U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–554 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–548 

SAFEGUARDING HAWAII’S ECOSYSTEM AND 

AGRICULTURE AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FIELD HEARING IN HONOLULU, HAWAII 

OCTOBER 27, 2011 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

LISA M. POWELL, Majority Staff Director 

BENJAMIN B. RHODESIDE, Professional Staff Member 

RACHEL R. WEAVER, Minority Staff Director 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 33 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011 

Hon. Neil Abercrombie, Governor, State of Hawaii .............................................. 3 

Hon. Clifton K. Tsuji, Chair, House Committee on Agriculture, Hawaii State 

Legislature ............................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Hawaii 

State Legislature .................................................................................................. 9 

Lyle Wong, Ph.D., Plant Industry Administrator, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, on behalf of the Hon. James J. Nakatani, Deputy to the Chairperson, Board of Agriculture, State of Hawaii ................................................... 11 

Bruce W. Murley, Area Port Director, Honolulu, Office of Field Operations, 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ...... 21 

Vernon Harrington, State Plant Health Director, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 22 

George Phocas, Resident Agent-in-Charge, Office of Law Enforcement, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ..................................... 24 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Abercrombie, Hon. Neil: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Harrington, Vernon: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Murley, Bruce W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Nishihara, Hon. Clarence K.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Phocas, George: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Tsuji, Hon. Clifton K.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Wong, Lyle, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement submitted on behalf of James Nakatani ...................... 44 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Tsuji ............................................................................................................ 62 

Mr. Nishihara ................................................................................................... 66 

Mr. Wong ........................................................................................................... 69 

Mr. Harrington ................................................................................................. 73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

Page

IV 

Questions and responses for the Record from—Continued 

Mr. Phocas ........................................................................................................ 79 

Statements for the Record: 

Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, U.S. House of Represenatatives, Guam .......... 81 

Christy Martin, MPA, Public Information Officer, Hawaii Coordinating 

Group on Alient Pest Species (CGAPS) ...................................................... 84 

Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa ................................................................ 87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

SAFEGUARDING HAWAII’S ECOSYSTEM AND 

AGRICULTURE AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., at the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA), Plant Quarantine Conference Room, 1849 Auiki Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, Hon. Daniel K. 

Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. I call this hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 

District of Columbia to order. 

I want to welcome our witnesses today. The hearing today is on 

‘‘Safeguarding Hawaii’s Ecosystem and Agriculture Against 

Invasive Species.’’ Thank you all for being here today. 

Hawaii has a history of being a leader in recognizing the grave 

threat that invasive species pose to our native agriculture, economy, and natural resources. Hawaii’s efforts to safeguard ecosystem date all the way back to 1888, when King Kalakaua declared a quarantine on coffee imported into Hawaii to prevent the 

introduction of coffee rust and other diseases. This was decades before the U.S. Government enacted the landmark Plant Quarantine 

Act of 1912. 

Hawaii’s efforts continue to this day as invasive species arrive 

daily at our State’s ports of entry, often hidden in agricultural 

cargo or inside passenger bags. Failure to detect and intercept 

these harmful pests imposes serious economic and social burdens 

on all residents of Hawaii. Invasive species already cost Hawaii 

hundreds of millions of dollars annually in lost agricultural revenue, property damage, and eradication programs. In light of the 

severe economic damage that is inflicted on the people of Hawaii, 

it is clear that focusing on prevention by improving agricultural inspections at our ports of entry is a very cost-effective strategy. 

Of course, economic costs are just one aspect of the consequences 

that would result from invasive species. Hawaii’s majestic natural 

environment, home to more endangered species per square mile 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

than any other area on this planet, provides the foundation of our 

State’s culture and heritage. It also attracts millions of tourists to 

the State each year and has made Hawaii’s tourism industry one 

of the strongest in the Nation. 

Invasive species could permanently devastate Hawaii’s fragile 

ecosystem and in the process destroy our State’s economy and character. Nearly 60 years after its arrival in Guam, the brown tree 

snake (BTS) continues to inflict terrible and irreversible damage on 

that island’s ecosystem and economy. Guam’s painful experience is 

a stark example of the dire consequences for any Pacific Island 

State that fails to keep out harmful invasive species. 

This hearing will examine how government agencies, stakeholders, and, most importantly, the people of Hawaii can work together to prevent invasive species from entering our State. I am 

particularly interested in exploring how Congress can best support 

Hawaii in enhancing agricultural inspections, which are critical for 

detecting harmful pests and diseases at our State’s ports of entry. 

Hawaii has made significant progress in improving invasive species prevention and response, despite having limited resources. 

Many of the State’s reforms have been successful in improving 

interagency coordination and raising awareness of the important 

role each resident of Hawaii must play in safeguarding our State. 

I am pleased that our State, under the leadership of Governor 

Abercrombie and Chairmen Tsuji and Nishihara, has committed to 

upgrading Hawaii’s inadequate inspection facilities and restoring 

our State’s agriculture inspector workforce, which was cut by 53 

percent in 2009. I believe the Federal Government could be a better 

partner in the State’s efforts against invasive species. 

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Federal customs, 

immigration, and agriculture inspection officers were combined 

under the new Department of Homeland Security. The decision to 

transfer front-line agricultural inspectors from the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) into the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) was controversial. 

I have long been concerned that the transfer disrupted and undermined the agricultural inspection mission. Other members have 

expressed concern as well, and there have been efforts in Congress 

to return agricultural inspectors to USDA. However, I understand 

that a costly and potentially disruptive reorganization is not practical at this time. So given the urgency of the problem, I believe 

we must focus on strengthening the agricultural mission within 

DHS. 

In recent years, the Department has made progress in stabilizing 

the mission. I recently introduced the Safeguarding American Agriculture Act to build upon these gains and to make sure that the 

agricultural mission has the leadership, structure, and authorities 

needed to effectively protect American agriculture. The act would 

enhance accountability and efficiency by placing responsibility for 

agricultural inspections across the Nation squarely in the hands of 

agriculture specialists who could make operational decisions without going through levels of bureaucracy. 

To maintain a highly skilled and motivated workforce, the act 

would require DHS to provide agriculture specialists with the 

training and experience needed for a successful career. It is critical 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Abercrombie appears in the appendix on page 36. 

that these improvements are implemented across the Nation and 

here in Hawaii. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

I want to welcome our first panel witness, Neil Abercrombie, 

Governor of the State of Hawaii. Governor Abercrombie, I really 

appreciate you taking time out from your busy schedule to be here 

with us today. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It is an honor, Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. It is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear 

in all witnesses, so—— 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am usually being sworn at, so I am happy 

to swear in. [Laughter.] 

Senator AKAKA. I ask that you please stand and raise your right 

hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 

give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Let it be noted for the record that the Governor answered in the 

affirmative. 

Before we start, I want you to know, Governor, that your full 

written statement will be part of the record, please proceed with 

your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE,1 GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF HAWAII 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Senator. It is a great 

pleasure to be with you again. I do, in fact, have the testimony, and 

thank you for taking it because I would like to just comment a little bit informally then on it, particularly as a result of your introductory remarks. 

Although I notice, Senator, that some of the evidence with respect to invasive species is over here, I note particularly the bearded dragon. I thought I was the only bearded dragon over here, but 

I see there is another one. 

On a little bit more serious note, I notice that they also have the 

ball python over there, which, of course, is in the family, reptile 

family, relatively small, the ball python. But I think it is notable 

that as recently as yesterday evening, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), nationally with its Nature program was featuring another invasive species in Florida, the Burmese python. The Burmese python can get to be 25 feet in length and as thick as wastewater tubular sizes, capable of swallowing a crocodile. So whether 

its size is not the issue, the question is that invasive species are 

an issue that is not just pertinent to Hawaii but literally for the 

whole Nation. And some of the most precious spots that we have 

protected nationally as well as in terms of States and other localities are put into a dangerous situation because of invasive species. 

I want to just comment a bit informally because you have very 

distinguished panels to follow, including Representative Tsuji, as 

you mentioned, and Senator Nishihara, who have the responsibility 

here, and Dr. Lyle Wong will be testifying for our Department of 

Agriculture, as well as the distinguished people from the DepartH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

ment of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

et cetera. 

The main intent, I just want to comment then on a couple of the 

issues that you have outlined. We really do need the Federal support. I realize the difficulties that are taking place in Congress 

right now. I realize, of course, from my time in Congress just the 

explanations that were necessary in the Interior Committee in the 

House of Representatives, on which I was privileged to serve, to try 

to explain to somebody about the brown tree snake, because many 

of our colleagues, my former colleagues and your current colleagues, are used to situations in which snakes are part of the environment. But in our island context, the introduction of snakes, 

particularly the voracious variety like the brown tree snake or perhaps something as formidable as a Burmese python, literally puts 

us into a situation where other species can be wiped out, simply 

eliminated, and not just from our consciousness but literally from 

the planet. This is really serious business. 

This is why your bill that elevates the agricultural inspection 

mission of the Department of Homeland Security, and I hope it can 

be incorporated with whatever legislation will be emerging from 

Congress this year. 

We literally need all the assistance we can get in this regard because, among other things, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

only inspects luggage and cargo leaving the State but not anything 

incoming, which leaves us really in critical danger in this regard. 

It is not because they do not wish to. They do not have the resources. That is why it is so critical to have partnership on the 

Federal side. 

It is critically important that—as I mentioned, the brown tree 

snake in Guam, we do not have the capacity here in the State, as 

Dr. Wong I am sure will make clear to you, and certainly Representative Tsuji and Senator Nishihara will, while the U.S. Department does preclearance inspection, those funds may be in jeopardy with regard to Guam. And Customs and Border Protection 

does not inspect the snakes because they are not actionable pests. 

