    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      U.S. LEADERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL
                     WHALING COMMISSION AND H.R. 2455, THE
          INTERNATIONAL WHALE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

                                    AND THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND
                             THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 6, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-95

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

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

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
      56-336PDF               WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
    GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York           ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
    ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
        Samoa                            DAN BURTON, Indiana
    DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey          ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
    BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts         EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           RON PAUL, Texas
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH,                  CONNIE MACK, Florida
        FloridaAs of 5/6/       JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
        10 deg.                          MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
    JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee            TED POE, Texas
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    LYNN WOOLSEY, California             GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    BARBARA LEE, California
    SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    JIM COSTA, California
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
    RON KLEIN, Florida
                       Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
                    Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
                  Subcommittee on International Organizations,
                           Human Rights and Oversight

                       RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman
    BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts         DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota             RON PAUL, Texas
    DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey          TED POE, Texas
    VACANT
                  Jerry Haldeman, Subcommittee Staff Director
              Paul Berkowitz, Republican Professional Staff Member
                        Mariana Maguire, Staff Associate

                                     ------

          Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment

                ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman
    GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York           DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
                   Lisa Williams, Subcommittee Staff Director
               Daniel Bob, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
                 Nien Su, Republican Professional Staff Member
                           Vili Lei, Staff Associate

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Monica Medina, Esq., Principal Deputy Under Secretary, Office of
      Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration.....................................    12
    The Honorable David A. Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
      of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
      Affairs, U.S. Department of State..............................    20
    Mr. Patrick Ramage, Director, Global Whale Program, International
      Fund for Animal Welfare........................................    37
    Mr. Earl Comstock, Counsel to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
      Commission, Comstock Consulting, LLC...........................    43
    Justin Cooke, Ph.D., Scientific Consultant, Representative to IWC
      Scientific Committee, International Union for the Conservation
      of Nature......................................................    53

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
      from American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the
      Pacific and the Global Environment: Prepared statement.........     5
    The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
      International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight:
      Prepared statement.............................................     9
    Monica Medina, Esq.: Prepared statement..........................    16
    The Honorable David A. Balton: Prepared statement................    22
    Mr. Patrick Ramage: Prepared statement...........................    40
    Mr. Earl Comstock: Prepared statement............................    46
    Justin Cooke, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..........................    56

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    68
    Hearing minutes..................................................    70
    The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign
      Affairs:
      Material submitted for the record..............................    71
      Prepared statement.............................................    76
    The Honorable Bill Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from
      the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Prepared statement..........    78
    The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Missouri: Material submitted for the record.......    80
    The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California: Prepared statement....................    82
    The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Material submitted for the
      record.........................................................    84

    U.S. LEADERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION AND H.R. 2455,
        THE INTERNATIONAL WHALE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010

      House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on International
                Organizations, Human Rights and
                                      Oversight and
                      Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific
                                and the Global Environment,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ
    Carnahan, deg. (chairman of the subcommittee on
    International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight)
    presiding.
        Mr. Carnahan. Good morning. I want to call this joint
    subcommittee hearing of the Subcommittee on International
    Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, and the Subcommittee
    on Asia, the Pacific and Global Environment to order. And
    welcome, all of you.
        And the first thing I want to do is recognize my co-
    chairman here this morning, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the distinguished chairman for
    working together on this bill that we have been working on for
    months to develop, and for conducting hearings. And I do want
    to thank also our distinguished witnesses who will be
    testifying this morning, after we make our opening statements.
        I do want to thank all the interested parties who are here
    with us. And let me just share with my colleagues, and with the
    public, my statement for this hearing.
        Industrial whaling has led to the severe depletion and near
    extinction of many whale species. For decades the international
    community has attempted to find cooperative ways to conserve
    whales, including International Whaling Commission measures
    such as a commercial whaling moratorium, and the creation of
    the Southern Ocean Whales Sanctuary.
        Yet, the IWC's actions have proved ineffective in its
    paramount task of protecting whales. And the Commission's
    influence has waned substantially in recent years, due to
    disputes among the 88 member nations that make up the IWC.
        Last year, for example, with support and assistance from my
    good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt--
    and I am sure that he will be joining us here later--we worked
    together, and we introduced H.R. 2455, the International Whale
    Conservation and Protection Act of 2009, aimed at eliminating
    whaling, which is the most visible threat to whales.
        The bill also targets other key impacts on whale
    populations, such as ozone depletion, chemical and noise
    pollution, marine debris, vessel strikes, entanglement in
    fishing gear, prey depletion, offshore industrial development,
    and escalating threats from climate change and ocean
    acidification.
        All these issues require international cooperation,
    obviously, and American leadership, in my humble opinion, is
    critical in that regard.
        Though H.R. 2455 is not a perfect bill, it has provided a
    start for discussions about whaling. And its structure gives
    the new administration a better chance at providing leadership
    by potentially increasing U.S. leverage in international
    negotiations.
        And the Obama team has, in effect, played an assertive role
    in attempting to restore the IWC's credibility to and protect
    whale populations. As part of a core group of some 12 countries
    within the IWC, the United States contributed to seeking a
    resolution to a number of longstanding issues confronting the
    Commission.
        The administration began its work premised on the principle
    that all nations, whether they engage in or oppose whaling,
    share a common goal in conserving whales. As part of a core
    group of 12 countries within the IWC, the United States
    contributed to the work of the IWC chair and vice chair in
    seeking a resolution to a number of longstanding issues
    confronting the Commission.
        On April 22 of last month, the chair and the vice chair
    released their draft proposal, which will be debated at the
    IWC's annual meeting in Morocco this coming June. That 10-year
    proposal currently under review by the United States and other
    countries begins with the following vision statement, and I
    quote:

              ``International Whaling Commission will work
            cooperatively to improve the conservation and
            management of whale populations and stocks on a
            scientific basis, and through agreed policy
            measures.'' deg.
              ``By improving our knowledge of whales, their
            environment, and the multiple threats that can affect
            their welfare, the Commission will strive to ensure
            that whale populations are healthy and resilient
            components of the marine environment.''

        The IWC notes that under the terms of the draft proposal,
    the three countries that currently set their own catch limits--
    Japan, Norway, and Iceland--would immediately suspend the
    whaling they do based on special permits, objections and
    reservations to IWC rules, and agree instead to sustainable
    catch limits set by the IWC at levels below present ones. They
    would also agree to IWC monitoring, surveillance and control
    measures on their whaling operations, including the placement
    of observers on their whaling vessels.
        According to the IWC, if adopted--and I say this, if--over
    the 10-year period of the proposal, several thousand fewer
    whales will be caught than if the current situation remains.
        Japan's Antarctic whale hunt would fall in stages to 200,
    about a quarter of its size, within 5 years. Iceland would be
    permitted an annual quota of 80 fin whales, less than last
    year's hunt of 125, along with 80 minke whales, while Norway's
    quota would be set at 600 minkes. No other country would be
    permitted to start hunting, and indigenous groups would not be
    affected.
        As an aside, I think it is important to recognize what
    these numbers make clear: Whaling is not an issue simply for
    Japan. Indeed, Norway and Iceland together account for roughly
    the same yearly take as Japan, despite the wide discrepancy in
    population among the three countries with Norway's 4.8 million
    citizens and Iceland's 317,000 population constituting a tiny
    fraction of Japan's population of well over 120 million.
        I also want to note that the new leadership of Japan has
    shown greater willingness to compromise on the issue of
    whaling, and the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and
    Fisheries recently expressed a desire, and I quote, ``to
    continue negotiating with patience,'' according to media
    sources.
        Even so, the IWC draft proposal remains subject to a good
    deal of debate and change, and it is quite possible that no
    agreement will be achieved at all. Thus far, the response to
    the proposal has been mixed, with most of the pro-conservation
    NGOs voicing opposition. In fact, some of these groups have
    been particularly forceful in their disavowal of the proposal,
    as demonstrated by the prominent advertisement about President
    Obama recently placed in the papers by the International Fund
    for Animal Welfare.
        I wanted to show my colleagues and the public the full-page
    ad in the New York Times taken out by our friends at the
    International Fund for Animal Welfare. It says, ``President
    Obama, you promised to end this slaughter. Why is U.S. now
    leading the fight to legalize it?'' I want to submit this to be
    made part of the record, if that is okay with you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        That said, in its current form, the IWC draft proposal
    would appear to share a central goal in the provisions of the
    bill that Congressman Delahunt and I have worked on and has
    been introduced in ensuring the health and the resilience of
    whale populations for generations to come.
        In light of that common goal, the Subcommittee on Asia,
    Pacific and Global Environment, and the Subcommittee on
    International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight feel it
    appropriate to convene this hearing to assess recent
    developments and discuss them in relation to the International
    Whale Conservation and Protection Act of 2009.
        From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, the whaling issue will
    require a cooperative solution. The United States can, and
    must, lead. But, as with any international problem, we cannot
    impose our views on the rest of the world unilaterally and
    expect positive results.
        What we can do is negotiate and persuade. And when we talk
    about numbers, we should insist that they be based on science,
    and not on politics. We should also insist that whatever is
    agreed to in Morocco next month, assuming anything is agreed to
    at all, is both binding and enforceable; and that any whaling
    that does take place is strictly limited to that sanctioned by
    the IWC.
        We are fortunate to have with us today the key
    administration officials to testify. And we certainly look
    forward to their testimonies, as I am sure my good friend, the
    gentleman from Massachusetts, will appropriately introduce our
    administration witnesses at a later time in the hearing.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you. Again,
    in my opening statement I say that the issue of whales
    definitely is an international issue. As I also shared earlier
    with Congressman Delahunt, even in my own island cultures in
    the Pacific, I don't know if some of the friends here in the
    audience have ever seen the Whale Rider; this is our Polynesian
    cousins among the Maoris in New Zealand, have a very, very fond
    affection for these animals.
        And so it is true with our Hawaiians, our Samoans--every
    Polynesian values whales almost like fellow human beings. In
    fact, we consider them just as much as we consider our own
    lives. But I will discuss that at a later point.
        But Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for allowing me
    to give this opening statement. And I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavega
    follows:]Faleomavaega statement deg.

        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And I want to yield myself 5
    minutes for a brief opening statement, and then I am going to
    yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        I thank Mr. Delahunt for his leadership on this issue. When
    he chaired the International Organizations Subcommittee he was
    a champion on this issue. Since he has moved over to be chair
    of the Europe Subcommittee, he continues as vice chair of this
    committee. And so I am going to turn this over to him shortly.
        But I also want to thank Mr. Faleomavaega for his
    leadership on this issue, as well.
        Earlier this year I launched the bipartisan American
    Engagement Caucus with Representative Joseph Cao from
    Louisiana. Mr. Delahunt is also a member of that caucus. And we
    believe it is essential to have international cooperation, but
    also international institutions that work; that work in the
    economic, security, and environmental fields.
        The International Whaling Commission is an example of an
    environmental institution that has struggled recently to
    achieve its core mission of research and addressing emerging
    threats to whales and their habitats.
        The U.S. needs to use all elements of smart power to engage
    their partners to improve IWC and protect the environment. This
    is an issue that is really an international issue.
        I represent a district in Missouri, in our heartland. And
    this is an issue where I live, as well. In fact, I have a
    letter from our world-renowned St. Louis Zoo supporting this
    hearing. And I want to have that placed in the record.
        They say in their letter--I want to briefly quote it--

            ``We hope the hearing will result in strong U.S. global
            leadership of whale conservation and protection, and
            renew America's commitment to whale conservation,
            especially within the international arena, such as the
            IWC.''

        I am pleased to make note that the St. Louis Zoo is
    celebrating its 100-year anniversary this year. Our local zoo
    has done so much to promote the awareness of conservation in so
    many animal species and their habitats.
        So I want to thank again Chairman Delahunt, Chairman
    Faleomavaega, and again welcome our witnesses. I do have a
    conflict today, so I am going to have to excuse myself, but I
    am going to leave you in very good and capable hands.
        And I can't leave this hearing today without reminding Mr.
    Delahunt that my mother, according to her genealogy I had an
    ancestor that was a whaler from Massachusetts. So I guess I
    have this in my blood. Yes. So I am going to turn it over to
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan
    follows:]Carnahan statement deg.

        Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Russ. You know, as Chairman
    Faleomavaega indicated, H.R. 2455 was introduced by him,
    Representative Bordallo, Representative Harano and myself. And
    I think it is there to really demonstrate our collective
    commitment to whale conservation.
        But I also want to note that on the Senate side, the senior
    Senator from Massachusetts, who has a residence, by the way, on
    Nantucket, Senator Kerry introduced a similar bill in the
    United States Senate. And for those who are taking notes, that
    is S. 3116.
        I think I would take this time to remind my colleagues that
    this committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has had a
    long and distinguished history on the protection of whales. We
    have consistently opposed commercial whaling, and supported
    whale protection.
        In 1990, the House approved a resolution, again originating
    in this committee, calling for sanctions against nations
    conducting unjustified lethal whaling research. And virtually
    every year since then, the committee has approved resolutions
    seeking to strengthen and enhance internationally the
    protection of whales.
        Today's hearing will continue this committee's longstanding
    engagement in this issue. We will explore ways for the United
    States to reassert its global leadership in international whale
    conservation and protection.
        In addition to receiving testimony on the legislation, we
    will hear about the ``so-called deal''--I say that in quotes--
    that was released on Earth Day, and will be voted upon,
    presumably, by the International Whaling Commission in June.
        It is important to emphasize that today whales face more
    threats than they did more than two decades ago. Last year more
    whales were killed than in any other year since the
    establishment of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, a
    measure again that was strongly supported by the United States.
        We are aware that member nations of the IWC have been
    meeting in secret, behind closed doors, over the past 3 years,
    to negotiate a new whaling arrangement. Pro-whaling nations are
    advocating a 10-year plan that would legitimize whaling, even
    in the southern ocean whale sanctuary, an internationally
    designated safe haven established in 1994 to protect more than
    80 percent of the world's whales.
        Our witnesses today include administration officials that
    have been engaged in these negotiations, and I am anxious to
    hear from them exactly how this deal is good for the whales. I
    am particularly interested in how this deal maintains the
    moratorium, as stated in the so-called consensus decision.
        The term moratorium is defined in Webster's as suspension
    of an activity, and it would not appear that whaling is being
    suspended.
        So based on what I am aware of at this point in time, I
    would strenuously object to this deal and its provisions. While
    I recognize that Japan, Iceland, and Norway have never ceased
    their whaling activities, and continued limited whaling during
    the international moratorium, this was done in spite of
    international objections, and pursuant to certain loopholes in
    the IWC.
        Instead of fixing these loopholes, I am concerned that the
    administration may have set a course to reward the very nations
    that flouted international agreements by engaging in commercial
    whaling. This course is contrary to every position embraced by
    the United States since the early 1980s.
        In conclusion, let me read a message sent to the IWC that
    states the following:
              ``I want to take this opportunity to affirm the
            United States Government's continuing commitment to
            whale protection, and to urge you to support our
            proposal for an indefinite moratorium on commercial
            whaling.'' deg.
              ``Throughout human history, whales have evoked awe
            and wonder. They are the largest creatures ever to have
            lived on this earth; yet, they also are among the most
            mysterious. It is this mysterious quality that gives
            whales their appeal and increase the importance of
            effective management that could assure whale
            populations for the future.''

        That message was sent on July 17, 1981, by President Ronald
    Reagan. As President Reagan demonstrated, whale protection has
    never been a partisan issue, and it is important to continue
    our bipartisan commitments.
        I look forward to hearing testimony from all of our
    witnesses.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you. And before I yield back, let me
    just say you have truly been the champion on this cause. And I
    am honored to co-sponsor the legislation with you. With that, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Faleomavaega [presiding]. And I just want to say to the
    gentleman, it has been my personal honor, too, and privilege in
    working closely with you for all these months. And our friends
    also, who are very concerned about the conservation of whales
    and bringing about this hearing that we are having today.
        Before I turn the time back to Mr. Delahunt to introduce
    our distinguished witnesses from the administration, I would
    like to recognize one of the members of our subcommittees. I
    know there are a lot of whales in the State of Arizona, and
    that is why he made sure that he would be here to express some
    strong, strong views on why we need to make every effort to do
    what we can do to save our whales.
        So the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Flake. I have no statement. Just glad to be here.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. All right, thank you. Mr. Delahunt, would
    you like to introduce our----
        Mr. Delahunt. Yes, I would, I would be honored to. First we
    have Ambassador David Balton. He is the Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries in the Bureau of
    International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the
    Department of State.
        In March 2005, President Bush, with the consent of the
    Senate, accorded to Mr. Balton the rank of Ambassador during
    his tenure. He previously served for 6 years as director of the
    Office of Marine Conservation at State. In that capacity he was
    responsible for coordinating the development of the U.S.
    foreign policy concerning living marine resources, and
    overseeing U.S. participation in international organizations,
    such as the IWC, dealing with the conservation and management
    of these resources.
        He has negotiated numerous treaties and other international
    agreements on fisheries, marine mammals, and other matters
    pertaining to the marine environment. Welcome, Ambassador.
        Next, Monica Medina is currently the Principal Deputy
    Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the National
    Association and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S.
    Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission.
        She has a lengthy career in marine law and policy dating
    back to her time as senior counsel on the Senate Committee on
    the Environment and Public Works. She was Deputy Associate
    Attorney General at the Department of Justice, with oversight
    of the Environment Division, and also had a previous stint at
    NOAA as General Counsel.
        As U.S. Commissioner, she serves as the head of the U.S.
    delegation to the meetings of the IWC, and leads negotiation on
    issues related to the commission. As such, she will provide
    invaluable insight into the processes that led to this draft
    consensus decision. And I look forward to her testimony.
    Welcome to both of you.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. If I may, I thank the gentleman for
    introducing our witnesses. And I would like to, in terms of the
    order of the witnesses, if Ms. Medina could proceed, and then
    followed by our Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr. Balton.

       STATEMENT OF MONICA MEDINA, ESQ., PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER
    SECRETARY, OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL
                 OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

        Ms. Medina. I would be glad to. Good morning. Thank you
    very much. I believe it is on; maybe I am just speaking too
    quietly.
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
    Thank you for your interest and your close attention to this
    issue and the details of the proposals that are on the table.
        Thank you for your invitation to speak today on behalf of
    the Obama administration about the upcoming 62nd annual meeting
    of the International Whaling Commission, or IWC.
        I am Monica Medina, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for
    Oceans and Atmosphere with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, and I am testifying today in my capacity as the
    U.S. Commissioner to the IWC.
        The goal of the Obama administration is to conserve whales
    and preserve the IWC as the premiere international body for the
    conservation and management of whales.
        The administration reaffirms its unwavering support for the
    commercial whaling moratorium, and believes strongly that
    lethal scientific whaling is unnecessary in modern whale
    conservation and management.
        The administration is also committed to furthering
    discussions of critical issues within the IWC, including the
    future of the organization. For any future arrangement to be
    acceptable, it must, one, result in significant improvement in
    the conservation status of whales for the long term; and two,
    be based on sound science.
        My written testimony includes background information on the
    IWC, and a discussion of the main issues currently confronting
    the organization, a long description of the future process, and
    includes some description of the current proposal by the chair
    and vice chair of the commission.
        The United States's biggest concern at the IWC is that more
    and more whales are being killed. Twenty-four years ago, the
    international community agreed on a moratorium that was
    supposed to stop industrialized commercial whaling; but in
    reality, whaling never ended.
        Look at the situation today. Just three countries--Japan,
    Norway, and Iceland--persist in non-indigenous hunting of
    whales. They justify this by exploiting loopholes in the
    moratorium.
        The unfortunate outcome is clear, and growing more dire
    each year. And I brought a chart; it could be displayed at some
    point. I am not going to speak to it directly, but it does show
    this trend of increased whaling.
        In 1990, three countries killed a total of 300 whales. In
    1995, they killed 750 a year. By 2000, the annual number topped
    1,000 whales per year. By 2005, it was up to 1,700 whales a
    year. And this year, three countries issued themselves quotas--
    and that is quotas--to kill more than 3,100 whales annually.
        Right now, unfortunately, there is little that the IWC can
    do about it. Unless something happens, more and more whales
    will be killed, and there is currently no limit to how many
    whales will be killed in the future.
        Since the ban on commercial whaling in 1986, more than
    35,000 whales have been hunted, and the numbers continue to
    grow. At the same time, the resulting polarization of the IWC
    threatens the viability of the organization as the
    international forum for resolving these issues, for
    coordinating critical research on other issues, and developing
    international agreements to further whale conservation.
        Years, and I do means years, of protracted and unresolved
    debate over the proper means to conserve, utilize, and study
    whales have made many IWC members, including the United States,
    concerned about the body's future relevance in controlling
    unilateral whaling and conserving whale stocks.
        I believe a ceasefire is needed. In fact, it is overdue.
        However, and I do want to say however, the administration
    has concerns with the current proposal put forward by the chair
    and vice chair. And I want to make abundantly clear that if the
    proposal remains unchanged, the U.S. will vote against it.
        In 2008 the commission agreed by consensus to form a small
    working group. The task of the small working group had been to
    develop a package or packages for consensus resolutions
    regarding the future of the IWC for review by the commission.
        The commission is looking for an agreement acceptable to
    all its members, including all of those opposed to commercial
    and scientific whaling. In 2009, a smaller support group was
    established to assist the chair in providing direction to the
    process, and in preparing material for submission to the small
    working group.
        The support group was designed to include a diverse
    geographic and socioeconomic representation of the IWC member
    countries, as well as a range of views on whaling issues. It
    was comprised of 12 countries, including the United States.
        After three meetings of the support group, the chair of the
    commission submitted a report in March of this year to a
    meeting of the small working group in Florida. And that report
    contained a set of ideas about how the IWC could improve its
    function in the future. That document was thoroughly discussed
    at the March meeting, and the chair and vice chair of the IWC
    have since released a revised version of this document as a
    joint proposal to all the commission's members for their
    consideration at the annual meeting in June.
        The United States has indeed participated in the future
    process, in good faith, to try and achieve a number of U.S.
    objectives. These U.S. objectives are to retain and strengthen
    the moratorium on commercial whaling; to bring all whaling
    under IWC control by closing the loopholes that permit
    unlimited whaling today; to transform the IWC to focus squarely
    on conservation, and address the new and emerging threats to
    cetaceans; to recover severely depleted and endangered
    populations of whales; to increase the participation of civil
    society at IWC proceedings; to prevent our subsistence hunts
    from being held hostage by the commission for political
    reasons; and to address the growing international trade and
    black market of whale meat and whale products.
        As you may have recently noted, in the Los Angeles Times,
    there was a sushi bar in Los Angeles actually selling whale
    meat.
        While the United States recognizes that some significant
    achievements have occurred, we are disappointed that the future
    process has not yet been able to achieve a resolution of some
    of the key issues facing the commission. Despite this, we
    believe that the chair's proposal represents a step forward,
    and is a foundation for achieving a functioning IWC and
    improving the conservation of whales.
        We have encouraged other countries to approach the
    discussions with open minds, flexibility, and constructive
    attitudes, in the hope that diplomatic and scientific solutions
    can be reached.
        While the administration has not taken a position on H.R.
    2455, I believe the U.S. objectives, along with our unwavering
    support for improved conservation of whales and the moratorium
    on whaling at the IWC, that we are very much in sync with the
    intent of H.R. 2455.
        As the bill appropriately states, today whales face an
    uncertain future due to a variety of threats. These threats
    include climate change, pollution, ocean noise, ship strikes,
    bycatch, and entanglement. The U.S. would like to see the IWC
    prioritize its work to address these very important issues.
        However, we agree with concerns expressed by the State
    Department that the need for flexibility to strengthen the work
    of the IWC may be slightly inhibited by some of the current
    provisions of H.R. 2455. But we would very much like to work
    with you on that.
        In closing, Mr. Chairmen, while the administration
    recognizes conservation benefits outlined in the proposal put
    forward by the IWC chair and vice chair, we continue to have
    concerns, and would not agree to it in its present form.
        At this time we reserve judgment on any revised proposal,
    pending further discussions both before and at the annual
    meeting in June in Agadir, Morocco. The United States will
    consult with all relevant stakeholders to fully consider the
    elements of the chair and vice chair's proposal.
        In closing, I would like to reiterate that the United
    States's position on whale conservation and management has not
    changed. And I agree with you, Congressman Delahunt, that
    whales do evoke awe and wonder. Our goal is to conserve many
    more whales than the status quo is conserving.
        I would like to ask that two letters be placed in the
    record, one from all the recent chairs of the--I am sorry, all
    the recent U.S. Commissioners to the IWC, both from Republican
    and Democratic administrations, and one from a group of
    scientific chairs, or chairs of the Scientific Committee of the
    IWC. Both of those are relevant to the proposal. And also this
    chart.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Medina
    follows:]Medina deg.

