trade of wild and exotic birds. As the world's largest market for exotic birds, I feel the United States has an obligation to manage the trade in a responsible and humane way.

We have all seen the extensive documentation on the inherent cruelty of today's trade practices. This behavior cannot be allowed to continue. I believe this bill offers an acceptable and workable approach to many of the problems of the wild bird trade, provided we include an immediate ban on the importation of wild birds.

I am aware this has been a contentious issue in the debate over wild bird importing, but I feel there is compelling evidence, both of an ethical and practical nature to support an immediate ban.

A phased-out importation policy would only further perpetuate the trade practices proven to be so terribly destructive to the wild birds' species and their natural habitat.

The testimony to be offered today will graphically illustrate how the threat of extinction is already facing many of our most rare and beautiful species of birds. If we wait three, four, or five more years to halt wild bird imports, how many more species will be lost?

And from a practical standpoint, any plan to phaseout importation of wild birds assumes we currently have a functional system for monitoring bird imports. And this is simply not the case.

The vast number of species, the numerous points of entry, and the sheer volume of imported birds make accurate and complete recordkeeping impossible. In fact, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is only able to inspect one-fourth of all incoming shipments.

The overburdened and underresourced Fish and Wildlife Service cannot do the job today which employs numerous changing and species-specific import quotas. An immediate ban would simplify enforcement and allow for more thorough inspection of import shipments.

For these reasons, and to end the reckless and inhumane treatment of the world's exotic birds, I support H.R. 5013 with an immediate ban provision.

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.

Mr. STUDDS. Let me state at the outset our general ground rules and apologize to our witnesses for the inflexibility. Timing requires all witnesses confine their oral statements to no longer than five minutes. All written statements which are considerably longer than that will appear in their entirety in the record. We apologize for that. If we don't do that and hold ourselves to the same rule, we will be unable to hear everyone.

We will begin-incidentally, if you have not been here before, we have this barbaric system of lights. If the green light is on, you are fine. The yellow light means one minute to go and the red light means you have finished your statement.

A panel, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, As

STATEMENT OF MIKE HAYDEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN DOGGETT, CHIEF, DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; MARSHALL JONES, CHIEF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; SUSAN LIEBERMAN, CITES POLICY SPECIALIST, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. HAYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here today. I have with me Marshall Jones, Chief, Office of Management Authority, in the Enhancement Branch of the Fish and Wildlife Service; Sue Lieberman, CITES Policy Specialist; and John Doggett, our Chief of Law Enforcement. They are certainly here to answer and help me answer any and all questions from the Members of the committee.

I do appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your entering our entire written statement into the record and I will try to be brief in my oral statement.

In considering solutions to the conservation problems facing wild and exotic birds, we need to recognize three basic elements: The United States is the world's largest importer of exotic birds; there is a lack of existing legislative authority to regulate the trade; and efforts until now have not led to a consensus. In fact, many of my predecessors, over a long number of years, have grappled with this problem without a solution.

The Department of the Interior is very concerned about the conservation of exotic bird species and the depletion of wild populations due to international trade. The U.S., as the world's largest importer, must play a leadership role in finding solutions. Between 1988 and 1990, more than 1.4 million wild birds were imported into the United States alone. Approximately half of these were parrots and other species protected by CITES.

Experts estimate that, for every bird offered for sale, up to five have died along the way because of abuse and mishandling. In fact, according to our own Department of Agriculture, in a five-year period, over 330,000 birds either died in transit or in quarantine.

Due to the initial shock of capture, mortality between capture and export, the fact is these numbers are even higher. When birds die due to improper capture and handling, more birds will have to be taken from the wild to meet the public demand. Our wildlife import policies must be strengthened and that is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman.

CITES requires that before an export permit is issued, a country must be satisfied animals are prepared and transported humanely. However, this policy is largely ignored. The U.S. has stricter requirements that include humane transport regulations for all imported birds and mammals.

On June 17, tomorrow, the Fish and Wildlife Service will finally publish a final rule to revise its regulations on the humane and healthful transport of wild mammals and birds to the United States to improve transportation conditions and to reduce mortality.

But humane regulations are only part of the answer, Mr. Chairman. The other part involves restriction on the importation of species at risk.

The countries exporting the most wild birds are Argentina, Senegal, Tanzania, and Indonesia. Every year, each of these countries exports more than 25,000 CITES-listed birds to the United States. We are not opposed to the sustainable utilization of these bird species, nor are we opposed to exotic birds as pets. We are, however, opposed to inaction while our wildlife import policies continue to contribute to the disappearance of populations in the wild and continue to contribute to avoidable transportation mortality.

Take, for instance, the three birds most commonly imported-the Fisher's lovebird, the mitred conure, and the African grey parrot. The Fisher's lovebird is a parrot species imported in the largest numbers to the United States from Tanzania. While more than 68,000 were imported over a three-year period, there is no information on the level of trade this species can sustain.

In fact, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has concluded international trade levels are probably a threat to the survival of the species. The similar circumstances of the mitred conure and the African grey parrot are described in my written statement.

At the March CITES meeting in Japan, the U.S. played a strong role in the leadership on the wild bird trade issue. However, the current legislation, including the Endangered Species Act, does not provide the mechanism to adequately guarantee the preservation of wild birds commercially imported, which is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman.

The Endangered Species Act is only triggered after the status of the species population has been seriously harmed. What we need is preventive legislation. Additional authority is needed from this committee and the Congress to prevent the extinction of these species due to the trade.

