[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9424-H9450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1715
             INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 489 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 489

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2823) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection 
     Act of 1972 to support the International Dolphin Conservation 
     Program in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the Congressional Record

[[Page H9425]]

     and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII. That 
     amendment shall be considered as read. No other amendment 
     shall be in order except a further amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules to accompany this 
     resolution, which may be offered only by Representative 
     Miller of California or his designee, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee last week found itself in 
an unusual situation: A request for modified closed rule on a bill 
reported from the Resources Committee--although the Ways and Means 
Committee also had jurisdiction over a portion. As you know, bills 
reported from the Resources Committee are traditionally considered 
under open rules. So what's different about H.R. 2823, the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act? Most importantly, this 
bill would essentially codify an international agreement between 12 
nations known as the Declaration of Panama. Any significant changes to 
the language of H.R. 2823 and that agreement is lost. It is worth 
mentioning that the negotiations that produced this agreement could 
serve as a model for environmental policymaking because just about 
every viewpoint in the tuna/dolphin debate was represented at the 
table. These negotiations not only involved the governments of 12 
nations, but they also included representatives from the environmental 
community and the fishing industry. The result is a package that enjoys 
unusually broad support: From the administration and Vice President Al 
Gore to the Resources Committee Chairman Don Young. From Greenpeace to 
the tuna fishermen.

  In recognition of the fragile nature of this agreement, the Rules 
Committee has reported a modified closed rule that allows for a vote on 
the bill, preceded by an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] or his designee, and one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions. It had originally been the intention of 
the Rules Committee to allow a vote on a full substitute, but the 
minority specifically requested that the Miller amendment be made in 
order instead. The rule was agreed to in committee with voice vote 
without dissent.
  Mr. Speaker, if you cherish the dolphin populations of the eastern 
Pacific, as I do, then you will agree it is vital that we move forward 
with this legislation. During the coming debate, you will hear 
differing viewpoints on how this legislation may impact dolphins--the 
administration's experts, the Resources Committee, and the Center for 
Marine Conservation all happen to believe that this bill will save 
dolphins' lives, and do so more effectively than current law--I think 
that's pretty good credentials. H.R. 2823 backs up that claim by 
mandating that every tuna boat operating in the eastern Pacific carry 
an observer to certify that not a single dolphin was killed when the 
tuna nets were hauled up. Even one dolphin death would prevent 
the entire catch from being sold in the United States as Dolphin safe. 
Under today's standards American consumers do not have this kind of 
guarantee. However, this proposal is not just about saving dolphins; 
it's about preserving endangered marine species like the sea turtles, 
as well as billfish and juvenile tunas. In Florida, we certainly 
treasure our dolphins--but we also take special care to protect other 
marine populations, and I am pleased that H.R. 2823 will address the 
eastern Pacific ecosystem as a whole, not just one aspect of it. You 
will hear the argument that one of the techniques allowed under this 
agreement, encirclement--with divers that release any dolphins before 
they are caught in the net, is harmful. But those who put forth this 
argument might not mention the enormous damage done by so-called safe 
fishing methods such as log sets and school sets. As the Resources 
Committee's report says:

       The bycatch of other marine species associated with these 
     two fishing techniques is significantly higher than the 
     bycatch associated with the encirclement technique. School 
     sets generate approximately 10 times the amount of bycatch 
     and log sets generate approximately 100 times the bycatch of 
     juvenile tunas and other marine species.

  So the message should be clear: If you want to protect dolphins, 
turtles, and other marine life, you should support this rule and vote 
for the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] for yielding the customary half hour debate time to me; and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida has explained, this is a 
modified closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 2823, the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
  Even though we do not prefer rules that are this restrictive, and of 
course our colleagues who are now in the majority always railed 
bitterly against them when we were in the majority, it appears that the 
nature of this debate probably does not require a completely open rule.
  On the other hand, it is also proper to point out that with a bill so 
narrow in scope as this one, it is difficult to understand why we need 
a rule with such strict limits.
  In any case, we should support this rule. It should provide for 
adequate discussion of the principal controversy at issue here.
  Mr. Speaker, the dolphin protection bill has created a great deal of 
controversy within the environmental community which was, after all, 
responsible for calling our attention to the serious problem of the 
slaughter of dolphins by the tuna fishing industry in the first place. 
If it had not been for several environmental organizations, the public 
would not have known about the way the dolphins were routinely trapped 
and killed by the giant nets used by tuna fleets.
  But thanks to many organizations that are deeply concerned about the 
fate of our entire marine ecosystem, Congress passed legislation 
embargoing all tuna caught by that method, known as encirclement.
  Because of that embargo, other big tuna-fishing countries felt the 
economic pressure, and after meeting with U.S. officials to develop a 
voluntary international agreement, pledged to adopt safer fishing 
methods. These new techniques have been dramatically successful. The 
result is that dolphin mortality has declined from over 100,000 in 1991 
to a little bit more than 3,000 in 1995.
  Because of that success, the United States, several environmental 
groups and 11 other nations met in Panama last year to develop a 
binding international agreement, the terms of which are reflected in 
H.R. 2823, that rewards these efforts by lifting the United States 
embargo. The agreement and the bill would also reward any batch of tuna 
caught without a single dolphin death, to be verified by on-board 
observers, with the dolphin-safe label that is so important 
commercially.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2823 has bipartisan support in the Congress. It has 
been endorsed by the Clinton administration, which helped negotiate the 
binding international agreement to lock in the dramatic reductions in 
dolphin deaths that have been achieved and to protect other marine 
species that are unfortunately threatened by alternative tuna fishing 
practices.
  That so-called Declaration of Panama was signed by 12 nations in 
October 1995. Environmentalists believe, some environmentalists, not 
all, that this enforceable international agreement is the only way to 
protect marine

[[Page H9426]]

resources for the long term. We cannot, they believe, continue to act 
alone. It would be impossible to protect dolphins and other species if 
we did.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule and one that might 
better have been somewhat less restrictive or limited. But we hope the 
terms of the rule will not prevent us from hearing all of the arguments 
about this legislation. We are supportive of the rule. We think it is a 
fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
greater San Dimas, CA [Mr. Dreier], the distinguished vice chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Sanibel, FL, the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am one who enjoys consuming seafood but I am not 
particularly fond of tuna. But I am very supportive of this measure 
because it has been a long time in coming.
  We have just had a great deal of excitement around here over the last 
several hours as we have brought about with, I think, 328 votes a 
bipartisan agreement on welfare reform, but the bipartisanship that 
exists on that, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] implied, pales 
in comparison when we look at the parties who are involved in this very 
important agreement who have disagreed on many, many issues in the 
past.
  The fact of the matter is while my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], said that we in the past would rail about 
rules that are like this, this rule is very clear in that we are 
dealing with 12 nations who were part of this negotiating process and 
as he knows under fast track negotiating authority, which this Congress 
has had in the past but does not have now, we have seen agreement 
struck where there would be simply an up-or-down vote on measures, and 
that is the direction in which we are headed with this rule, because we 
do have, I think, an important environmental concern that is being 
addressed here and also for other friends of ours in Latin America.
  I was talking with some people at the Mexican Embassy and they have 
been very anxious about this because they want to see us move ahead and 
proceed with what is a very important agreement not only for the 
consumers in the United States and Mexico but also for those in the 
tuna industry and those who are concerned, as we all are, about the 
safety of dolphins. So when we look at the World Wildlife Federation, 
at DON YOUNG, I know they do not always come together on issues, I 
believe that this is a great day as we continue the bipartisan spirit 
that was in evidence just a few minutes ago. About 6 hours ago the 
bipartisan spirit was not as in evidence here in the House of 
Representatives, but I am convinced that when we move to final passage 
on this rule and the measure that that great bipartisan spirit will be 
alive and well.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we have 
begun debating here today, H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program Act, I believe, is a declaration of surrender by 
this Congress to those who insist that American environmental and labor 
standards must be destroyed on the altar of free trade.

                              {time}  1730

  H.R. 2823 is a complete capitulation to those who believe that U.S. 
consumers have no rights and our trade competitors must have all the 
rights when it comes to product disclosure.
  This is a bad bill: bad environmental policy, bad trade policy, and 
bad foreign policy. It does precisely what we were told NAFTA and GATT 
would not do. It demands that our own laws governing the environment, 
worker safety, species protection, and a consumer's right to know be 
sacrificed.
  Less than a decade ago, millions of American consumers, led by 
schoolchildren of this Nation, demanded the creation of dolphin 
protection programs because of the needless slaughter of hundreds of 
thousands of marine mammals by tuna fishermen. We passed the Dolphin 
Protection Act. We required that tuna sold in the United States be 
dolphin safe.
  The U.S. tuna industry, at enormous expense, complied with those 
requirements, relocated their ships and processing plants, and produced 
dolphin safe tuna. Those efforts have had a dramatic success. Dolphin 
deaths last year were a little less than 3,600, compared to 100,000 or 
more a few years ago.
  The dolphin protection law has worked, but the bill before us today 
would renounce the very program that has achieved the goals we sought 
when the dolphin protection law was enacted.
  Why on Earth would we so grievously weaken the very law that has 
worked so well? Not on behalf of American consumers, not on behalf of 
dolphin protection, not on behalf of those interests, but rather on 
behalf of Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and other nations who are trying 
a little environmental blackmail, and to date it seems to be working.
  Those very countries that have continued to fish in violation of the 
dolphin safe law now demand of this Nation that we weaken our laws so 
they can sell dolphin unsafe tuna in U.S. supermarkets under a label 
that the consumer has come to understand as meaning dolphin safe, a 
label that was enacted by this Congress. This Congress should not now 
become a party to this deception of that label, and a deception that 
this act would bring about with respect to the American consumer.
  H.R. 2823 implements an international agreement, the Panama 
Agreement, which was negotiated behind closed doors by five Washington-
based environmental organizations and the government of Mexico. This 
agreement makes major changes to longstanding laws protecting dolphins 
and informing our consumers.
  But let us remember it was negotiated without the knowledge of any 
elected Member of Congress or other interested parties with a decades-
long history on this issue.
  It was negotiated without consideration of the American tuna canning 
companies who in 1990 responded to the demands from our schoolchildren, 
their parents, and consumers nationwide, and some of the same 
environmental groups who secretly negotiated this deal. They did it by 
voluntarily announcing that they would no longer purchase and sell tuna 
caught by harming dolphins.
  It was negotiated without the participation and approval of dozens of 
environmental organizations with millions of members nationwide who 
vigorously disagree that this is the best way to protect dolphins, and 
who strongly support the Studds amendment that will be offered later to 
retain the current dolphin safe label.
  The legislation was drafted with the help of lobbyists hired by the 
Mexican Government, and presented to the Committee on Resources with 
the caveat that no amendments could be accepted if they were 
unacceptable to Mexico. Since when did we start negotiating in this 
fashion? Since when did we start negotiating in a fashion where 
privately negotiated agreements are now brought to the Congress and we 
are told that somehow they are the same as a treaty or an agreement 
between this Nation and other nations, but this Congress cannot be 
engaged in the process of amendment?