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, those documents will
    be made part of the record. And could you please make sure that
    the staff receives those documents you cited, Madam Secretary.
        Ms. Medina. We will.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. I would also like to note for the
    record that we are joined by another distinguished member of
    our subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
    Ingliss. If he has any opening statement that he would like to
    make at this time.
        All right, then we will proceed on, Secretary Balton, for
    your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID A. BALTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
    SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND
              SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Ambassador Balton. Mr. Chairman, members of the two
    subcommittees, thank you very much for the opportunity to
    testify before you today. I have a written statement, and ask
    that it be included in the record.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, both of your
    statements will be made part of the record, as well. Okay.
        Ambassador Balton. This morning I will try to highlight the
    main points.
        I would like to commend the members of the two
    subcommittees for their interest in strengthening our efforts
    to promote whale conservation, and to improve the functioning
    of the IWC. The United States is a leader in whale conservation
    at the international level, and we can be proud of our record.
        This morning I will try to present the views of the
    Department of State on the issues relating to whaling and whale
    conservation, and particularly how these issues fit into the
    larger framework of U.S. foreign policy.
        For the better part of two decades, divergent views within
    the IWC have led to a prolonged stalemate on these issues And
    as someone who has spent about 20 years negotiating
    international agreements to conserve and manage living marine
    resources, I regard the stalemate as both unfortunate and
    anomalous.
        The stalemate has steadily eroded the stature and
    effectiveness of the IWC as an international organization. At
    this point, the IWC does not meaningfully control the whaling
    activities of Iceland, Norway, or Japan. Indeed, the only
    whaling activities that the IWC oversees closely are the taking
    of whales for indigenous subsistence use, including whaling
    activities undertaken by Alaskan Eskimos.
        Please allow me to quote from a letter Ms. Medina just
    mentioned that President Obama recently received from six past
    U.S. IWC Commissioners. They say,

            ``We have seen the steady decline of the IWC from a
            world-class international organization for the
            conservation and management of the great whales, to a
            nearly dysfunctional body. In short, the IWC is not now
            the sort of international organization we would wish it
            to be.''

        Perhaps more importantly, the stalemate within the IWC also
    affects the broader foreign policy of the United States with
    the nations most involved.
        I wish to emphasize that these nations are allies on a wide
    range of international issues, with each other, and with the
    United States. Australia, New Zealand, member states of the
    European Union, Iceland, Japan, Norway, and the United States
    generally work closely together within the international
    system, including on many environmental and ocean-related
    issues. Many of these nations are military allies, as well.
        The whaling issue is a source of ongoing friction in these
    otherwise healthy relationships. The Department of State
    therefore sees value in seeking a resolution of this stalemate,
    provided that the resolution otherwise serves U.S. interests.
    In our view, moving forward would allow advancement of our
    foreign policy agenda with these and other partners.
        The United States certainly has different views about
    whaling and whale conservation from those who are engaged in
    commercial whaling and lethal scientific whaling. But these
    governments are not our enemies. All of the governments
    involved are participatory democracies who are now engaged with
    us in an honest, if difficult, effort to find a way forward.
        I do not know whether this effort will succeed. If it
    fails, it will be because the IWC members involved simply could
    not find a mutually acceptable formula for resolving
    differences.
        This process still has a chance to succeed, however. I wish
    to underscore what you heard from Ms. Medina. The
    administration does not accept the proposal of the chair and
    vice chairs as it is currently configured.
        I expect that the proposal of the chair and vice chair is
    also unacceptable to most other IWC members, as well. Indeed,
    it has drawn criticism from all sides of the debate.
        That said, the administration also finds the status quo to
    be unacceptable. We oppose the increasing levels of unregulated
    whaling, and we are quite frustrated by the paralysis within
    the IWC.
        Our best hope is for the chair's proposal to serve as a
    springboard on which to jump forward to an arrangement that is
    acceptable. In our view, such an opportunity to improve whale
    conservation and to make the IWC an effective organization once
    again may not present itself again soon.
        This will not be easy. Indeed, some IWC members are under
    increasing political pressure and criticism from constituents
    who believe that the chair's proposal would effectively
    capitulate to those members who want to engage in commercial
    whaling.
        On the other side, some IWC members are under increasing
    political pressure and criticism from their constituents, who
    believe that the chair's proposal would unduly restrict their
    right to harvest whales. My hope is that some acceptable
    solution is nevertheless within reach.
        In conclusion, the status quo is bad for whales and bad for
    the IWC. It hampers our ability to advance our foreign policy
    interests with certain key governments.
        We believe that the effort to negotiate a resolution within
    the IWC represents the best opportunity to resolve this
    longstanding difficult issue, to enhance and strengthen our
    bilateral and multi-lateral relationships, to restore the
    functionality of the IWC, and to conserve whales more
    effectively.
        Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ambassador Balton
    follows:]David Balton deg.

