Liveblogging Congressional hearing on H. R. 669

Good morning! This is Christie Keith, and I'm liveblogging the Congressional hearing on H.R. 669, the "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act."

The hearing is being held by the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the Committee on Natural Resources, and is being webcast on their site, here.

If you're unable to listen/view the hearing, you can follow it here, in this post.

I will update frequently, so simply hit "refresh" every few minutes to see the latest info.

A few notes about liveblogging:

I am typing in real time. There will be typos; I'll try to correct them after the fact.

Only things in quotation marks are direct quotes. Everything else is a paraphrase or description.

A few facts while we wait for the hearing to begin:

H.R. 669 was authored by Rep. Madeleine Z Bordallo (D-Guam). It has 25 co-sponsors.

The bill may be voted down in this committee; it may pass out of this committee with changes or proposed changes; it may be passed as written. It will then continued on, probably to other committees, and eventually to Congress, the Senate, and ultimately to the President to be signed. It can be killed, changed, rewritten or amended at any step of this process. And citizens can contact their representatives at any step of this process, too.

We begin under the jump.

Rep. Bordallo opens, saying that invasive species have cost around $120 billion in damages to the US.

Says we have to mitigate risks associated with importation of such species as Nutra and the Gambian pouched rat.

Under Lacey Act, species are not placed on "Injurious" list if they're found to present a risk. Takes Fish and Wildlife Service 4 years to so list a species, during which time those species can become established in the US.

HR 669 is oriented toward preventing this. It establishes science-based risk assessment process of a species PRIOR TO ITS IMPORTATION. Approved and unapproved lists will be developed; similar to Australia, NZ, and Israel.

Says concerns are misunderstandings. This bill does not prevent ownership of pets or importation of "common" species. Says bill is not perfect, and changes will be needed to address any concerns before legislation moves forward. Says this hearing is a starting point of a very important discussion.

How can we proactively manage the influx of these species and manage the social and economic costs, but also be sensitive to the concerns and practicalities of implementation? Says she looks forward to this dialogue.

She then introduces two youngsters, who are present for "Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Day."

UPDATE 2:

She now recognizes Rep. Robert Whitman (R-Virginia).

"All branches of our governemnt need to do a better job of preventing the introduction of non-native species." Says plants as well as animals. Mentions zebra mussel, Chinese mitten crab, other species in the Chesapeake. And the common reed in coastal habitats.

"This is definitely an issue we need to be taking up."

Says they've all heard from constituents who have concerns, and says that's what this hearing is about. Wants this to be fair and equitable.

Say they've heard the concerns of pet shops. Asks if Lacey Act is the best way to control invasive species.

On the other side, says we need to make sure agencies have resources to do what they need to do to control invasive species.

Need to make sure impacts of invasive species, and potential introductions, are controlled. Need prevention.

We know it's an expansive issue and applauds the Chairwoman for taking it on. Wants to get to the root of the problem and avoid impacts on other areas that are "truly legitimate."

UPDATE 3:

Now recognizes Mr. Gary Fraser from USFWS, Dr. David Lodge from Center for Aquatic Conservation, Dr. Simon Nemtzov from CITES; Mr. Lawrence Riley from Arizona Dept. of Game and Fish, and Mr. Bill Martin (private industry/aquaculture), and Marshall Meyers, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC).

Gary Fraser: Co-chair Aquatic Nuisance Task Force.

Has already submitted testimony, this is summary.

Service supports intent but has some concern with the bill as written.

Sea lamprey, zebra mussel, etc -- broad scope of problem. Globalization is making it worse. Invasive species have led to decline of fish and wildlife species in US.

Hard to estimate costs of protecting native species from invasive species. Destroy habitat, displace wildlife, wreck eco-systems.

Injurious wildlife provisions of Lacey Act can forbid importation or transportation of such species currently.

"The service recognizes the value of a new approach..."

Proactive evaluation prior to importation could be helpful, so service supports this attempt and development of an evaluation system.

Concerns:

1. Propsed risk assessment process is intended to be more proactive and efficient than under Lacey Act, but service needs more resources to handle work load.

2. Enforceability. Say this section applies penalty provisions from Lacey Act, but may be ineffective because legal standards between two bills differ substantially.

3. Funding and staffing. Service notes there are other costs than just the risk assessment.

(Note: It seems all three concerns are the same: We don't have the money or staff to do this.)

Update 4:

Dr. Lodge:

He is a biologist, and 26 years of teaching and research on invasive species, at Notre Dame.

