endangered species act to import their trophies to the united states in response to a court ordered deadline on may fifteenth two thousand the u s department of interior threatened under the e s a triggering interests of polar bear hunters at the expense of polar bear conservation the principle argument you've heard today and we'll hear this morning is that polar bears that issue are already dead and thus allowing their import will not harm any animals let alone the species this argument is flawed because the same is true of polar bears that were hunted after the species was listed under the essay the mere fact that the bears are already dead surely cannot justify this amendment limiting the scope of the amendment to polar bears killed before the species was listed were to hunters who had submitted their applications before the species was listed does not address this concern in our view the cutoff date for import permits should be the date of the listing when the expert agency designated the species is threatened and of e s a and it became a depleted species under the n p a only that kind of bright line rule make sense the ban on imports is a principle conservation tool that the agencies use and that in this country has impact the treatment of species in other countries we cannot prohibit the take of polar bears in other countries we can however prohibit the import of species the species being listed under the a as a threatened species is only appropriate now that we bring into a fact existing regulatory scheme which bans their imports in addition if we pick a different line  and as proposed by this amendment allow imports even though the species has already been listed there's no reason that it will end here as i mentioned i represent groups in the pending litigation over the listing of the polar bear that's pending in federal court right now those groups are arguing that the species should not have been listed as a threatened species if they lose those cases then we may be here in the future over the question of whether or not as a result of the settled people who killed polar bears in two thousand the thank you i have one minute left here and i'd like to ask a question to mr crystal your testimony states that most if not all of the forty hunters who had submitted permit applications before the listing on may fifth two thousand eight could not have obtained permits even if the judge had allowed the customary in the effectiveness of the rules given the notice and comment process involved in proving a permit application as you heard record on the record and in a timely manner i would request that you answer any of their questions all right i want to thank you all very much for appearing before the committee this morning thank you for your time and thank the gentleman for serving in the air force for so many years thank you for your service to our country and now i'd like to recognize the second panel our witnesses on the second panel include mr paul schmidt assistant director migratory birds united states and wildlife service mr scott southern director of the governmental affairs office could i have order please in the room would you kindly take your conversations out in the hall please we are have not concluded this hearing all right our witness is on the second panel mr paul schmidt assistant director migratory birds united states and wildlife service mr sutherland director of the governmental affairs office limited mr michael dalton legislative director national audubon society i would like to welcome the witnesses on the second panel i thank you for your time and for coming here to testify before the subcommittee i would like to welcome mr schmidt thank you for appearing before the subcommittee as i artwork to the contest and participated in the curriculum service particularly supports this proposed streamlining in the legislation in requiring the reporting back to the congress and the provision that program h r twenty two thirteen reauthorizes tropical migratory bird conservation also supported by the fish and wildlife service would increase and expand authorized appropriations through  thousand and fifteen and authorizing the new tropical migratory bird conservation act in two thousand congress provided a mechanism for coordinating and funding conservation of me a tropical migratory birds and their habitat throughout latin d as recognize the need for international cooperation in these conservation efforts and established an effective and targeted program since receiving appropriations in fiscal year two thousand and two the program  as significant conservation progress we have funded two hundred and ninety six projects throughout the united states latin america and the caribbean with more than thirty million dollars in fiscal year two thousand and nine hundred twenty continuation of the very positive work already accomplished by this program encourage more partners across the western hemisphere leverage more dollars for conservation complete more projects to benefit migratory birds  winter and migrate through the united states and finally thirty four thirteen which would amend the north american wetlands conservation act to allow funds from canada to count as nonfederal match for canadian projects currently only u s funds can be considered as nonfederal match projects under the wetlands act limiting the number and scope of habitat projects in one of been conducted and more than a billion dollars in u s funds have been used in this program to leverage more than two billion dollars for this program delivering twenty five point five million on the endangered species list or under consideration or threatened