We probably need to have a good look at some of the definitions 

that are involved here to make sure that invasive species can be 

covered adequately in terms of the realities that we have to face 

in our island world here in the Pacific. 

Also, obviously, we cannot go to Guam and do the inspections. 

We do not have the authority to do that, and so it is vital that the 

policies of the USDA and Customs and Border Protection be enhanced and enable us to partner with them to make all of this 

focus that we need to have on invasive species be able to be meaningful. 

As you have pointed out, Hawaii has a unique biodiversity, 

unique in all the world that needs protection. Our water and land, 

ocean’s resources, are our foundation for the cultural diversity that 

exists here in Hawaii. So this is more than just a question of our 

desire to do these things. This literally has to do with the concept, 

in Hawaiian, of acting in a ‘‘pono’’ way, of doing things the correct 

way, of recognizing our place as human beings in the spectrum of 

life and activity on this planet and recognizing what our obligations 

and responsibilities are, particularly here in the islands. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

Just as a quick example, I think most of the people in this room 

are aware of it, but for the record that is being kept, just the coffee 

berry borer and the Africanized honeybee are causing havoc to our 

niche industries, if you will, here, agricultural industries of coffee. 

Everybody assumes, well, Kona coffee, Kau coffee, Molokai, I mean, 

coffee now is ubiquitous throughout the islands. It is not just in 

Kona itself. And yet the coffee berry borer puts that in jeopardy. 

And the same with the Africanized honeybee. At one point at a little compound that I lived in when I was a student at the University of Hawaii, we grew honey there. We had hives there. I had one 

in my front yard. I am very familiar with the growing of honey. It 

is one of the great entrepreneurial activities here in Hawaii and 

much sought after the world over. In jeopardy. 

So, in conclusion, I want to indicate that I am not just speaking. 

Some of the folks that you met here today are the agricultural inspectors we brought back. Now, we are facing, the State of Hawaii, 

over the next 2 years, as Representative Tsuji and Senator 

Nishihara know only too well, a $1.3 billion deficit that we have 

to come to grips with. But we put those inspectors in. We did that 

hiring because those inspectors are absolutely the front line that 

we have to address the question of invasive species. That is an investment. That is not spending. That is an investment literally in 

Hawaii’s environmental future and in our responsibility to meet 

the cultural necessity of addressing invasive species. 

So this hearing is very pertinent. This hearing could not be more 

timely, and I thank you for the opportunity of being able to appear 

in front of you. Mahalo nui and aloha. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Aloha and mahalo nui, too, for your 

statement, Governor Abercrombie. I have a few questions that I 

would like to ask you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Sure. A pleasure. 

Senator AKAKA. Governor, reinstating Hawaii’s agricultural inspectors is a key element of your administration’s New Day Plan 

to protect our State’s ecosystem, agriculture, and economy. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA. As your administration continues to implement 

this important initiative, what are the next steps you will take to 

make sure sufficient resources and focus are sustained on bolstering the State of Hawaii’s agriculture quarantine and inspection 

operations? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am certain that Representative Tsuji and 

Senator Nishihara will give you some of the details that we are 

working on in conjunction with them through our Department of 

Agriculture, as will Dr. Wong. What we will be doing is speaking 

to the rest of the legislature and to the public at large about the 

necessity of strengthening this area. But I must be candid with you 

and straightforward about it. Your bill actually is crucial in this 

quest because we need the USDA and Customs and Border Patrol 

to be able to partner with. If they do not have the resources, in all 

honesty I think that we will be in a bit of a struggle. 

In terms of priorities, obviously I will be siding with the Representative and the Senator in terms of trying to maximize the attention the legislature would give priority to the area of inspection, 

the area of dealing with invasive species, because the consequences 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

are so dire. Other than that, the cooperation and collaboration with 

the Federal side that is emphasized in the hearing today is just 

fundamental to the likelihood of success. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, and thank you for your 

support, Governor. 

I share your view that prevention is the most effective management strategy for invasive species. As you noted in your testimony, 

we have worked together as Members of Congress to push USDA 

and HDOA to enter into a cooperative agreement that would allow 

both agencies to develop a comprehensive prevention strategy that 

secures all pathways into the State. Please elaborate on why it is 

so critical that USDA work together with Hawaii to create an innovative prevention strategy. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If we are unable to do it, if we are unable to 

accomplish this, the task for the inspectors we do have will simply 

be extremely formidable. It is not that they will not devote every 

effort to it, and it is not that we will not give every emphasis to 

it with the personnel that we have. But I think absent the collaboration that you have just cited—I have to be straightforward about 

it—we will have to be in a struggle with other equally pressing interests during the legislative session for priority. I guess some kind 

of triage will have to take place. We will have to decide where we 

will place the fiscal emphasis in terms of personnel and material 

support operating budgets against, I am certain, two, three, four, 

five other pressing areas, in education or in health care or in 

human services, all of which will be able to make a strong case for 

whatever, as case managers in human services, for example, for 

families in distress, foster children, early childhood education, 

which we are trying to emphasize now, so that we make an investment in zero to five, both in health terms and in preparing young 

children for kindergarten and their first years in elementary school 

so that they are not behind when they get started. 

These are very powerful incentives to address. They are very 

powerful social, economic, and cultural incentives to support those 

areas as well. So we do not want to put what we are trying to do 

with invasive species into competition with those other areas of 

concern and proper focus. 

So what we need is to understand that in and of itself the effort 

to combat invasive species is simply something that has to be done 

in order to meet our obligations, both moral and legal. And the best 

way to do that is to have professional personnel that know what 

they are doing, that have that commitment, have that background, 

have that capability. And USDA, Customs and Border Patrol, and 

our Agriculture Department have that capacity. We have the background through the University of Hawaii in terms of research and 

support that can be done. 

And, again, as I am sure that Dr. Wong and Representative Tsuji 

and Senator Nishihara will tell you, we know what to do. We have 

a game plan. What we need is the support, and the Federal support 

is crucial to that. Absent that, we will do the very best we can to 

continue to have that focus and to raise the necessary funds and 

make the necessary moves legislatively speaking to support this effort. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Governor. As you know, preventing 

foreign pests and diseases from entering the United States is the 

responsibility of the Federal Government. My final question to you 

is: What are your top three recommendations for how the Federal 

Government can improve its agriculture quarantine and inspection 

operations to meet the unique needs of Hawaii? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If I say three, it is not necessarily in order, 

but it is a cumulative orientation. I think it is critical that the Federal Government support an appropriate level of inspection to keep 

invasive species out of Hawaii. I think, second, that there be an appropriate level of fiscal support for that inspection; that is to say, 

the necessary funding to support that personnel. And then the 

third thing would be that we have an action game plan between 

the Federal and the State government to enable those inspectors 

and that funding to be well utilized so that we can come back to 

the Congress and point out that the money and the personnel that 

was put forward has been well utilized in every respect. 

I realize there is a certain level of faith and trust that has to go 

into that. All we can do is say give us the opportunity to effect 

what we want to accomplish with a game plan like that, and we 

will prove that it can be done. 

We are in a little bit of a difficult position in this sense: When 

the invasive species are here, then you can take pictures of it and 

you can write stories about it and all the rest of it. In a certain 

sense, we are trying to prove the negative. If we get the commitment to the appropriate level of inspection, get the appropriate 

level of fiscal support, then have a game plan, the success will be 

that nothing happens. And so the best thing that we will be able 

to say to you and the best way we can be able to prove that it 

works is at the end of any given year, at the end of any given inspection period that the Congress would like to set as its benchmark, we will be able to say nothing happened, we caught it, we 

headed it off, we nailed it before it got started. 

Of course, that is what inspection, professional inspection, people 

with professional capabilities are capable of. It is the idea that 

there is no story. So if we can get those three things done, I am 

confident that at the end of any given period set for measurement 

as to whether it worked or not, we will be able to say that there 

is no story here. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I want to thank you very much, Governor, 

for your testimony as well as your responses. Without question, it 

is going to be helpful to us to help Hawaii in this respect. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Senator. I have to tell 

you, it is a great pleasure, it is an honor, and it is a great privilege 

for me and a personal joy to be able to speak with you and spend 

some time with you again. But I have to tell you in all candor, I 

am so happy not to be doing this with you in Washington. [Laughter.] 

Senator AKAKA. Well, aloha and mahalo, and I wish you well in 

your work here in Hawaii. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Senator. Mahalo. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Governor. 

I would ask our second panel of witnesses to please come forward. I welcome our second panel: Clifton Tsuji, Chair of the HaH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Tsuji appears in the appendix on page 39. 

waii House Committee on Agriculture; Clarence Nishihara, Chair 

of the Hawaii Senate Committee on Agriculture; and Dr. Lyle 

Wong, Plant Industry Administrator for the Hawaii Department of 

Agriculture. 

As I told the Governor, it is the custom of the Subcommittee to 

swear our witnesses in, so would you please stand and raise your 

right hands? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give 

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. TSUJI. I do. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. I do. 

Mr. WONG. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let it be noted that the witnesses 

answered in the affirmative. 

Before we start, I want you all to know that your full written 

statements will be made a part of the record, and I would like to 

remind each of you to please limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. 

Representative Tsuji, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CLIFTON K. TSUJI,1 CHAIR, HOUSE 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, HAWAII STATE LEGISLATURE 

Mr. TSUJI. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka and Members of your Subcommittee. I sincerely thank you because during 

my half dozen years or so with the House of Representatives, this 

is the first time I saw a sincere effort, at least in Agriculture, that 

a congressional member or a congressional team has come to Hawaii to listen to our concerns and, in particular, invasive species 

and its impact on agriculture. So to begin with, thank you very 

much, and I cannot help but think the invitation is so sincere when 

I look around in the back of me, our invasive species are all around 

here welcoming you also from snakes of Florida to everywhere else. 