Opens showing photo of his great-grandfather on his farm in Alabama in 1930s, celebrating the introduction of kudzu, a fast growing plant from Asia deliberately introduced to prevent soil erosion. Talks about the expenses and difficulty of controlling kudzu. Showed photo of farm today.

"Over time, for this species and many others, the net effect of the introduction of kudzu has been more harm than benefit." Says it's like that often.

Now goes to animals. Asian carp, introduced deliberately, now threatens Great Lakes. Northern snakehead fish. Is a great concern. Arkansas just spent millions trying to eradicate it.

A great deal of the continent may be affected over time of species isn't eradicated.

Modern risk assessment tools can determine what waterways may be "suitable" for this invasive fish species.

Millions of species of fish are imported annually into the US, millions of reptiles including the most venomous species are imported as pets, also mentions birds. Disease, cost, believes that the $120 billion is a "dramatic underestimate."

He believes this bill is pointing in the right direction to solve it. Modern tools of risk assessment which have been loosed on other issues, drug safety, food safety, water and air pollution.

These tools can provide the accuracy needed to estimate harm, and allow the continued importation of species that do NOT cause harm.

His example of risk assessment: Mollusks. Using one bit of biological info about these species, annual fecundity, we could estimate with remarkable degree of accuracy the likelihood it could spread and cause harm.

Risk management rises out of risk assessment. What level of risk are we willing to accept? Hypothetical risk threshold of 10 percent would allow FWS to let you import a snail with an annual fecundity below a certain rate, then okay, but not above, or there may be greater restrictions that would allow it under certain circumstances.

(Mentions he's already submitted written testimony.)

Says his great-grandfather couldn't have foreseen the impact of kudzu, but we have better tools now.

UPDATE 5:

Dr. Simon Nemtzov, Israeli government wildlife ecologist:

Says Israel has such a program in place. Has been asked to present aspects of that program. Has PowerPoint.

Basic scientific facts, "Dumbed down."

Says invasive species are always bad. Ounce of prevention is worth pound of cure. Major effort should be put into prevention, not eradication or control.

Better to be safe than sorry: the precautionary principle that we should err on the side of caution, certainly when costs and damages are so great.

Probability of a successful invasion is increased with dosage. More animals released to wild increase risk. Small numbers, rare, reduces that risk.

Mentions he has submitted written testimony.

Their risk assessment program is based on Australia's. They had limited resources in Israel, so simplified it. Said costs of risk assessment is very expensive. So many species. Now they put the cost on the applicant to pay a fee for each species he wants assessed, and they pay a consultant to do a study and put them in high, medium, or low risk. Then allow public comment.

Two major criteria are climate matching and previous invasion elsewhere. This gives you 90 percent of the answer to invasive risk.

Three tiered risk assessment. High risk species only for research. Medium, licensed collectors and zoos. Only "low risk" are in pet industry and general ownership.

No species are allowed until they've been assessed. White list and black list.

If a customer wants to buy a snake or parrot, challenge to pet industry is to find low risk species to offer. Put them in the pet stores so when customer walks in, the customer, who doesn't always care what species he gets, will take what's in the store.

Says their pet industry has found this useful.

Repeats that putting the cost on the applicant has made this affordable.

"Israel now has a usable, flexible, scientifically sound" and transparent system. Relatively simple and it works. No new invasions in the last 12 years since system put into place.

Update 6

Rep. Bordallo asks standees to sit down.

Introduces Larry Riley, Arizona Game and Fish Dept:

State agencies have broad authority and responsibility for both native and non-native species.

Thanks Bordallo for bringing forward the legislation. They think bill could be improved. Suggestions:

1. Issues of authority for wildlife. Act controls importation and interstate transport, which is clearly federal. But within the boundaries of the state, ownership, etc... relationship between federal gov't and states is sovereign and collegial. Act should respect role of states within their own boundaries.

2. Risk assessment should be robust, fair, and equitable. Transparent. This is key element in managing challenges of invasive species. Many non-natives are valued assets in agriculture, pets, research, zoos, etc. Wants that to be fairly evaluated. Some states are managing introduced species; wants that respected.

Needs to lead to reasoned and well-informed decision-making. Full risk analysis should follow risk assessment. Section three of the bill should also cover mitigation and risk offset. Provides for flexibilities not yet envisioned, such as conditional approval.

3. Screening of species is important. Most regulatory approaches are not based on a thorough catalog of animals. Screening process in bill is "a sea-change in approach." They support reasoned decision-making. Transition is going to generate fears and uncertainties "among the regulated public."