  There are some very serious problems with this legislation. The most 
important is that it would do exactly what proponents of the trade 
agreement pledged these pacts would not do: drive down American 
environmental standards through pressure from countries that do not 
want to meet those same standards. That is the goal, pure and simple.
  Let us be clear. The driving force behind this legislation is Mexico, 
which does not want to meet the standards of the dolphin safe label 
that is on every can of tuna sold in this country. Mexico wants to open 
the floodgates to nonsafe tuna and to desecrate the integrity of the 
label that has led through consumer preferences.
  If we do not accede to this undermining effort, Mexico and other 
nations

[[Page H9427]]

tell us that they will abandon their commitment to this agreement, to 
fishing dolphin safe, and deliberately resume the slaughter of 
dolphins. These nations, and many other trading partners, are waiting 
to see how the U.S. Congress responds to this threat.
  This legislation responds by capitulation. We are going to hear a lot 
of assertions about this legislation, how sensitive it is to dolphins, 
how it would not allow damage to be done to dolphins. Before Members 
vote I urge them to consider the following:
  This legislation, as currently written, the supporters will tell us 
that this bill does not allow more dolphins to be killed; that it 
reduces the number of dolphin deaths. But the fact is, H.R. 2823 allows 
the number of dolphin deaths to rise by almost 30 percent. There is 
nothing in this bill about keeping dolphin deaths at today's historic 
low level. This bill is about allowing more dolphin deaths.
  They say that their bill does not allow dolphins to be hurt. Under 
H.R. 2823, dolphins may be regularly encircled, harassed, and injured. 
The bill imposes no limit on the amount of injury that could be imposed 
on dolphins, as long as the dolphins do not actually die in the nets.
  We will hear the proponents say that the environmentalists support 
this legislation. The fact of the matter is that over 80 grassroots 
environmental organizations vigorously oppose this bill and support the 
Studds amendment. By contrast, what we have are five Washington-based 
environmental groups that secretly negotiated this agreement with 
Mexico who are now supporting it.
  Since when is this Congress obligated to accept, unamended, the 
products of negotiation by environmental organizations and foreign 
governments?
  Lastly, the supporters of this legislation argue that we cannot 
change the bill because to do so would be to renounce international 
agreements and damage American credibility. The fact is, there is no 
international agreement. There is no treaty. This is about going to the 
negotiations on a possible treaty. This bill requires that we change 
U.S. law as a condition of going to those negotiations.
  It is worth noting that the United States is the only country that is 
required to make these kinds of changes, to change domestic consumer 
protection laws to conform with this agreement.

  I would hope that the Members of this Congress would see through this 
effort by Mexico to essentially abolish the dolphin safe protection 
that we currently have on the books, and would support the Studds 
amendment that will allow for the protection of the label, the 
protection of consumer knowledge, and provide for the protection of the 
dolphins.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank and commend the Committee 
on Rules, led by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for bringing this rule to the floor. 
Let me also commend my friend from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, who was the 
author of this bill, who I think did a very fine job.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was sitting in my office of the first day of this 
session, press reporters called and said, ``How do you think it is 
going to be serving with a Democrat President, because in your term of 
being here you have always been able to communicate with and serve with 
Republican Presidents?'' I said, ``It will be my goal to find places 
and issues upon which the President the Democrat President, and I can 
agree.''
  This is one of those issues. This is President Clinton's initiative. 
And as chairman, of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, 
I am pleased to have been able to support a Clinton administration 
initiative.
  I would also just like to point out to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller], who used some fairly harsh phrases, phrases like 
capitulation, and phrases like weakening the law, environmental 
blackmail, dolphin unsafe tuna, deception, secret negotiations, 
lobbyists hired by Mexico, I would just say to my friend from 
California those characterizations of this bill are misleading, untrue, 
and patently false.
  There is not any truth to any of those assertions and that is why I 
rise in support of this rule and its granting of a modified closed rule 
to govern debate on H.R. 2823. I realize the Committee on Resources has 
traditionally requested open rules, but in this case it provides for a 
total, including the rule, of 4 hours of debate. I believe it is 
certainly a rule which merits our support.
  Let me just in closing say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is supported 
by the following organizations. Listen to this. Greenpeace, the Center 
for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the World 
Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, and the American 
Sports Fishing Association, to say nothing of the Clinton 
administration, and the AFL-CIO.
  This is a good rule, it is a good bill, and I urge passage of the 
rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that I have two remaining speakers, which I will call on. I have 
admonished them that this is the rule and they are going to focus on 
the rule and the merits of the rule and how it might affect the 
substance. Once we get through that, I hope we can get to a quick oral 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the author of this bill.
  Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very quickly that I appreciate the 
Committee on Rules understanding the nature of this international 
agreement to bring forth this type of rule that does allow for one 
opposing view, but the importance of the agreement underscores the fact 
that we, as the basic author of the agreement, the United States is the 
basic author of the agreement, we have not given up any sovereignty 
whatsoever. We have encouraged other nations, other international 
nations to better manage the marine ecosystem.
  In response to the gentleman from California, I want to make three 
quick points. As far as his statement in reference to this bill being, 
this legislation being debated and formulated behind closed doors by 
people who are fanatics about open trade, well, first, labor groups 
that are supporting this legislation, environmental groups that are 
supporting this legislation opposed NAFTA and GATT.
  This legislation was created in the full light of day at public 
hearings in this U.S. Congress. Legislation that was adopted that we 
are now dealing with was not created by extreme environmental groups 
without any background in the marine biological sciences. We tapped the 
best scientists in this country to come up with the best management 
scheme so that we could not only, as an individual country, the United 
States, manage our marine ecosystem, but so that we preserved it for 
generations to come and, by the way, ensure that dolphin deaths were 
down, hopefully, in a few years, to zero.
  We tapped marine biologists with some of the best background that 
this country has ever seen, and they are the ones that have come to 
this unanimous consensus that if we are going to deal on this tiny 
little planet, that by the year 2096 is going to have a population of 
17 billion people, and we have 5.5 billion people right now, we had 
better begin to learn how to get along with our neighbors.
  If we are going to deal with a much more complicated regime as global 
climate change, and we have to deal with our neighbors and create 
international agreements, we had better understand that the best way to 
do that is not demagoging an issue but dealing with the matters that 
people are concerned about, such as dolphin safe tuna. We know that.
  We are going to ensure that those dolphin safe labels on every one of 
those tuna cans reflect that no dolphins were killed or hurt. We are 
going to ensure that we as a Nation can work with other countries about 
environmental issues.

                              {time}  1745

  So I know that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] says that this 
is a

[[Page H9428]]

debate about the rule, and I support the rule 1,000 percent, and I 
would urge the entire Congress to support this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who is an author of this 
bill in its original version and was also, interestingly enough, the 
most fierce representative for his tuna fishermen of anyone I have ever 
met. Out of that has come this good legislation, and I congratulate him 
for that.
  Mr. CUMMINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it was characterized that some fly-by-
night groups got together and put this thing together. At the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission, the IATTC, a La Jolla, CA-based 
organization, 35 scientists got together and developed the most 
effective bycatch reduction program ever implemented. It saved dolphin 
and brought down the numbers. The ``dolphin safe'' label now used in 
U.S. markets takes a much higher ecological toll on marine life.
  Those who read their Congressional Monitor read that tuna fisherman 
cannot label their tuna ``dolphin safe.'' That is not the case. Many 
American consumers still mistakenly believe that the Nation's ``dolphin 
safe'' policies and product labels worked. U.S. fishermen have to have 
observers on board. None of these other Nations do.
  If the Studds-Miller agreement goes back, all of the other Nations 
that have signed aboard this agreement will no longer be required to 
have observers. They are going to go on and kill dolphin. Why not? They 
can sell it abroad. This ties other Nations that the United States has 
no control over to a ``dolphin safe'' policy.
  This is going to save dolphin. And why? Fish from sets of nets where 
100 percent of encircled dolphins are released unharmed will qualify as 
``dolphin safe.'' No tuna will be labeled safe unless absolutely no 
dolphins are killed. It has to have 100 percent verification on site as 
the fish are caught.
  Trying to comply with current law, the no-encirclement policy, some 
skippers have to fish immature tuna. That is killing our future. And 
that is why we have such broad support in this. It actually enhances 
the tuna and the crop for later years.
  The amendment being offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will destroy the 
most effective dolphin bycatch resolution. That is why I support this 
rule, Vice President Gore, and who are the other people who have 
supported this? The AFL-CIO.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] said it is destroying our 
legal policy. If we look at President Clinton, Vice President Gore, 
five of the administration groups and all five major environmental 
groups support this because it is going to help save dolphin; and we 
support that. And when we can come together as a body and throw out the 
extremes on both sides and arrive somewhere in the middle, work with 
industry, work with environmental groups, that is good.
  Why is the Panama agreement important? Because it does tie those 12 
nations to the same observation, the same requirements that the United 
States has to go through today.
  This Congress must support dolphin conservation, the fishermen who 
perfected their fishing techniques, and the scientists who worked with 
them to achieve these many accomplishments.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for their hard work in the 
face of a lot of lobbying from groups with misinformation. And I would 
like to thank them for sticking to principle and believing in what they 
are trying to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the President of the United States 
supporting this legislation, and I would like to submit it for the 
Record.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, American Samoa is in the middle of the 
South Pacific Ocean, and fishing has been the life blood of Samoans for 
thousands of years. While today's commercial canning operations bear 
little resemblance to my father's subsistence fishing, we continue to 
use the same resource, the Pacific Ocean.
  The Samoans are also known as the voyagers, and countless generations 
ago, my forefathers, using Samoa and Tonga as a base, expanded the 
known world to include the island groups now known as French Polynesia, 
which includes the Island of Tahiti, the Cook islands, the Hawaiian 
Islands, and many of the smaller islands in between. We learned well 
the ways of the ocean, including who our friends are.
  In my lifetime, I have had the opportunity over the years to share 
the experiences of my ancestors. As a youth I traveled extensively on 
the waters of the Pacific in vessels voyaging between Tokelau and the 
Manu's islands. I have even traveled on a purse seiner for 400 miles 
from Samoa to the southern Tongan Islands. I was also invited to sail 
on the famous Hokule'a, a historical Polynesian sailing canoe built by 
native Hawaiians and constructed so as to be the same in size and 
configuration as the ancient sailing canoes. With Nainoa Thompson as 
our first Polynesian navigator in 200 years, we voyaged on the Hokule'a 
from the Island of Rangiroa in French Polynesia to Hawaii, utilizing 
noninstrument navigational methods, sailing by the movement of the 
stars, the ocean waves, and the flight of birds.
  During this voyage, I had the opportunity to experience firsthand the 
interaction among those who live in the sea and those who live on and 
above it. I developed a greater appreciation for all living things, and 
confirmed the gentle, helpful nature of dolphins.
  In fact, the experience I got from being at sea for weeks at a time 
is that the dolphins were always there, and I can share with my 
colleagues that the dolphins are just like humans. Dolphins have been 
sacred to the Polynesians as far back as our legends recount our 
history. Ancient Polynesians would rather starve than kill a dolphin.
  When people are at sea under sail for weeks, dolphins are of 
tremendous psychological benefit. I have experienced lack of movement 
in the doldrums and the intense heat of the tropics, and I can 
understand how the dolphins would have given early Polynesian travelers 
a sense of hope. My voyage on the Hokule'a gave me an opportunity to 
contemplate that perhaps the reason God created dolphins was to provide 
psychological support for sailors at sea.
  Samoan legend and modern news reporting all confirm today's common 
knowledge about dolphins: They are of no threat to mankind, and have on 
occasions saved the lives of their fellow mammals. In return mankind 
has hunted them down, killing over 100,000 per year, not for 
sustenance, but because tuna swim under them.

  When this was brought to the attention of the U.S. public, we rose in 
outrage and put enough economic pressure on the tuna industry to change 
its methods of fishing. And you have already heard, dolphin deaths have 
dropped from over 100,000 per year to 3,300 in 1995. This is a 
significant achievement, and we consumers are to be commended.
  Congress did its part as well, placing an embargo on tuna that is 
caught by methods which harm dolphins, and by enacting legislation 
which permits the use of the all-familiar ``dolphin safe'' label.
  Part of the underlying problem is that tuna in the eastern tropical 
Pacific Ocean swim under schools of dolphin, and one easy, quick way to 
catch tuna in the eastern Pacific is to chase dolphins until they are 
too exhausted to swim any further. Then the dolphins, and the tuna 
under them, are encircled in a net. It is this chasing and netting 
procedure that causes the harm to the dolphins.
  In the western Pacific Ocean, the tuna do not always swim under 
schools of dolphin, and tuna are found through the use of modern 
techniques, including helicopters and sonar. By netting schools of tuna 
which are not swimming under dolphins, the problem is solved: Consumers 
get their canned tuna, and no dolphins are killed in the process.
  Now, under pressure from foreign governments, it is being proposed 
that the current statutory and regulatory system be changed. My 
colleagues will

[[Page H9429]]

recall that when we debated the implementing legislation for GATT and 
the proposed World Trade Organization, many of us pointed out the 
economic and policy difficulties which passage of the legislation would 
create. This is an example of the kind of problems we knew we would 
encounter under regulations of the World Trade Organization, or the 
WTO.
  Today we are being told that our dolphin safe embargo is in violation 
of the WTO rules, and that if we do not remove our embargo, the United 
States will be forced to pay significant fines. today we are being 
asked to forget a sound fisheries management policy that has reduced 
dolphin kills by 96 percent; we are being asked to forget the sound 
policy of using the attraction of the consumer market in the United 
States to alter the behavior of nations less concerned with the 
preservation of life; and instead we are being asked to give in to the 
foreign interests.
  H.R. 2823 is a bad idea because it rewards those who have the worst 
record in the killing of dolphins. This bill is nothing more than 
giving in to blackmail. What the foreign governments are saying is that 
unless we lift the embargo on canned tuna, they will allow the 
slaughter of hundreds of thousands of dolphins to resume. If this isn't 
blackmail--I don't know what is!