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Secretary Balton. Before
    proceeding on with questions from the members of the
    subcommittee, we are very, indeed, honored to have with us the
    presence of our full committee chairman of the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from
    California, Chairman Berman. I think he does have an opening
    statement that he wants to share with the committee and with
    the public. And I would like to turn the time over to Chairman
    Berman at this time for his statement.
        Chairman Berman. Thank you very much, Chairman
    Faleomavaega. I appreciate this, and I apologize for jumping in
    the middle of this hearing with this statement. I couldn't be
    here at the opening of the hearing.
        I would like, if I could, to get unanimous consent to
    insert into the record a letter from the California Coastal
    Commission to President Obama on the U.S. position at the
    International Whaling Commission.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, the statement will be
    made part of the record, as well as your statement, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Berman. Mr. Chairman, this hearing comes at a
    crucial time, as members of the International Whaling
    Commission prepare to meet next month in Morocco. Despite a ban
    on commercial whaling that has been in place for almost a
    quarter of a century, Japan, Norway, and Iceland continue to
    kill significant numbers of whales every year.
        Japan and Iceland conduct their whaling through a loophole
    in the moratorium for scientific research, while Norway
    objected to the ban, and therefore does not recognize it.
        I agree with those who say that the IWC is broken, when for
    almost a quarter of a century, countries have continued to kill
    whales without limit. Since the ban was implemented in 1986,
    over 12,000 whales have been killed under the scientific
    exemption. I believe very much that the scientific loophole
    should be closed, and that U.S. should encourage Norway as much
    as it can to respect the moratorium.
        Regrettably, a recently released proposal that reflects the
    work of the United States and other members of the IWC fails to
    close this loophole or stop Norway's hunts. Instead, it places
    a cap on the number of whales killed per year. Clearly, there
    are no limits.
        I have several concerns about this proposal. First, I am
    very reluctant to legitimize the actions of whaling countries
    in any situation. Furthermore, questions have been raised on
    whether this proposal would significantly decrease the number
    of killings.
        As nations prepare for meetings in Morocco, the United
    States should build upon the positive achievements made in
    conservation since the moratorium's enactment, and once and for
    all put an end to commercial whaling.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the chairman for his statement.
    And at this time, I know that he is really under pressure with
    time, but if the chairman wishes to raise any questions with
    our administration witnesses, I would be more than happy to
    give him the time.
        Chairman Berman. No. You have been more than generous; I am
    not going to take advantage of that very generous offer. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. At this time I would like to ask my
    friend, Mr. Delahunt, for his questions.
        Mr. Delahunt. Thank you. Ambassador, let me pose this
    question to both of you.
        The market. Where is the bulk of the market for these
    whales that are killed?
        Ambassador Balton. The bulk of the market is in Japan, sir.
        Mr. Delahunt. It is in Japan. You know, I think your
    observation about the IWC and its credibility and legitimacy
    being eroded is a very valid one. And it is really unfortunate,
    and there should be a stronger word than unfortunate, to see
    its legitimacy waning.
        I wonder if we are unable to achieve our goals in Morocco.
    What are the alternatives that we could consider, in terms of
    maintaining our own integrity and position, vis-a-vis the
    protection of whales?
        Ambassador Balton. Well, I can offer one answer. Ms. Medina
    may have something to add, as well.
        If this negotiation fails, and it may, the options we will
    be looking at are not very good. The trend lines are all bad.
    Regulation without control by the IWC may well continue to
    increase, as the chart that was previously up on the screen
    showed. The political will of the countries who have invested a
    lot of time and energy into trying to find the solution may
    well dissipate, and I don't expect that the countries would
    come together again for another serious effort to improve the
    function of the IWC any time soon.
        As for us, we would really need to reconsider our approach
    here. We have been spending a lot of time and effort within the
    IWC process, mostly lately through Ms. Medina and a large team
    we have. If it fails, we will need to reconsider this time and
    energy and money that we have been putting into the process.
        Japan, Norway, and Iceland will also need to reconsider
    what they have been doing.
        Mr. Delahunt. I guess what I am looking for, Ambassador,
    is, what are the options? What are the specific options? Are
    there sanctions? And that is a word that the chairman of the
    full committee is very familiar with. Are there sanctions
    available to deter those three nations from continuing the
    practice of commercial whaling, albeit under a ruse, if you
    will?
        Ambassador Balton. I guess my best answer is this. You are
    not the first to ask that question; the question has come up
    many times before. And the United States, at least, has never
    been willing to impose any meaningful sanctions for whaling
    activities.
        There is a statute on the book, the Pelly Amendment, and I
    am sure you are familiar with it. Countries have been certified
    under the Pelly Amendment for whaling activities. But if what
    you are talking about are serious economic sanctions, or----
        Mr. Delahunt. Targeted, obviously.
        Ambassador Balton. At least, if the past is prologue, there
    has never been a willingness on any administration's part to
    use those sanctions.
        Mr. Delahunt. That doesn't leave us with a viable option. I
    mean, obstinacy on the part of those three, as you indicate,
    friendly and allied governments, the options are disastrous.
        But I think there is sentiment here in Congress that we
    should be pursuing targeted, a targeted, let us call it a
    remedy, for lack of a better term. Because we don't seem to be
    making any progress. That trend line is disturbing.
        And have we ever taken the position, Ms. Medina, that a
    compromise must include a commitment by all countries to end
    whaling? Commercial whaling?
        Ms. Medina. We consistently take the position----
        Mr. Delahunt. Hit that button.
        Ms. Medina. Oh. Is it on now? I am sorry.
        Mr. Delahunt. Sure.
        Ms. Medina. Maybe I am just, again, speaking too softly. We
    consistently take the position that we would like to see all
    whaling ended, all commercial and scientific whaling.
        Mr. Delahunt. And what is the response?
        Ms. Medina. And I do want to be clear, not indigenous
    subsistence whaling.
        Mr. Delahunt. No, we understand that.
        Ms. Medina. But we do, we do want to see that all
    commercial and scientific, lethal scientific whaling end. And
    the other members of the IWC believe that they are whaling and
    using legitimate grounds for conducting their whaling
    activities.
        We hope, although, as I said, and I want to be clear, that
    we are not there yet with this agreement. But this could be a
    step forward.
        When we began this exercise, we realized we couldn't
    rewrite the convention, which is a 65-year-old convention that
    really doesn't fit today's problems. It doesn't even really
    make sense, if you will, in today's world.
        But we couldn't do it in 1 year. It will take a number of
    years to rewrite the convention in a meaningful way, and have
    it fit the problems that we expect whales to face in the
    future.
        So this agreement would be an interim step toward what we
    would hope would be the end to all commercial and scientific
    whaling.
        Mr. Delahunt. But do we, in terms of the discussions
    regarding compromise? Is there an end game here? In other
    words, is there the willingness on the part, particularly of
    these three nations, to commit to end commercial whaling?
        Ms. Medina. I can't say that there is now. On the other
    hand, they have negotiated with us in good faith for the last
    year. And what I can tell you is that compared to where these
    governments were 1 year ago, we have seen much more flexibility
    and interest in some sort of interim agreement that could lead
    to a new convention.
        Mr. Delahunt. My concern about a convention, a new
    convention, is the time to achieve a new treaty is
    considerable. The processes are considerable. And the trend
    line, we have seen what is happening.
        Ms. Medina. That is why the interim step would be to reduce
    whaling, and to put real hard limits, and enforceable limits.
    So we would have an option if somebody were to go beyond those
    limits, one of those nations, we would have enforceability
    within the IWC, which we have not got right now.
        Mr. Delahunt. And they resist that.
        Ms. Medina. No, they are willing to do that in this
    proposal.
        Mr. Delahunt. I yield back. I thank the chairman.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona for
    his questions.
        Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I ask, if you
    totaled up all the indigenous whaling around the world, what
    would that figure be annually?
        Ms. Medina. It is roughly 300 whales a year.
        Mr. Flake. Three hundred?
        Ms. Medina. It dwarfs the amount of commercial and
    scientific whaling, and it is relatively--well. I am sorry.
        Mr. Flake. Sorry. The commercial and scientific whaling
    dwarfs the indigenous whaling.
        Ms. Medina. Yes, indigenous whaling.
        Mr. Flake. No, I understand that. I just wondered what
    percentage it made up of the total. So indigenous is 300, tops,
    annually, everywhere.
        Ms. Medina. Always.
        Mr. Flake. Whether it is in Alaska or wherever else.
    Russia, Greenland, okay.
        Ms. Medina. There is a little bit by Canada that is also
    done outside the IWC. They left the IWC at the time of the
    moratorium, but it is one or two whales. So, minimal.
        Mr. Flake. With the commercial and scientific, which types
    of whales are being taken, for the most part? What is the
    range, and what is the type?
        Ms. Medina. The greatest number of whales are being taken
    in the stock that is probably the most abundant. That is not to
    say that it is in good shape. We don't know. But it is minky
    whales. The largest number in the southern ocean, then in the
    North Atlantic. But it is minky whales, for the most part.
        Mr. Flake. Is there a sensitivity that you sense among
    these three countries to take only from the stocks of the most
    abundant whales? Or, I mean, are they sensitive to that? Can
    you speak to that a little?
        Ms. Medina. One of the first things that we discussed in
    the support group was the fact that we all, especially given
    that we are allies on so many other environmental issues, we
    all believed that science had to be the foundation for whatever
    agreement was forged.
        And so the issue here is which stocks are most able to
    withstand the hunts. And we have a system in the IWC for
    determining that. We haven't been able to apply that system to
    every type or every stock of whale, but we do have good
    abundance estimates on some. And we would be working underneath
    the sustainability numbers.
        So the IWC calculates what is a sustainable amount that
    could be harvested for each of these stocks. And what we are
    looking to do is cap the number of whales taken underneath that
    sustainable number.
        Mr. Flake. Where would you put that right now, that
    sustainable number? If you say there are, how many annually,
    under the commercial, the scientific exemption, or loophole,
    are taken? And where, how does that relate to where you would
    put sustainability?
        Ms. Medina. The numbers in the southern ocean that we are
    talking about in the chair's proposal, which again we haven't
    agreed to yet, we don't think it is acceptable, are below
    sustainable. Well below.
        Mr. Flake. How much? Can you give me some idea?
        Ms. Medina. I think by a lot. I mean, there could be
    thousands harvested sustainably in the southern ocean. The
    problem with the southern ocean, and I want to emphasize it, is
    that the IWC also created a whale sanctuary there. And there is
    a concern, and it is a valid one, that whaling in a sanctuary,
    in this pristine area of the world, isn't appropriate. And that
    is the issue in the southern ocean.
        It is not so much is it the science, are those stocks hurt;
    it is that this was supposed to be an area that was preserved
    for all wildlife, was supposed to be a sanctuary for whales.
    And it is very sensitive. And yet, the Japanese are conducting
    there large-scale industrial-type whaling activities there.
        Mr. Flake. Of the total, Ambassador, of the three
    countries, Japan is the bulk of it. What percentage of the
    whales that are taken are taken by Japanese fleets?
        Ambassador Balton. I am going to say more than two thirds.
        Mr. Flake. And if asked, what do they say, in terms of the
    scientific justification for taking so many whales? What is the
    stock answer there?
        Ambassador Balton. Japan does perform scientific research
    on the whales they take, and probably have the best whale
    science as a result. But it is also true that the products of
    the research have been sold on the open market.
        Mr. Flake. Right. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank the gentleman from Arizona. A
    couple questions I would like to ask.
        You have indicated from your testimony that since 1986,
    35,000 whales have been killed, presumably by these three
    countries: Iceland, Norway, and Japan. What is the total world
    population of whales? We have several types.
        Ms. Medina. Mr. Chairman, that is a hard one to answer. We
    are studying that, and that is one of the reasons why I would
    hope that we can find common ground in the IWC.
        Because as the premiere scientific, international
    scientific organization, we could do a better job of
    understanding global populations and movements than we do now.
    So----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But Madam Secretary, we have been at this
    for 54 years, since 1946. We should have some estimate as to
    the world population of whales, shouldn't we?
        Ambassador Balton. They don't answer the census very well.
        Ms. Medina. I can get you a number.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you submit that?
        Ms. Medina. Very well.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, just yes, I mean----
        Ms. Medina. Absolutely.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. It doesn't have to be every whale, I just
    was curious. If we have killed 35,000 whales since 1986 out of
    the total population of whales, I am not a mathematician, but I
    would think that conservation does come into play in a real
    sense.
        Ms. Medina. Let me say this. If you could put the chart
    back up on the screen, it might help to put this into context.
    Before the moratorium----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. That thing is not very clear because it
    is so small. Are you referring to this chart that I have here?
        Ms. Medina. The chart, the graph.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. You can state for the record what
    the numbers say.
        Ms. Medina. The number here isn't even----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, eventually the number here, just
    say what the number is.
        Ms. Medina. Well, prior to the moratorium, the number of
    whales being hunted and killed was in the thousands, tens of
    thousands----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Before 1986.
        Ms. Medina [continuing]. Before 1986.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Then we started making excuses about
    scientific studies to justify the continuation of the killings,
    right?
        Ms. Medina. Yes. But putting it into context----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So there is an absolution. But then on
    the other hand, there is probably no country in the world other
    than Japan that has more information on the science of whales
    than probably any other country, even more than even our own
    country. Would that be a safe statement to make?
        Ms. Medina. Our scientists would say that we are doing an
    awful lot of whale research. But----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. How do we do the research, compared to
    how the Japanese do it?
        Ms. Medina. We don't do lethal research. We do not conduct
    lethal research. And nor would we. It is possible to take DNA
    samples very----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So we have already done that, as compared
    to what the Japanese have done.
        Ms. Medina. Not any more. We did before, but not any
    longer.
        My point about the moratorium is that the moratorium
    actually did have a beneficial, a tremendous beneficial effect.
    It is, in fact, one of the greatest achievements of the
    environmental movement in the seventies and eighties.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Actually, how many whales were killed
    before the 1986 moratorium?
        Ms. Medina. It was in the tens of thousands each year. And
    it came down as whale populations dwindled. So, but what I can
    say is that, as a result of the moratorium, whale populations
    have started, but only just begun, we believe some of them, to
    rebound.
        The problem is this trend of increased whaling in the face
    of that is not a very good one. That is what we are concerned
    about.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. And your statement, Madam
    Secretary, again, I am just kind of putting it generally, it
    sounds like the administration does not support the proposal.
        Ms. Medina. We do not support the proposal in its current
    form. But we hope that it will provide, as Ambassador Balton
    said, a springboard, a framework, or a foundation on which we
    can conclude negotiations, and improve it enough that the U.S.
    could support it.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And if you strive for improvements, what
    are specific areas for improvement on the proposals that I
    would like for the administration to submit for the record. I
    mean, you say that you have very serious concerns, but can you
    be any more specific about two or three areas that you say
    absolutely you are against this aspect of the proposal? Are we
    in that level right now of where you are very firm in your, in
    the administration's position on this?
        Ms. Medina. We are engaged in almost daily diplomatic
    discussions, in an effort to move our colleagues in the other
    governments. We have been working very hard to have them
    understand that the numbers of whales hunted in the southern
    ocean are very important to us; the number, or the amount of
    whales traded, we would like to see no whale trade occur. Those
    are the most important issues to us right now.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The concern I have, Madam Secretary, just
    as it was mentioned earlier by Chairman Delahunt, is that it
    seems like we are going right back to square one. New Zealand
    and Australia, several other strong countries in areas of
    whaling are absolutely against any aspect of this proposal. And
    it just kind of sinks the whole thing to say well, we are going
    to try and negotiate. Negotiate where? If already it seems, it
    sounds from both of your testimonies, that the administration
