong to all people of the United States, including future
generations. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The
Paleontological Society therefore support the development of policies
and practices that can be used by different Federal agencies to
regulate the collection of fossils on U.S. public lands in an
appropriate, clear and consistent manner.
Many fossils are common (for example, many non-vertebrate fossils)
and should be allowed to be collected--in a responsible way--by any
amateur or professional paleontologist, thus allowing them to
experience and benefit from the excitement of discovery, recovery,
identification and study. In particular, because of the benefits that
derive from increased public appreciation of fossils, it is important
that the participation of amateurs in paleontology is not discouraged
by Federal policies and practices.
Other fossils are rare (for example, many vertebrate fossils and
some non-vertebrate fossils), and require special protection,
especially from destruction by vandalism or commercial exploitation. In
particular, because of the dangers of overexploitation and the
potential loss of irreplaceable scientific information, commercial
collecting of fossil vertebrates on public lands should be prohibited,
as in current regulations and policies. The commercial collecting of
other paleontological resources on U.S. public lands should be strictly
regulated by permit through the appropriate land management agencies.
Regulations and polices regarding the collection of paleontological
resources from U.S. public lands should be strictly enforced.
In this context, the Council of The Paleontological Society and the
Executive Committee of The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology strongly
support actions that:
(i) Lprotect fossils on public lands as finite natural
resources,
(ii) Lencourage responsible stewardship of fossils for
educational, recreational, and scientific purposes,
(iii) Lpromote legitimate access to, and responsible enjoyment
of, paleontological resources on public lands by the public and
amateur paleontologists for personal use, and by the
professional paleontological community, including professional
paleontologists from outside the U.S.; and bring fossils from
public lands into public institutions where they are available
for purposes of education and scientific research.
The following attachments have been retained in the Committee's
official files.
LTJV Firgue 1. Allosaurus was a large carnivorous dinosaur
of the Jurassic period.
LTJV Figure 2. Shows the remains of what was once a
largely intact allosaur vertebrae. The entire portion of the vertebrae
that was protruding from the surrounding matrix has been sheared off.
LFigure 3 shows what was probably once a major portion of
an allosaur skeleton. We will never know what scientific information
this specimen would have yielded.
LTJV Figure 4. The imprint showing where a Diplodocus
femur was stolen from Dinosaur Hill, a quarry just a short distance
from the Fruita Paleontological Area near Grand Junction, Colorado.
______
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Mr. Vlamis, for
your testimony.
I have a statement from the Honorable Wayne Gilchrest,
Chairman, which needs to be put into the record, and without
objection. And hearing none, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R. 2057 and H.R.
2416:
Good morning, I am pleased to join with my colleague Scott McInnis
in conducting this Joint Hearing on H.R. 2057, the Chronic Wasting
Disease Support for the States Act and H.R. 2416, the Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act.
First identified in Colorado in 1967, Chronic Wasting Disease or
CWD is a progressive, fatal and degenerative illness that has spread to
both wild and captive herds of white-tailed deer, mule deer and rocky
mountain elk. While the Centers for Disease Control have said that:
``there is no evidence that CWD has been transmitted to humans under
natural conditions'', there are still huge gaps in our knowledge base.
For instance, we need to know what is the exact cause of this disease,
how it is transmitted to other animals and what is the incubation
period in cervids.
H.R. 2057 is a comprehensive proposal that builds upon the efforts
of the Department of Agriculture who has established a CWD
surveillance, depopulation and indemnity program for affected farmed
elk populations and has provided a $4 million dollar grant to the 22
affected states. While these are positive steps, additional research,
control, monitoring and money to combat this dreaded illness is
essential. These are the fundamental goals of this legislation and I
compliment the Chairman of the Forests Subcommittee for his tireless
leadership on this issue.
As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2416, I believe it is long
overdue that we establish a comprehensive national policy for
preserving paleontological resources on Federal lands. In 1999, the
National Park Service identified hundreds of documented cases involving
theft or vandalism of prehistoric fossils.
While this legislation will not prohibit casual collecting on
Federal lands where allowed, it will ensure that these invaluable
artifacts are not destroyed. The bones of an Allosaurus, Stegosaurus or
Tyrannosaurus must be protected, preserved and managed for the benefit
of future generations. They should be displayed in places like the
American Museum of Natural History, the Dinosaur National Monument and
the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and not stashed
away in a private collection, listed on Ebay or sold on the black
market.
I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Jim
McGovern for proposing the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
and I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on these
two important pieces of legislation.
______
Mr. Renzi. We are going to move to questions and I would
remind members that we have a 5 minute time limit on questions,
and I want to recognize first of all the co-sponsor of the bill
from the great State of Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you. Since I am the author of the
bill, I don't need to be convinced, but you have convinced me
again why this is a good idea. I want to say, Mr. Lamb, and Ms.