  Lifting the embargo constitutes only part of the bill. This will also 
perpetrate a fraud on the American consumer. H.R. 2823 changes the 
definition of dolphin safe to allow chasing, injury, harassment, 
encirclement, and capture of dolphins as long as no dolphins are 
observed dead in the nets. This definition allows tuna which have been 
caught by encirclement to be sold as dolphin safe in the U.S. market. 
This, Mr. Speaker, constitutes consumer fraud.
  This canneries in American Samoa were the first to announce they 
would no longer purchase tuna caught in association with dolphin. In 
large measure, this decision resulted in a marked decrease in the 
killing of dolphins worldwide--from a high of 115,000 in 1986 to less 
than 4,000 in 1995. Lifting the tuna embargo on Mexico and changing the 
definition of dolphin safe will confuse American consumers and 
undermine the integrity of an American industry which is currently 
struggling to survive.
  Lifting the embargo will also encourage what is left of the U.S. tuna 
industry to move to foreign countries in which businesses do not have 
to comply with any of the regulations that apply to U.S. companies 
located in our States and territories. U.S.-flagged purse seiners and 
tuna canning facilities in the United States must comply with the 
higher U.S. standards placed on U.S. companies by Federal law. Most 
foreign countries do not require the same high environmental and labor 
standards as the United States, and this works to the disadvantage of 
U.S. citizens and businesses because it puts pressure on U.S. companies 
to move overseas to be more competitive. There is proof that this 
movement to overseas locations is occurring. As a matter of policy, we 
should be encouraging businesses to locate and expand in the United 
States, not move to foreign soil.
  In 1983, 28.3 million pounds of foreign canned tuna entered the U.S. 
market above the quota. By 1991, this amount had increased to 237.2 
million pounds--a more than eight-fold increase. In 1991, canned tuna 
from U.S. plants accounted for approximately 50 percent of the U.S. 
market. By 1993, our market share had been reduced to approximately 39 
percent.
  Mr. Speaker, lifting the embargo on tuna caught by foreign nations 
will drive the last nail into the coffin of what remains of the U.S. 
tuna industry. Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, 
and other countries are already able to export their canned tuna to the 
United States without having to comply with any of the safety, health, 
or environmental regulations that apply to U.S. companies.
  Adding additional countries to this list will have a devastating 
effect on the largest industry in American Samoa. It is believed that 
approximately 80 percent of our private-sector employment is associated 
with the catching, cleaning, canning, and shipping of tuna. Needless to 
say, closure of these plants would devastate the economy of American 
Samoa.

  Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to turn back the clock. Dolphin 
deaths worldwide have been reduced by 96 percent because of tough 
dolphin safe laws in the United States and Europe. The foreign 
businesses which are behind this harmful bill insist the U.S. change 
its law to unload their hard-to-market dolphin unsafe tuna in the 
lucrative U.S. dolphin safe market. This makes a mockery of the term 
dolphin safe.
  Unfortunately, the dolphins cannot be here to make a case for 
themselves. A few of us are here in the Chamber today to speak on their 
behalf, and I want to say on behalf of the millions of dolphins at 
risk, the day will come when mankind will be held accountable for its 
actions.
  This should be an easy vote. By voting against this bill, you will be 
voting for the dolphins, for U.S. fishermen, for the U.S. boat owners, 
for the U.S. tuna canners, and against foreign interests. Let us not be 
governed by foreign interests. Save the dolphins and kill the Gilchrest 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

                  Bogus Claims About Tuna-Dolphin Bill

       Dear Colleague: As the House prepares to debate H.R. 2823, 
     the International Dolphin Act, you should know the truth 
     behind several misimpressions frequently conveyed by 
     supporters of the legislation. A careful examination of the 
     facts provides overwhelming justification for the Studds 
     ``Truth in Dolphin-Safe Labelling Amendment.''
       H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``This bill doesn't allow more 
     dolphins to be killed. It will reduce the number of dolphin 
     deaths.''
       But the fact is: H.R. 2823 allows the number of dolphin 
     deaths to rise by over 30 percent!
       H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``Our bill doesn't allow dolphins 
     to be hurt.''
       But the fact is: dolphins may be regularly encircled, 
     harassed and injured under the provisions of the bill!
       H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``Environmentalists support this 
     bill.''
       The fact is: over 80 grassroots environmental organizations 
     vigorously oppose this bill and support the Studds amendment. 
     By contrast, only the five environmental groups that secretly 
     negotiated this agreement with Mexico support the bill.
       H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``We must support this bill, and 
     we can't change this bill, because we would renounce an 
     international treaty and damage American credibility.''
       The fact is: no treaty has yet been negotiated, just an 
     agreement to negotiate a treaty! This bill requires that we 
     change U.S. law as a condition of negotiating the 
     international agreement. The U.S. is the only country 
     required to change its domestic consumer protection laws to 
     conform to the pre-treaty agreement.
       Congress must not perpetuate a fraud on American consumers. 
     ``Dolphin Safe'' must mean that dolphins are not injured or 
     killed in the hunt for tuna, which is what our constituents 
     believe it means. H.R. 2823 allows an increase in dolphin 
     deaths and the unlimited injuring and harassment of dolphins. 
     That is not ``Dolphin Safe.''
       Support the Studds amendment to keep the ``Dolphin Safe'' 
     label honest for American consumers.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a 
letter supporting this legislation from the Maritime Trades Department 
of the AFL-CIO, the Vice President of the United States that supports 
this legislation, and a list of scientists that had concern about the 
tuna-dolphin issue. I would like to submit these for the Record.
  Very quickly, the gentleman from American Samoa said we were 
pressured into this legislation by foreign powers. I want to say that 
we were pressured into this legislation by the marine ecosystem that 
needs our help in managing those scarce resources.
  The ancient Polynesians had values that we should reflect today. The 
world is much different today than it was during the ancient 
Polynesians' courageous efforts across the high seas. We want to retain 
the values of the ancient Polynesians. That is why we are trying to 
manage the ecosystem on an international basis.
  The last point, 10,000 to 40,000 dolphins are killed now in the 
western tropical Pacific. We are trying to eliminate that down to zero 
with our legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the correspondence to which I 
referred:

[[Page H9430]]

             [From the Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO]

     H.R. 2823 Would Give U.S. Tuna Industry a Level Playing Field

       Shortly the House of Representatives will take up H.R. 
     2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act of 
     1996, legislation designed to provide a level playing field 
     for the American tuna fishing industry. The Maritime Trades 
     Department, AFL-CIO (MTD), representing affiliates that 
     include fishermen and tuna cannery workers among their ranks, 
     urges Congress to adopt this measure without amendment.
       American tuna fishermen have been disadvantaged by 
     amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Dolphin 
     Protection Consumer Information Act. Since 1992, they have 
     been singularly barred from encircling dolphins during tuna 
     harvesting. This restriction has had the paradoxical effect 
     of forcing off the high seas American boats and crews, who 
     were responsible for developing dolphin saving techniques in 
     the harvesting process. As a result, many American-flag tuna 
     vessels have been sold and placed under convenience 
     registries with less experienced foreign crews that don't 
     share similar environmental concerns. Domestic tuna canneries 
     have been denied sufficient product to operate economically 
     and have experienced periodic shutdowns.
       Enactment of H.R. 2823 would help generate conditions 
     conducive to increased participation of American tuna vessels 
     in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. It also provides adequate 
     supplies of quality tuna to enable domestic tuna canneries in 
     California and Puerto Rico to operate full-time. In the 
     process, hundreds of American fishing and related canning 
     jobs will be restored and maintained.
       The bill, introduced by Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, also 
     provides strong environmental benefits that underscore 
     longtime congressional interest in eliminating dolphin 
     mortality resulting from tuna harvesting. H.R. 2823 
     accomplishes this goal through an international regime for 
     protecting dolphins, including observers and other 
     monitoring, verification and tracking of catch, research and 
     enforcement. Moreover, the bill requires reductions in the 
     allowable dolphin mortality rate to a level that guarantees 
     recovery of dolphin stocks. The act also calls for shipboard 
     observers to be responsible for monitoring bycatch of all 
     species, with the goal of reducing total bycatch.
       On balance, H.R. 2823 creates an environment that will 
     enhance opportunities for American tuna industry workers, 
     while enhancing international efforts to make tuna harvesting 
     safe for dolphin and other fish species. The MTD urges your 
     support for this legislation.
                                                                    ____



                                           The Vice President,

                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 1996.
     Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Gilchrest: I am writing to thank you 
     for your leadership on the International Dolphin Conservation 
     Program Act, H.R. 2823. As you know, the Administration 
     strongly supports this legislation, which is essential to the 
     protection of dolphins and other marine life in the Eastern 
     Tropical Pacific.
       In recent years, we have reduced dolphin mortality in the 
     Eastern Tropical Pacific tuna fishery far below historic 
     levels. Your legislation will codify an international 
     agreement to lock these gains in place, further reduce 
     dolphin mortality, and protect other marine life in the 
     region. This agreement was signed last year by the United 
     States and 11 other nations, but will not take effect unless 
     your legislation is enacted into law.
       As you know, H.R. 2823 is supported by major environmental 
     groups, including Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the 
     National Wildlife Federation, the Center for Marine 
     Conservation, and the Environmental Defense Fund. The 
     legislation is also supported by the U.S. fishing industry, 
     which has been barred from the Eastern Tropical Pacific tuna 
     fishery.
       Opponents of this legislation promote alternative fishing 
     methods, such as ``log fishing'' and ``school fishing,'' but 
     these are environmentally unsound. These fishing methods 
     involve unacceptably high by-catch of juvenile tunas, 
     billfish, sharks, endangered sea turtles and other species, 
     and pose long-term threats to the marine ecosystem.
       I urge your colleagues to support this legislation. Passage 
     of this legislation this session is integral to ensure 
     implementation of an important international agreement that 
     protects dolphins and other marine life in the Eastern 
     Tropical Pacific.
           Sincerely,
     Al Gore.
                                                                    ____