    does not support the current, especially the major aspects of
    what the proposal calls for.
        Here is the question. We want no killings at all; that is
    the ultimate. But at the same time, how do you deal with our
    friendly countries, the free countries that say hey, it is none
    of your business; it is part of our culture, it is part of our
    economic needs. The Norwegians and Icelanders love to eat whale
    meat. So how do you measure that in terms of saying well, who
    are you to tell us that we cannot eat whale meat? Just in the
    same way that our indigenous populations say we can eat it,
    too.
        So where do we draw the line in saying that you cannot do
    this?
        Ambassador Balton. Mr. Chairman, I would say you have put
    your finger on why this is a difficult negotiation. But this is
    a negotiation. The positions articulated by Australia, New
    Zealand, Japan, about the chairman's proposal, are all part of
    a larger negotiation.
        I don't know. If this were a Venn diagram, I am not sure
    all the circles are going to touch.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, we had a little problem years
    ago, when our tuna fishing fleet made this claim that because
    tuna was a highly migratory fish, they could conduct fishing
    for tuna anywhere in the world. The heck with the EEZ zones of
    these countries.
        Well, guess what? They had their vessels confiscated. And
    it got to the point where even one of our sailors got caught in
    the Solomon Islands, and it created a furor, a worldwide furor,
    in saying who is this little dinky country there in the South
    Pacific telling my fishing boat, America, that they cannot fish
    for tuna.
        And we all agree, tuna is a highly migratory fish. But it
    goes again to the same question of the EEZ zones of these
    countries, saying hey, when that fish comes through our 200-
    mile EEZ zones, you cannot take the tuna out.
        And so what do we do? Well, they got chased out. They ended
    up in the Russian Pacific, and we're still having problems
    fishing for tuna.
        So I go back to the same questions. How is the world
    community going to tell Iceland and Norway and Japan that they
    cannot kill any more whales because of the consumption demand
    by their people?
        And I think Mr. Delahunt says sanctions. That is one
    option. What, commit a war against these countries for killing
    whales? No, I just wanted to know what other options are
    available. Because we have been at a stalemate for how many
    years now? A good number of years now, I believe.
        Ambassador Balton. We have been at a stalemate for the
    better part of two decades. But we have a negotiating process
    that has a chance to succeed. I don't know if it will succeed,
    but we may. We may get there.
        It may require all sides to accept something less than what
    they optimally want. It would, in any event, only be an interim
    deal. And it may be, Mr. Chairman, that time is ultimately on
    our side. It may be that the markets for whale meat and other
    whale products will eventually dry up entirely, and the problem
    will be solved in that way.
        Until such time, though, we have three countries who very
    much want to continue whaling. We have an interest in
    significant reduction of whaling activities from what we have
    today, and we want to bring such whaling as does exist under
    control.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, there seems to be general consensus
    that the IWC is like a toothless tiger. It has no teeth. It has
    no real enforcement process of saying you can't do this, you
    can't do that.
        And I don't know how we ended up with 88 member countries.
    Every country had whales in their districts? I am curious. It
    became a political football.
        And by way of, I wouldn't call it extortion or bribery, but
    how do you persuade these countries to support you. I think you
    require, what, a three-quarters vote among the 88 member
    countries? And I am curious, 88 members. I didn't realize that
    many countries had whales in their districts. I am just curious
    about that.
        I am also curious that the administration has no comment on
    the bill that Mr. Delahunt and I had introduced for the last
    100 years now. You have no comment? We have had this bill for
    almost 1 year. I guess it is not important? Any provisions in
    there that do not make any sense? Or can you say that maybe we
    can make improvements?
        I would like to ask you for your suggestions. How can we
    improve the bill?
        Ms. Medina. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I said, we would be
    delighted to work with you to work on various provisions of the
    bill.
        What is unusual about it is that it tells the U.S.
    Government what to negotiate, which is----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, we tried to throw even the kitchen
    sink in there, to make sure that something gets moving here, to
    the extent now that we have got the Ways and Means Committee,
    the Resources Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee all
    taking a bite at it.
        And I want to know, maybe we need to separate it so that we
    can get this thing moving in some way. Can you help us with
    that?
        Ms. Medina. Yes, we would be delighted to work with you on
    that. And I do think that the one thing, if you are searching
    for why would the other nations, since they have the right, at
    least they claim, to whale under the Convention now, why would
    they want to have an agreement with us.
        And I think it is because they see legislation like this,
    and they see advertisements like that. And it does have an
    impact on them. And they would like to try and find an answer.
        They also are frustrated, as we are, when they attend IWC
    meetings, and all we do is exchange our verbal accusations and
    spend many weeks every summer--it is an annual meeting, it goes
    on for several weeks--and we don't accomplish anything. And I
    believe they are as frustrated with that as we are.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would also note for the record that I
    think the media has been very unfair toward Japan. We see
    national TV, and looking at the Japanese as the evildoers in
    the killings of whales. But I haven't seen one media shot of
    our environmental friends to go against the Norwegians and the
    Icelanders, and they are killing the whales too. I feel there
    is a real sense of unfairness in how the media has portrayed
    Japan as the evildoer, and I think it is very unfair in that
    respect.
        And I don't know if any of our Americans, fellow Americans,
    know that Japan has had a 400-year cultural history in their
    relationship with the whales. So this is just an appetite,
    indeed, there is also a lot of cultural history behind it in
    that country. Just as it is true with our indigenous friends,
    whether it be in Alaska, Canada, Russia, or other countries.
        But I would deeply appreciate it if the administration
    could get back to us as soon as possible, so we can get this
    bill moving in such a way so that hopefully get it to the
    extent that it will be helpful to the whole idea.
        Now, here is the question. Ultimately, no more killings.
    Option B, there has got to be some kind of a conservation here,
    because I don't think we are going to be able to convince these
    three countries that absolutely believe that whaling is just
    like taking other marine resources for consumption. That is why
    we put on moratoriums. And look what happened to the swordfish
    in New England. We ended up now with 150 long-line boats in
    Hawaii, because the swordfish population is no longer there. So
    what have we done for that?
        So it seems to me that there has got to be some kind of
    conservation measures. And I think this is perhaps the key
    factor in how we can get our three friends to do this. If it is
    for consumption, and it may be in some reduced form, but to say
    that absolutely, that they cannot kill any more whales, I don't
    see how this is ever possible. Maybe I am wrong. Could you
    comment on that?
        Ms. Medina. I think it is only possible if we take the next
    step in this work toward an end to lethal scientific and
    commercial whaling. I don't think it is possible without
    continued diplomacy. I think your points about the perspective
    of the Japanese on their hunts are well taken. And of course,
    that is why the U.S. Government has been engaged in a
    diplomatic process, in order to try and reach an agreement
    among partners.
        But it would be only a step toward what we would hope would
    be an end to commercial and scientific whaling. And at the very
    least, getting it under control; making the IWC a relevant
    organization again, and being able to turn to those other
    conservation issues that are probably----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Madam Secretary, I hate to
    interrupt, but I see that you are speaking about the ideal. But
    the reality is that is not where we are at, and we haven't been
    there for all these years. So we have to really be serious as,
    well, we are making pretensions that we can do it, we can
    negotiate. We negotiate it to death, and the poor whales are
    still being killed left and right.
        So I know I have taken too much of my time. I want to turn
    the time----
        Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, would you yield to me for just
    a moment?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Absolutely. My time is over. This is the
    second round, Bill, for you.
        Mr. Delahunt. Okay. I will be very brief. I mean, you know,
    you are talking about negotiations. Well, implicit in the
    concept of negotiations is leverage.
        I fail to see adequate leverage unless there is a clearly
    defined penalty. And maybe it is unilateral in nature. Or other
    signatories, you know, other similarly minded nations that
    would agree with us that there has to be some economic
    sanctions.
        I just don't see these three countries moving in a
    direction.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Delahunt. Of course.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. This is like the non-proliferation treaty
    that we have been at for so many years. It is okay for the five
    permanent members of the Security Council to continue having
    atomic bombs, but we tell the rest of the world they cannot
    have them.
        And I sense it is the same thing with whaling. It is okay
    for certain countries to do it, but the rest of the world
    cannot. And here is the problem that we have. Where do we
    find--sanctions is being discussed, as has been done. But
    again, a total failure.
        How can we positively persuade our friends to say that
    maybe we can work in some other way? That is just a question I
    wanted to raise to the gentleman.
        Mr. Delahunt. No, and I agree with you, Eni. I mean, there
    has to be a punitive aspect. Not that we want to see, to have
    that punitive aspect infect our relationships with allied and
    friendly nations. But if you are ever going to achieve, in
    negotiations, some progress, people have to have something to
    lose. And right now, there is nothing. They can talk you to
    death, and they can negotiate.
        What you are really having are conversations. I don't see
    it as negotiations. And there has to be some sort of creative
    option that the administration designs and goes to Morocco
    with.
        And I echo the request by the chairman in terms of
    reviewing H.R. 2455 that has been filed by himself, me, and
    several others. Be creative. We are looking, we are trying to
    help you in terms of your negotiating posture.
        Ambassador Balton. We understand that.
        Ms. Medina. We appreciate it.
        Mr. Delahunt. I mean, this is not to be, you know, this is
    not to castigate your efforts. I am sure that you are making
    heroic efforts, Herculean efforts. But you don't have any, you
    don't have any bullets in your gun. Everybody knows it is a
    water pistol, you know? And you have got to load up.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Maybe not even a water pistol.
        Mr. Delahunt. Right. I mean, if the administration is
    sincere--and I think this is how you will be measured,
    particularly by the NGO community--you have to have available a
    punitive economic response. Very targeted.
        And again, I don't know enough about the marketplace, but
    there has to be, again, some creative effort to design a
    punitive measure, so that those stakeholders in those three
    countries are willing to say okay.
        And it doesn't have to just strictly be restricted to
    whales. I mean, the fishing fleets in these countries, in
    addition to whales, what exports to other countries, in terms
    of their fleets, are available for the imposition of sanctions?
    Ambassador?
        Ambassador Balton. Certainly both Norway and Iceland are
    major exporters of fishery products, that is true.
        Mr. Delahunt. That might get their attention, Ambassador.
        Ambassador Balton. I would ask you to consider one thing,
    though. So you might describe Japan, Norway, and Iceland as
    outliers in this; and hence, your desire to consider sanctions.
    But sometimes the--yes, it is, and I will try to speak a little
    more loudly.
        But sometimes the shoe is on the other foot. The United
    States, at different times in our history, has been considered
    an outlier in certain other things.
        Mr. Delahunt. Oh, we are well aware of that. We serve on
    the Foreign Affairs Committee, so we----
        Ambassador Balton. So you know better than I.
        Mr. Delahunt. We do.
        Ambassador Balton. And so that has to be part of the
    calculus, no?
        Mr. Delahunt. Right. And there are times that, you know,
    that Members of Congress have been very critical, in terms of
    administrations--and that is plural--in terms of our own
    behavior. And that is why we have a Committee on Oversight.
        In a democracy, we hopefully can indulge in not just self-
    criticism, but self-analysis to see how our behavior can be
    improved. Oftentimes, you know, Congress will conduct oversight
    in a way that might be interpreted as a sanction on the
    Executive.
        And what we are asking for is that kind of analysis to be
    conducted in terms of your negotiation. I would respectfully
    suggest we have got to move from conversation into real
    negotiation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I have another juicy issue to share
    with both of you. What about shark-finning? What about the poor
    sharks out there? Merciless killing, I mean, of just taking the
    fins, and destroying the carcass and not of any use. And that
    is another serious, serious issue. What is the world community
    doing about that?
        You know, a little bowl of shark fin soup in Asia is about
    $100. There is a tremendous economic consumption demand for
    shark fin soup. What about the bycatch? Tremendous amount of
    fish that is wasted, that we just don't seem to pay any
    attention to any more than we are paying attention to the
    whales.
        Ambassador Balton. On shark-finning, sir, I can thank the
    Congress, which passed the Shark-Finning Prohibition Act of
    2000, we have actually made some progress. We have gotten the
    different regional fishery management organizations to prohibit
    the practice.
        It still continues, nevertheless. We are trying to find
    ways to better enforce the prohibitions. You are right to point
    out that it is still a problem that is not yet fully solved.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. In fairness to our friends from Iceland
    and Norway and Japan, I don't know if there are any
    representatives from the embassies of Iceland, Norway, and
    Japan. I would be more than happy to open the record. We will
    request submissions and statements from their respective
    governments, and their point of view, at least in fairness to
    them, so that they can have their say in what we are discussing
    this morning.
        But Madam Secretary and Ambassador, I really want to thank
    both of you for spending the time and having to get grilled by
    Mr. Delahunt on these important questions about this issue.
        Thank you. We look forward to working with you. And please
    help us move this bill. If you really think it is helping, we
    will be helpful in seeing how we can better shape this issue,
    so that we can really help those whales.
        Like I said, it was my privilege to sail on the Polynesian
    voyaging canoe called the Hokulea, from Tahiti to Hawaii. And
    for some 26 days, it was almost like I was living about 1,000
    years ago with my ancestors. And every morning and every
    evening are the most beautiful sunsets and sunrises, the
    dolphins chasing us, and also whales.
        Mr. Delahunt. I want to go on the next trip. Get away from
    this madness.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Isn't that the truth. But anyway, thank
    you both very much, and we look forward to working with you on
    this bill.
        Mr. Delahunt. What are the dates of the Morocco conference?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. It is June something, next month.
        Ambassador Balton. The plenary week is June 22 or 23 to the
    26th. But there are 3 weeks in advance of that; 2 weeks of the
    Scientific Committee, a week of subcommittees, and then the
    plenary. So it is 4 weeks.
        Mr. Delahunt. Thank you.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. We have on our next
    panel with us this morning, Dr. Justin Cooke who, I think he
    just arrived, coming all the way from the other side of the
    world here to join us for the hearing this morning.
        Dr. Justin Cooke is a member of the International Union for
    the Conservation of Nature in the Specialist Group with the IWC
    Scientific Committee, and specializes in the quantification of
    risks to marine populations due to exploitation and other
    factors. His work includes a modeling of an estimation of whale
    demography. He developed a quantitative component for the IWC's
    revised management procedures. So we have got a good expert
    here who works directly with the IWC's Scientific Committee.
        Also with us this morning, we have Mr. Patrick Ramage. Mr.
    Ramage was named the Global Whale Program manager 3 years ago.
    In his role, Mr. Ramage leads IFAW's efforts worldwide to
    protect whales from threats. This includes promoting practical
    solutions to end commercial whaling, as well as reduce habitat
    destruction, ocean pollution, high-intensity ocean noise, ship
    strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, and the emerging threat
    of global climate change.
        Mr. Ramage is a graduate of the Defense Language Institute
    and has European foreign language training; well-versed in
    German and Russian; is a U.S. military intelligence officer;
    lives in Massachusetts, and probably a member of your
    constituency there, Mr. Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. I suspect he is, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Also we have with us Mr. Earl Comstock.
    He is the CEO of the Comstock Consulting Firm. Has served as
    counsel for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission for 2 years
    now. In that capacity, he advises the Whaling Commission on
    Congress, the executive branch, and the International Whaling
    Commission.
        He also works with the AEWC to negotiate conflict avoidance
    agreements. Mr. Comstock served from 1987 to 1997 in various
    capacities as a senior staff member to the former Senator Ted
    Stevens from Alaska, and also on the staff of the Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. And from
    1987 to 1991, Mr. Comstock was the professional staff member of
    the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries.
        So these gentlemen are very familiar with the marine
    sciences, and the committee is very appreciative of their
    efforts to come all the way here to testify. And let us start
    with Mr. Ramage for his testimony. We will proceed on this.