This is complex, controversial, may require a lot of time, more than envisioned.

4. This is a daunting undertaking. The US is very diverse in culture and habitat. Should be regional consideration. Highlights importance of collaboration among the states, territories, and federal gov.

5. Screening processes need to be efficient, and wants to explore ways to do that. Some is redundant and adds to cost. Greater flexibility should be given for permitting.

6. Real cost of implementing this program is not trivial. Appropriations in the near term.

7. Wants to work with them on continued improvement. Integrated approach addressing the diversity of pathways invasive species come into US.

Update 7:

Mr. Martin:

I'm not a scientist, I'm a businessman. I grow fish, including talapia. Do research on other species including oysters. Grown in controlled environments. No antibiotics, no hormones. No mercury.

This bill paints a wide stroke across the industry.

I agree we need regulation, need legislation, but needs to be fine-tuned. We control our product from broodstock to marketplace. I have all required permits. We request more regulation be brought upon the industry to raise the bar, but needs to be focused on things that are clearly not healthy for us, like the snakehead.

Not everyone can raise in indoor tanks as we do. We oppose net pens -- spreads disease and parasites. We can put these systems anywhere, and not have problem one with the natural resources there -- even in Guam. They feel aquaculture should go forward in that way.

Submits a short DVD on how the rish are raised. Work with universities and any agency they can, to help raise the bar. Thinks the bill can do that, but needs to be done in a focused and responsible manner.

Rep. Bordallo says she agrees legislation needs fixing.

Update 8: Marshall Meyers, PIJAC

Agrees invasive species are a problem, but need discussion to understand why current system is broken, and why it takes 4 years to assess single species, rather than turning whole system upside down.

Support risk-based processes and intent of 669, not support the approach.

Is not strategic. Does not look at social and economic issues.

Timelines are not achievable.

Undermines state's authority to regulate species that are not harmful in other states -- one size fits all. Florida, Wisconsin.

"HR 669 is in our opinion set up for failure."

Subjective, non-scientific risk assessment standards of "likelihood"; subjective conclusion that something could somewhere, sometime, by someone, cause risk.

He's talking very fast and I'm not getting it all... sorry.

Says marine organisms can be banned in Kansas because they might cause a problem in Hawaii.

Being in limbo is being unapproved until proven innocent.

How does one prove 'no potential harm' -- "It reads like the Internal Revenue Code."

Says this law could itself lead to release of banned species.

Timeframes are unrealistic.

Calls grandfather clause "imaginary," since you can't breed, sell, transport these species. Owner has to relocate to a new state, have to leave their pets behind.

Raises issue of definitions -- what constitutes "historical" for native species? "Widespread" in environment, or in millions of homes? What does "domesticated" mean?

Calls this important environmental issue. Says he has statements from more than 20 organizations.

Update 9

Recognizes Mr. H. E. Brown (R-South Carolina), ranking member of committee:

Says he is late because of massive fires in Myrtle Beach.

In SC, spend a lot of money controlling mosquitoes, plants, etc. Said he was "amazed" hearing Dr. Lodge speak about kudzu.

Says he's received thousands of calls, emails, and letters in strong opposition to this bill. Shows box of them.

Talks about harm to pet stores, feed stores, veterinarians, etc. Rare and endangered species and breeding programs. Cessation of trade in most all non-native species until thousands of risk assessments can be conducted. "Unworkable" for tilapia farming. Jobs lost in all kinds of businesses.

"Small sample of outrage." Why should we support this legislation that might shut down so many businesses? Lacey Act might not work, but this is not the answer.

I recommend that instead of an approved list we encourage the development of a non-approved list. We can remove invasive species without destroying the entire pet industry.

Update 10:

(?) agrees this is daunting. Details aren't clear. Need to work on it, needs it to work for government AND public. But thinks it can be done.

Dr. Lodge: Capacity within scientific community has been growing in last decade and a half, toward development of risk assessment tools. All the tools FWS would need are currently available. There would be some substantial hurdles in order for the service to foster development of new tools and using current scientific info into deciding what kinds of tools they need. Yes, the capacity is there in the scientific community to support the mandate this bill would give to FWS.

Dr. Nemtzov: It seems to me that the issues here of trying to find a way to limit the invasive species, the issue of the resources, is one we found the solution by putting the cost onto the applicant. You have tens of thousands of species that would have to be assessed, I agree with Mr. Meyers, the timeframe is very difficult.