      Letter From Concerned Scientists on the Tuna/Dolphin Problem

       We the undersigned scientists recognize the achievements 
     made over the last twenty years to reduce dolphin mortality 
     in the Eastern Tropical Pacific purse seine fishery for 
     yellowfin tuna as well as efforts by U.S. and international 
     scientists to improve the data and estimates of abundance and 
     recruitment for dolphin stocks incidentally taken in this 
     fishery. Specifically, dolphin mortality in this fishery has 
     declined dramatically from 423,678 in 1972 to 4,095 in 1994.
       We support efforts domestically and internationally to 
     continue progress to reduce and eliminate dolphin mortality 
     in this fishery. Further, we strongly believe that sound 
     resource management and conservation depend upon reliable 
     science and take into consideration the conservation and 
     management of the ecosystem as a whole. The Declaration of 
     Panama signed, on October 4, by the United States and eleven 
     other nations takes significant steps in this regard. The 
     scientific merits of the Panama Declaration are notable.
       First, the Panama Declaration establishes conservative 
     species/stock specific annual dolphin mortality limits at 
     0.2% to 0.1% of the minimum population estimate (Nmin) 
     up to 2001 and less than 0.1% of Nmin thereafter. One 
     way to approach the question of how much mortality dolphin 
     populations can sustain and remain stable or increase is to 
     express harvest as a proportion of net recruitment (i.e. as a 
     proportion of the number of animals added to the population 
     each year minus those that died). Recent estimates of 
     recruitment are 2-6% per year. The Panama Declaration's 
     annual species/stock specific mortality limits are set such a 
     low level as to probably result in substantial increases in 
     dolphin populations in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
       Second, the Panama Declaration establishes for the first 
     time measures aimed at protecting other marine life caught 
     incidentally in the eastern pacific tuna fishery, and 
     represents an important first step towards efforts to reduce 
     bycatch in commercial fisheries and sound ecosystem 
     management.
       Third, the Panama Declaration places greater emphasis on 
     science-based management and conservation of tuna, dolphin, 
     and other marine life in the Eastern Tropical Pacific through 
     provisions that strengthen the existing scientific review 
     process; promotes greater interaction between the scientific 
     communities of the nations participating in the eastern 
     Pacific tuna fishery; and places greater reliance on 
     scientific data to inform the conservation and management of 
     the fishery and the incidental take of dolphins and marine 
     life in the fishery.
       As scientists, we fully support these scientific principles 
     which provide the basis for the Panama Declaration, and 
     believe that they represent a scientifically sound approach 
     to the management of the tuna fishery and conservation of 
     dolphins.
           Sincerely,
       Ken Norris, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of 
     California Santa Cruz.
       John H. Prescott, Director Emeritus, New England Aquarium, 
     former Chair, Committee of Scientific Advisors, U.S. Marine 
     Mammal Commission.
       Lloyd F. Lowry, Ph.D., Marine Mammal Scientist, Alaska 
     Department of Fish and Game.
       William E. Evans, Ph.D., President of the Texas Institute 
     of Oceanography, Professor of Wildlife and Fishery of 
     Sciences, Texas A & M University.
       David Challinor, Ph.D., Science Advisor National Zoo, 
     Smithsonian Institution.
       J. Lawrence Dunn, VMD, Staff Veterinarian, Mystic 
     Marinelife Aquarium.
       Daniel P. Costa, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of 
     California, Santa Cruz.
       Dayton L. Alverson, Ph.D., Natural Resource Consultants.
       Terry Samansky, Director of Marine Mammals, Marine World 
     Africa USA.
       Edwin S. Skoch, Professor of Biology, John Carroll 
     University, Ecotoxicology & Marine Animal Research Lab.
       Brad Fenwick, Professor, Kansas State University, College 
     of Veterinary Medicine.
       Wendy Blanshard, Veterinarian, Sea World Enterprises, 
     Surfer's Paradise, Australia.
       Sarah Lister, DVM, Johns Hopkins University.
       Kathryn J. Frost, Ph.D., Marine Mammal Scientist, Alaska 
     Department of Fish and Game.
       Graham Worthy, Ph.D., Professor of Marine Biology, Texas A 
     & M University.
       George Woodwell, Ph.D., Past President, Ecological Society 
     of America, Woods Hole Research Center.
       David St. Aubin, Ph.D., Researcher, Mystic Marinelife 
     Aquarium.
       Jeff Boehm, Vice President Research and Veterinarian 
     Services, Shedd Aquarium.
       William Y. Brown, Ph.D., Researcher, Hagler Bailly.
       Sarah Paynter, Ph.D., Lecturer, Johns Hopkins University 
     and National Aquarium in Baltimore.
       Gwen Griffith, DVM, President, Alliance of Veterinarians 
     for the Environment.
       Cecile Gaspar, DVM, Dolphin Quest, Moorea-French Polynesia.
       Scott Nachbar, DVM, Aquarium of Niagra Falls.

       Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
     gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments expressed 
by my good friend from Maryland concerning the legislation. But I think 
as a point of observation that I would like to share with the gentleman 
about the movement of tuna, not only as a migratory fish, but the fact 
that the way tuna is being caught in the eastern Pacific is quite 
different than the problems that we face in the western Pacific, the 
problems we have along the coastlines, the Latin American countries 
where the tuna tend to come up closer to the dolphins.

[[Page H9431]]

  I do not know if it is because of the current or the warmth of the 
water, whatever it is, that causes this difference in how the tuna 
survives when it moves, quite different than from the way that we catch 
tuna in the western Pacific.
  The fact is that the tuna tends to go lower in depth and so that when 
we do the purse seining, the dolphins are not as much affected as 
opposed to the problems we face in the eastern Pacific.
  This is the predicament that we find ourselves under. The fact that 
because of the differences in temperature, whatever it is, that causes 
the tuna, the eastern Pacific tuna to go up a little closer to the 
dolphins so we obviously end up with a very difficult problem there, 
where our friends from Mexico and other countries that have the 
tendency, when they do catch the tuna under the dolphins, the dolphins 
definitely are more affected by it as compared to the problems that we 
have in the western Pacific.
  I say to my good friend while I can appreciate his observations of 
how my forefathers have given a real sense of appreciation not only for 
the ocean environment, but the fact that here one of the most beautiful 
mammals in the world that we see and putting them on a sacrificial 
altar for the name of expediency and saying that tuna is more important 
than dolphins, I submit to the gentleman from Maryland, I could not 
disagree with him more on this issue.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I understand the nature of the difference 
between the way in which tuna and dolphins act in the eastern tropical 
Pacific. We have reduced the dolphin kill in the eastern tropical 
Pacific to a little over 3000. We have not reduced the kill of dolphins 
in the western tropical Pacific where we have no management ability.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. speaker, the Gilchrest approach offers the 
dolphin a better chance than the alternatives. Let me say that the 
Studds approach is also in my judgment a good alternative, but this one 
is much better because we would not be going it alone. Internationally 
we would be supported by many countries using the approach of Wayne 
Gilchrest.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument is very simple. If fleets do not receive 
some reward for their changed behavior soon, they will revert to their 
old and easier ways of fishing. Dolphin casualties are going to rise. 
Under this proposal, we are going to keep international monitoring 
programs all in effect. This legislation is critical for both the 
environmental and international communities. I hope my colleagues will 
support this bill that is fair, is necessary. It is moderate and has 
broad support.
  Mr. Speaker, who can be greener than Al Gore, the Vice President of 
the United States who supports this bill?
  This bill is the next step in the process of minimizing the impact of 
tuna fishing on dolphin populations in the marine ecosystem. In 1972, 
over 400,000 dolphins died in tuna nets. Last year that number was just 
over 3,000. The Saxton-Gilchrest bill, of which I am a cosponsor, locks 
into a place a 99 percent improvement in environmental protection.
  Dolphin protection in international waters cannot be carried out by 
the United States alone. If we go the alternative route, everyone will 
say, there goes the United States, on its own again. We have to rely 
upon commitments of several fishing nations to cooperate with us to 
protect dolphins. With Mexico we have worked very well on this issue. 
There is a lot of progress. We cannot risk losing this important 
international coalition. If we do, the United States runs the risk of 
never being a leader in dolphin protection. then what would happen 
would be anarchy and more whaling deaths and there would be a whole 
upsurge of commercialism rather than environmentalism dictating what we 
should do.
  The changes promoted by this bill will give incentives to make tuna 
fishing less wasteful of nontarget fish and as safe as ever for 
dolphins. This bill guarantees through the best observer program in the 
world that every time a net is deployed only tuna that is truly dolphin 
safe will receive this label. This dolphin-safe certification would be 
given to any haul of tuna in which no dolphins were killed or seriously 
injured.
  Although there are reasonable concerns from my colleagues that 
dolphins will be stressed by this fishing technique, this bill that we 
are supporting, the Saxton-Gilchrest bill, calls for a study on dolphin 
stress so that we can finally make some solid conclusions about this 
issue.
  The United States must continue to hold the firm line on compliance 
with sound fishing. This is why this bill will use the same tough trade 
measures that push countries to improve their fishing methods in the 
first place.
  It is important that we implement the Panama Declaration to reward 
the efforts taken by our trading partners. if we fail to implement this 
agreement, there is reason to fear that our trading partners will 
return to their old ways of fishing. If this happens, dolphin mortality 
levels will rise.
  This bill again is supported by the Clinton administration, National 
Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, 
Greenpeace, and 12 nations have agreed to an unprecedented level of 
marine life protection. I think this is a good bill. It is a good, 
appropriate step in the interest of sustainable fishing, dolphin 
protection and the marine ecosystem. I think it has already been 
stressed that the maritime trade unions of the AFL-CIO support this 
bill. They have issued a statement.
  Mr. Speaker, let us support this bill, but let us say that the 
approach that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] has 
proposed I think is a good approach, but not hardly as good as this one 
that we are pursuing today. Let us give bipartisanism and environmental 
protection a very strong vote.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out that this has been an almost full hour 
debate on the rule. I think we have come to the conclusion that this is 
a very good rule and it is going to lead to some very fine debate, when 
we get to the debate on this subject, which we are all looking forward 
to.
  I am personally pleased that we have made such great progress in 
dolphin protection. Six years ago, when there was a merchant marine and 
fisheries committee, there was some disagreement that led to a better 
solution. Further disagreements have led to better solutions. This 
shows that democracy works, this Congress works, and I am proud to be 
part of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 489 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2823.

                              {time}  1811


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2823) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to support the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program in the eastern tropical 
Pacific Ocean, and for other purposes, with Mr. Collins of Georgia in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H9432]]

  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for making in order the consideration 
of this bill, H.R. 2823, which would codify the Panama Declaration. 
This bill has been the subject of scrutiny by several committees: The 
Committee on Resources and, of course, our Subcommittee on Fisheries, 
Wildlife and Oceans, the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the 
Committee on Commerce.
  Our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young, and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Gerry Studds, have both expressed 
their reluctance to reopen the dolphin-safe tuna issue. They remember 
the rhetorical battle of the merchant marine and fisheries committee on 
which we all served, and I remember that battle as well.
  The Gilchrest bill will lead 12 nations that currently fish in the 
eastern tropical Pacific or the ETC to a binding agreement to conserve 
and protect the entire ecosystem, including dolphins.
  The alternative is an increase in school and log sets which result in 
killing sharks, endangered sea turtles, billfish, and baby tunas.
  These pictures exemplify what it is that we are trying to protect. We 
have endangered Olive Ridley turtles. We have sharks. We have wahoo and 
billfish and, of course, juvenile or baby tuna. These are all species 
that we are trying to protect pursuant to this act.
  Opponents of the Gilchrest bill will make several arguments. First, 
they will argue that the change in the status quo will lead to the 
wholesale slaughter of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific. We 
will show that that is not true.

