[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.

                          ____________________