Estill, that I appreciate your comments and also the suggested
amendments to the bill, and I am just looking at them very
quickly, and most of them seem pretty reasonable to me.
So I look forward to working with you and this Committee in
trying to make sure that when this bill is reported out of here
is as effective as it possibly can, and it is not weakened, and
we are all committed to a stronger bill here.
Dr. Forster, thank you very much for your testimony, and
for all of your work in this area, and to my friend, Mr.
Vlamis. I want to thank you. He and Pat Leejee with the Museum
of the Rockies were actually the first people that came into my
office and kind of talked to me about this issue, and I want to
also thank you for continuing to bring to me models of T-Rex
teeth and other things that I can give to my son.
But I just wanted to make one point, and then I will yield
back my time. And I think that all of you kind of mentioned it,
but there is a big business in shelling these fossils and these
dinosaur bones, and I think that a lot of people don't quite
appreciate that.
A number of people have said to me, well, what is the big
deal. Well, there is a big deal, and you have mentioned a
couple of cases where people have kind of stolen what should be
public property, and made huge profits, and one of the things
that we are trying to do is to stop that, and to make sure that
these things are forever in the public domain, where
scientists, and geologists, and people who study this stuff,
and even kids, can have an opportunity to view these things.
So again I thank you all for being here, and your
testimony, and I look forward to working with all of you. Thank
you.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I now
recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, who has personally
wrestled an allosaurus in many of his days, Stevan Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the
bill and appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts bringing
it. My questions come kind of from the other direction. If
there are tremendous profits to be made, and I know that there
are, what is to keep the scientific community from occasionally
slipping something out the back?
Do you have any safeguards in the bill for that? And, Dr.
Forster, I would direct that to you.
Ms. Forster. Well, I don't know if there are any safeguards
in the bill for that, but I know that in our society, the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, we have a very strong
ethics statement that goes along with joining the society, to
which almost every professional paleontologist belongs.
And it is absolutely unethical to be selling fossils if you
are a professional paleontologist. This is completely wrong.
And of course I am sure that occasionally it happens, but I
don't know if there are any safeguards in the bill.
But we try to police our own, and it is considered
extremely unethical to do something like that.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you. I do recognize that it would be
considered that way, but people being what they are, unless you
have the only group of people that are morally bound to every
ethical standard that they aspire to.
Ms. Estill. But the bill does require a permit for
scientific collections, and agencies would monitor those
permits, and so we feel like there is some safeguard.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, and just in extending my comment, we
have got a lot of museums in my district, and when I go into
the basements of museums, I am not too frankly impressed by the
tracking mechanisms that are in place. I see things scattered
in boxes, boxes piled on boxes, and boxes broken up, and things
falling on the floor.
And I wonder when we talk about the potential for our
museums to safeguard these treasures why we would even continue
collecting it at some point when we have so many samples that
are being trapped in basements, and not being taken care of.
That is I would say that this treasure should be left where
it is at some point. Is there a response to--how do we track
this once it gets into the museum system, because even though
the paleontologists may have this ethical standard, you have
got these boxes that are unkept and probably uninventoried, and
through inventory are not checked regularly.
And so then you have janitors and things that have access
to those, and I worry about these things.
Ms. Forster. I think it is probably a legitimate worry in
some places. There are many museums that are not like that at
all, where specimens are prepared as they come in, and there
aren't jackets and boxes laying around. Every specimen has its
place, and they know exactly where every specimen is.
So I am not sure exactly which museum you are talking
about, but it sounds like it can be a problem. It is
potentially a problem, but again if it is part of the bill that
the museum has to care for these specimens and track these
specimens, I would hope that the museums would come up to snuff
on that as well, because it is in their best interests to do
so.
And certainly as a paleontologist, I know where all of my
fossils are that I collect, and I would hope that whatever
museum you are talking about would come up to snuff as well.
One of the problems of course for a lot of museums lack of
funds to prepare fossils, although again museums that I know of
are very good at keeping track of what they have got in their
collections, even if they are in a box or are still in a
jacket, they know what they have got, and they know it is in
that jacket.
Mr. Vlamis. Mr. Pearce, I might add that the provisions to
the bill do provide for the revocation of the permit if someone
violates the bill, and so that would certainly be a very strong
sanction that would happen to any scientist who was selling
things out the back door as you expressed in your concern.
Mr. Pearce. I guess in extending that, my question is that
there is no actual monitoring of the permit holders and even
the amateurs, or in other words, there is no oversight. We get
the permit, but then we depend on the human element to not be
attracted by the $400,000 sales price that is essentially all
profit, and that to me worries me that we have no technique to
see what is taken by the permit holders, be they professional
or amateur.