                              {time}  1815

  Second, Mr. Chairman, opponents of the Gilchrest bill will also argue 
that the status quo will serve the purpose of saving the dolphins. We 
believe that is not true. Opponents will also claim that this bill will 
somehow undermine NAFTA, which we also believe is untrue.
  So let me just start with the first issue. The first issue with 
regard to the Gilchrest bill will be that it is a change in the status 
quo and it will lead to the wholesale slaughter of dolphins. To me this 
is a disingenuous argument.
  In fact, other nations are currently setting on dolphins; in other 
words, fishing for tuna under dolphins, in the eastern tropical 
Pacific, as the regular tuna harvesting method. That is going on today, 
and there is a large-scale slaughter of dolphins today by other 
countries.
  These fishermen have refined their harvesting techniques so that a 
sizable reduction, however, in dolphin mortality has resulted from 
hundreds of thousands of dolphin deaths annually to just about 4,500 
dolphin deaths today. Scientists say that this is about 4,500 out of a 
total of more than 9 million dolphin deaths.
  These 11 nations, Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, 
Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela have all 
negotiated with the Clinton administration in good faith to set up the 
framework for a binding agreement to cap dolphin mortality in the 
eastern tropical Pacific.
  Mr. Chairman, the result of these negotiations is the Panama 
Declaration, and the enactment of this bill is the enactment of our 
promises under that declaration. The linchpin to the Panama 
Declaration, on which neither our State Department nor other nations 
will compromise, is the change in the dolphin safe definition. Without 
this change, the Panama Declaration, the international treaty, falls 
apart and so does our chance for a binding international marine 
conservation agreement to protect dolphins and other marine life.
  The opponents also will argue that the Gilchrest bill, that the 
status quo will better serve the same purpose. Actually that is false. 
The status quo will no longer exist if the Panama Declaration is 
scuttled, and other countries will revert to their old practices.
  The current agreement under which these nations, known as the LaJolla 
Agreement, is 100 percent voluntary on the part of all nations. These 
nations have shown that they will walk away from the voluntary 
conservation measures outlined in LaJolla without this agreement.
  As a matter of fact, in fairness to the opponents, I delayed the 
subcommittee markup to ensure that all members had an opportunity to 
express their concerns and have them addressed. The international 
community expressed its determined disagreement, and I had to 
personally spend hours meeting with representatives of Latin American 
countries who threatened to walk away from this process.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] has an amendment that 
he will offer at the appropriate time. When we begin debate on the 
Studds amendment, I will discuss in detail why it will cause the demise 
of many more dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific, also known as 
the ETP, than currently occurs.
  Third, as I pointed out, the opponents will also suggest that this 
somehow is related to NAFTA. They will further claim that if this bill 
is approved, the United States is telling the world that we will weaken 
our own environmental laws to avoid violating NAFTA. I voted against 
NAFTA, and I can assure my colleagues that this bill is not related to 
NAFTA at all. That assertion is way off the mark. We are changing the 
law, yes; but we are not, we are not in any way, weakening it. We are 
strengthening it by enticing other countries already setting on 
dolphins or fishing on dolphins to participate in this binding 
international agreement that will reduce dolphin mortality even 
further.
  Let me just repeat. A binding agreement will reduce dolphin mortality 
even further. Remember the current agreement is voluntary, not binding, 
and these countries can walk away from it at any time. The NAFTA 
agreement does not wash, the NAFTA argument does not wash, and neither 
does the assertion that we are weakening our environmental laws. I 
cannot fathom how a binding agreement to reduce dolphin mortalities in 
the ETP can be portrayed as anything, anything but a stunning 
environmental accomplishment.
  At the close of general debate I will be offering a managers 
amendment that, like the Gilchrest bill, is wholeheartedly supported by 
the Clinton administration. It is also supported by Green Peace, the 
American Tuna Owners Association, the Center for Marine Conservation, 
the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Wildlife Fund, the National 
Wildlife Federation, the Seafarers International Union, and the 
American Sportfishing Association.
  I will explain the substitute further at that time and urge all 
Members to do the right thing for all marine creatures in the eastern 
tropical Pacific and to vote yes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to make concessions to 
foreign fishing interests, the Clinton administration and other 
proponents of H.R. 2823 are tampering with the standards set under the 
authority of one of our most fundamental and successful environmental 
laws, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. This bill permits the 
number of dolphin deaths to actually increase up to 5,000 annually and 
has no provisions, in my opinion, to enforce this limit or specify how 
this number should decrease over time. I believe it leaves a gaping 
loophole, with no limitations on injuring or harassing dolphins so long 
as there are no observed mortalities.
  I think also the American people have the right to know that this 
bill, in my opinion, has not been subject to proper debate and 
consideration. I know that my colleague from New Jersey talked about 
the action that took place in the Committee on Resources, but the bill 
was not referred to the Committee on Commerce which has in the past 
considered numerous bills relating to the labeling of tuna. Also, I am 
skeptical that adequate observer coverage can occur on a set by set 
basis as proposed by this bill, much less that a single observer could 
monitor nets that are up to a mile long and a hundred feet deep for 
potential dolphin fatalities.
  Proponents are suggesting that bycatch is an important consideration, 
and I strongly support the need to address bycatch issues for tuna 
fishing, but by means other than a shifting of fishing effort to 
practices which place

[[Page H9433]]

dolphins at risk. This bill provides no alternative to dolphin sets 
with a failure to ensure that bycatch mitigation research is done. 
Setting on logs and debris under which tuna aggregate will continue as 
two other major commercial tuna species, the skipjack and bigeye tunas 
are traditionally caught under logs and debris and are not typically 
found with dolphins. Setting on dolphins is not a real solution to the 
bycatch issue, and H.R. 2823 does address this.
  This bill is yet another rollback of environmentalist legislation, 
and the threat this bill poses to dolphins is very real in my opinion.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the author of the bill.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  What I would like to explain to the Members that will be voting here 
in the next hour or so is that we have a piece of legislation that has 
been put together in the light of day by numerous interested parties, 
by the fishermen who want to catch their fair share of fish, by 
scientists who understand the complexity of the nature of the marine 
ecosystem, by elected officials in the United States that want to 
ensure jobs and ensure environmental quality and ensure the sovereignty 
of the United States. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with 
reneging on our environmental policies, this bill has nothing to do 
with violating the label so consumers understand that they are eating 
dolphin safe tuna.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that puts the best of American together, 
to join us with 11 other nations to understand the nature of limited 
resources and a bulging population. This bill understands the nature of 
trying to get international agreement on sensitive environmental 
issues. This bill is a first step to understand the nature of complex 
environmental issues such as global warming that we will have to sit 
down at the table and find agreements on.

  Now the issue here is encirclement, the issue here is encirclement 
that deals with purse seine nets, and yes, those purse seine nets since 
the 1950's have killed hundreds and thousands of dolphins in the 
eastern tropical Pacific, and yes, the United States placed an embargo 
on that type of encirclement, the United States placed a gear 
restriction so that we would not import tuna where dolphins were 
killed. But there are still not only dolphins being killed in the 
pursuit of tuna, there are tens of thousands of sharks as bycatch. 
There are immature tuna being caught in other methods that will never 
stand the chance to spawn, and so the tuna population will continue to 
diminish.
  So we have gotten together in the light of day in LaJolla, CA some 
years ago to try to figure out, we, as intelligent human beings, trying 
to figure out how we can manage our resources, feed the world and 
sustain the environmental marine ecosystem for generations to come.
  Now a speaker earlier talked about the Polynesians and their values 
for life, both human and animal, fish species, mammals and so on. Those 
same values of respecting life on planet Earth are an inherent part of 
this piece of legislation, and so encircling dolphins the way it used 
to be, encircling tuna the way it used to be, killed tens of thousands 
of dolphins.
  In this new method, which is not an end-all to this scheme of things, 
we are not going to adopt this legislation and have this agreement with 
12 other countries and not continue to pursue to understand the nature 
of how to catch tuna without killing one dolphin. We are continuing to 
study this issue. We encircle the dolphins.
  I say to my colleagues, Now imagine a boat with a circle around the 
back of that boat, and you have encircled the tuna fish that are 
swimming underneath these dolphins. The boat stops with a licensed 
observer on board, and then the back of the net drops down. Into that 
circle, into that net, go members of that tuna boat to chase the 
dolphins and the other marine mammals out of that net, and the net 
drops down below the surface of the water. And until all the dolphins 
are out of the net, that net does not get pulled and the tuna do not 
get processed on board ship.
  This is not a perfect solution. There is no utopia on planet Earth. 
We must manage our limited resources with the technology that is 
available to us at this moment, and in my judgment the technology to 
reduce dolphin deaths, the technology to ensure the honesty of labeling 
dolphin safe tuna is this legislation.
  So I will encourage my colleagues, as painful as it is to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from California, and I 
very rarely vote against these two gentlemen when it comes to 
environmental issues, but I would encourage my colleagues to vote 
against the Miller-Studds amendment and vote for this legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, at some point in time in this debate 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, I know, will be offering an amendment 
to the pending legislation, and for that reason I rise in support of 
the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] which 
will continue the meaningful standard of current Federal law on the use 
of the dolphin safe label.
   Mr. Chairman, it was through a public outcry beginning over a decade 
ago that Congress responded in 1990 with the dolphin safe label we see 
on all tuna sold in the United States. American consumers wanted to 
purchase canned tuna, but they were not willing to do so if it meant 
killing over 100,000 dolphins per year. It was through a grass roots 
belief that dolphins should be protected that the dolphin safe label 
was born.

                              {time}  1830

  Throughout this period, Mr. Chairman, Mexican fishermen have wanted 
to catch tuna by encircling dolphins and selling it to consumers in the 
United States. The Gilchrest bill would give foreign interests greater 
access to our markets and remove the incentives to the tuna industry to 
stay in the United States. That is not good policy for anyone but the 
foreign fishing fleets and foreign canners.
  Mr. Chairman, today, in a misplaced effort to comply with the foreign 
trade agreement, supporters of this bill propose changing the 
definition of dolphin-safe so dolphins can be chased and encircled in 
the catching of tuna, and the tuna can still be sold in the United 
States under the dolphin-safe label.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this legislation and, quite frankly, 
even with the Studds amendment, but I do not believe that the bill 
adequately protects the dolphin stocks. Without the Studds amendment, 
Mr. Chairman, the consumers will not have that choice because they will 
not be able to tell dolphin-safe tuna from dolphin-unsafe tuna.
  H.R. 2823 is not the solution, Mr. Chairman, to the dolphin issue I 
would choose, but the Studds amendment is the tolerable option. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Studds amendment when it is brought 
before the floor for consideration.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I 
wish to congratulate the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for 
all his hard work on it, for the thoroughness with which he took this 
challenging assignment on, for the openness of the process, for the 
methodical manner in which this final product was developed. Wayne 
Gilchrest is a class act.
  The choice we face in this debate is between ideological purity and 
practical impact. The purists want to push an approach to fishing in 
which no dolphins will ever become entangled in tuna nets. That sounds 
good, and we would all feel good voting for it, having demonstrated our 
purity. There is only one problem: that is, the practical impact that 
vote would have.
  If we vote down this bill or amend it, we walk away from an 
international agreement that has been enormously successful in saving 
dolphins. Dolphin deaths have dropped from over 400,000 in the 1970's 
to less than 4,000 last year. The agreement will continue to move

[[Page H9434]]

us toward reducing mortality to zero. The agreement would fall apart. 
Other countries would go back to their old means of fishing, and 
dolphin mortality would increase again if we voted other than for the 
Gilchrest bill.

  Not only that, bycatch of other species such as sea turtles would 
increase. So our choice is to vote for this bill and accept a small and 
declining level of dolphin mortality, or to pretend to purity and cause 
the death of dolphins and other sea creatures.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], as one would expect, has 
taken the moderate approach. It has won the support of even such 
immoderate groups as Greenpeace.
  Some of my friends are for this bill. People ask me, what about your 
friends? I point out some of my friends are for this bill, and some of 
my friends are not so enthusiastic. But let me tell the Members about 
my friends that are for this bill: The National Wildlife Federation, 
the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Center 
for Marine Conservation, our good friends in the maritime trades 
department of the AFL-CIO, the American Sport Fishing Association, the 
American Tuna Boat Owners. The Washington Post twice has editorialized 
in support of this Gilchrest bill, and so has the New York Times and 
the Houston Chronicle.
  Seasoned observers who care deeply about this process have all 
examined very carefully the Gilchrest proposal, and they have urged us, 
the Representatives of the American people, to vote for it. I proudly 
identify with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest], and I enthusiastically support this bill and urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a couple of things that have 
been said here. The suggestion is that somehow, if we engage the 
legislation as it is currently written, that somehow that will lead to 
a reduction in the dolphin death rate from what we have today. The fact 
of the matter is the legislation allows for almost a 30 percent 
increase in dolphin deaths under this bill.
  It also does not address and in fact would allow for the first time, 
under the guise of being dolphin-safe, the harassment, the hunting, 
capture, and killing, the attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, 
marine mammals. We would not allow this, and this is not allowed for 
any other mammal, any other kind of fisheries under the law. But the 
fact of the matter is that is what happens.
  What we do know, and one of the reasons that we have this 
legislation, is because the encirclement, the harassing, and the stress 
on the dolphins has taken a toll on them. Yet somehow we condone that, 
and we suggest that that is in fact dolphin-safe, when in fact all the 
scientists agreed when we wrote this law that that was not dolphin-
safe. In fact, Greenpeace, which is supporting the Gilchrest approach 
here, I believe has never changed their position, that there should be 
an end to the encirclement of dolphins. But in fact, that is sanctioned 
under this legislation.
  My colleagues keep referring to their friends who are supporting this 
legislation. I would like to point out that the Sierra Club, the 
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Earth 
Island Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, Friends of 
the Earth, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the American 
Humane Association, those organizations that have dedicated their 
entire existence to the humane treatment of animals, to ending the 
slaughter of animals, mammals and wildlife, oppose this legislation.
  Again, by denigrating the label, by suggesting that these activities 
will be allowed, that the increased killing of dolphins will be 
allowed, and somehow trying to present to the same American consumer 
that has now been making a decision for many, many years that when they 
buy a can of tuna that is sold in the United States, that in fact the 
label of dolphin-safe means dolphin-safe, now we are going to pull a 
trick on them. We are going to pull a trick. We are going to tell them 
that dolphin-safe means dolphin-safe, but it does not. It means we can 
encircle, and we can harass, and we can maim, and we can injure, and we 
can in fact increase the number of dolphins that are killed.

