33 



Mr. LiLiE>rrHAL. Mr. Chair, I would like to respond, as well. I see 

 this much more globally, perhaps, in that I think that the lack of 

 funding is a breach of faith with the groups, including three of the 

 people sitting on this panel, that sat for five years and gave their 

 time to help this law come into effect, as well as a breach of faith 

 with the congressmen who are on this committee. It is a breach of 

 faith with the countries that were told that if they could put to- 

 gether sustainable use programs, they would again be able to trade 

 with the U.S. if that trade were properly managed. Without the 

 funding which was supposed to be used in part to help establish 

 sustainable use programs — I don't think I heard here, and I would 

 like to be corrected if I am wrong — that anybody said that the birds 

 which are not coming into the United States anymore aren't going 

 elsewhere. So we haven't solved the problem. We have merely redi- 

 rected it, perhaps. Without the money to fund sustainable use 

 trade and management programs in foreign countries, we aren't 

 saving birds. We are merely covering up the problem. 



There are 18 million pet birds in the United States. And we talk 

 about $1.2 million for African Elephants and some millions of dol- 

 lars for tigers, and while I am not against that, I would think that 

 zero for exotic birds is a little bit, just slightly out of proportion. 



Mr. Saxton. I am for conservation of elephants and rhinos and 

 lions and tigers and endangered species and all the others. I can't 

 for the life of me understand why birds aren't just as important. 

 Mr. Meyers. 



Mr, Meyers. Mr. Chairman, also during the deliberations there 

 was some discussion about how other parts of the world deal with 

 this issue. The European Union does work very closely with under- 

 developed countries in helping them coming up with quotas that 

 are allowed into Europe. They put money out into the field, 

 through NORAD, which is a Norwegian assistance fund. They put 

 money where their mouth is. This Act put money up, but they 

 didn't put it where our mouth is. And I think that is the bottom 

 line, and I think if we could get some money appropriated, do some 

 foreign assistance programs, come up with some model programs 

 that could meet the final regulations, I think that is what is des- 

 perately needed. 



We are cautious, however, and when I made my comments about 

 the amendments, the Department may well feel that they are 

 somewhat constrained because of the scientifically based language 

 that was written into the statute and undefined criteria. The 

 money to run a study to meet the criteria that are proposed, $5 

 million will not be enough. And I think that is the thing that Con- 

 gress has to address. 



Mr. Saxton. Let me just ask a question for anybody to respond 

 to who would like to. Have any regulations issued by the U.S. Fish 

 and Wildlife Service had the effect of making it virtually impossible 

 to legally import captive-bred exotic birds into the United States? 



Mr. LiLlENTHAL. It is impossible to legally import captive-bred 

 exotic birds into the United States from qualifying facilities be- 

 cause there are no regulations. 



Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv- 

 ice — do you believe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes 



