109 



risks before preventing imports, APHIS, as a matter of principle does not require 

 regulations unless a justification can be demonstrated. 



Although we applaud and value the OTA study, there are several items that we 

 believe should be brought to your attention. The study did not cover organisms such 

 as those causing animal diseases, including those transmissible from animals to hu- 

 mans. In response, APHIS would like to make clear that control and exclusion of 

 these organisms have constituted major technical, scientific, and regulatory suc- 

 cesses in this century. APHIS' Veterinary Services programs that produced these 

 successes could offer working models, expertise, and many hard-earned lessons on 

 quarantine, inspection, and testing procedures. APHIS reviewers believe that the 

 OTA study may obscure, rather than clarify, key issues related to the assessment 

 and management of risks associated with genetically engineered organisms (GEOs). 

 The OTA study fails to make sufficiently clear that if transgenic plants are to be 

 considered a special case of NIS, it is because they are derived from customary agri- 

 cultural cultivars that are themselves descended from NIS. The act of genetic modi- 

 fication with modem molecular techniques does not by itself render an organism 

 "non-indigenous." 



When developing and implementing programs to protect agriculture and our natu- 

 ral resources, funding and resources eire usually big questions. We currently assess 

 user fees to fund many exclusion activities. If an expanded role is envisioned for 

 APHIS, alternatives for funding, including user fees should be considered. 



Public education is an avenue toward developing awareness of the economic loss 

 and/or environmental harm that can result if prohibited plants, injurious animals, 



[)ests, and diseases enter our coimtry, or parts of our country. For example, our pub- 

 ic information program in Hawaii has increased the awareness that it is illegal to 

 send fresh fruits and vegetables to the mainland, resulting in a decrease in the 

 number of illegal items being sent to the mainland since the program began in 1989. 

 The Department has been and will continue to be closely involved with activities 

 to protect against harmful non-indigenous species. For example, the U.S. Forest 

 Service and APHIS worked together to resolve issues related to the importation of 

 unmanufactured wood products and continue to work together in the control of the 

 Asian Gypsy Moth. As noted earlier, APHIS is a member of the Aquatic Nuisance 

 Species Task Force and we work with the Department of Interior and the Depart- 

 ment of Commerce, the co-chairs of the Task Force. Other members of the Task 

 Force are the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of 

 State, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Also, our Animal Damage Control 

 unit of APHIS cooperates with the Department of Defense, the Government of 

 Guam, and the Department of Interior to control the brown tree snake in Guam. 

 These are but a few examples. We are willing to cooperate with these and other 

 agencies in developing a comprehensive strategy to impede the movement and inva- 

 sion of harmful non-indigenous species into our country. 



We appreciate the Committee's interest and look forward to meeting the chal- 

 lenges identified in the OTA report. We will be happy to answer any questions. 



PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM McCLEESE 



Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on non-indigenous plant and ani- 

 mal species in our Nation's forest and rangeland ecosystems. I am accompanied by 

 Dr. Jerry Sesco, Deputy Chief for Research. 



Background 



Non-indigenous plant and animal species are a serious threat to the integrity of 

 our forest and rangeland ecosystems. The chestnut blight, white pine blister rust, 

 Dutch elm disease, and leafy spurge are the more commonly known introduced pests 

 in the United States. They are examples of exotic pests that completely changed our 

 forest and rangeland ecosystems by eliminating significant species such as the 

 American Chestnut, Eastern White Pine, and American Elm over much of their 

 original ranges and in our cities. Not only did they change our forests, but they re- 

 sulted in serious economic losses as well. The costs of trying to control these pests, 

 the cost of research, the loss of forest products and wildlife habitat, and the damage 

 to local economies has been in the billions of dollars. 



There have been over 200 forest insect pests, 20 major diseases, and over 100 ex- 

 otic plant species introduced into this country over the past two centuries. The rate 

 of introduction is increasing because of increasing tourism and commerce among Na- 

 tions. To counter this continuing increase in the rate of introduction, we must ex- 

 pand our application of our regulatory authorities and develop a greater capacity 

 to respond to new introductions. We must also develop improved methods for con- 