        STATEMENT OF MR. PATRICK RAMAGE, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL WHALE
             PROGRAM, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE

        Mr. Ramage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I am
    Patrick Ramage, Global Whale Program Director at the
    International Fund for Animal Welfare, or IFAW, one of the
    world's leading non-governmental organizations working to
    conserve and protect whales.
        I have attended 12 of the past 14 annual meetings of the
    International Whaling Commission, or IWC. Informed by this
    experience, I would like to offer several points that may
    provide additional context for our discussion this morning.
        But before I do so, let me admit bias. If there is a full-
    time whale conservation advocate who worked harder to elect
    President Obama, I have yet to meet them. I worked hard for
    then-candidate Obama in three primary contests and the general
    election, and I am proud to have done so.
        I must also confess almost two decades of admiration for
    Monica Medina, a long-time friend and sometime colleague, for
    whom I have no small amount of affection. I appreciate
    Ambassador David Balton's committed public service, and both
    the legal acumen and the clients represented on this panel by
    Earl Comstock.
        My family, my wife and three children, are in fact lucky to
    call Bill Delahunt our Congressman. And I am also a fan of
    yours, Congressman Faleomavaega, both for your early work on
    shark-finning, and more particularly since your introduction of
    H.R. 2455 almost 1 year ago.
        Now that you know my slants, let me give it to you
    straight. While I believe our Commissioner's motivation is very
    genuine, I believe the proposal she and others have negotiated
    is a fake. That its adoption by the IWC would weaken, not
    strengthen, protection for whales worldwide.
        And further, that United States support for this proposal
    represents an irresponsible, and perhaps irreversible, u-turn
    after decades of United States leadership and slow, but steady,
    conservation progress at the IWC.
        A few contextual points. First, as has already been
    mentioned, our planet's whales are not saved. They face more
    threats today than ever before in history.
        Second, engaged United States leadership is a prerequisite
    for effective international whale conservation. The IWC was
    created here in Washington. Its most important conservation
    achievements, including the moratorium on commercial whaling
    adopted in 1982, and the declaration of the Southern Ocean
    Whale Sanctuary in 1994, were only achieved with creative high-
    level support and consistent engagement from the United States.
        Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not take a wait-and-see
    approach to this important issue. They led.
        Third, Americans from sea to shining sea are united in
    their support for whale conservation, and their opposition to
    whaling for commercial purposes by Japan, Norway, and Iceland,
    whether that whaling is conducted in open defiance of the
    moratorium or under the guise of science.
        The reaction to the IWC chairman's draft proposal is
    similarly striking. Not a single environmental, animal
    protection, or wildlife conservation group supports adoption of
    this proposal.
        How, then, did we get to the point where a plan to
    legitimize the cruel and outmoded commercial whaling industry
    is introduced on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, and is
    actually being seriously considered?
        To be fair, the Obama administration did not initiate the
    misguided negotiating process that led to this proposal. They
    inherited it.
        In the weeks following the inauguration, newly appointed
    officials faced a choice: Withdraw from the ongoing process, or
    continue it and see what concessions, if any, Japan, Iceland,
    and Norway, the last three countries still killing whales for
    commercial purposes, might be willing to make.
        The no-drama administration chose the latter course. But in
    keeping with President Obama's welcome commitment to sound
    science and transparency, the White House also publicly
    articulated criteria by which it would evaluate any proposal.
    Among these, that the commercial whaling moratorium must be
    maintained. That any compromise proposal should be based on
    sound science. And that to be acceptable, any proposal must
    also offer a significant conservation benefit to the whales.
        Measured against these criteria, the chairman's proposal
    fails miserably, and the Obama administration must reject it.
        To suggest, after all these negotiations, that we need to
    wait until the IWC meeting next month in Agadir to learn the
    details of this proposal and the position of our Government
    suggests either incompetence, intellectual dishonesty, or
    inadequate reflection on the serious questions it raises.
        This is a bad deal for whales and the convention
    established to conserve them. It ignores the moratorium. It
    makes a mockery of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. It
    grants new rights to Japan, Iceland, and Norway to openly kill
    thousands of whales. It end-runs scientific procedures adopted
    by consensus to reward the three countries who have refused to
    play by the rules.
        The promised benefits to whales are either nowhere in
    sight, or the result of sleight of hand. A whale sanctuary is
    finally established in the South Atlantic, where no whaling
    exists. A conservation program committee is established,
    needlessly recreating a conservation committee in place since
    2003. Elaborate observer and monitoring schemes, which will be
    funded by U.S. taxpayers, and an inadequate DNA tracking scheme
    are also established.
        Having outlined what I and the overwhelming majority of
    long-time observers are against, what does change we can
    believe in look like for whales in the IWC? It has six specific
    elements, which are elaborated in my written testimony, but I
    will give you just the headlines now.
        Ensuring Japan's whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale
    Sanctuary is brought to an end. Ending international trade in
    whale products. Adhering to agreed IWC scientific procedures.
    Ensuring no commercial takes of threatened species and
    populations. Specific actions to end so-called scientific
    whaling. And meaningful guarantees regarding objections and
    enforcement.
        I returned 3 weeks ago from my thirtieth trip to Japan.
    From my many, many meetings with Japanese Government officials,
    I can tell you, there is no serious support in Japan for
    continuing whaling in the international waters of the Southern
    Ocean Sanctuary.
        The same general attitude is playing out in Iceland and
    Norway, as well. The domestic market for whale meat is in
    freefall in all three countries.
        Whatever the fate of the chair's proposal and your
    legislation, the United States has a rare window of opportunity
    and a profound obligation to significantly improve the
    situation at the Whaling Commission, and in the water, for our
    planet's great whales, and to lead the world toward the
    ultimate end of commercial whaling. This will be achieved not
    through a rushed effort to negotiate peace for our time in the
    IWC; but rather, through a more consistent, persistent,
    creative, and long-term approach, both inside and well beyond
    the IWC. A more Japanese approach, if you will, to convey to
    the Governments of Japan, Iceland, and Norway that the United
    States and other conservation-minded countries at the IWC are
    as serious about conserving whales as their fisheries'
    bureaucrats are about resuscitating commercial whaling in the
    21st century.
        On behalf of a unified conservation community, I urge you
    to advance the positive vision called for in the thoughtful
    legislation you introduced in H.R. 2455, and the companion
    legislation advanced by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts in the
    form of Senate 3116.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ramage
    follows:]Patrik Ramage deg.

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. And without objection, all of
    your statements will be made part of the record. And if you
    have any additional materials to be added onto it, you are
    welcome, too.
        Mr. Comstock for your statement.

     STATEMENT OF MR. EARL COMSTOCK, COUNSEL TO THE ALASKA ESKIMO
              WHALING COMMISSION, COMSTOCK CONSULTING, LLC

        Mr. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
    be here. And Mr. Delahunt, thank you, both of you, for having
    Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission here to testify. Our chairman,
    Harry Brower, would have been here, but he landed a whale a
    couple of days ago, and whaling is actively going on up in the
    communities on the North Slope there. So he was unable to
    leave.
        The Inupiat Eskimos of the coastal villages of the Northern
    Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Beaufort Sea have hunted
    the bowhead whale for over 1,000 years. Today there are 11
    communities on the North Slope of Alaska, ranging from St.
    Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea to Kaktovic in the Beaufort,
    that still hunt the bowhead whale to provide a critical source
    of nutrition for the people in these communities.
        All of these villages, as you gentlemen may know, are
    accessible only by air, or, in the short summer months, by
    boat. So the meat that is provided by this subsistence hunting
    is critical to the diet of these villages.
        In addition, these communities turn out to harvest these
    whales. And so it is, the communal function of the activity of
    whaling is also very important to the culture of the Inupiat
    Eskimo.
        The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was formed in 1980 by
    the whaling captains in response to a decision by the
    International Whaling Commission to set a zero quota on bowhead
    whales. As you can imagine, this caused quite a crisis in the
    community; and now, 30 years later, we have been working
    through this process for quite some time.
        In the course of doing that, the AWC was formed. And its
    mission is to protect the bowhead whale and the subsistence
    hunt. Over those 30 years, the AWC, working with the United
    States Government, the environmental community, and the IWC,
    has now established what is widely known as sort of the gold
    standard for subsistence whaling at the IWC, and in fact, the
    model worldwide for the use of basically indigenous subsistence
    resource management to handle stock.
        It has been a long and difficult and expensive process for
    the AWC and the whaling communities up there. And we have
    basically met every hurdle that has been placed in our way. We
    have met everything that the commission has said, including,
    over the course of that time, documenting and establishing a
    scientific process for documenting subsistence need, for
    modernizing the 19th century whaling tools that are used and
    marrying them with 20th century technology so that we can
    improve the humaneness of the hunt, and we have also
    established some of the leading-edge scientific research on the
    status of the bowhead stock. Including a program that is
    ongoing today where they actually use the hunters with their
    skills to tag the whales with a satellite tag, so we can now
    actually follow these whales throughout the year and see where
    they actually go. It is an exciting program, and they are very
    proud of it.
        Our role in the IWC frankly has been the political
    football. We know, as you heard in earlier testimony, that the
    IWC is at crisis point. It has become exceedingly
    dysfunctional. And in fact, I was at the 2002 meeting in
    Shimonoseki, where the Japanese successfully blocked the
    approval of a subsistence quota for the Alaskans. And that
    precipitated yet another crisis. And in the ensuing 6 months,
    where the quota was reinstated, what happened was Iceland was
    able to then slip back into the IWC, with the reservation under
    which they now conduct their whaling.
        So we are pushed and pulled back and forth. I mean,
    frankly, we are caught in the middle. And what everybody has
    figured out over this time is that if you want to get the
    United States's attention, what you do is you hold our quota
    hostage. We were up in 2007, and that process happened, almost,
    again. Thankfully, the meeting was held at Anchorage, and so,
    with the tremendous efforts of Senator Stevens and the U.S.
    delegation, we were able to keep the quota from being held
    hostage that year. But we are up again in 2012. And so we see
    this coming again. And in fact, we have been told by some of
    the countries that we will not see our quota reauthorized.
        So I am here today to say that we do support the process
    that is going forward on this future negotiation. It is not,
    the document that has been introduced is not a perfect
    document; we recognize that. We would like to see some
    improvements ourselves. And we know our colleagues here, and we
    have worked with Patrick and many of the other environmental
    groups for many years, would like to see changes to that
    document. We are all for that.
        But our key concern, and what I am here to testify to you
    today about, is we really need to find a way to get subsistence
    whaling out of the middle of this mix. Because what is
    happening is these communities that depend on whaling for a
    critical source of their nutrition are being increasingly taken
    hostage by both sides as a means for getting the various
    governments' attention, and trying to negotiate something.
        And if you can imagine this, there was discussion earlier
    about why do we have 88 countries at this; 88 countries are now
    getting together for almost 2 weeks a year. And the sole thing
    they seem to be able to focus their discussions on is
    subsistence whaling.
        All of the other stuff, all of the other important issues--
    ship strikes, climate change, commercial whaling--those aren't
    discussed at all. They are talked about on the edges and in the
    shadows of the meetings. But when you get to the floor debate,
    what happens? Subsistence whaling gets to be front and center
    because it is the only thing they can agree on.
        So the status quo is a continuing stalemate. And we would
    like to see the process move forward. As your bill, Mr.
    Chairman, points out, there are many things the U.S. needs to
    do. They have exercised the leadership role throughout this
    process. But in exercising that role, it has also made our
    quota a target.
        So the good thing we see in this proposal is that it would
    grant a 10-year subsistence quota. That takes us out of the
    picture. And that, frankly, frees the United States, then, to
    engage in exactly the kind of leadership that you are hearing
    the other parties testify needs to be done.
        If we are not there to be held hostage, you have got a lot
    more room.
        And let me just say in concluding my testimony, as someone
    who participated in several international fishery negotiations,
    and has been at the IWC for various, well, 10 different times
    now over the past 20 years, you can't achieve all of this at
    once. In any of these negotiations, if you say we must have
    everything at the start, you won't get there.
        So the key is setting up a framework that allows you to
    continue to push your objectives over the period of time. That
    is what this document does.
        And so we would urge you to support the U.S. delegation,
    give them the flexibility to negotiate the best possible
    agreement they can, one that protects subsistence and
    accomplishes as many of the U.S. objectives as possible. And
    then as long as that framework allows for the continued
    pressing of those objectives that you weren't successful on
    achieving entirely, we think you have got something that is
    worth moving forward on. So we would encourage you to do that.
        Thank you for taking my testimony today, and I would be
    happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Comstock
    follows:]Earl Comstock deg.

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Comstock. Dr. Cooke, for
    your testimony.