Yes, I have submitted my written testimony and supplemental 

attachments, and with that I will summarize and make myself 

available for questions that you have. And certainly if I do not have 

the appropriate answers, I hope you will so state, and I will endeavor to followup on such inquiries. 

But in the State legislature and the people of Hawaii, invasive 

species has been one of those silent invaders from years gone by. 

The exception maybe is the noisy coqui frog. They attack our economy. They attack our lifestyles, our economy, our whole environment, probably one of the single biggest threats to Hawaii. And the 

damages, the downside is the damages to the crops, extinction of 

native species, and other destructive elements has gone into the 

millions year after year after year and over a period of continuous—maybe a half dozen years or so, maybe it got into the millions of dollars, maybe $15 million has been spent in trying to 

counter invasive species. 

My personal feeling, it is very difficult, if not impossible nearly, 

to quantify the amount of investment that goes into invasive species from the Federal, State, and county level and even indeH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nishihara appears in the appendix on page 42. 

pendent citizens in Hawaii, and to see what the return for this is 

the end result. 

Mr. Abercrombie mentioned—and I think you questioned him basically on one of the concerns, and he used the term ‘‘actionable 

products.’’ And some of our invasive species are not on the actionable list and, therefore, and because of Federal preemption the Hawaii inspectors are not notified, at least, or not mandated to be notified from the USDA or the Federal level and, therefore, they do 

not treat or cannot treat these commodities. I think this is a very 

serious concern and it should be looked into. 

And I commend you, Senator Akaka, for the bill that you have 

brought forth and are bringing forth to Congress with the Honorable Representative from California. But I would say I think it 

touches what the concerns are, including all the ports of entry in 

the United States, as it mentioned. But if I may say, too, Senator 

Akaka, when people collectively say United States of America, 

somehow the State of Hawaii is left out. We are the last outpost. 

It seems like we are the Alamo of the entire United States, and we 

cannot stand alone before we self-destruct. 

So I have one recommendation before I close. It is my summarization. In 2007, there was this very comprehensive document that 

was produced by USDA, called ‘‘Pathway Analysis of Invasive Species Introduced into the State of Hawaii,’’ and not unless I do not 

have the most current document, it is stamped ‘‘A Draft.’’ And I believe this would be very helpful in particular to Hawaii and the 

rest of the United States if some of the thoughts would be taken 

into consideration as you journey through with your very important 

legislation. But if this is not complete, well, I do not think you can 

manage to say that we will use it, but I hope for some reason we 

will find a final draft and you would take consideration of this. 

With that, in summarizing within the time limit expanded, 

thank you very much again, and I would be more than happy to 

attempt to answer your questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your 

testimony. 

Senator Nishihara, would you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CLARENCE K. NISHIHARA,1 CHAIR, SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, HAWAII STATE LEGISLATURE 

Mr. NISHIHARA. First, aloha, Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Aloha. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. I appreciate your coming back to chair this important issue. I think it is one that has been in our newspapers, 

the issue of invasive species, over a number of years, and certainly 

it is good that you then take it forward in your efforts to maybe 

at the Federal level make some corrections that will help us to better do our jobs here. 

On that note, first I would like to thank you for sharing our concerns here regarding invasive species and their impact on our agriculture and environment. Whenever invasive species become estabH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

lished, there are profound impacts for our State as well as other 

States. 

We have heard today that 75 percent of the pests that have become problematic are of foreign origin. We are the recipients of 

these pests. We are not giving them out. We have also heard about 

the importance of preventing invasive species from impacting the 

environment and natural resources. However, agriculture also suffers greatly from invasive species, not only through increased costs 

of production, but also from Federal policies that prevent Hawaii 

growers from accessing domestic markets due to an archaic Federal 

quarantine on Hawaii. I think some of these regulations were here 

that preceded us becoming a State, when we were a territory. 

Currently, Hawaii is quarantined from the continental United 

States primarily due to a fruit fly infestation that was introduced 

to the islands years ago. Because of this Federal quarantine, there 

are over 450, maybe 200 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, Federal positions, here to protect the mainland from Hawaii, with very 

little of this huge manpower resource protecting Hawaii from foreign countries and the mainland. So it is kind of backward. Because of this attention toward protection of the mainland, there has 

been very little improvement in prevention systems to mitigate the 

increasing threat from the Asia-Pacific pathway. As such, Hawaii 

is always susceptible to having additional quarantines on our agricultural commodities due to weaknesses in the Federal quarantine 

system. And, in addition, there is always pressure to implement 

other quarantines on Hawaii to protect the Pacific Island regions, 

the countries, and the territories by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). 

We support your initiatives to improve the Federal quarantine 

system. This is a vital step. We also encourage you to review and 

evaluate how Federal resources are being utilized here. If existing 

resources are creatively used to protect Hawaii and the continental 

United States, then I think we will all benefit. Taking manpower 

away from the x-ray machines at the airports and incorporating 

them into systems approach pest management systems in Hawaii’s 

production areas may, in fact, lessen pest incursions into the mainland and reduce the impacts of those species to both this Nation 

and our State. 

So I think it is an appropriate time to review and modernize the 

Federal and State policies and systems, and in doing the same 

thing because it has all been done—doing the same thing again 

and again because it has always been done is not acceptable, as 

you are well aware of in your dealings in Congress. It has never 

been more important for Federal and State to move together in a 

strong cohesive manner. 

On that note, Senator, I think we have numerous incidents 

where invasive species have come into our State which then become—Hawaii then has to protect ones that came to the mainland 

of the United States, and I think it is time to maybe change some 

of the dynamics, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator, for your testimony. 

Dr. Wong, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nakatani appears in the appendix on page 44. 

TESTIMONY OF LYLE WONG, PH.D., PLANT INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATOR, HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ON BEHALF OF HON. JAMES J. NAKATANI,1 DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF HAWAII 

Mr. WONG. Thank you, Senator. The testimony that I am presenting today is actually testimony from James Nakatani, who 

happens not to be here. He is at another public hearing, and it is 

something that he has to do because Chairman Kokubun had a 

family emergency on the mainland and is not here to participate 

as well. But, in reality, the best person to present this testimony 

is actually the head of Plant Quarantine, Carol Okada, who had 

scheduled a visit to Korea to visit her daughter who is in the service there. So on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and the 

Deputy, James Nakatani, I will present the statement from the Department of Agriculture. 

I would like to actually start off by saying that, despite the challenges that we have in Hawaii, plant quarantine over the years 

and the programs within the Department of Agriculture have been 

remarkably successful in keeping out some of the worst pests of agriculture in the world, and we have failed in other regards, along 

with our Federal counterparts. But we were one of the last places 

in the world to get the varroa mite, which is a serious pest of honeybees. We got it about 3 or 4 years ago. We still have not gotten 

the red imported fire ant, which has infested most of the southern 

tier States right now and is a very serious pest, and a pest that 

has gotten into New Zealand and Australia despite their very robust quarantine programs, but we have yet to get it. 

Unfortunately, we just got the small hive beetle 2 years ago, and 

that pest with the varroa mite will probably seriously set back our 

opportunity to do commercial beekeeping in the State of Hawaii. 

So we have had success. We have had miscues and lost opportunities and some failures. And the presence of invasive species in 

Hawaii has been devastating for our native biota and our agriculture, and that is, I guess, the thing that we will always remember and have to struggle with. 

The Department of Agriculture strongly supports the congressional legislation to strengthen State and Federal quarantine programs to mitigate pest risk through the movement of cargo and 

passengers, through both domestic as well as foreign pathways into 

the State of Hawaii. 

As noted in Mr. Nakatani’s prepared testimony, the rate of new 

species entry into Hawaii is 2 million times the natural colonization rate. This was prior to man’s presence in the State of Hawaii, 

in the Hawaiian Island. Adding to the challenge for Hawaii, nonnative species and potential invasive species to Hawaii are 500 

times more likely to become established in the State of Hawaii 

than in the continental United States, and this is obviously due to 

our year-round mild climate and opportunity to provide good habitat for these species in the absence of biocontrols that would set 

them back. 

Most new pests found in Hawaii are of foreign origin. Foreign 

cargo and passenger baggage inspection programs at Honolulu NaH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

tional Airport are essentially identical to that of all other international ports in the United States. Federal inspectors take action 

based on a list of pests for which specific legal authority is deemed 

to exist. Most pests on the actionable list pose a serious threat to 

U.S. mainland agriculture, but in practice, this actionable list often 

has little to do with the organisms that would affect Hawaii agriculture, native biota, or public health. 

As a consequence, while we are concerned about actionable pests 

that the Feds are concerned about, we are also concerned about organisms that are not known to occur in Hawaii, and this is because 

an organism not known to occur in Hawaii could become a serious 

pest, and we have numerous examples of this, where in the home 

range it is of no consequence, but once it gets into Hawaii, its numbers explode and it becomes a pest of either agriculture, environment, or public health. So if our inspectors find a not-known-tooccur pest in Hawaii, we can take action. The Feds may not be able 

to do so. 

To compound the problem for Hawaii, under the Federal Plant 

Protection Act, a State is expressly prohibited from regulating in 

foreign commerce and in turn to take independent State action to 

inspect, quarantine, control, eradicate, or prevent the introduction 

of plant pests and plant products in foreign commerce. 