  The current system, with all of these bandits out there fishing the 
way they want, the current system has dramatically reduced the measured 
kill in dolphins some 95, 97 percent. Yet we are told now under the new 
regime what we have to do is allow these people to kill more dolphins.
  Then we are going to kid the schoolchildren that led the crusade in 
this country for dolphin-safe tuna, for the consumers, for the 
packaging companies that complied with this and made a decision, made 
an investment, we are going to con all of them that now somehow this 
legislation is really dolphin-safe and better for the dolphins, in 
spite of the language in the legislation that allows the dolphins to be 
put under much more stress, to be injured, and to be maimed, in direct 
contradiction of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  These are exactly the acts that are prohibited and for which these 
mammals are protected, but in the case of the dolphin, they will no 
longer have that protection. I am sure my colleagues on the other side, 
the colleagues supporting this legislation, would not suggest that we 
do away with that protection for marine mammals. But somehow, because 
of the insistence of Mexico that they need to do this, and I do not see 
Mexico volunteering not to take juvenile tuna in their coastal waters. 
They did not put that in this agreement. The only thing we put in this 
agreement is changing how American consumers are going to be able to 
depend upon a label and what this label means.
  My colleagues say we have to change the method in which we fish for 
dolphins because it has an impact on juvenile tuna. But most of the 
juvenile tuna is taken within the coastal waters of Mexico, and it is 
exempt from this agreement.
  Our trade negotiators, our State Department, constantly continue to 
sell the American market cheap. In one agreement after another, we 
constantly give away the integrity of the market, and, in this case, 
the integrity of our consumer protection, the integrity of our 
environmental laws, the integrity of our workplace, the integrity of 
the jobs for our workers.
  Somehow we do not appreciate the real value of this market. The 
reason they are banging on the door for this agreement, and this is not 
a treaty, as people on the other side have suggested. This is about an 
agreement to go forward to negotiations for an agreement. But what we 
have is America unilaterally agreeing to change its basic consumer 
protection laws.
  Mexico, however, is free to continue to take all the juvenile tuna 
they want, probably far in excess of anything that will be dealt with 
by the current system. So I would just hope that our colleagues would 
understand that there are a lot of suggestions about what this bill 
will do, but the language of the bill itself simply is contradictory to 
those representations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I love the dolphin. I am privileged to, 
when I go home in Florida, wake up every morning and watch the dolphin 
frolic in my front yard. Fortunately, commercial fishing in my area of 
the world does not include the capture or the harassment of dolphin, so 
maybe I should stay out of this fight.
  But I do love the species, and I think it is important that we begin 
to get an international agreement on the preservation of that species. 
I wish there were a perfect way to solve this problem, but there is 
not. I think the Gilchrest bill is a realistic bill and does the proper 
type of conservation of this particular species.
  There is, as I say, with the technology that we have now and the 
knowledge that we have now, and the fact that we do not have an 
international agreement on the preservation of the dolphin, it leads me 
to believe that the Gilchrest bill goes in the right direction. Quite 
often we strike out in our attempts to do good by taking unilateral 
action. I believe we can do even better if we take international

[[Page H9435]]

action, because these are international waters we are dealing with. 
This is a migratory species that moves about quite rapidly.
  I think, attacking this conservation matter, and the fact that such 
people as Greenpeace, whose credentials are beyond dispute as far as 
the species is concerned, are endorsing it, I think it is the wisest 
action to take. I say that, having great respect for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] and their position. But I find that it is best in my judgment 
to go for the Gilchrest proposal.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why support this bill? First of all, 
the United States has fallen under an encumbrance of having to have 
observers on a boat. This is in light of they have actually reduced the 
number of thousands of dolphins killed down to 4,000. My colleague, the 
gentleman from California, says first of all the number increased 20 
percent. Then just a minute ago he said it increased 30 percent, which 
we need to know what it is. I can tell the Members what it is. It goes 
from 4,000 to 5,000. Let me tell the Members why.
  Currently, currently the other nations that are involved or have the 
restrictions on them can go out and kill thousands of dolphin at will. 
But because of this agreement, the Panama Agreement, they fall under 
the same umbrella that we do. Fishermen have gone down to 4,000. 
Dolphin-safe does not have to be dolphin-safe under this current law.
  Under this bill, we will know that 100 percent of the tuna under as 
dolphin-safe label will be dolphin-safe, because every single boat will 
have an observer, not just U.S. boats, but all 12 of the other nations. 
Why would my friends oppose that? The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Sherry Boehlert, called it ``ideological purity.'' We have some of 
those on our side. I recognize that. I think both groups need to 
moderate their positions.

                              {time}  1845

  I think that has been done by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert], people that are known for their 
environmental record, and on your side as well, I would say to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  I do not apply any motive to this. I think the gentleman has a purely 
intensive feeling about his support of his own amendment.
  Let us take a look at the groups that support this. Earth Island. 
They have made millions of dollars managing the dolphin-safe label, 
managing the dolphin-safe label from Starkist.
  Fact. Earth Island, who makes millions of dollars from this, is 
generating fundraising dollars for their efforts. It is an economical 
issue for them. But yet on the other side we have the Vice President of 
the United States; Al Gore, who is your champion for the environment. 
If we have any radical group on our side, it is the AFL-CIO. They 
endorse this. But on the other side we have the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and many others who normally 
vote with a green vote. Because they feel that this is an honest effort 
to protect a resource that under the current conditions, you catch 
turtles because you fish for immature tuna, and you catch swordfish and 
the rest of it, and all that bycatch is wasted; killed. This method 
prevents that. It also saves the resource for future generations. That 
is why the President and Al Gore and many Members on your side of the 
aisle support this bill, as well as on our side.
  I would ask the gentleman in good faith, and I think he knows I am 
sincere in this. I truly believe that this will save dolphins. I think 
it will help our fishermen. I think it will move Mexico in not just 
this but in other ways. Already Mexico has worked very closely with us 
on our sports fishermen's rights and moved in that generation. Unless 
we adopt international agreements and enforce them, and I will work 
with the gentleman to make sure that these are enforced, then I think 
that we have slipped backwards.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just 
to say that the AFL-CIO does not support this legislation. We just 
spoke to them.
  We have member unions of the AFL-CIO that support this legislation 
and we in fact have members of the AFL-CIO that support our version, 
the Studds amendment, of that same legislation. We just got off the 
phone to their representative. We both have constituents, just as you 
have environmental organizations on both sides.
  The point is that these same nations that are now making this threat 
in fact today are not going out and killing tens of thousands, hundreds 
of thousands of dolphins, but they are threatening to. They are 
threatening to go out and act in a completely irresponsible fashion 
unless the U.S. Congress goes along with this attempt to get us to dupe 
the American consumers about the nature of the dolphin-safe label and 
the tuna which they buy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. I believe its 
enactment is necessary if we are going to continue to make progress in 
reducing dolphin mortality associated with fishing for tuna.
  I, like many of my colleagues, always have cause to pause for a 
moment before challenging the position of my friends and colleagues 
from Massachusetts and California on an issue like this. Certainly it 
is disconcerting to have words like ``conned'' and ``duped'' thrown 
into the debate. I think everybody here is in agreement about our basic 
objective, which is reducing dolphin mortality. It is evident that 
opinions are divided about how to pursue that objective, and so there 
is a division of opinion about this bill.
  I respect those that question the bill's approach, because I know 
that what they are primarily seeking here is what I am seeking, and 
that is reducing to the minimum, as efficiently as we can, the deaths 
of dolphins. We all remember the horrifying pictures of dolphins dying 
in fishermen's nets. That brought the public clamor that got us the 
very major progress that we have made to date in this issue.
  The improvement that has been made is largely the result of the La 
Jolla Agreement. That agreement has brought much reduction in dolphin 
mortality. But last year, as has been discussed, a dozen tuna fishing 
nations, including the United States, met to try to build on that 
agreement and put together a binding international agreement to replace 
the strictly voluntary La Jolla Agreement.
  The result of those talks was the framework agreement known as the 
Panama Declaration. It is the purpose of this bill to implement that 
agreement in order to strengthen international conservation programs 
and set the stage for a further reduction in dolphin mortality. We need 
to support this legislation in order to be able to keep that 
international cohesion together in support of a goal that I think all 
Members share.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. I believe that its enactment is 
necessary if we are to continue to make progress in reducing dolphin 
mortality associated with fishing for tuna.
  I think everyone here agrees that further reducing dolphin mortality 
should be the goal. But it's evident that opinions are divided about 
how we should pursue that objective--and as a result there are 
divisions of opinion about this bill. I respect those who have 
questions about this bill's approach, because I think that what's 
primarily involved here is an honest difference of opinion over the 
specific legislation, not a fundamental difference over its objectives.
  We all remember the horrifying images of dolphins dying in 
fishermen's nets. Those scenes rightly brought a public clamor for 
urgent action. And, since then we've made real progress. In fact, 
dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific has been cut by 
better than 90 percent.
  This improvement is to a large extent the result of an informal, 
voluntary agreement--known as the La Jolla Agreement--among countries 
whose nationals fish in the eastern Pacific.
  However, while this agreement has brought much improvement, more 
attention has gone to the U.S. law setting criteria for labeling tuna 
as ``dolphin safe''--criteria based on fishing practices rather than on 
dolphin mortality.

[[Page H9436]]

  Last year, a dozen tuna-fishing nations--including the United 
States--met in Panama to develop a binding international agreement to 
replace the strictly voluntary La Jolla Agreement. The result of those 
talks is a new framework agreement, known as the Panama Declaration. 
The purpose of this bill is to implement that declaration, in order to 
strengthen international conservation programs and to set the stage for 
further reducing dolphin mortality.
  As we consider this legislation, we should keep in mind what the 
Panama Declaration provides, because it goes beyond previous agreements 
in several important ways.
  Under the Panama Declaration, there would for the first time be a 
firm, binding international commitment to the goal of completely 
eliminating dolphin loss resulting from tuna fishing in the eastern 
Pacific Ocean. In addition, the declaration would provide new, 
effective protection for individual dolphin species--biologically-based 
mortality caps that will provide important new safeguards for the most 
depleted dolphin populations. And the Panama declaration provides for 
the world's strongest dolphin monitoring program, with independent 
observers on every fishing boat.