       STATEMENT OF JUSTIN COOKE, PH.D., SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT,
    REPRESENTATIVE TO IWC SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL UNION
                     FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE

        Mr. Cooke. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am Justin Cooke, a
    mathematician and biologist based in Germany, specializing in
    the quantitative assessment of biological populations.
        Since the 1980s I have been a representative of the
    International Union for the Conservation of Nature on the
    Scientific Committee of the IWC.
        I have been invited here specifically to comment on the
    proposed deal between the pro- and anti-whaling members of the
    International Whaling Commission. But first I want to say what
    an honor it is for me to be invited to testify for your
    subcommittee, and that I am thrilled to be here on the Hill
    talking to you today.
        On the IWC Scientific Committee I have been particularly
    active in the development of the so-called revised management
    procedure, RMP. And because the proposed deal makes several
    references, both to the Scientific Committee and to the RMP, I
    will start by explaining briefly what these are.
        The IWC is required by its charter to base its decisions on
    scientific findings. And for this purpose, it has a Scientific
    Committee, which has, in recent years, become recognized as a
    world authority on the state of the world's whale stocks and
    the science of sustainable whale management.
        Its members include representatives of both whaling and
    non-whaling countries, as well as a number of independents. It
    reaches its conclusions and recommendations mainly by
    consensus, such consensus being reached usually after very
    thorough examination of the evidence.
        Shortly after the moratorium on commercial whaling came
    into force in the 1980s, the Scientific Committee started to
    analyze what it calls the failure of previous attempts to put
    the management of whaling onto a sustainable basis. The
    committee soon recognized that, for the event that the IWC
    might decide to lift the whaling moratorium at some future
    date----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Is your mic on, Dr. Cooke?
        Mr. Cooke. I am sorry.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. Could you get a little closer?
        Mr. Cooke. Is that better?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
        Mr. Cooke. Okay. The committee soon recognized that for the
    event that the IWC would decide to lift the moratorium at some
    future date, the committee needed to develop a revised
    management procedure that would provide a robust scientific
    basis for ensuring that any future whaling would be managed
    sustainably.
        The procedure that emerged is a data-based rule for
    determining sustainable catch limits, with a margin of safety
    sufficient to cover almost all conceivable circumstances.
        It was unanimously recommended by the Scientific Committee,
    and was also endorsed by an independent scientific review panel
    appointed here in the U.S. by the National Marine Fishery
    Service. The IWC itself has endorsed the RMP in principle, in a
    number of consensus resolutions.
        The proposed deal before us contains as yet no agreed
    numbers for how many whales of each species would be killed. As
    explained in the covering note by the IWC chairman, the numbers
    in the current draft proposal are merely examples inserted by
    him as spaceholders for final numbers yet to be negotiated.
        The proposed deal mentions the RMP several times, but when
    you look at it closely, it does not provide for it to be used
    for the determination of sustainable catch limits. The numbers
    are instead to be agreed through political negotiation behind
    closed doors.
        The proposal contains a provision that catch limits would
    be reduced it RMP catch limits are found to be lower. But this
    provision doesn't mean what it appears to mean. The proposal
    does not reference the official published version of the RMP,
    but refers to unspecified latest versions of the procedure.
        A number of alternative procedures have been developed in
    various quarters that claim to be later versions of the RMP.
    None of them have been subject to serious scientific scrutiny.
    They would allow higher catches, but only by modifying the
    notion of sustainability so drastically that it no longer bears
    any relation to what people commonly understand by the term.
        The proposal contains a program of RMP-related work for the
    Scientific Committee, but closer inspection reveals this to be
    a mere decoy; more like a program of occupational therapy for
    the scientists. There is no provision for the results of this
    work to feed back into the management decisions.
        The committee is instructed to continue work on preparing
    RMP implementations for different whale species and areas, but
    has been told not to calculate any actual numbers. The
    calculation of catch limits is to be left to unspecified
    players free to use versions of the RMP, whose safety has not
    been tested by the committee for the species in areas in
    question.
        The proposal, as written, is therefore somewhat
    disingenuous, and I suspect that it will fool a number of
    people. It fooled me, on first reading. The true nature of the
    scam only dawned on me after reading the text several times,
    and even then only with the benefit of many years of experience
    with the IWC procedures that enables me to relate such a text
    to how it would actually be implemented in practice. Those
    without the benefit of such experience will find it even harder
    to discern what the text really implies than to spot the scam.
        I consider the move to sideline the Scientific Committee
    and to sidestep accepted scientific procedures to be a
    retrograde step, and to be very unwise. The proposal before us
    is back to front; it tries to divide the cake before we know
    how big the cake is.
        It would make more sense first to have the Scientific
    Committee calculate maximum sustainable catches for each whale
    stock in a transparent, verifiable manner, using the agreed and
    established procedures. For at least half of the whale stocks
    in question, this could be done straightaway, because the
    implementation work has been completed. All that we require is
    a green light.
        These maximum limits would then define the outer bounds for
    what the diplomats have left to negotiate over. That approach
    would ensure a transparent separation of science and politics,
    instead of the rather oblique mixture of quasi-science and
    politically negotiated numbers that characterizes the current
    proposal.
        Finally, I should emphasize that none of what I have said
    should be construed as criticism of the very sincere efforts of
    the U.S. delegation to these negotiations, led by the U.S. IWC
    Commissioner Monica Medina. I know that Monica has been highly
    motivated to achieve the best possible deal for the world's
    whales.
        However, we need to appreciate that one is dealing here
    with very experienced negotiators from the whaling countries
    who know the whaling issue inside-out, who are on top of the
    science, and who have plenty of skill and practice in carving
    out deals that aren't what they seem to be. Such negotiations
    require a good grasp of all aspects of the subject matter.
        To sum up, I warn against endorsement of this proposal, and
    advocate instead a two-stage approach, as I have just outlined,
    that would keep the political and scientific aspects separate,
    and ensure that all measures taken are based on a strong and
    transparent scientific consensus.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke
    follows:]Justin Cooke deg.