The Federal preemption clause of the Federal Plant Protection 

Act prohibited Hawaii from requiring nurseries at risk of red imported fire ant infestation to pesticide-treat plants prior to shipment to Hawaii and prevented New Zealand from transshipping 

through the State of Hawaii cargo bees to the U.S. mainland and 

New Zealand, and prevented Hawaii from requiring Taiwan to pesticide-treat their phalaenopsis, potted phalaenopsis, when USDA 

approved movement of potted phalaenopsis from Taiwan to the 

U.S. mainland. So the Federal preemption prevents us from taking 

the necessary steps for Hawaii to have those procedures in place 

to mitigate pest risk. 

So we support the efforts of your measure to enhance the position of CBP inspectors, and we would recommend an amendment 

to the Federal Plant Protection Act to give Hawaii an opportunity 

to participate in some of these quarantine inspection programs 

with the Feds to be more protective of the State of Hawaii. 

Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Wong. 

I have a question for the entire panel. Since 2008, The Kahului 

Joint Inspection Facility has protected Maui against invasive species. However, only a small portion of air cargo enters the State 

through Maui. Most comes through Honolulu International Airport, 

which does not have a similar facility. 

Should building a joint inspection facility at Honolulu International be a high priority for the State? And if so, what steps can 

the Federal Government take to support doing so as soon as possible? Representative Tsuji. 

Mr. TSUJI. Thank you, Senator. I will attempt to answer that. 

This question about a joint inspection facility or a biosecurity facility has not been one that happened overnight or whatever it may 

be. The facility that you mentioned on Maui, although it is not a 

high-traffic area, it is definitely very important. Whether you view 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

it on a comparative basis, flow of traffic, Oahu Island compared to 

Maui Island, definitely it should be here on Hawaii Island—or, 

should I say, Oahu Island. 

Last year, House Bill 1568 required the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Agriculture to facilitate work 

on this import-export facility—regarding inspection of commodities, 

and it requires the Department of Transportation to provide space 

at commercial harbors for biosecurity inspection facilities. 

Senator Akaka, it was a very contentious bill. I know it was because I introduced this bill, and I tried to shepherd it through the 

House committee, with the cooperation and the help of the Senate 

committee. But because of lack of funding, the only reason that this 

bill was finally signed into law is because we pulled back the appropriations amount. That sounds so ironical, what is a bill like 

this, which needs so much capital improvement funds, to proceed 

forward. 

So to answer your question, the next step is both at the State 

level and the Federal level to participate in some type of funding 

that we are trying to work right now with the Hawaii Department 

of Agriculture and also with the Hawaii Department of Transportation and we look forward to your assistance in this matter, Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your response. Senator 

Nishihara. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. Well, I do agree with Chair Tsuji on the issue, 

and, unfortunately, with I guess not only our State but other 

States as well, with the economic downturn and the subsequent 

cutback of funds for services, this was one of those where, as important as it was, no funding was able to be provided. And as we 

all know, you cannot advance anything. At some point you do need 

money. And having the Federal support at least funding this effort 

I think would go a lot further to making it a reality instead of just 

a good idea. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Wong. 

Mr. WONG. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture started looking at a joint use inspection facility in 2006, and we were able to 

do that because of $100,000 funding from State Civil Defense. And 

in moving forward the proposal to assess the feasibility, we did 

meet with Customs and Border Protection as well as the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and because of the 

support of these two Federal agencies, we were able to get the 

funding from the State Civil Defense, which was money from 

Homeland Security. 

I think what set back the serious planning for this initiative was 

the downturn in the State economy and the loss of inspectors. We 

had to build the workforce up, which Plant Quarantine was able 

to do, but then we lost essentially all of those inspectors. Now we 

are getting the inspectors back through the current administration, 

and that disruption I think will soon be behind us, and we can seriously start looking at the feasibility of a joint use inspection facility. And it is critical because none of the agencies have the adequate facilities to provide good quarantine inspection because the 

State Department of Transportation cannot provide the space reH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

quired by the three agencies to do so. So I think it will end up 

being a joint use inspection facility in one fashion or another. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. Wong. 

Mr. TSUJI. Senator Akaka, if I may, I think I did not answer one 

of your points. The higher traffic is in Oahu, the lesser traffic is 

in Maui, but why did you agree to Maui? The irony of it all, it was 

not a legislative action. This went through the courts and it was 

a court mandate that directed this facility to be built there because 

of invasive species concerns, and realizing what happens to food 

safety, food security, languishing out in the climate on the island. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for that addition. 

Mr. TSUJI. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Representative Tsuji, Federal agencies use actionable pest lists to determine what should not be allowed to enter 

the United States. However, as you noted in your testimony, it is 

estimated that about 3,000 pests that would damage Hawaii are 

not included on this Federal list. 

Since Hawaii is the only U.S. State comprised soley of islands, 

would it be preferable and feasible to use a modified list to meet 

the exceptional challenges posed by invasive species to Hawaii? 

Mr. TSUJI. A modified list? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. 

Mr. TSUJI. Yes, I would see no disadvantage of that. The actionable list, I think something like that would be very helpful. I might 

be led to believe that the Department of Agriculture, the invasive 

species section, is working on something like this. But it is very important. We should not say, no, this cannot happen or that can 

happen. It is very important. Federal border agencies—and I think 

I mentioned in my testimony previously due to Federal preemption, 

Hawaii inspectors are not notified, so we cannot—we are handicapped. We cannot treat these commodities or even identify these 

commodities. We should not stop there. We should look to alternatives, as you mentioned, and, yes, I agree. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Wong. 

Mr. WONG. Well, to—I am sorry, Senator. To some extent there 

is not necessarily a modified list, but a procedure in place that is 

based on policy. For example, there are seven genre of ants that 

are prohibited on the actionable list, but USDA by policy has given 

its inspectors the opportunity to reject any ant that is not known 

to occur in the State of Hawaii. So it does not have to be on the 

actionable list. And so a system of that nature might be available 

to expand the scope of authority for the inspectors in the field. 

Senator AKAKA. I have a question for the entire panel. Each of 

your statements highlighted the need for USDA to increase the priority it places on protecting Hawaii from the threat of invasive species. As you all noted, there are currently hundreds of USDA employees conducting outbound inspections to protect the mainland. 

Yet the Department only has a few inspectors for cargo and passengers entering Hawaii. 

Do you believe this is a sufficient number of Federal inspectors 

to effectively protect Hawaii? And if not, how many should there 

be? This is to the panel. Representative Tsuji. 

Mr. TSUJI. Senator Akaka, may I? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

Mr. TSUJI. OK. Thank you. Do I believe that this is a sufficient 

amount or whatever it may be? I think there is an extreme inequity as far as inbound and outbound inspection of cargo. I think 

that the USDA has about 450 inspectors, or about 250 full-time 

equivalent. But when you look at a comparison, Senator, Hawaii 

has right now less than 100 State inspectors. They are supposed 

to be on the job, but it is well known that in the last couple of 

years we have had a reduction in force. We also have had a number of people retire that have not been replaced. 

So if you use that on a ratio basis, on, let us say, 2.5:1 or 3:1 

and the one that has a higher degree of inspectors are much more 

effective. And using that as a baseline, then on that basis the other 

one with the lower threshold must be totally ineffective. And I use 

that as a guideline. We have hard-working State inspectors. They 

work hard. They do the job beyond what is required. But that is 

not hard enough. We need the manpower. We need the foot soldiers 

there. 

The Governor is not here right now; thank you to the Governor, 

because a couple of years ago we said because of the demise of the 

economy, we are not able to fund these inspectors. Where are we 

going to get the money? 

Again, we do not end there. What we did is there was a cargo 

fee bill that was legislated—in other words, 50 cents per thousand. 

For every thousand pounds of cargo that came into the State of Hawaii through our ports of entry—air and maritime—the assessment 

was 50 cents per thousand. 

The calculation of that—and that was during the time when the 

economy was at a peak—was that the annual derived revenue for 

special funds would have been about $7 million. What happened 

right after that calculation? The economy went down and the annual revenue was somewhere about $3 to $3.5 million. This past 

legislative session, because the fund was being depleted, we increased it from 50 cents to 75 cents per thousand. We had the full 

cooperation of the Governor. In fact, he followed us and fasttracked and had a special bill signing on that. 

Without special funds, we would have not been able to have the 

Governor declare that we are going to reinstate 10 inspectors immediately. That may not seem much, but that is a stop-gap. But 

we cannot use only emergency stop-gaps. It has to be for the long 

term. 

To answer your question, no, it is not adequate. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. TSUJI. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Senator Nishihara. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. Well, Senator, I do not know what is the right 

number or the right size of number of personnel, but it is clear that 

when most of them are directed toward preventing things from entering their States, going out of Hawaii, and nothing prevents this 

from coming in, clearly when the statistics show that predominantly 75 percent is what is outside coming in, it seems like a 

change in how you use the personnel that you need to protect not 

only us but the States as well, if we were able to do a better job 

here preventing what comes in, because where we are situated, 

these species will be coming more and more from probably overH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

seas, from the Far East and those areas. And if you look at what 

has happened with global warming as an issue, what is happening 

in Haleakala and some other places where the climate has been 

getting increasingly warmer, there has been a movement of some 

of these invasive species up toward the higher reaches. 

And so if we do not get the resources we need from the Federal 

Government, because the States are really having a hard time finding the resources, and putting it to where we really need it, then 

I think Hawaii’s economy will go downhill. And it is so important 

for us as a State to be able to produce enough food for ourselves, 

which is also a very serious issue for us, but also our ability to export goods as well. And so if we cannot get that support, it certainly is going to make it much more difficult for us. 

