[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 19 (Monday, February 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
SENATE RESOLUTION 183--RELATIVE TO U.S. SEAFOOD PRODUCERS
Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Pell, Mr.
Mitchell, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Murkowski) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 183
Whereas the United States sells over $100 million of fresh
and frozen seafood products to France annually;
Whereas the actions of the Government of France are
adversely affecting the United States fishing industry;
Whereas this adverse effect is particularly severe on those
parts of the industry that harvest, process and market fresh
``underutilized species'' such as dogfish, monkfish and
skate, and causes disruptions to the normal flow of commerce
for developed United States fisheries such as salmon and
groundfish;
Whereas the French markets for these species and other
species are important since Europeans, particularly the
French, value fresh seafood products highly;
Whereas the Government of France is continuing to require
inspections and testing, despite accepting the existing
United States seafood certification programs of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the Food and Drug
Administration;
Whereas the Government of France's additional inspections
and testing are continuing without adequate justification or
evidence of human health risks;
Whereas the unsubstantiated additional inspections and
testing required by the Government of France, which can take
up to four days, delay the delivery of fresh seafood products
to the point where they begin to spoil and thus have
effectively closed the French market to fresh United States
seafood products; and
Whereas the harassment by the Government of France of
seafood producers and products from the United States
violates international agreements and raises serious
questions about the usefulness of entering into agreements
with the European Union and France: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(a) calls upon the Government of France to stop immediately
its harassment of United States seafood producers and
products;
(b) demands that the Government of France compensate United
States companies that have had seafood products damaged by
its actions;
(c) calls upon the President of the United States to
identify appropriate forms of sanctions that can be taken
against the Government of France for its egregious violation
of international agreements.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Today I want to report on the recent
actions by the Government of France that violate international
agreements on trade and are unfairly penalizing the United States
producers and exporters of fresh and frozen seafood. Unfortunately, and
most apparent to all of us, the Government of France is attempting to
appease its citizens, and prevent its rebellious fishermen from taking
further violent actions, by conducting seafood inspection programs with
no basis or justification other than harassment. To make matters worse,
these actions of the French Government were implemented unilaterally
without adequate warning and in contravention of French and European
international trade obligations.
If I may explain further, the Government of France, in response to
violent demonstrations and rioting by French fishermen protesting the
importation of foreign seafood, has taken several measures. It
established minimum import prices on a number of fishery products;
tightened controls on import documentation and sanitary requirements;
and most significantly, on February 8, 1994, implemented a ban on
seafood imports from all but five non-European countries--Canada, Faroe
Islands, Chile, Argentina, and New Zealand. As stated, these
restrictions and the embargo came without advance notice.
The immediate effect of these measures was the stranding of 25 to 30
tons of fresh fish, valued at $250,000, at the Customs Office at
Charles DeGaulle Airport in Paris where, without refrigeration, the
seafood soon spoiled, began to rot and had to be destroyed. The long-
term effects of these policies could be just as significant. The
exporting of fresh and frozen seafood products to France is a $100
million a year business.
The Government of France justified these measures by stating that it
simply has begun to enforce the European Union directives regarding
seafood imports that were to go into effect next year. Only those
countries whose seafood inspection regimes had received approval from
the European Union were exempted from the ban.
Properly, the administration reacted swiftly to the French failure to
honor its obligations as a member of the European Union and the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The State Department in consultation
with Ambassador Kantor immediately expressed our extreme displeasure
with the French actions and challenged the French assertion that our
inspection regimes did not meet the European Union standards.
Information provided by the Food and Drug Administration and the
National Marine Fisheries Service provided sufficient evidence that
exporters who met the United States inspection regime standards would
also meet European Union standards. Therefore on Saturday, February 12,
1994, 4 days after the embargo began, France had no choice but to add
the United States to the list of countries from which seafood products
could be imported.
This should have been the end of this problem but it is not. The
lifting of the ban on United States products only means that United
States products are allowed into France. However, the French, in an
apparent effort to continue to placate their rebellious fishermen have
maintained they have the right to conduct rigorous inspection of all
seafood imports and to detain these products while awaiting results of
tests ordered. This policy has resulted in needless delays of up to 4
days and in reality, means that fresh seafood, including monkfish which
can spoil in one day, cannot make it to market in time.
Furthermore, the main point of entry for fresh seafood products,
Charles DeGaulle Airport, is still closed to imports based on the fact
that it does not have sufficient refrigeration capacity to store
products that are being detained. The other Paris airport, at Orly,
also has been closed to imports since its storage facility is at
capacity.