And then we have no technique to monitor through the stream
of progress what is going on, and so at some point I would say
without careful safeguards, I would rather see them stay in the
ground or on the ground, and they have been preserved for
centuries there.
And I would just leave that as an open question if someone
wants to deal with it. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. I want to recognize
another gentleman from New Mexico, the land of enchantment, Mr.
Udall.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I very much appreciate my colleague from
Massachusetts, who has taken a great interest in this, and in
working with Chairman McInnis to see that we do something about
this.
Both my colleagues here from the west, Mr. Pearce, and Mr.
Renzi, are very aware that the Federal lands within our
congressional districts also contain Indian sacred sites, and I
want to ask about that, because I think that is a crucial issue
here when we start talking about fossil collections, and Indian
sacred sites, and I guess the first thing I want to ask is what
effect, if any, does fossil collection have on Indian sacred
sites on non-Indian Federal land, and then the second part of
this is that Section 5 of this Act would direct the Secretary
to develop an inventory and monitoring plans for
paleontological resources in accordance with laws, regulations,
and policies.
Would it be helpful if this bill also required that plans
be developed in accordance with Executive Order 13007 dealing
with sacred sites? That is the President's Executive Order on
sacred sites, and then any of the panelists can comment on
that.
Mr. Lamb. There is a specific provision in the bill with
regard to sacred sites on Federal lands. I would welcome the
opportunity to do a little research with regard to the
Executive Order, and its interplay with this act, rather than
just speaking extemporaneously about it.
We are very concerned about protection of such sites, and
are active in trying to protect them. By having a system--
essentially it goes also to Mr. Pearce's question. We are
currently permitting the excavation of sites to technically
qualified individuals and organizations.
What this bill does is provide a more uniformed structure
for that. There is very little consistent Federal law with
regard to this entire area. We are using our organic statutes
across 4 or 5 different agencies. I look, for example, of the
definition of paleontological resource, and we have five
different definitions.
The public is confused about what its role is, and how it
can participate. I recall when Secretary Hodel became Secretary
of the Interior, and we were testifying before an
appropriations committee, and this topic came up in the '80's.
And he said that he was very concerned about the
responsibilities that the Department had, and its ability to
enforce, and protect these resources, and he had given the
matter considerable thought, and the only way in which to do it
is to provide a much greater role for the public, a much
greater public participation, a greater involvement with
volunteers.
And working with organizations like these professional
societies can really enhance our ability to protect these
resources. Since that time of his testimony, I might point out
that the number of volunteers in the Department of Interior
across the board has increased some 180 percent.
We now have 200,000 volunteers working with our employees,
some three times the number of volunteers that we have actual
employees. One of the things that this bill will do will
encourage more partnerships with these professional
organizations to meet some of these responsibilities.
Mr. Tom Udall. Any other panelists have any comments on
that? Let me just in the couple of moments that I have left
just emphasize that when we are dealing with Indian sacred
sites--I mean, a lot of people think of these as this may be
something that is old, and there is not an ongoing activity.
And I just spent time on one of my pueblos where the
pueblos were showing me a couple of what they would consider
sacred sites that dealt with collecting small specimens of rock
that they used to paint when they do their dances, which is a
continuing, on-going think, and a part of their religious
activities.
There was another place that they showed me where they
collected a particular type of rock, and if it was in coloring
in their pottery, which is also an ongoing activity. And so
when I was out there at the time and saw this, they actually
pointed out a couple of times as we were looking at these rocks
that there were fossils mixed in with some of this.
So I don't think it is an insurmountable issue at all, but
I think it is just one that we all need to be very sensitive
to, and I know that both the gentlemen from the west here are
very aware, because they have Indian reservations and Indian
sacred sites in their congressional districts.
Mr. McGovern. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Tom Udall. I certainly will, but I don't have any time.
But I am sure that this generous Chairman here will give you
time.
Mr. McGovern. Well, the bill specifically states that
nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any lands
other than Federal lands, or affect the lawful recovery,
collection, or sale of paleontological resources from lands
other than Federal lands.
So if the gentleman wants to work on language that--I don't
know if that addresses his issue or concern, or whether he
wants more restrictions, or--
Mr. Vlamis. I think I could offer some insight into this.
If you look at the definition of paleontological resource in
the bill, it specifically exempts fossils which are identified
as archeological objects under 16 USC 470.
So those would be protected already by existing law, where
you have got a fossil that is part of a sacred Indian site. It
would be covered and protected under ARPA, 16 USC 470. And this
bill was also written specifically not to conflict with sites
that are covered by NAGFRA (phonetic). So I believe what you
would find is that this offers additional coverage, and in no
way detract from the existing protection, which is already
there.