In science, we are aware that species can be in habitat for many years and cause no harm, but then a trigger causes problem. Scientists have a lot of fear about species that have not been harmful in the past, that they could become harmful. But focus should be on preventing new invasive species.

Rep. Bordallo says obviously the bill can be fixed. Asks Mr. Fraser asks if it's true the risk assessment means no species currently in trade would be imported as some have claimed?

Estimates around ten percent in initial screen of species currently in trade would be the problem. Certainly not the majority of species would be found harmful after assessment.

Mr. Whitman (R-VA):

Asks Mr. Martin (aquaculture) what percentage of fish he raises are non-native?

Mainly tilapia. Cobia (?) native in some areas, but we raise in Virginia. If I wanted to send this fish to New York or Toronto, it would be prohibited under this Act.

We raise salmon in West Virginia. If we bring that fish into Virginia, it's illegal under this Act.

The gist of the bill is reasonable, but the brush is too wide. We have 20 percent unemployment -- this would make it worse. Thousands of people can lose their jobs. Harms farmers. Harms research. Don't believe this is the intent of this bill.

Mr. Whitman asks if aquaculture should be exempted, even open systems?

He says he has no dog in the fight of the pet issue, but he understands their concerns as this is "kind of targeting" them.

Goes back to food fish, and says he's not really sure what to do, but says industry usually regulates itself. But definitely says indoor systems should be exempt.

Rep. Christensen, Virgin Islands:

We have many invasive fish species such as Lion fish in Virgin Islands, and problems with reef and fisheries. Asks Mr. Fraser about the "limbo" period, between time bill is passed and they have a "complete" list? Or what do you think should happen?

Fraser: Until we have regulations and a list, the current state of commerce would be in place. Until we have an approved list, there would not be any prohibitions, as I understand the bill.

Christensen says, does someone who wants to import something during that time after bill is passed...?

Fraser says details of transition period are unclear. Should not unfairly punish any trade that's "ongoing and appropriate." References Lacey Act, says current bill does not undo that mechanism.

We'd establish a list of approved species, and species not on that list would be subject to prohibitions under the act. The approved list and regulations, we'd have to make sure we were all very clear on it.

Christensen then asks Dr. Lodge if the factors in Section 3B establish basis for a workable scientific assessment process?

Dr. Lodge: Factors to consider are scientifically appropriate. What Mr. Meyers said is that items on the list have the word "likelihood" but it also says "these things will be considered." I'm not a lawyer, but I think just because something is considered doesn't pre-suppose the decision. He thinks "likelihood" means "probability." If science answers what the probability is, it doesn't pre-suppose how the FWS will respond.

Mr. Brown: Wants to ask Dr. Lodge why his grandaddy brought kudzu over here.

Lodge says he had good reasons. Controlled soil erosion, and also fixes nitrogen in the soil. Did accomplish something good after decades of cotton raising. And in the same way, imported animals do bring benefits to commerce and "more intangible benefits" to pet owners.

But unlike my great-grandfather, we also understand there are risks to these things. It spreads. It gets worse. These species, if you don't do something about it, the problem grows. Very hard to get ahead of the issue.

Mr. Brown asks a question about fish that was already answered, so I'll rest my aching hands.

Asking more details about tilapia -- Mr. Williams says that in the wild, tilapia can be considered invasive.

Mr. Brown asks Mr. Meyers (PIJAC) how he responds to charges pet industry is not interested in solving this problem:

Says in 70s, they proposed there should be a federal advisory committee, have served on many working groups, has memorandum of understanding with Dept of Interior, partner with NOAH and FWS about "do not release fish," and again, he's speaking too fast.... but ways that he's personally been involved in this issue since 1973 and says it's not true pet industry doesn't want to solve the problem.

He agrees there is a problem, but offers Wisconsin permit proposal about fish as a good plan. Thinks we need to be creative on risk management, flexible permit system -- he does support permits for some species in pet trade.

Rep. Capps (D-Calif.):

Recaps problem. Then asks Dr. Lodge about why there should be better regulations in importation -- how proactive should we be? This legislation creates two lists, approved and not, so every species is accounted for.

Dr. Lodge: Everyone agrees we have a problem and it requires a legislative solution. His great-grandfather was not only farmer who introduced kudzu -- they did it because they were incentivized by the federal government to do so. This hearing brings us full circle. Federal policy has been one contributing factor to this invasion that we have, and federal policy has to be part of the solution.