Like I said, I am not sure what the right number or the right 

size is, but I do know what we do have is inadequate. And I leave 

it to those who are better able to give you a number to give you 

that number. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Wong. 

Mr. WONG. I agree with the Senator and Representative Tsuji 

100 percent on that. The best data we have is from Maui from a 

massive blitz inspection program that we did almost 10 years ago, 

and what resulted from that risk assessment was a staffing at the 

airport of 14 inspectors for the tonnage throughput that they have 

on Maui. And now we have on Maui a state-of-the-art or pretty 

close state-of-the-art quarantine inspection station. 

We ran some numbers at that time, what the equivalent level of 

coverage would be at Honolulu International Airport for the tonnage throughput going through Honolulu International Airport, 

and the number we came up with was something like 221. 

Now, there is one thing for certain, and that certainty is that the 

number of inspectors we have in the State program is totally inadequate. There is an immediate consequence to running a program 

with an inadequate workforce. Despite how good these inspectors 

might be when they come in, eventually they will burn out and 

they will conclude that what they are doing is really not for real 

in terms of a serious effort to keep out invasive species, because 

when you put an inspector at, say, Continental Airlines and there 

are 15 LD3 cans there and he cannot inspect 15 LD3 cans that 

evening, he knows that a decision has been made to allow those 

cans to go through without thorough inspection. So we end up losing good inspectors or discourage them to the point where they will 

not function as best they can. 

I suspect the Department of Agriculture will need several hundred inspectors, and when that critical number becomes an opportunity for the State, then you will have inspectors asking more empowering questions and managers asking more empowering questions, and the legislators, and we will fine-tune the program. But 

with the workforce we have right now, it is very difficult. 

I am very sympathetic to CBP and APHIS and their efforts to 

help Hawaii, and as they do in this transition period, I think we 

will have coverage—not as good as we would like to have, but certainly better than what we had just several months ago. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Wong. 

Here is a question for the entire panel: As you know, USDA and 

the Defense Department cooperate to inspect military cargo flights 

to protect Hawaii from the introduction of the brown tree snake. 

DOD has an interest in keeping brown tree snake—which has 

caused widespread power outages and other serious problems in 

Guam-out of Hawaii, which hosts the U.S. Pacific military headquarters. However, USDA has eliminated funding for the program, 

leaving its future in jeopardy. 

If the preclearance program is not continued, what will the consequences for Hawaii be and our Nation’s military readiness? 

Mr. TSUJI. Senator Akaka, simply stated, I think the results 

would be catastrophic. We have been very successful in having Federal aid preventing the brown tree snake in particular from entering Hawaii. But other than the brown tree snakes, we do have 

other snakes coming into the State of Hawaii right now. The accusation and the fingerpointing is through air cargo, like United Parcel Service (UPS), et cetera. We have an amnesty program here in 

Hawaii. If you do turn in your snakes, you will not be prosecuted. 

But what are the results? Monetarily, it is millions upon millions 

on our environment, our ecosystems, our endangered species. 

But I would like to go back and think if one incident happened, 

not in particular brown tree snake, but brown tree snake and what 

Governor Abercrombie alluded to—and I believe it happened in 

Florida. A young couple failed to protect their 2-year-old child. The 

child got asphyxiated in her crib. The child died. So what do I 

think of the result? Even if one person lost his or her life because 

of a snake invasion, I think that is one infestation too much. 

On the other side, when we talk about brown tree snake, working with the military, what about our exports to Guam? Guam has 

already detected and confiscated in air cargo, potted plants infested 

with coqui frog from Hawaii, so we have to work more cooperatively, we have to make sure things like this do not happen again. 

Prevention ahead of time. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. Senator, it strikes me as a bit ironic that, on the 

one hand, the military is making great efforts to increase more alternative energy sources, photovoltaics and all of that. But at the 

end it is still electricity that flows. But if you allow a brown tree 

snake infestation, which would lead to shutting down the system, 

it does not quite make sense to increase production at one end and 

decrease it with the infestation of the brown tree snake. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Dr. Wong. 

Mr. WONG. Senator Akaka, when I came back to the Department 

of Agriculture—I think it was in 1991—within a year or two after 

that, the eighth, I believe, brown tree snake was found in Hawaii. 

In fact, that day two were found on the tarmac. One was dead. The 

other one was about to die. That is eight. 

Now, to my knowledge, we have not—and there was another example of quite a healthy snake found in Schofield. So we are at 

risk. The programs in place in Guam—I am not sure the best protection is preclearance programs, but through the other programs 

that USDA has there, where they are trying to reduce populations 

in and around the airport. But those programs catch a lot of 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

snakes. The predeparture may not be that effective because it is 

very difficult to catch a snake on an airplane. And we have never 

found a snake on an airplane. But the reality is we are at great 

risk of the movement because of the activity on Guam. And the last 

thing we want to see is that program go away because then it will 

fall on us to try and prevent entry. And, clearly, that level of risk 

becomes substantially higher if there is no activity on Guam. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Representative Tsuji, Senator 

Nishihara, and Dr. Wong. Each of your statements raised an important issue about the uncertain future Hawaii’s farmers face because foreign exporters have easier access to mainland markets 

than Hawaii farmers who have been forced to work under an outdated Federal quarantine. 

What short-term and long-term policies must USDA implement 

to restore parity to Hawaii’s growers? 

Mr. TSUJI. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Representative Tsuji. 

Mr. TSUJI. If I may partially quote you—and I hope I do not misquote—in your preamble to us about quarantine and Hawaii and 

agriculture, this was before, a long ways ago, I think you mentioned, during King Kalakaua’s reign that Hawaii had established 

quarantines on our important crops. I think we have to take a deep 

consideration, looking at the Federal and State quarantine laws. I 

think the Federal quarantine on Hawaii is old, I believe it is archaic, and it should be seriously reviewed. But not, the quarantines 

established by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. It is with 

USDA and with Homeland Security. Why? Because the bottom line, 

if you talk about economically speaking, Hawaii becomes economically disadvantaged. 

Hawaii, if I may repeat, is the last outpost. Why is Hawaii singled out—and I could be wrong—the only quarantine station or 

State in the entire United States—maybe we are the last outpost 

and the last frontier, but our small farmers suffer under the Federal quarantine and we have many small farmers. The plantation 

days are practically over. But as an example, we have this quarantine on certain types of items that we export to the Mainland. 

First of all, personal feeling, besides the law or the administrative 

ruling being archaic, I think our Federal and State facilities need 

to be improved. Only a small percentage of Hawaii’s agricultural 

products can be exported to the Mainland because the process requires a rule amendment, and by the time they are ready to be exported to the rest of the United States for sale or for purchase. 

What happens? Your cost rises, and it has an inverse relationship 

as far as sales margin profitability and livelihood for agricultural 

people. 

Well, what about the foreign shipments that are imported and go 

directly to the United States through an expedited process? They 

have about a 6-month or more leeway, a half-year-leeway. So profitability and survivability are much more advantageous to the foreign farmers. But does this men that we have to relinquish our 

very deep thought about consideration for invasive species? I don’t 

know. But we should take into effect the consideration—as you go 

on your pathways that we should take that quarantine portion into 

consideration deeply and what should be done. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

Again, I think it is archaic, outmoded, open to deep consideration 

and discussion. 

Senator AKAKA. Senator. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. Like I said earlier, some of the policies probably 

were created when Hawaii was a territory. I think since we have 

been admitted into the Union, well over 50 years ago, it is time for 

the rest of the country to recognize the fact that we do have—or 

should have the same protections as what they expect us to give 

to them. And so I think you may look at the kinds of goods and 

services or products we may want to sell to the mainland. 

The flowering plant industry is really huge in the United States, 

in Hawaii, and any kind of plant disease that is inadequately 

checked for and that gets into Hawaii’s soils and into our plants 

diminishes that resource, that economic value to the farmers who 

make it as a living. And I think we should make every effort to ensure the support that we would give to the farmers in Hawaii. 

If this was a war they would talk about how many boots on the 

ground, how many people are doing the job, how many eyes are 

looking at these issues. I see that there does not seem to be a great 

deal of interest, at least on the national level, at least for the other 

States. Where we are, we are a small State, and the kind of production we do is not the same as States that have huge mono-crops 

that they may have that have a bigger interest. But I think it is 

time that they take a look at States like ourselves, especially Hawaii, where small farmers really have serious concerns about the 

kind of protections we will be able to provide to them so they will 

be able to sell and increase the economic value of what they have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Wong. 

Mr. WONG. Senator, we are talking about building a better quarantine program in the State of Hawaii, certainly on a State level, 

the Plant Pest Control Branch in the Department of Agriculture, 

but there is a downside to having a very good plant quarantine inspection program. And the downside is inspectors will find pests, 

and when they find pests, a regulatory action has to be taken, and 

either you have to clean it up or you send it back or you destroy 

it here. And that is just the reality. 

Now, the other reality is the big shippers on the mainland do not 

have to ship to Hawaii. They can ship to Boise, Idaho. They can 

ship to Miami, Florida, or whatever. They do not have to ship to 

Hawaii. Our growers have to ship to the U.S. mainland. So when 

we ship to the most important market in the U.S. mainland, say 

California, they take a hard look at what they ship and they take 

action, and our growers in Hawaii eat the full costs of the regulatory action, which is generally destruction and sending it back to 

Hawaii, and our growers take the full hit. 

A lot of the shippers in California right now, as they have to deal 

with our plant quarantine program, are saying to the importers in 

Hawaii, ‘‘You have to participate in the risk.’’ California is, the reality is, the 300-pound gorilla, and we have to increase—to incur 

some of that cost of an effective quarantine program in Hawaii to 

keep out invasive species. 