  Implementation of the Panama Declaration depends upon the changes in 
U.S. law that would be made by this bill. Among other things, these 
changes will lift restrictions on access to our markets for tuna caught 
in compliance with the new agreement, including revision of the 
standard for use of the ``dolphin safe'' label. That change in the 
``dolphin safe'' label seems to be the most controversial part of the 
bill, but it is an essential part and should be approved.
  Remember, under the current law that a ``dolphin safe'' label on a 
can of tuna doesn't necessarily mean that no dolphins died in 
connection with the catch of the fish. Instead, it simply means that 
the fishermen did not use a school of dolphins as their guide for 
setting their nets. If that condition is met, the ``dolphin safe'' 
label can be applied even if dolphin mortality in fact has occurred. By 
contrast, under the Panama Declaration--as implemented by H.R. 2823--
the term ''dolphin safe'' may not be used for any tuna caught in the 
eastern Pacific Ocean by a purse seine vessel in a set in which a 
dolphin mortality occurred--as documented by impartial, independent 
observers.
  In other words, it's not true that this bill would destroy the 
meaning of the ``dolphin safe'' label--it would make its meaning more 
specific and more accurate, by imposing a no-mortality standard, while 
providing for further study of the effects of dolphin-encirclement and 
a mechanism to again stop that fishing technique if it's determined to 
have an adverse impact on dolphins. I think this is a desirable change 
in the law.
  Furthermore, fishing can't be truly ``dolphin safe'' unless it's safe 
for the ecosystem. Because it focuses on fishing methods, not dolphin 
mortality, the current labeling law has had serious unintended 
consequences. Some of the ``dolphin safe'' methods tend to result in a 
catch of primarily juvenile tuna--harmful to the viability of the 
fishery--or result in numerous catches of other species such as 
endangered sea turtles or billfish.
  In fact, it well may be better for the ocean ecosystem for tuna 
fishermen to set their nets on dolphins and then to release the 
dolphins safely when the tuna are harvested--something that is strongly 
discouraged by the current labelling standard.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, one that represents a win-win 
situation for all. It's supported by the administration and the U.S. 
fishing industry as well as by environmental and conservation groups, 
including the National Wildlife Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, 
the Environmental Defense Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, and 
Greenpeace. It deserves the support of the House.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2823, 
the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, sponsored by Mr. 
Gilchrest. This bill is vital to the protection of dolphins, sharks, 
endangered sea turtles, and other creatures of our marine ecosystem.
  This bill is supported by such well-known environmental advocates as 
Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, 
and the Environmental Defense Fund.
  H.R. 2823 is better for dolphins because it locks into place binding 
international legal protections for dolphins in the eastern tropical 
Pacific [ETP]. Currently, dolphin protection in the ETP is voluntary. 
Many nations seek to protect dolphins in order to sell tuna in the U.S. 
market.
  The nations that fish for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific have 
developed new fishing methods to reduce dolphin mortality. As a result 
of these efforts, dolphin mortality has dropped from 125,000 in 1991 to 
3,300 last year, just 0.2 percent of the population. This is a level 
more than four times lower than that recommended by the National 
Research Council to allow recovery of dolphins. This bill sets 
aggressive mortality limits, with the goal of reducing dolphin 
mortality to zero.
  Under the Gilchrest bill the ``dolphin safe'' definition is based on 
actual dolphin mortality. If a dolphin dies as a result of harvesting 
tuna, then that tuna will not be permitted into the United States and 
onto our shelves. Currently, despite the label on cans of tuna that it 
is dolphin safe, there has been shown to be some dolphin mortality in 
even log and school sets of tuna harvests. H.R. 2823 assures consumers 
that no dolphins died in the catch of labeled tuna.
  Despite the current embargo, existing law has been ineffective in 
changing fishing practices of foreign fleets in the ETP; in fact, 
approximately 50 percent of sets by the foreign fleet are on dolphin 
schools despite the embargo.
  H.R. 2823 implements the Panama Declaration, and international 
agreement to reduce dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific 
Ocean and to be bound by the conservation and management measures 
enacted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC]. Without 
the Gilchrest bill the signers to the Panama Declaration will walk away 
from the agreement and we will risk all protections of dolphin 
throughout the region.
  A vote for this bill is a vote for the marine environment. The 
Gilchrest bill contains tough provisions that require tuna fishermen to 
protect dolphins, sea turtles, sharks, and bill fish. Under current 
methods of fishing, hundreds of endangered sea turtles and thousands of 
sharks die every year. The Gilchrest bill provides for protections of 
these species while simultaneously strengthening international dolphin 
protections.
  This bill is supported by the administration, Greenpeace, World 
Wildlife Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, and the 
Environmental Defense Fund. While important environmental advocates 
like the Sierra Club and the Humane Society oppose this legislation, I 
feel this bill is a good compromise in protecting dolphins, sea 
turtles, and sharks throughout the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2823 and vote to protect 
dolphins in the ETP. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, last year the United Nations adopted a 
new treaty to assure the conservation of fish caught in international 
waters, known as the Agreement on the Conservation and Management of 
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
  This new treaty, which was recently ratified by Congress with 
bipartisan support, seeks to reverse the depletion of fish and other 
marine life that has resulted from unsustainable fishing practices and 
the lack of effective international management.
  The need for this new treaty is painfully obvious. Many of our most 
important fisheries have been depleted, undermining the economic well-
being of coastal communities worldwide. Similarly, the wasteful bycatch 
of marine life in many fisheries poses a major threat to biodiversity.
  The legislation we are debating today, H.R. 2823, the International 
Dolphin Conservation Program Act, and the Panama Agreement upon which 
it is premised, represents the most far-reaching attempt to date to 
implement the conservation mandates of the new treaty. If enacted by 
Congress, it will create a model for the management of high seas 
fisheries around the world.
  H.R. 2823 advances several of the new, important conservation 
objectives of the U.N. treaty. For example, like the U.N. treaty, it 
prevents overfishing by requiring the establishment of catch limits 
based on a precautionary approach. Like the U.N. treaty, it also 
requires steps to minimize the wasteful by catch of all forms of marine 
wildlife. Like the U.N. treaty, it assures transparency in the 
management of fisheries in the eastern Pacific, so that all interested 
stakeholders can effectively participate in the management process; and 
like the U.N. treaty, it secures international cooperation in the 
conservation of marine resources.
  H.R. 2823 recognizes that unilateral measures alone cannot succeed in 
conserving fisheries that are prosecuted in international waters. It 
builds upon the recent, important work by the United Nations aimed at 
the sustainable management of world fisheries.
  H.R. 2823 is our best hope of assuring healthy fisheries as well as 
dolphin protection in the eastern Pacific Ocean. I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
H.R. 2823. This is a unique opportunity to approve legislation that 
would put us in compliance with our international obligations, use 
multilateral standards for the imposition of sanctions instead of 
unilateral standards that violate the GATT, and meet our environmental 
concerns over dolphin mortality.
  This bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee to address its 
trade aspects. We reported it out as approved by the Resources 
Committee, without further amendment.
  I support the bill because it would replace the current use of United 
States unilateral

[[Page H9437]]

standards as a trigger for an import ban of tuna caught with purse 
seine nets with multilateral standards agreed to as part of the Panama 
Declaration. If countries are in compliance with the multilateral 
standard for the fishing of yellowfin tuna, then the import ban would 
not apply.
  Any use of unilateral standards for the imposition of sanctions is 
troubling. In fact, a GATT panel has found our current law to violate 
our international obligations. Instead, enforcement actions are most 
effective when they are based on international consensus, as this bill 
would establish. Such consensus is more constructive to effective 
management of the ETP tuna fishery by all countries concerned. I 
believe that these standards will serve as a positive incentive to 
reduce dolphin mortality, while, at the same time, putting the United 
States in compliance with international agreements.
  The Studds amendment, however, would put the Panama Declaration at 
risk and would threaten all we have achieved. Adoption of this language 
would invite a serious challenge under the WTO and would discourage our 
trading partners from adopting more environmentally sound fishing 
methods. Far from achieving increased protection for dolphins, the 
amendment would undo the progress we have already made.
  Proof of the benefits of H.R. 2823, without the Studds amendment, is 
the fact that this legislation is supported by the administration and 
key environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the 
Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, 
Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund. In addition, our tuna fishing 
industry supports the bill, and our trading partners have indicated 
that they believe implementation of the bill would put us in compliance 
with our international obligations. With such a strong and diverse 
coalition behind this bill, we should strongly support this bill.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2823, 
the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. Among other things, 
this legislation implements the Declaration of Panama, agreed to by a 
dozen different nations, including the United States. As a strong 
proponent of free and fair trade, I think this represents a good 
example of how we can work together with out trading partners to 
achieve our shared goal of preserving the Earth's precious resources.
  H.R. 2823 includes several provisions within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Commerce. H.R. 2823 provides for implementation of the 
declaration in an effort to increase international participation in 
activities to reduce the number of dolphins and other marine mammals 
that die each year as a result of tuna fishing techniques. This bill 
would also modify the definition of ``dolphin safe'' for the purpose of 
labeling tuna products sold in the United States, and alter current 
regulations on the importation of tuna products. Also, the bill would 
make misuse of the ``dolphin safe'' label an unfair and deceptive trade 
practice under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
  In short, this legislation will help the United States achieve its 
environmental goals by implementing a reasonable agreement reached by 
the United States and its trading partners. It is supported by 
Republicans and Democrats alike, some environmental groups, and the 
Clinton administration. I would also like to take this opportunity to 
thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for his support and 
willingness to work with the Commerce Committee to expedite 
consideration of this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to make a decision on an 
issue of great importance first and foremost to our marine environment, 
but also to the process by which we will craft the environmental and 
public health policies of the future. We have a choice between the 
status quo, which would focus solely on one issue at the expense of 
others which are equally important, and a comprehensive, forward-
looking agreement which will carry strong dolphin and marine protection 
policies well into the next century. If we are truly interested in 
progressive, outcome-based environmental policy, then H.R. 2823 must 
serve as a cornerstone of that policy foundation.
  Over the last decade, great strides have been made in reducing 
dolphin mortality rates in the eastern tropical Pacific [ETP], as a 
result of improved and innovative tuna fishing methods pioneered by the 
U.S. tuna fleet, and stepped-up levels of on-vessel observer 
monitoring. These improvements were reflected in the landmark La Jolla 
Agreement of 1992, a voluntary resolution entered into by a number of 
tuna fishing nations, including the United States, Mexico, and several 
Latin American countries. This agreement established strict and 
declining levels of annual dolphin mortality rates, requiring that an 
annual overall rate of less than 5,000 be achieved by 1999, which is 
less than 0.1 percent of the estimated total dolphin population. This 
program has been so effective that it has already achieved a rate of 
below 4,000 annually, which is considered by scientists to be below 
levels of biological significance. I have an article that elaborates 
further on this point, Mr. Chairman, which I would ask to be entered 
into the Record along with my statement, but I would like to read one 
passage from it at this point. These remarks come from Dr. James 
Joseph, who is the director of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
Commission [IATTC]:

       Joseph said the dolphin mortality rate is now so low that 
     it cannot affect the survival of any of the dolphin species 
     ``The dolphins increase at a rate of from 2.5% to 3.5% per 
     year. The mortality for every (dolphin) stock is less than 
     one-tenth of 1 percent,'' he said. In other words, a great 
     many more young dolphins are born and survive each year than 
     die in tuna nets. There are about 9.5 million dolphins in 
     Eastern Pacific populations in all, and none of their several 
     species--including common, spinner, and spotted--is 
     endangered. ``We continue to take the approach that we can 
     bring it (dolphin mortality) lower, and we continue to work 
     in that direction. It is essential that we keep all of the 
     countries involved in the fishery cooperating in our 
     program,'' Joseph said.

  The La Jolla Agreement also required that observers be posted on each 
licensed vessel, which were each assigned strict dolphin mortality 
limits [DML]. To date, the signatories have continued to operate in 
good faith to protect dolphin in the course of harvesting tuna under 
this nonbinding agreement; however, some nations had openly considered 
dropping out of the La Jolla Agreement and the InterAmerican Tropical 
Tuna Commission, its umbrella organization, because despite the 
advances made in reducing dolphin mortality rates, U.S. law had not 
been changed to lift the existing embargoes on tuna imported into the 
United States. However, H.R. 2823, if enacted, would provide the 
incentives for these other fishing nations to want to remain involved 
in the IATTC and continue to fish for tuna in a dolphin-sensitive 
fashion, rather than ``leaving the table'' and reverting to older and 
more dolphin-unsafe fishing methods.