Curve of invasion keeps going up, and we need to get ahead of the curve. Costs of invasion will be incurred forever and will increase as species spreads. Great opportunities here for net economic benefit. In favor of comprehensive approach.

Black list vs. white list, black list approach is the system we have and it hasn't' worked.

Saying that implies there IS a white list. We operate solely on the black list, and we have a REALLY LONG WHITE LIST -- about a million and a half species that can be freely imported.

Rep Capps:

Concern among pet owners. Yes or no, does this legislation take away pets that people currently own? No.

Will this legislation place every non-native animal on unapproved list? No.

Will this legislation only target those species that are non-native AND invasive? Yes.

Interstate transport of grandfathered animals -- people moving, vet care, etc. Suggestions to address this concern?

Dr. Lodge: We could explore a permitting function. Would require complex procedures to establish ownership, track that. It's not an insignificant process.

Capps: If we could guarantee some sort of registration or identity card it would go a long way to reassure pet owners.

Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, At Large Representative for American Samoa:

Says that Meyers and Williams led great grassroots networking to get people from all over the country to respond, says he commends them both for their networking system to make sure that those of us who introduce legislation hear input from public and American people to make sure legislation that's passed has their input.

Asks Mr. Fraser: Is the whole focus of this bill on non-native invasive plants, marine and land animals?

Fraser: Focus is to control important and interstate transport of non-native wildlife, animals and fish, NOT plants.

Asks about procedures right now if he wanted to get a pet tiger. Chimpanzee, gorilla -- do I have to have a permit to have a pet like that?

Dr. Lodge interrupts and says he has examined Lacey Act and says there's nothing in that Act to prevent you or your neighbors from owning a tiger or many other of the millions of organisms in the world. Such restrictions are usually local.

Meyers: Says there is pending legislation in Congress that would restrict private ownership of large cats, non-human primates, but this is mostly at state level, with permits, such as Florida's permit system for venomous reptiles, five large constrictor snakes, including microchipping, but it's not at the federal level. Says some species invasive in Southern Florida but not in Wisconsin.

Agrees there do need to be state or perhaps federal permit systems for some species -- mix of federal and state depending on species.

Rep. Faleomavaega says these are "interesting" issues.

Something I didn't quite catch here about tilapia.

Meyers: We did host a meeting of stakeholders to try to evaluate this bill. We'd like to convene another group and work through section by section and work out where we should have better state and federal provisions, clear up confusion.

Rep Faleomavaega: We did introduce a bill to promote aquaculture, and heard from all the recreational fishing industry that it would destroy their interests. Right now we have to import about 9-10 billion from foreign countries (80 percent is imported) of the fish we eat.

Update 11

Rep Faleomavaega: Are Israel and Australia doing things the way this bill lays out? Says Israel has great aquaculture, carp. Australia 20 million people, Israel 8 million. Is there something we can learn from Israel and Australia:

Dr. Nemtzov: Put emphasis on prevention. Idea of this legislation and Australia and Israel are on prevention. Not spend money on eradication and control. Risk assessment, prevention.

Rep. Bordallo asks Mr. Lawrence Riley about harm in state of AZ:

We've been lucky in in AZ because we're insulated by states around us, but have had some invasive species, most recently two kinds of mussels. Did not come through pet trade, but "other pathways." Says tilapia has been an issue in AZ. Says aquaculture is mostly conducted responsibly, but tilapia has become established and does compete with native wildlife in AZ. Apple snail (?) in southern AZ, also.

Says most pet owners are highly responsible and care for their pets, but in some instances pets are released and can become established and prey upon or compete with native wildlife. Said Meyers mentioned the Habitattitude program -- good program. Says now with people losing their homes, we have to deal with pet surrender program to minimize effects of surrender of pets. People are reticent to surrender their pets if they know they'll be euthanized -- adoption? long term care? Also part of the ethical aspect of the bill.

It looks like we're wrapping up... Rep. Bordallo thanks everyone, and says this is just a first step. Calls problem very serious, and has economic impacts. Says she appreciates concerns that have been raised about the scope of the bill and the practical aspects of its implementation. Said that this has been one of the most intertesting subcommittee hearings she has conducted. Wants to work with all sides to manage problem without having unintended impacts on other aspects of the economy and "on concerned pet owners."

The hearing record is being held open for ten days for responses.

Rep. Faleomavaega from American Samoa asks Mr. Meyers for dollar value of pet industry:

Meyers: Around 43 billions dollars. Major portion is dog and cat food. Says there's not that much data on non-native species, but it's billions of dollars.

Adjourned.