Now, we certainly want to have good quarantine programs. How 

do we live in a situation where it is not a fair playing field? And 

I think the practicality is we have to have Plant Quarantine DeH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

partment of Agriculture managers that are not tying up all of their 

time in crisis management, because the head of Plant Quarantine 

or the head of Plant Industry Division has to be out there with the 

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and 

APHIS coming up with programs, negotiating deals to minimize 

our risks of getting pests through programs that shippers in California can agree to so that we can continue to do what we have to 

do, keep out pests, but not put ourselves in jeopardy of eating additional costs and increasing the cost of living in the State of Hawaii. 

And so the Plant Quarantine Biosecurity Program is trying to do 

exactly that with the help of actually these two gentlemen here, a 

biosecurity program for import replacements, for increased production so we do not have to bring in high-risk commodities, and to 

have the resources and the luxury of time to meet with counterparts in California and other States with some of our young staff 

to snooker deals so that we can come up with a better Plan B other 

than just being hard-hitting quarantine guys that increase the cost 

of living in the State of Hawaii because they can ship to Boise, 

Idaho, and California. 

So it is a comprehensive systems approach, big planning, but our 

program staff needs to have the luxury of time to actually do that 

and try and pull it off. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. Wong. 

That is my final question to the panel, our second panel. I want 

to thank you so much for your statements as well as your responses. It is going to be helpful. There are other questions that 

I have that we may send to you to write for us and answer them. 

But I want to thank you for your responses. Without question, it 

is going to be helpful. Thank you. Mahalo. 

Mr. NISHIHARA. Thank you. 

Mr. TSUJI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WONG. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I would ask our third panel to please come forward. I welcome our third panel of witnesses to the Subcommittee: 

Mr. Bruce Murley, who is the Honolulu Area Port Director for 

Customs and Border Protection of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 

Mr. Vernon Harrington, State Plant Health Director for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture; 

And Mr. George Phocas, Resident Agent-in-Charge for the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

As you know, it is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear in 

our witnesses. Would you please stand and raise your right hands? 

Do you solemnly swear that your testimony will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. MURLEY. Yes, I do. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, I do. 

Mr. PHOCAS. Yes, I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Before we start, again, I want you 

to know that your full written statements will be included in the 

record, and I would like to remind you to please limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Murley, will you please proceed? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Murley appears in the appendix on page 47. 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE W. MURLEY,1 AREA PORT DIRECTOR, 

HONOLULU, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. MURLEY. Yes, thank you, Senator Akaka, and thank you for 

the opportunity to be up here today alongside my colleagues from 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to discuss our role in protecting the Nation’s, and 

specifically Hawaii’s, food supply and agricultural industry from 

foreign pests and diseases. 

I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to the men and 

women of CBP who do an extraordinary job on the front lines every 

day protecting U.S. agriculture and natural resources from foreignorigin pests and disease at our Nation’s border. 

In particular, I would like to recognize Ms. Hilda Montoya. She 

is my Assistant Port Director for Trade Operations. Ms. Montoya 

brings a wealth of agricultural experience to Hawaii with over 30 

years of experience, including previous positions such as USDA 

Port Director for Honolulu and USDA Officer in Charge in Guam. 

Ms. Montoya, along with Chief Jim Cossack and the rest of the experienced and dedicated agricultural staff here in Hawaii, ensures 

that CBP is protecting Hawaii’s unique environment from foreign 

threats. 

Since the transfer of agriculture inspection responsibilities from 

APHIS in 2003, CBP has taken great steps to strengthen the agricultural quarantine inspection program and integrate agriculture 

issues into CBP’s passenger and cargo inspection programs. Over 

the years, we have implemented numerous successes in the agricultural arena. A couple of those would be: 

We created the Agriculture Enforcement Alerts program, an information-sharing initiative for State and Federal agriculture officials to evaluate trends of interdiction of plant pests and foreign 

animal diseases and identify potential risks to U.S. agriculture. 

CBP and APHIS established a formal assessment process and 

Quality Assurance Program to ensure that ports continue to carry 

out agricultural inspections in accordance with APHIS’ regulations, 

policies, and procedures. 

CBP’s relationship with the State of Hawaii is strong. A few examples of our collaboration here in the islands would include: Our 

facilitation of the Hawaii Pest Risk Committee, where Federal and 

State government agencies discuss current and emerging issues, 

exchange information, analyze data, and discuss respective efforts 

in protecting the United States and the State of Hawaii from plant 

pests and foreign animal diseases. 

We also participate in a learning community comprising the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the U.S. Forest Service, and APHIS to provide 

outreach and education to South Pacific island teams on invasive 

species and plant/pest risk in the Pacific. 

One of CBP’s more important collaborative efforts is our participation in the Coordinating Group for Alien Pest Species (CGAPS). 

Through this group, TNC brings private, university, and governH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Harrington appears in the appendix on page 53. 

mental interests together to discuss and coordinate efforts in protecting the State of Hawaii’s wide range of agricultural and natural 

resources. CBP’s active role as a steering committee member has 

ensured increased understanding of CBP’s responsibilities in enforcing Federal laws and regulations. 

As I am sure you are aware, Senator, CBP is and has been working hard to ensure the agriculture mission is well positioned 

throughout our agency. Our agricultural personnel are empowered 

at every level to ensure that the threat of introduction of plant, 

pest, and foreign animal diseases is given equal emphasis as other 

CBP mission responsibilities. 

On a final note, CBP is creating a comprehensive agriculture 

specialist career track for entry-level specialists, and it has ensured 

specialists are provided the training, experience, and assignments 

necessary for career progression within CBP. 

Further, we have developed plans to improve agriculture specialist recruitment and retention and have ensured specialists have 

the equipment and resources to fully and effectively carry out their 

mission. We are also working on establishing a formal interagency 

rotation program for APHIS training personnel to rotate to CBP 

ports of entry aimed at enhancing their knowledge of our operations and thereby ensuring a more effective instruction experience. 

Senator Akaka, thank you again for this opportunity to outline 

CBP’s role in protecting our Nation’s agriculture industry and natural resources, and I look forward to answering any questions that 

you may have, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Murley. 

Mr. Harrington, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF VERNON HARRINGTON,1 STATE PLANT 

HEALTH DIRECTOR, PLANT PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE, 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Sure. Aloha, Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Aloha. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. For the last 10 years, I have served as the 

State Plant Health Director for USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. As the State Plant Health Director, I oversee 

APHIS’ plant protection and quarantine programs within Hawaii. 

I was born and raised in Hawaii, and I graduated from the University of Hawaii, and I understand how important the unique 

flora and fauna are to our beautiful State. 

Helping to protect these resources is what my staff and I do 

every day, and it is at the core of APHIS’ mission. We have all 

worked hard to develop a robust system to protect those critical resources. 

The Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection (AQI) program is the 

backbone of our efforts. AQI has a comprehensive set of interlocking programs that work together to protect agriculture. Most 

people encounter AQI when they see our inspector colleagues from 

Customs and Border Protection at the airport, but there is a lot 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

more than goes on than just inspections. It is about more than just 

inspections. APHIS’ efforts start before products or people enter the 

country, and I would like to share some of those activities, some 

of the main points. 

APHIS makes scientific, risk-based decisions about what commodities can enter the country and under what conditions. 

APHIS negotiates protocols with trading partners to expand markets for U.S. goods and to allow the importation of pest-free products into the country. 

The agency conducts smuggling, interdiction, and trade compliance activities to trace illegal imports that slip past our protection 

system. 

And we train our CBP colleagues in how to enforce agricultural 

import regulations. 

It is that last item that gets at one of the keys to our success. 

We have strong relationships with our State and Federal partners 

that help us carry out this critical mission. Here in Hawaii, that 

is especially true. Like my counterpart said, we have the Hawaii 

Risk Committee (HIRC). It is a partnership of the three agencies 

on this panel and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 

We work together to identify and review the pathways by which 

foreign pests and diseases enter the country, as well as strategies 

to reduce and mitigate them. 

Another example of how strong partnerships as far as here is 

working with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. The 

group involves organizations at the Federal, State, and county level 

as well as numerous private entities. 

We have worked collaboratively to develop the Pacific Ant Plan, 

and we have conducted emergency incident training so we are all 

aware basically of what to do if a pest hits and how would we respond to eliminate that risk. 

Those are just a few of the many ways that we work together in 

support of our critical mission, and I could assure you that we are 

going to continue to strengthen our relationships. 

I really believe that we have laid an excellent foundation to support our partnerships. Everyone at this table is committed to working together to protect agriculture. 

In a place as beautiful as Hawaii, which has so many diverse resources, APHIS’ actions have an especially important role to play. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I will be happy 

to answer any questions that I can. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. 

Mr. Phocas, will you please proceed with your statement? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Phocas appears in the appendix on page 56. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE PHOCAS,1 RESIDENT AGENT-INCHARGE, OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. PHOCAS. Aloha, Chairman Akaka, thank you. And thank you 

for this opportunity to testify on the Service’s efforts to protect the 

ecological and agricultural interests of Hawaii from the threat of 

non-native, invasive species. I am George Phocas, Resident Agentin-Charge of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of 

Law Enforcement, and I oversee our operations in the Pacific region. My testimony will focus on the threats posed by invasive species to native species and native ecosystems in Hawaii in particular, and what we are doing to prevent new invasions. 

Non-native and invasive wildlife species are a significant threat 

to ecosystems throughout the United States. Nearly half of the species impacted and protected by the Endangered Species Act are 

listed in part because of invasive species impacts. 

