[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972--S. 1636

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to extend my congratulations and 
thanks to the members and staff of the Senate Commerce Committee who 
have worked very hard and for a very long time to bring us to this 
point, and especially to those members of the fishing industry and the 
environmental community who participated in negotiations making today's 
success possible.
  This is a landmark reauthorization bill, in my opinion, and should be 
viewed as a model for subsequent efforts on this and other issues. Its 
driving forces are conservation and science, instead of superstition 
and emotion.
  The Marine Mammal Act is extremely important to all those who care 
about the welfare of marine mammals, but especially so for those of us 
from coastal states with strong fishing communities and Native 
subsistence harvesters.
  This measure will both keep our fishermen fishing, and will give more 
protection to marine mammal species that interact with fishing than 
they have ever had before. In focusing attention on marine mammal 
stocks before they are dangerously affected, it should help prevent any 
additional listings of marine mammal species as endangered, threatened, 
or depleted.
  I am also very pleased that the bill addresses certain other issues, 
which I raised both in a December, 1993, letter to the Commerce 
Committee, and in legislation I offered during the previous Congress. 
Among these are the importation by Alaska Natives of marine mammal 
items given as gifts and in cultural exchanges with Native residents of 
other northern countries, as well as non-commercial importation by 
Natives of Russia, Canada or Greenland. Another such change is language 
that accepts importation of wearing apparel and jewelry that is taken 
out of the country by any legal owner, but becomes contraband under 
existing law when the owner returns. That element of the present law 
was absurd from the beginning, and is long overdue for change.
  The bill before us also contains an important compromise allowing the 
importation of polar bear parts taken by U.S. citizens in legal sport 
hunts in Canada, so long as Canada's polar bear management program 
continues to provide adequately for the health of that country's bear 
population. Canada's polar bear management system is considered a model 
the rest of the world would do well to follow. Under the program, and 
consistent with international agreements to which the United States is 
also signatory, Canadian Eskimo and Indian people are allowed to 
harvest polar bears under a quota system designed to ensure sustainable 
bear populations will continue to exist forever.
  Because the number of animals taken is controlled, they are also 
allowed to choose to sell opportunities to hunt to non-Natives who wish 
to buy them. There is no guarantee that a non-Native hunter will be 
successful, and he or she is required to have a Canadian Native guide 
and is restricted to non-mechanical transportation while on the hunt. 
However, there is strong interest in these hunts, and they have become 
a significant source of income for many villages where other avenues 
are few and far between.
  Present U.S. law prohibits U.S. hunters who have taken a Canadian 
bear to bring the hide and other parts back home with them. This makes 
no sense, except as an anti-hunting, anti- Native-decision-making 
attempt to force the views of a minority of animal rights activists on 
people who have never deserved such patronizing treatment.
  The bill before us also requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
undertake a scientific review of the effect of this change within 2 
years of enactment. He is also asked to allow an opportunity for public 
comment on the change, and to respond to public comments in a final 
report. To ensure the change does not create problems, he would be 
required to stop issuing import permits if--based on the scientific 
information he collects during the review--he finds that issuing 
permits has a significant adverse impact on the polar bears of Canada. 
If that occurs, he thereafter may conduct an annual review of the best 
scientific information available on the subject.
  Here again, Mr. President, is an example of that spirit of reason and 
adherence to science that has exemplified this reauthorization process. 
It is crucial that important decisions involving natural resources are 
made on the basis of science, not emotion, and I sincerely commend all 
those who have put aside their differences and cooperated to bring this 
bill to the floor.

                          ____________________