These events have had a disastrous effect on the fishermen and
producers of fresh seafood, especially in Massachusetts. Hundreds of
individuals, and families are affected, from the fishermen who catch
the fish, to the workers in processing plants, to airline workers who
transport the products. I have heard from plants throughout New England
that are faced with no option except to lay off workers or to close
down operations until the situation is resolved. In other cases,
exporters have tried alternate routes through other European Union
Countries in an effort to get their products to markets in France. In
an attempt to overcome the delays, Larry Sylvia of Family Fisheries in
New Bedford, MA, has been flying his fresh seafood into a neighboring
European Union country daily and then trucking it into France. However,
his profit is being eaten up by the extra shipping costs. Now, there
are reports from the French authorities that United States seafood
products that arrive in France through other European Union Countries
may be subject to further inspections once they reach the marketplace.
These French actions are yet another blow to the New England fishing
industry since the majority of the exports to France are species such
as dog fish, monkfish, and skate that at present have little United
States domestic demand. However, Europeans, particularly the French,
value these species much more and offer much higher market prices. The
harvesting and marketing of these underutilized species was to be an
important part of the plan for the New England fishing industry to
transition from the present fishery primarily composed of groundfish,
such as cod and haddock. This transition is necessary since the
National Marine Fisheries Service management plans cut groundfish
harvests by half over the next 5 years beginning in March 1994. This
reduction in harvests is already being predicted to have disastrous
effects on traditional fishing communities like New Bedford and
Gloucester. The restrictions by the French will only exacerbate the
problems of an already struggling fishing industry.
I have been in continuous contact with the Secretary of Commerce, the
United States Trade Representative, the State Department, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service so I know that the administration has
acted quickly to respond to these unwarranted actions of France.
Senator Kennedy, Congressman Frank, and I have encouraged Secretary
Brown to continue efforts to lift the de facto French embargo. I also
have provided the U.S. Trade Representative and the State Department
with examples of the immediate impact these restrictions are having on
the New England fishing industry. I applaud the efforts of
Representatives Frank, Studds, and Torkildsen in their introduction of
a House Resolution calling upon the Government of France to stop its
harassment of United States seafood imports and for President Clinton
to identify areas for retaliatory trade sanctions against France.
I appreciate the efforts and coordination of the Federal agencies and
departments involved in resolving this issue. However, the latest
advisories to the industry from the National Marine Fisheries Service
and the FDA recommend that ``fresh product should not be shipped to
French airports for the foreseeable future and that frozen products are
likely to suffer delays.'' The Federal message has been ``in time we
will work it out,'' but time is running out as the U.S. fresh seafood
exporting industry is grinding to a halt. I am in a difficult position
of explaining to my constituents that everything that can be done is
being done and that they must be patient. This industry is one that can
ill afford to be patient. Tomorrow may be too late. I encourage the
State Department to pressure the French Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries to ease the effects of the inspections by giving preference
to fresh products over frozen products, to reduce the inspection time
to 24 hours, and to reopen the Charles DeGaulle airport to fish imports
as soon as possible.
I understand that the Government of France is exercising its
sovereignty and its right to establish standards for the safety of the
French people. However, in this case it has not established nor
demonstrated any evidence that United States products are contaminated
and somehow pose a health threat to the French population.
Consequently, France is failing to honor its obligations as a member of
the European Union and as a signatory to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. By these actions the French have capitulated to the
threat of violence rather than standing up for what is right. The
French Government action's are even more difficult to understand when
you realize that the United States annually imports $360 million of
French seafood products, not to mention other food products. France has
much more to lose than we do if we pursue our lawful remedies under
international trade agreements.
I support the actions of Ambassador Kantor advising French Trade
Minister Longuet on Thursday, February 17, 1994, that the harassment
activities of the Government of France are not in the interest of
France as an exporting nation. Furthermore, unless these unwarranted
harassment efforts cease I call upon the President to institute
appropriate retaliatory trade sanctions against France as soon as
possible.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in expressing my strong
disapproval of the continuing actions by the French Government against
United States seafood imports. There is no justification for France's
protectionist actions against these imports. The actions clearly
violate the international trade agreements that we have negotiated in
good faith with both France and the European Union.
The continue harassment by France has resulted in serious damage to
American fishermen. The United States fishing industry exports
thousands of dollars' worth of fresh seafood each day to France. New
England fisherman have already been hard hit by the recent recession,
and they certainly cannot afford to suffer further economic loss as a
result of unjust French trade policies.
Although France recently added the United States to its list of
countries from which seafood products can be imported, France continue
to harass our products by requiring them to undergo rigorous and
unwarranted inspections. In addition, certain ports of entry into
France remain closed to our imports. These unnecessary obstructions,
restrictions, and needless delays have resulted in the spoilage of many
fresh seafood products.
The trade barriers that France continues to impose on these imports
must be eliminated immediately. The Senate resolution that we are
introducing today urges France to comply with international trade
regulations and end its harassment of United States seafood imports. It
also ask restitution to the American fishing industry for the damage
that has been suffered, and it urges the President to identify
appropriate counter-measures to be taken against France if this
distressing situation is not resolved immediately.
____________________