The United States continues to receive imports of non-native species, and some of these have entered our lands and waters through 

various pathways and become established there. This trend is expected to continue, making invasive species among the most significant natural resource management challenges that we face, particularly in Hawaii. 

Hawaii is particularly vulnerable. Of the 400 species that are 

federally listed as endangered primarily because of competition 

with or predation by invasive wildlife species, at least 374 are 

found in Hawaii. These imperiled native species include plants and 

animals, including bird species like the Oahu elepaio. And these 

invasive species are also known to alter the functioning of our island ecosystems. For example, the non-native strawberry guava 

has become widespread in native Hawaiian forests, forming impenetrable thickets that crowd out native plant species, fragmenting 

native habitats, and disrupting native ecosystem processes, including the supply of fresh water. The strawberry guava was first 

brought to Hawaii in 1825, this highly invasive plant is now established on all major Hawaiian Islands. 

Non-native animals in the deer family have degraded ecosystems 

in Hawaii. This is the primary threat that led to the listing of the 

majority of threatened and endangered species in Hawaii. The axis 

deer was first introduced in 1868, and populations of this species 

are established on the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai. It currently numbers in the thousands and is distributed across the entire island of Maui. It is a voracious grazer of forest understory 

plants, including seedlings of native trees that are critical to the 

survival of native Hawaiian birds. Axis deer are now confirmed in 

the Kau area of Hawaii Island, and they have been reported in 

other places as well. 

The brown tree snake has had a significant impact on the biodiversity of the Pacific region. The brown tree snake arrived in 

Guam sometime during the 1940s and 1950s, likely as a stowaway. 

These snakes have since spread across the entire island and have 

caused or contributed to the extirpation of most of Guam’s native 

terrestrial vertebrates, including fruit bats, lizards, and 9 of 13 naH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

tive forest bird species. In addition to ecological impacts, brown 

tree snakes also cause millions of dollars in damage to infrastructure and the economy by entering and moving through electrical 

distribution equipment and causing frequent power outages. 

Since 1981, eight brown tree snakes have been reported to have 

reached Hawaii through the movement of civilian and military 

equipment and cargo arriving from Guam. And since the establishment of the Brown Tree Snake Eradiation program on Guam in 

1994, the rate of snake captures associated with cargo shipped to 

Hawaii has declined dramatically. 

Preventing new introductions of invasive species is the most effective approach to protecting native wildlife and their habitats, so 

we work with our partners to control these invasive species and 

minimize their impacts. 

Our partners in these efforts in Hawaii include, of course, my 

partners at this table—Customs and Border Protection, the USDA 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and, of course, State 

agencies such as the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 

The Service has developed and implemented a 5-year strategic 

plan that addresses invasive species in the State and the Pacific region. 

Non-native species can harm economic, ecological, and human 

health interests. The Lacey Act of 1900—the country’s first Federal 

wildlife protection law—was enacted in part to address this concern, and today its injurious wildlife provisions provide the Service’s only regulatory tool to address invasive species at the Federal 

level. Under Title 18, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 

prohibit the importation and interstate transport of species ‘‘designated as injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States.’’ 

The Service is responsible for identifying and listing such species 

through the rulemaking process and we conduct our enforcement 

efforts through the Service’s office of Law Enforcement. This includes the interdiction of species listed as injurious; investigations 

of illegal importation or the interstate transport of federally listed 

injurious wildlife; and assistance to the States in the interception 

of illegal importation and/or transport of invasive species banned 

under State law. And our wildlife inspection program is an important part of this effort. It is part of the Nation’s front-line defense 

against injurious wildlife species. It operates in all 50 States and 

the territories and, again, works hand in hand with the good men 

and women of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. 

I see that I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to exceed, and I believe you have the rest of my written testimony. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Phocas. 

My first question is to Mr. Murley. Mr. Murley, Federal agricultural inspections are a critical component of Homeland Security 

and are considered to be core airport functions. Dangerous pests or 

even agents of bioterrorism can come from domestic locations as 

well as from abroad. In light of the parallel missions of the Federal 

and State agricultural inspectors, would you agree that both State 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

and Federal agricultural inspections must be considered to be core 

airport functions? 

Mr. MURLEY. Yes, sir, Senator, thank you. I do believe that they 

are core inspection functions and responsibilities. As you know, 

CBP’s authority lies in our nexus to international arrivals and departures, and for that reason we are not involved, obviously, with 

the inspection of domestic shipments or passengers. We are strictly 

focused on the international arrivals and departures into the State 

of Hawaii. But it is and has been a very core part of our functions 

here in Hawaii for years, as it is in every other port of entry 

around the country. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Harrington, in August 2006, APHIS promised to complete a 

comprehensive risk assessment specifically for Hawaii within 6 

months. This analysis would evaluate the threats facing our State 

and identify what could be done to address risks unique to Hawaii. 

I understand that HDOA has reviewed the draft analysis and believes that, if implemented, it would dramatically enhance Hawaii’s 

level of protection against invasive species. 

When does USDA plan to release this ground-breaking pathway 

risk analysis? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Thank you, Senator. Like you say, the analysis 

was done, but basically what it was was a lot of information and 

data collecting, and what we did was working—and we have a 

great relationship with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, so 

what we did was we basically went over that, utilized the pathway 

analysis, our years of inspection data, and our expertise, and then 

what we did is we utilized basically all that data and that information, looking at the risks, and to enhance and implement initiatives 

for Hawaii to protect Hawaii, through some of our programs. And 

what we have agreed to do is review what we do and look at the 

risk analysis, evaluate it yearly to see what we need to enhance or 

anywhere that we need to improve. 

Some of the things that we did set up, again, is the Hawaii Risk 

Committee, developing a protocol with the Hawaii Department of 

Agriculture for suspect foreign pests intercepted in domestic cargo. 

That was one of the main concerns, that cargo is being cleared 

from, say, California or somewhere, and this cargo comes through 

Hawaii but still has Federal pests. 

So we work alongside—there is a protocol now where we work 

alongside the Hawaii Department of agriculture so we can track 

that pest all the way back, and if we do find that it is from a port 

coming in of entry, then we can work with our CBP counterparts 

to address those issues, and things like our cooperative agriculture 

pest survey program, our pest detection, so we can find any problem pests as soon as possible, consolidate to the smallest area with 

the possibility of eradication. We have also expanded that program 

to Guam, the Marianas, and American Samoa so that we expand 

again our communication, our pathways, and we can try to mitigate pests before they come. 

But these are some of the activities, and we have a fruit fly detection program, but basically with all the different activities and 

the funding that we are able to partner with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, we utilize that data in the pathway analysis 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

to do that. So it is basically what we consider or what we are using 

it as is a working document to continue to evaluate and enhance 

our program. I hope that answers, but we—— 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, well—— 

Mr. HARRINGTON. That is how we use the document, anyway, 

Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. We wanted to know when the plan would 

be released. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. As far as we utilize the data in there, but any 

final plan I will work with my agency to get when they plan on 

doing that, releasing a final draft. 

Senator AKAKA. OK. 

Mr. Murley, if USDA finalizes this Hawaii comprehensive pathway risk analysis, how would the Honolulu Office of Field Operations adjust its operations to carry out the new enhanced mission? 

Mr. MURLEY. Thank you, Senator. We are always looking at ways 

that we can enhance our enforcement posture in every area, including the agricultural enforcement area. With that data from APHIS, 

we would be able to tailor our inspection processes here in Honolulu to address any new identified risk, any new pathways that we 

could have influence on protecting. And as Mr. Harrington alluded 

to, our ability to reach out to other ports of entry around the country, leverages us to be able to better address those threats at other 

locations that may eventually find their way here to Hawaii in domestic cargo or passenger—— 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Phocas, I agree with you that preventing new introductions 

of invasive species is the most effective approach to protecting native wildlife and their habitats from the impact of these harmful 

species. I want to commend the Service for making prevention a 

primary focus. 

Would you please elaborate on why this is the most efficient and 

effective strategy? 

Mr. PHOCAS. Prevention is, quite simply, very cost effective. It is 

very difficult after the fact, after something has been introduced, 

to try to remove it, to eradicate it, to stop it from spreading, or, 

for that matter, to repair the damage it may have already caused 

whether the damage is to a sensitive ecosystem or to a small business. We have learned this lesson through hard experience, watching our friends and colleagues in Guam deal with the brown tree 

snake invasion and through other examples throughout the Pacific 

and on the mainland. 

So we know that prevention is the correct way to address this 

issue, and we work very hard, again, with our partners in science 

and enforcement, to develop risk analyses that use information 

from past experiences we know where best to channel our resources 

to both stop the entry of these species before they get here and to 

prevent these species from spreading once they have arrived. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. PHOCAS. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Harrington, USDA conducts preclearance inspections in Hawaii to protect the mainland from fruit flies. As was 

discussed during the second panel, currently USDA employees, 

over 400 individuals, conduct outbound inspections of cargo leaving 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

Hawaii for the mainland, yet only a small team of inspectors process domestic cargo coming into the State. 

Why is that investment so uneven, and do you think the balance 

should be re-evaluated? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I am writing this down so I do not miss the 

question, Senator. 

I have statewide approximately a little over—we had 450, but 

with the reduction we have a little over 400 employees. A large 

number, maybe half of that number, is part-time to help with inspection programs. I guess to best answer that, the majority of the 

work is preclearance because of the 318.13 quarantine that Hawaii—not only fruit flies but with other pests going to the mainland. And part of the balance is why we set a program like that 

up. To be able to have an export program out of Hawaii, you have 

to have a strong outbound program. Without a program quarantining and making sure we have that, not only passengers but 

cargo and cut flowers and the different commodities would not be 

able to move out of Hawaii. So we have inspectors doing those activities. We also have inspectors doing plant inspection station. 