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much, Dr. Cooke, for your
    statement. My apologies if I do not pronounce your name right,
    is it Mr. Ramage, or Mr. Ramage?
        Mr. Ramage. I have been called a lot worse. It is Ramage.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. Thank you. I have some questions I
    wanted to share with you gentlemen.
        All three of you I assume were here when Secretary Medina
    and Secretary Balton were testifying. And I don't know if Mr.
    Delahunt and I have missed any of our sense of concerns in the
    questions that were raised with the administration's position.
        I know that Mr. Ramage, you were very specific in terms of
    your stated opinions on the Obama administration and their lack
    of initiative and leadership on this issue of whaling.
        I wanted just to ask you if there is any sense of comfort
    from what Secretary Medina and Secretary Balton are both
    saying. It seems like they are not supporting the proposal. Is
    this--maybe I misread what their statements were earlier when
    they testified. But what is your take on this?
        Mr. Ramage. Well, I think their reassurances were familiar
    only in this--I am sorry--were comforting, only in the sense
    that they are very familiar.
        The position, public position of the administration is that
    they find the chairman's proposal unacceptable. But, as
    articulated this morning, they hold out the hope that it is a
    good basis for negotiation. And they are going to decide on the
    spot in Agadir what the position of the United States might be.
        The fervent hope of the participants in the drafting
    group--and this has been palpable in the meetings, the lone,
    open meeting held 2 months ago in Florida, where accredited
    NGOs were allowed to attend, and the many closed meetings, as
    well, which some of us have sat outside.
        But the fervent hope of those participants, and in fact the
    chair--and he refers to this in the proposal--is that cover-up
    consensus can be used in Agadir to put through----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you elaborate on what you mean by
    cover-up consensus?
        Mr. Ramage. Well, what is hoped for is that all countries
    will come together, hold hands--some of them will have to hold
    their noses, given the flaws in the document that we have
    reviewed this morning--close their eyes, and jump into this new
    arrangement. Loudly saying that it is a significant
    conservation benefit for whales.
        But the package fails in some important respects that have
    already been highlighted, both in your questioning and by other
    testimony this morning.
        I hasten to add, though, that this isn't a question of
    effort, certainly not on the part of the U.S. Commissioner, who
    has been about this 24/7 since being appointed by the
    President, and even before in a kind of functional capacity.
        But I don't think that the higher-level engagement and
    creativity that both you and Congressman Delahunt have referred
    to has been there from others in the administration. And that
    leverage that Congressman Delahunt highlighted is so crucial to
    a negotiation has been utterly absent.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Comstock, you raised some very, very
    interesting points about the fact that your testimony,
    especially the interests of our indigenous peoples and their
    interest in doing subsistence whaling. And I am glad that Dr.
    Cooke is here, that maybe you can give us a little bit of
    enlightenment in terms of the proceedings that we had in the
    past.
        Why is it that it seems that the focus of the IWC now is on
    the concerns about indigenous whaling, and forgetting about all
    other aspects of the seriousness of the conduct of whaling
    operations that have been done by Japan and Norway and Iceland
    for all these years?
        And I wanted to ask Dr. Cooke for his comment, if Mr.
    Comstock's observations have been very accurate about the
    agenda and the subject matter that has been discussed at the
    IWC meetings. And the fact that they talk more about indigenous
    needs than they are about the commercial aspects of the
    problems that we are faced with.
        Mr. Cooke. Mr. Comstock can give a better answer to that
    question regarding the political negotiations in the IWC. I am
    a member of the Scientific Committee.
        With regard to the scientific aspects, we have had for a
    number of years what we call the Aboriginal Whaling Management
    Procedure, which is the basis we use to estimate sustainable
    catch limits for aboriginal whaling. And that has functioned, I
    believe, very well. There have been virtually no complaints
    from any quarters about the functioning of it.
        And the intention under the chair's proposal is that the
    arrangements for aboriginal whaling will remain effectively the
    same as they have been. I believe the only reason why it was
    found necessary to include them in the proposal at all is what
    Mr. Comstock just explained was a way of kind of fixing them in
    place, so that they wouldn't become political, it wouldn't
    become a kind of political football again, as it has in the
    past.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But it seems to me, then, and please
    correct me if I am wrong, if I heard right what Mr. Comstock
    was sharing with us, that while exposing the development of the
    agenda and the issues to be discussed by the IWC, by the time
    you get through with it you talk more about the indigenous
    problems posed and stuff. And yet no one pitching on the
    commercial problems that we are dealing with with the three
    friendly countries that continue to conduct commercial
    operations in the killing of the whales. Is this an accurate
    description of how the IWC seems to be conducting its meetings?
        Mr. Cooke. Well, one of the reasons for that is that some
    years ago, when the management procedure for commercial whaling
    was finalized, the Scientific Committee was given a kind of
    muzzle. It was told that it should not calculate any actual
    numbers for that.
        And both the pro- and anti-whaling sides were in favor of
    suppressing any calculation of numbers, on the pro-whaling
    side, because they were afraid if numbers started appearing on
    the table, they would be under some obligation to abide by
    them. And the anti-whaling side worried that if numbers start
    appearing, that would be seen as a legitimization of some level
    of whaling. So both sides of the divide were united in not
    wanting to see any numbers for commercial whaling.
        On the other hand, for aboriginal whaling we have had
    numbers produced and updated annually or every few years, for
    each of the indigenous whaling operations. And probably for
    that reason, they have attracted more discussion than the
    commercial whaling, where the numbers up to now have been
    suppressed.
        And I would strongly advocate that this suppression of the
    right to calculate numbers by the Scientific Committee should
    be lifted. And I think that should be done before a proposal,
    such as the one we have before us, should be discussed, so that
    we know what are the sustainable limits for each whale
    population. When we know that, then the diplomats and
    politicians then know what they have to negotiate over.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I don't see how this issue of indigenous
    whaling could be ever considered as a political football, given
    the fact that I think 300 whales a year that the indigenous
    populations kill, and for subsistence purposes, it is not for
    commercial purposes.
        But it seems to me that what I am hearing is that there
    seems to be a lot of leverage by our pro-whaling faction within
    the IWC to talk more about the problems of these indigenous
    peoples, and say hey, you don't need to find a count, it is
    only 300. Why are we suppressing the number? We are only
    talking about 300 versus the thousands of whales that have been
    killed by our three friends from Iceland and Norway and Japan.
    I am not getting this correctly, and I want to make sure the
    record is accurate and I get this correctly. Mr. Ramage.
        Mr. Ramage. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think you have put your
    finger on the very point. And I should hasten to validate, at
    least from my own attendance at the political meetings as an
    NGO observer, 14 of those meetings in recent years.
        It is a sad commentary--and I have discussed this with
    Commissioner Medina, as well--that we have gotten to the point
    in the commission that the only whaling that the commission
    seems prepared to argue over and regulate is the whaling
    conducted by indigenous communities. Particularly that
    conducted--and it is done in a world-class way, as Earl has
    earlier said, by the Alaska natives. But it is not an accident.
    Because Japan perceives, rightly, that that is the issue that
    the United States cares about more than any other at the IWC.
        And this relates to your earlier very good point and
    question about how in the world have we gotten to 88 countries,
    some of them landlocked countries, who are members of the IWC.
    And a large part of the answer lies in the fact that Japan, by
    its own open admission, has used what they call a vote
    consolidation strategy to creatively and aggressively recruit
    countries from around the world who have no interest in
    whaling, who don't whale in their waters, who have no tradition
    of whaling, to come and support Japan's claim at the IWC.
        In Japan, the good people of Japan know nothing about this.
    And their senior government officials don't bear as much
    responsibility as their fisheries agency bureaucrats.
        But the subsistence whaling quota of the Alaska natives is
    held hostage, as Earl has said, by Japan to try and achieve
    other outcomes in the forum that they can't achieve through the
    power of their persuasion, or their votes, or even what some
    refer to as vote-buying.
        Now, perversely, those outcomes so long labored for by
    Japan are being delivered on a platter by this group: The
    ignoring of the moratorium, the legitimization of commercial
    whaling in 2010, unprecedented rights to conduct commercial
    whaling in a sanctuary, setting science to the side. All those
    things are being served up.
        It is a time for more engaged senior United States
    leadership and leverage to change the situation, both in the
    commission and in the water, for the whales.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, in fairness also to the Japanese
    Government and its policies, as you know, the first time in 50
    years, Japan now, is now governed by a newly elected political
    party that are almost in total opposites of all the policies
    that we have, that has been taken by the previous, for the
    previous 50 years by the Liberal Democratic Party.
        So we may be seeing some change in that in terms of maybe,
    I am not saying that, I am not here representing the Japanese
    Government. But let us see what happens, that there may be a
    different change or shift in policy about how this issue of the
    whaling issue may be done.
        Mr. Comstock.
        Mr. Comstock. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I might just add, to
    make sure it is clear it is not a one-sided game here, we get
    held hostage by both sides.
        What happens is if there are other countries, like
    Australia and New Zealand, who have longstanding reservations
    about any kind of whaling, some to the extent of saying they
    don't even want to see subsistence whaling.
        And so if they feel the United States is drifting too close
    to the whaling countries, our quota also becomes the lever by
    which they move them back. So it really is a situation on both
    sides. And I think the dilemma--and you and Mr. Delahunt
    referred to this earlier--the question is, what are the
    alternatives. And what are the levers that you have.
        And that is why, while the AWC would like to see this
    document improved, we do have to agree with the statements by
    Mr. Balton and Ms. Medina that this is probably the best
    opportunity certainly that has come along in the last decade or
    more. And it would be a shame to waste that opportunity.
    Whether you, at the end of the day, get a deal that the United
    States is comfortable with is yet to be decided.
        But we do think that you need to give it the best shot.
    Because otherwise we will find ourselves in a situation next
    year, and in 2012, where this intractable dispute between the
    whaling and anti-whaling forces probably ends up hurting only
    one party, which is the Alaska natives who are seeking a
    subsistence quota. Because we do follow the law, and we have a
    difficult time.
        So I just wanted to flag, if this all falls apart, there is
    legislation that was introduced in the last Congress having to
    do with domestic authority to set a quota. And certainly we can
    tell you the AWC would be back here talking to you about that,
    as well.
        So this does have ramifications down the road for where
    things go.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to note also of interest Dr.
    Cooke's statement earlier about the fact that whatever numbers
    that were submitted for part of the proposal, it is not really
    the numbers because this has not been finalized until next
    month's meeting. Is that correct, Dr. Cooke? Or was this just
    being thrown out just as testing the waters and trying to see
    what the reactions are? Quite obviously, they are already lined
    up, the pros and those who are against the proposal.
        But am I correct for the record that you said that they
    don't take the proposed numbers seriously because they are not
    really final, at least in view of the Scientific Committee's
    positions on this, as well?
        Mr. Cooke. Well, you have asked two separate questions.
    Yes, it is correct, the numbers are not final. But the proposal
    was distributed with a covering letter from the chairman, where
    he explains in his covering letter that there was no agreement
    on the numbers. Therefore, the numbers in the proposal are
    simply examples, example numbers he inserted himself. And those
    have not been agreed. And negotiations over numbers will be
    continued up until the meeting of the Whaling Commission next
    month.
        The other issue is the fact that the Scientific Committee
    has not been asked or authorized to input into the process in
    terms of giving their own estimates of what would be
    sustainable catch levels. And that is what I see as one of the
    weakest aspects of the proposal, that this is not being done.
        And therefore, I would strongly urge that this should be
    done. The Scientific Committee should be given the authority to
    calculate estimated sustainable catch levels using established
    scientific procedures in the usual ways, so that these will be
    fully documented and verified. When that has been done, then we
    can see what the sort of range of possibilities lies, what the
    maximum limits are within which the diplomats could then
    negotiate.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you care to comment, Mr. Comstock?
        Mr. Comstock. Again, I think he is just illustrating that
    this is, in terms of the process, this has been a political
    process, and the numbers obviously have been a key component.
    The aboriginal numbers have been in there for quite some time.
    And the quota for the Alaska natives would not change under
    this proposal, so we are pleased with that.
        But it is a political process, there is no doubt about it.
    And what you have right now in front of you is an amendment
    that has been proposed, that had to be, you know, submitted 60
    days in advance of the meeting. So that becomes the basis on
    which everyone speaks.
        It is presumed by I think almost everyone that there will
    be attempts to change that amendment in one way, shape, or
    form. In fact, I know, and I think we are going to be joining
    Patrick and others in suggesting amendments. We, from the
    Alaska perspective, have some amendments we would like to see
    to it, as well.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I was a little surprised by the fact that
    the bill that Congressman Delahunt and I have introduced has
    been in there for public, as well as the administration's,
    opportunity to review and analyze for the last 10 months. And
    then to learn from both Secretary Medina and Secretary Balton
    that they have no comment, it sounds like they never even
    bothered reading the bill. And that a little concerns me. It
    kind of reflects what Mr. Ramage has said earlier about this
    administration really is not that serious about the issue that
    we are talking about this morning.
        I furnished to you, Dr. Cooke, I don't know if you had the
    chance to review the provisions in the proposed bill, H.R.
    2455. Do you think that maybe we are encroaching on the mighty
    power and will of the IWC's authority to operate, to control
    and administer the problems dealing with whales?
        Mr. Cooke. I am afraid I have to pass on that one, because
    I don't really understand the ins and outs of the U.S.
    legislative process. So maybe one of my co-panelists could
    answer.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And I am happy to hear, Dr. Cooke, that
    you say that the Scientific Committee of the IWC is the most
    renowned authority on whales. I would very much appreciate if
    you could submit for the record some of the most recent
    scientific results of the studies, whatever analysis that the
    IWC has conducted. That could be helpful in educating the
    American public about what you have discovered about whales.
        Mr. Cooke. The long answer to that would be extremely long.
    I could submit an extremely short summary of----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, just----
        Mr. Cooke [continuing]. Just a few points, yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Just give us the real meat of it, if you
    can. I would appreciate it if you could help us with that.
        Mr. Cooke. You mean now, or for the record?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No, no, no, for the record. For the
    record.
        Mr. Cooke. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Well, gentlemen, I tried to
    see if there is any other point we wanted to do. As you know,
    we have gotten a firm commitment from our friends at the
    administration, they definitely are going to review the bill,
    and they will get back to us. And hopefully we can start
    running with this thing and see what we can do.
        And I want to commend Senator Kerry for also introducing a
    similar type of legislation. And hopefully, hopefully in the
    coming months, we can work something out on this thing.
        I have a laundry list. And for the sake of time, and I
    don't want to have you gentlemen listen in on this, but I have
    to do this because of the record. I have several documents here
    that I do want to submit for the record, so that when we print
    the hearing proceedings it will be a good basis, kind of like a
    little library that you can take with you when you talk about
    this.
        I have got a letter dated April 28, 2010, addressed to
    President Obama from the U.S. Senate, expressing similar
    concerns about whaling, from our good Senators. Senator
    Murkowski, Senator Inoue, Senator Akaka, and Senator Begich
    concerning whaling, that will be made part of the record,
    without objection.
        Another letter also addressed to President Obama, dated 27
    April of this year, from Senator John Rockefeller, the chairman
    of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation, also expressing concerns about the IWC.
        Also for the record, I want to put in the briefing
    concerning international whaling submitted here from our
    friends. It is dated, from staff, and I want to make this part
    of the record.
        Also an article by Juliet Elperin dated April 24 of this
    year, entitled ``International Whaling Commission Proposes
    Compromise on the Ban.''
        Also for the record, an article by Mary Yamaguchi of the
    Associated Press, to be made part of the record, dated April 23
    of this year, ``Commission Proposes Limited Commercial Whaling
    Hunts.''
        Also for the record, from the New York Times dated 23
    April, an article by Andrew Revkin, entitled ``Whaling Peace
    Plan Just Less of the Same?''
        Also for the record, printed materials from the BBC News
    concerning the whaling issue.
        Also for the record, dated 28 April, an article by Joel
    Reynolds, deg. called, deg. ``It Is No Way to
    Save the Whales.''
        Also another record from the Economist, dated May 1, and it
    is called ``A Giant Compromise,'' also to be made part of the
    record.
        Another article, from the New York Times by Mr. John
    Broder, ``U.S. Leads New Bid to Phase Out Whale Hunting; Good
    Luck,'' for the record.
        Also for the record, this is not an official submission,
    but it is from the Embassy of Japan, background giving basic
    positions of the Japanese Government, submitted by Mr.
    Shironakasuka, First Secretary of the Embassy of Japan.
        And as I said, I will open the record for our friends from
    Iceland as well as from Norway, for their embassies to submit
    whatever statements they want as part of the record.
        Also a request that we make the Congressional Research
    Service submission of a memorandum dated 28 April, 2010. I
    think that is important background information.
        For the record, August 12, 2009, a letter concerning the
    bill, the International Whale Conservation Protection Act of
    2009, signed by one, two, three, four, five, six, seven--100
    NGOs. For the record, I want to make sure it is in there.
        And also for the record, the press release issued by the
    chairman and the vice chairman of the IWC concerning this
    proposal.
        For the record, dated February 26 of this year, a letter to
    President Obama from Members of the House of Representatives,
    Congressman Delahunt, myself, Congresswoman Bordallo, and
    Congresswoman Mazie Herono.
        For the record, the chair's proposal comparing the various
    baselines, the chart, and all of these things will be made part
    of record.
        Thank you for your patience. And also a press release
    submitted by NOAA, dated April XX--it has not been released
    yet--made for the record on whaling, concerning the bill.
        With that, gentlemen, I think Mr. Delahunt probably will
    not have an opportunity to come back. But it is definitely the
    intention of the chair to proceed as hard as we can to see what
    we can do with the other committees that have claimed
    jurisdiction on this bill, and see how we can work this through
    the committee process.
        Mr. Comstock.
        Mr. Comstock. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say on H.R.
    2455, we are looking at that bill. And I can tell you we will
    have a few suggestions for you just to make sure that it
    doesn't adversely impact subsistence.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I will keep the record open for further
    comments from you, Mr. Comstock, and your organization. The
    same also, Mr. Ramage. And as I said, any other additional
    materials you want to submit definitely will be made part of
    the record.
        Also for the record, a copy of the bill, as well as a
    companion bill introduced by Senator Kerry, that will be made
    part of the record.
        Anything else that I forgot? Also include the Bible and
    whatever else we have got.
        Gentlemen, thank you so much for your patience. I
    appreciate Mr. Comstock and Mr. Ramage being patient. Let us
    see how our friend, Secretary Medina, is going to come out on
    these negotiations next month. Maybe we will come out with
    something a lot more positive, and then hopefully this proposal
    is going to come out with more substantive stuff. And hopefully
    the Government of Japan will also be cooperative in what we are
    hoping for.
        And Dr. Cooke, thank you so much for traveling all the way
    here to testify before this subcommittee.
        And with that, gentlemen, the subcommittee hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

         Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.