The Department of the Interior recognizes the urgency of this matter. We think this bill represents a fair and equitable approach. We support it as long as it is amended as we propose. The Department sees this legislation as an excellent opportunity to protect exotic bird resources through conservation. We welcome the opportunity to be here today, most importantly, to help build a consensus, Mr. Chairman, among all of those who are here today who want to see the successful enactment and implementation of this legislation.

We would be glad to answer any and all questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayden can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I think there is general agreement about the kind of system that should be put in place to regulate bird imports over the long-term. It is the timing of the transition period that has been the most contentious issue. In fact, one is attempted to exert we have been arguing for three or four years whether it should be immediate or over a fiveyear period.

One suggestion is to take a three-tiered approach: First, to take prompt action to protect species that are most threatened by the

trade; second, to address CITES-listed species by allowing continued imports until an approved list is prepared; and finally, to do likewise for non-CITES species.

My questions for you are those of timing. First, how long would it take to identify those species most threatened and prohibit imports of them?

Second, how long would it take, realistically, to prepare an initial approved list of CITES-approved species. And finally, how long would it take to prepare an approved list of non-CITES species?

Mr. HAYDEN. In terms of the emergency list, among the 80 heavily-traded species, Mr. Chairman, current trade levels are probably a threat to the survival of 10 of those that have been identified. There are 36 more that might possibly be on such a list. So, if we just look at these 46 species, it would take us just a matter of a few months to analyze all the available information and to make a determination on the immediate suspension of trade.

So it would only take a matter of a few months to deal with the most urgent 46 species.

Mr. STUDDS. OK. Secondly, how long would it take-I want you to be as realistic as you can-to prepare an initial approved list of CITES-listed species?

Mr. HAYDEN. Given the manpower resources and availability of funds through appropriation and also the number of CITES species involved, realistically it will take us, Mr. Chairman, 18 months to two years to finalize a list of those CITES species.

Mr. STUDDS. Finally, how long would it take to prepare an initial prepared list of the non-CITES-listed species?

Mr. HAYDEN. Approximately three years.

Mr. STUDDS. I assume that is from the date of enactment?

Mr. HAYDEN. That is correct, from the date of enactment in each case, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STUDDS. A second issue that remains contentious is that of importing birds for breeding purposes. Mr. Lilienthal would track the birds through its captive bird wildlife registration program. How do you react to that suggestion?

Mr. HAYDEN. Since we are most concerned about sustainable populations, we are supportive of allowing limited imports for breeding purposes, so that breeders, zoos and scientists working together under cooperative programs can import a limited number of birds of certain species.

Although the details will be worked out in new regulations, such cooperative programs, Mr. Chairman, will have to first demonstrate that a sufficient number of birds is not available in captivity now, that new genetic material is needed, and that the breeding program is truly cooperative with others breeding the same species. Mr. STUDDS. OK. One final question. Let me just add the lights are supposed to apply to all of us, including myself. I will respect them. The European Community, as you know, restricts bird imports if it believes the populations are threatened by the trade.

The United States has been criticized because species turned away by the EC are simply sent to this country. Under the proposal we are discussing today would our system be consistent with that of the European Community?

Mr. HAYDEN. The European Community currently has authority to ban the imports of certain species from certain countries if they determine that CITES is not being complied with. They have some new regulations also that will go into effect next year that expand that authority to non-CITES species and will also require an import permit on all CITES species.

They are able to immediately implement the decisions of CITES more than we are, Mr. Chairman. And they have been critical of us for continuing to allow imports of species which they have banned. In other words, they, in fact, have greater flexibility than we have to take more immediate action in this regard.

One of the reasons we need to enact legislation is to ensure that, as they stiffen their regulation, those birds are not diverted and come into the United States in large numbers as other markets close up.

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Goss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hayden, I know that there may be some difficulty in answering this, but I would like your view anyway. It is clear that some States have tried to be very responsible in going about their business in various ways of addressing the natural resources within their territories and New York and New Jersey have sort of led the way in this particular issue.

I would like your comments, to the extent you are able to make them, on whether or not you feel that the legislation before us would preempt those more stringent regulations in States that have reviewed this matter for themselves and come up with something that is a little more stringent than what is being proposed here.

Would this preempt that or would the State regulations prevail? Mr. HAYDEN. We have no intention of preempting States rights and we recognize certain States have been leaders, in particular the States you mentioned. The real truth is, if a number of the other States, especially those with our major ports such as Florida and California, had followed the lead of New York and New Jersey, there wouldn't be as much need for this legislation.

Unfortunately, the majority of the States have not done that, therefore we need, it is our feeling, national legislation. We certainly do not want to preempt States rights, especially in cases where they might have even stricter regulation.

Mr. Goss. So you are advising me, if we can prevail upon the leadership of the State of Florida to do the same responsible job that the leaders of New York and New Jersey have done, we would, in fact, be assisting the accomplishment of the goal of this legislation and perhaps we could do it more quickly than we could get this legislation through.

Mr. HAYDEN. We have two major ports-one in Miami and one in Los Angeles-that continue to be major problems, as well as the entire span of the Mexican border. We would have to have the cooperation of a number of States that also lie along the Mexican border.

Mr. Goss. Thank you. One other area. It is a question of the statements in our briefing files here about the GATT negotiations and concern. I am not quite sure what the controversy is in GATT