But, again, the majority of the work and the funding of our program is for the quarantine of outgoing programs. 

With additional funding, I think it would be great that, we could 

utilize that and we could support and work more with our counterparts, especially with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. What 

we have done in lieu of not having the inspectors, we have increased our cooperative—like our pest detection or different programs. I believe when I came here a year ago—not a year ago, 

about 10 years ago, the program was just for the pest detection, 

early detection program. It was not even $10,000. Now in Hawaii 

and the Pacific, it is closer to $1.2 million, and we continue to try 

and increase that. But I believe, to answer your question, that we 

could benefit from more inspectors and with inbound in assisting 

the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Here is a question for you, Mr. Harrington and Mr. Murley. The 

Animal Damage Control Act requires USDA to prevent the brown 

tree snake from entering Hawaii from Guam. However, I understand that APHIS does not classify BTS as a pest that DHS should 

prevent from entering the United States. In light of statutory requirements and brown tree snake’s potential to cause extreme 

damage to Hawaii, how do you plan to work together to make sure 

BTS does not enter Hawaii? 

Mr. MURLEY. I will go first, Senator. As you point out, it is not 

in CBP’s purview to enforce the brown tree snake program. However, I really have to say that I have confidence in my officers and 

the agriculture specialists out there that are performing inspections in whatever environment, in whatever pathway, that if they 

come across a snake of any kind, an animal of any kind, that will 

get isolated and reported immediately. It is not something that 

falls into our prohibited area, obviously, but our officers know— 

and, I have many examples of inspections that occurred in which 

they encountered something that wasn’t prohibited for CBP purposes, or USDA purposes for that matter, but it was reported to another entity to take action. And I have every confidence that my 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

officers would do the same if they encounter a snake in any environment. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Harrington. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. That program, again, with APHIS, but doesn’t 

fall under plant protection and quarantine, but it does fall under 

wildlife services. I work closely with Mike Pitzler, and I know, in 

fact, they had to evaluate the program, work with the Department 

of Defense and the Interior to secure funding so that it could go 

on through this next fiscal year, and I know they continue to evaluate that. 

We do assist—it is not very often. If we are asked to, if they are 

short, if there is some emergency or there is a suspect shipment, 

they would call us. We do have a couple—of officers in Guam to 

carry out plant protection and quarantine activities. But that is the 

extent of our involvement with the brown tree snake. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Phocas, your testimony raised the issue of 

Hawaii being used as a clearinghouse for the distribution of illegal 

or harmful species of fish and reptiles traveling to and from the 

mainland and even foreign countries. Would you please describe 

how your office is coordinating with HDOA and Federal partners 

to combat this trend and pursue individuals who are running these 

illegal trafficking networks? 

Mr. PHOCAS. Of course, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

This takes two tracks. One is immediately investigating, interdicting, and identifying specific activities that fall under this description, essentially to find the people responsible and prepare 

cases and work with the U.S. Department of Justice or whatever 

facility is required to address that. But equally important are the 

lessons learned during our investigations. We now know techniques 

that perhaps we were not aware of before. We now know the ways 

importers hide certain species and we know more about the markets in which the species are sold or traded. It is incumbent upon 

my officers and I to share this with our Federal partners. This is 

something that we do on a regular basis, and I have to express that 

my partners here at this table are most receptive when we discuss 

our findings with them. These are regular meetings so that we can 

prevent the next attempt. And, again, that is a two-part way to address any specific incident. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Murley, in recent years Customs and Border 

Protection has made significant progress in improving agricultural 

inspections. I would like to commend Kevin Harriger and Dianna 

Bowman for their strong leadership in guiding these efforts. Under 

their leadership I am confident that DHS will be able to establish 

an Office of Agricultural Inspection that can effectively coordinate 

with field operations while enhancing agricultural inspections. 

Do you believe Customs and Border Protection has the leadership that is capable of effectively implementing S. 1673? 

Mr. MURLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will pass those 

compliments on to Mr. Harriger, who is sitting behind me right 

now, and also to Ms. Bowman. 

Obviously, I am an operational person. I am in the field here and 

I have confidence in the structure as it is. We are getting the information and support in terms of resources, staffing, whatever it is 

we need with the current structure. I feel that there have been a 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

number of improvements, as you allude to, in the last few years in 

terms of the structure within the Office of Federal Operations 

(OFO) and providing that focus on agriculture and improving that 

focus on the agriculture mission within CBP. 

So, yes, I am confident that the leadership is focused. It is an 

issue that has received a lot of attention within the agency in the 

last few years and continues to be more and more an important 

part of our focus and our mission, the overall mission of CBP. So 

I am confident, yes, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Murley, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

merged front-line customs, immigration, and agriculture inspectors 

under DHS. However, several Federal inspection agencies were not 

included in the One Face at the Border Initiative. For example, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and even USDA retained responsibility for conducting certain front-line inspections. 

Has Customs and Border Protection been able to effectively coordinate operations with these other front-line inspection agencies? 

Mr. MURLEY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, before 2002 or 

2003 and with the creation of CBP, we worked hand in hand with 

those same entities in the border protection areas. It was a very 

natural fit, for customs, immigration, and the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) or APHIS officers to come together because we 

were present in almost every port of entry around the country. Our 

other partners within the ports of entry, Fish and Wildlife and 

CDC, among others, are still an important part of what we do. We 

enforce the regulations for them, and we coordinate very closely 

with them on a day-to-day basis wherever needed, whether it is 

local, if they are present locally; if we are in a port of entry where 

they are not present, we know how to get in touch with those folks; 

to ensure that their laws and regulations are equally well enforced 

by our agency. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Phocas, you noted in your testimony that the Office of Law 

Enforcement’s Wildlife Inspection Program is an important part of 

the Nation’s front-line defense against harmful wildlife species. 

With wildlife in Honolulu and at 37 other major U.S. airports, 

ocean ports, as well as border crossings, would you like to comment 

on the Service’s coordination with Customs and Border Protection? 

Mr. PHOCAS. I believe it has been very successful, Mr. Chairman. 

Our efforts have always been to work hand in hand with our partners in the Federal inspection services. We are, of course, a small 

agency, so we depend very greatly on working well with our Federal partners, and we find the most efficient ways of doing so. This 

is often through training, sharing of intelligence, working side by 

side. This extends to places where we have a presence that they 

may not. An example would be in Saipan or Guam in the U.S. Territories, outside the U.S. customs zone. But I feel that this has always worked well. We can always try harder, and we strive to 

identify ways to maximize and leverage our efforts to work even 

better with this Federal inspection team. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Harrington, as you know, Hawaii was the last remaining 

place on Earth that supplied disease-free honey queen bees to the 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

31 

rest of the world. State officials strongly opposed USDA’s decision 

to allow diseased honeybees to travel from New Zealand through 

Hawaii on their way to the mainland. Despite the USDA’s assurances that Hawaii would be protected, our State’s bee colonies are 

now infested. 

What analysis does the Department conduct to determine whether to heed concerns from a State that do not apply on the mainland, both generally and specifically in this particular case? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. In the case of the honeybees. 

Senator AKAKA. Of the bees. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I have not worked directly with—we have a 

bee specialist in the region and in headquarters, but I know in the 

case of the bees or other pests, a pest risk analysis would be done, 

an evaluation, what the threat is as far as how secure the inspection, if it is just transiting through Hawaii, and the protocols that 

would need to be followed to mitigate any pests. 

If it is for bees or anything else, I know that is what is done for 

any pests coming into Hawaii, and I believe that was done with the 

honeybees, that they felt that doing the risk analysis and the methods of handling it and safeguarding it transiting through Hawaii, 

that it would not pose a risk, and that is why they allowed the 

movement of the bees through Hawaii. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I want to thank this panel for your testimony and your responses. It will be helpful for us as we consider 

the bill and also think of how we can improve the services out here 

that deal with invasive species. Somehow we need to let the rest 

of the country know how important it is to Hawaii that we do this. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses today for being here. 

This is critically important to the future of Hawaii, and I am so 

glad we are having this hearing, and I look forward to working 

with all of you to make sure our State is protected against invasive 

species. 

I want you to know that the hearing record will remain open for 

2 weeks for additional statements or questions other members may 

have for our witnesses. 

Again, I want to thank you for this hearing today. I think it was 

long in coming, but I am glad that there is coordination, and this 

is something that in a sense we are blessed with in Hawaii. It 

seems as though our different levels—Federal, State, and local levels—do work together, and we need to stress this, that we need to 

continue to work on this, to pick up the phone and talk to each 

other rather than writing letters, which take time, and try to resolve some of these dire problems that we face. 

Of course, what we are doing is to try to keep Hawaii as pristine 

as we can, because it is a beautiful place for the people who live 

here as well our visitors, and we all have a part in this. And let 

me point out, too, that another part of this that we really have not 

talked about is outreach to let the public know about this so they 

can help prevent invasive species from being brought in, and also 

taken out. 

This has been an important hearing, and I thank all of our witnesses. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.001
34 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.002
35 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.003
36 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.004
37 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.005
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.006
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.007
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.008
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.009
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.010
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.011
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.012
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.013
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.014
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.015
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.016
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.017
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.018
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.019
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.020
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.021
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.022
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.023
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.024
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.025
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.026
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.027
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.028
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.029
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.030
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.031
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.032
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.033
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.034
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.035
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.036
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.037
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.038
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.039
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.040
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.041
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.042
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.043
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.044
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.045
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.046
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.047
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.048
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.051
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.052
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.053
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.054
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.055
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.056
87 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


72554.057