Mr. Tom Udall. I think the issue here, the bill exempts BIA
lands, is that correct, from the sponsors? And what I am
talking about is sacred sites on other Federal land, BLM and
Forest Service land.
Mr. Vlamis. Yes, and I am not an attorney, but my
understanding is that those would be protected under the
Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 USC 470, and so
there is not a need to protect them under this Act, because
they are already protected.
Mr. Renzi. Would the gentleman yield also?
Mr. Tom Udall. Sure.
Mr. Renzi. I may be missing my friend's point, but I think
the gentleman is trying to also protect the ability of the
Native Americans to harvest the stones, or the rocks that are
used in coloring, and not so much to protect the fossils
themselves. And it really--am I right my friend?
Mr. Tom Udall. Yes.
Mr. Renzi. OK. So I know that you are talking about
protecting the fossils, but the gentleman is talking about
protecting the colored rocks, OK? And that really leads to the
question that I am going to get into if the gentleman is
completed.
Mr. Tom Udall. Let me just say that what I am worried about
is protecting the religious activities. It is very much a part
of Native American communities in my district, and I think in
yours, and in Mr. Pearce's, and maybe some of the other members
that are on this Committee.
Mr. Renzi. I agree with the gentleman.
Mr. Tom Udall. And with reference, I think that some cross-
reference or something to the Indian Religious Freedom Act may
do that.
Mr. Renzi. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only one
question, and that is would you please tell me what the
penalties are in a E Class felony?
Mr. Lamb. I am not an expert on the exact penalties. They
have been worked with the Department of Justice, in terms that
they would be commensurate with other Federal statutes. I can
get that information for you, sir, but the language is directly
from the Justice Department to put them on a comparable
standing.
Mr. Tancredo. Yes. If you could, I would appreciate that
information. That is all that I haves, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. I am going to dove-tail
on Mr. Udall's questions, and I had a couple of prepared
questions that really fit into his line of questioning.
And particularly Dr. Forster, if you wouldn't mind. I know
that there was some discussions about other lands other than
Federal lands, and I think that Mr. McGovern has done a
wonderful job as far as articulating the fact that we are
dealing specifically with Federal lands right now.
Is the idea though that we would eventually look at maybe
expanding this to the Bureau of Reclamation lands, or DoD
lands, or obviously we have other areas where fossils are also
going to be found.
Ms. Forster. I think that I am going to refer that to my
colleague, Mr. Vlamis, here.
Mr. Vlamis. I think that is something that might want to be
looked at down the road. For example, there are some very
important paleontological sites which are located on Army Corps
of Engineer's land that are also very accessible, offering the
potential of illegal collecting.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you.
Mr. Vlamis. So that might be a wise future thing to look
at.
Mr. Lamb. With regard to the Department of the Interior,
this bill would extend provisions to the Bureau of Reclamation
since it is one of our Interior--
Mr. Renzi. It would cover lands currently under management
by the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. Lamb. Yes, it would.
Mr. Renzi. OK. Mr. Lamb, that leads into my second question
then, is that Mr. Udall specifically was looking at the ideas
that a possibility could exist where Native Americans could be
looking at going out and finding sacred stones.
We in the west very much are in the business of land
exchange, where we see Federal lands, Bureau of Reclamation
lands, and we exchange them for private lands. Does the
legislation at all obstruct or hinder our ability to exchange
those lands?
Mr. Lamb. As part of those exchanges, there is usually an
inventory of the resources of that land, and if there is a
significant, scientifically significant, scientifically
significant portion of the land that holds immense value, I
know from personal experience on exchanges that this becomes a
subject matter of the exchange itself, and how that will be
protected and what type of arrangements must be made to protect
it.
Mr. Renzi. Would we treat it similarly to archeological
sites as we now treat it during land exchange?
Mr. Lamb. I believe so.
Mr. Renzi. You imagine so?
Mr. Lamb. In fact, the entire intent of this bill is to
treat paleontology much like we treat archeology on Federal
lands. That is really the intent of it, in terms of all of the
general provisions, is to bring paleontology up to the same
standards that we have had in place very effectively for 25
years, in terms of archeological resources.
Mr. Renzi. OK. Thank you, sir. With that, I want to thank
all the witnesses on our second panel for your insights, and
your expertise, and also the members for their questions. The
members have some additional questions for the witnesses, and
we ask that you please respond to them in writing.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these
responses. If there is no further business before this
Subcommittee, I would like to adjourn for 5 minutes, and then
reconvene with the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health for
our additional bills. The Subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-