  In addition to this threat of retreat from vastly improved dolphin 
protection practices, biological problems of significant dimensions 
have arisen as a result of alternative ``nondolphin'' fishing methods 
now in use due to the existing restrictions to setting tuna nets ``on 
dolphin''. Such methods include setting nets around tuna attracted to 
floating objects--log fishing--or around free-swimming schools of 
fish--school fishing. While these methods do reduce direct contact with 
dolphin, they create other problems. Studies indicate that up to 25 
percent of volume of these harvest methods is ``bycatch'' of other 
species, including high volumes of sharks, billfish, and other 
pelagics, endangered sea turtles, and immature tuna. These young tuna 
are not market-ready, and are largely dead by the time they are 
returned to the sea. This wasteful depletion of juvenile tuna poses a 
serious threat to maintaining healthy, long-term populations of 
yellowfin tuna, in addition to stressing the populations of these other 
sensitive species.
  Conversely, setting tuna nets ``on dolphin'' creates little bycatch 
other than the dolphin themselves. While this was problematic--and 
lethal--for dolphin in past years, recent improvements in tuna harvest 
methods, such as the ``backing down'' procedure, in which the edge of 
the nets are allowed to swim below the surface, affording dolphins the 
opportunity to leave the net, have served to greatly minimize the 
threat to dolphin. In addition, small boats and a number of divers are 
often deployed within the net to assist dolphin out of danger.
  However, the problem of bycatch underscores a policy dilemma, as to 
how best to manage our marine resources on an ``ecosystem'' basis, 
rather than channeling all our energy and resources into ``single 
population'' strategies. While it is clearly essential that we continue 
to work to reduce dolphin mortality rates toward zero, this cannot and 
should not occur at the expense of other parts of our ocean biosystem, 
Fortunately, in H.R. 2823, we have a long-term solution before us today 
which will resolve the challenges, both environmental and economic, 
which we now face.
  In October 1995, 12 nations, including the United States, met in 
Panama to craft a binding international agreement to protect dolphin 
and other species in the eastern tropical Pacific. Five major 
environmental organizations were instrumental in developing this 
agreement, which been dubbed the Panama Declaration. The declaration 
will establish a permanent mortality limit, with the goal of zero 
dolphin mortality in that fishery. It will set mortality caps for 
individual species of dolphin, and provide for individual vessel 
accountability by establishing strict per vessel mortality caps. Just 
as important, the Panama Declaration provides greater study of and 
protection for other now at risk from ``bycatch'', and increase 
internationally enforceable monitoring systems to ensure compliance by 
participating nations who wish to fish in the ETP.

[[Page H9438]]

  The Panama Declaration, which will be codified into law by enactment 
of H.R. 2823, creates a binding and enforceable process to ensure 
continued declining rates of dolphin mortality, while for the first 
time adopting an ``ecosystem-based'' approach to ocean resource 
management. While there is absolutely no question that dolphin 
populations must and will continue to be protected and strengthened 
under the progressive strategies of this legislation, we can no longer 
ignore the potentially harmful problems which have been inadvertently 
created by our existing ``dolphin-safe'' policies. The Panama 
Declaration, in the form of H.R. 2823, should be codified into law, in 
order to ensure that we manage our marine resources to protect all 
species, in a sound and science-based manner. We must reject efforts, 
however well-intended, to reinforce the status quo, and move swiftly to 
enact the provisions of this legislation. H.R. 2823, which I have 
cosponsored along with a great number of my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle, is the vehicle to achieve this, and I would urge all my 
colleagues to lend their support to this progressive measure.
  This is more than sound ocean resources management. It is a blueprint 
for how we should proceed on future environmental strategy matters. 
This is an opportunity for us to move beyond the outdated ``single 
species'' approach of years past, and embrace more comprehensive, 
inclusive, and effective multispecies conservation management style. We 
have to be able to see the whole picture, and assemble our strategies 
accordingly. The increased loss of other marine life and sensitive 
species to ``bycatch'' under existing law has to date been largely 
overlooked, and is a looming biological threat which certainly merits 
the same levels of concern and proper scientific attention as has our 
dolphin population.
  These unintended consequences are indeed troubling, and will be 
comprehensively addressed by the Panama Declaration and H.R. 2823. We 
have created the technology and the incentives to keep dolphin 
mortality at insignificant and declining levels, which will be 
reinforced and locked in by H.R. 2823. However, protection for the 
dolphin is not the ``end of the story'' for conserving our ocean 
environment. It is also not the end of our responsibilities. As we have 
done with other strategies, we must take a comprehensive approach to 
marine conservation as well, in order to identify and understand these 
threats, and take action on them before they reach a crisis point.
  If we are truly interested in progressive, outcome-based 
environmental policy, guided by science, then we should embrace this 
bipartisan proposal, which is supported by the U.S. tuna fleet, the 
Clinton administration, and a number of major environmental groups. As 
we move into the next century, we should lead with an environmental 
strategy which reflects the level of scientific knowledge we have now, 
not what we knew 15 or 20 years ago. This bill keeps dolphins safe, and 
will help us avoid future problems with marine conservation. I urge all 
my colleagues to support H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin 
Conservation Act of 1996.

            [From the San Diego Union Tribune, June 7, 1996]

                  Scientist Hailed for Saving Dolphins

                           (By Steve La Rue)

       Dolphin deaths in tuna fishing nets have declined by about 
     98 percent since 1986 in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and a San 
     Diego marine scientist will get a large share of the credit 
     tonight when he receives San Diego Oceans Foundation's 
     highest award.
       The annual Roger Revelle Perpetual Award will be presented 
     to James Joseph, director of the La Jolla-based Inter-
     American Tropical Tuna Commission since 1969.
       With Joseph at the helm, the eight-nation commission has 
     mounted a sustained effort to reduce drowning deaths of 
     dolphins in tuna fishing nets. Its success could help unlock 
     a decades-old environmental dispute and end a U.S. embargo on 
     tuna caught by boats from Mexico and other countries that 
     look for the popular fish under dolphin schools.
       Large tuna often swim under schools of dolphins in the 
     Eastern Pacific Ocean for reasons that are not entirely 
     understood. Fishing boats historically have encircled these 
     surface-swimming schools with their nets, cinched the nets 
     shut at the bottom, then reeled in their catch.
       Air-breathing dolphins drowned in vast numbers, because 
     they were snared in the nets and dragged under water. An 
     estimated 133,174 dolphins died this way in 1986, but the 
     total fell to an estimated 3,274 last year, according to the 
     commission.
       The decline has come through a variety of measures, 
     including placement of observers on every tuna boat in the 
     Eastern Pacific, newer equipment for some boats, better 
     training of tuna crews and captains, special attention to 
     individual boats with high-dolphin kills and other measures.
       Joseph said the dolphin mortality level is now so low that 
     it cannot affect the survival of any of the dolphin species.
       The dolphins increase at a rate of from 2.5 to 3.5 percent 
     per year. The mortality for every (dolphin) stock as a 
     percentage of every stock is less than one-tenth of 1 
     percent,'' he said.
       In other words, a great deal more young dolphins are born 
     and survive each year than die in tuna nets. There are about 
     9.5 million dolphins in Eastern Pacific populations in all, 
     and none of their several species--including common, spinner 
     and spotted dolphins--is endangered.
       ``We continue to take the approach that we can bring it 
     lower, and we continue to work in that direction. It is 
     essential that we keep all of the countries involved in this 
     fishery cooperating in our program,'' Joseph said.
       Commission members include Costa Rica, France, Nicaragua, 
     Panama, the United States; the Pacific island-nation of 
     Vanuatu and Venezuela.
       Frank Powell, executive director of Hubbs-Sea World 
     Research Institute and last year's award winner, praised 
     Joseph in a prepared statement as ``A first-class biologist 
     who has devoted his entire career to the ocean. He has been 
     instrumental in reducing the number of dolphin fatalities 
     related to tuna fishing.''
       The award--a wood sculpture of a garibaldi fish that 
     remains in Scripps Bank's La Jolla office--will be present 
     tonight at the San Diego Oceans Foundation benefit dinner.
       The foundation is a volunteer organization committed to 
     preserving San Diego's bays and ocean waters. The Roger 
     Revelle Perpetual Award is named for the late scientist who 
     was founder of UCSD and director of the Scripps Institution 
     of Oceanography.
       Lowering the dolphin kill also was a prelude to the 
     introduction of proposed federal legislation to allow tuna 
     caught by setting nets around dolphin schools to be sold in 
     the United States as ``dolphin-safe''--but only if the 
     commission's on-board observers certify that no dolphins were 
     killed.
       Under current law, no tuna can be sold as ``dolphin-safe'' 
     is this country if they are caught by setting nets around 
     dolphin schools.
       The issue also has split environmental groups. Greenpeace, 
     the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense 
     Fund, and the National Wildlife Federation support the 
     proposed law. The Earth Island Institute, the Sierra Club, 
     the Human Society of the United States, and the American 
     Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals oppose it.
       Because of the current law and other factors, the U.S. tuna 
     fishing fleet, which once numbered 110 vessels and was 
     prominent in San Diego, has shrunk to 40 vessels operating in 
     the Western Pacific and 10 in the Eastern Pacific.
       The Earth Island Institute said in a statement that the 
     legislation would allow ``Foreign tuna stained by the blood 
     of dolphins to be sold on U.S. supermarket shelves'' and 
     allow ``chasing, harassing, injuring, and encircling dolphins 
     as long as no dolphins were `observed' being killed 
     outright.''
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record as No. 1 is considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2823

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``International Dolphin Conservation Program Act''.
       (b) References to Marine Mammal Protection Act.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to give effect to the Declaration of Panama, signed 
     October 4, 1995, by the Governments of Belize, Colombia, 
     Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, 
     the United States of America, Vanuatu, and Venezuela, 
     including the establishment of the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program, relating to the protection of dolphins 
     and other species, and the conservation and management of 
     tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean;
       (2) to recognize that nations fishing for tuna in the 
     eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have achieved significant 
     reductions in dolphin mortality associated with that fishery; 
     and
       (3) to eliminate the ban on imports of tuna from those 
     nations that are in compliance with the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The nations that fish for tuna in the eastern tropical 
     Pacific Ocean have achieved

[[Page H9439]]

     significant reductions in dolphin mortalities associated with 
     the purse seine fishery from hundreds of thousands annually 
     to fewer than 5,000 annually.
       (2) The provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 that impose a ban on imports from nations that fish for 
     tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have served as an 
     incentive to reduce dolphin mortalities.
       (3) Tuna canners and processors of the United States have 
     led the canning and processing industry in promoting a 
     dolphin-safe tuna market.
       (4) 12 signatory nations to the Declaration of Panama, 
     including the United States, agreed under that Declaration to 
     require that the total annual dolphin mortality in the purse 
     seine fishery for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical 
     Pacific Ocean not exceed 5,000, with a commitment and 
     objective to progressively reduce dolphin mortality to a 
     level approaching zero through the setting of annual limits.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(28) The term `International Dolphin Conservation 
     Program' means the international program established by the 
     agreement signed in La Jolla, California, in June 1992, as 
     formalized, modified, and enhanced in accordance with the 
     Declaration of Panama, that requires--
       ``(A) that the total annual dolphin mortality in the purse 
     seine fishery for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical 
     Pacific Ocean not exceed 5,000, with the commitment and 
     objective to progressively reduce dolphin mortality to levels 
     approaching zero through the setting of annual limits;
       ``(B) the establishment of a per-stock per-year mortality 
     limit for dolphins, for each year through the year 2000, of 
     between 0.2 percent and 0.1 percent of the minimum population 
     estimate;
       ``(C) beginning with the year 2001, that the per-stock per-
     year mortality of dolphin not exceed 0.1 percent of the 
     minimum population estimate;
       ``(D) that if the mortality limit set forth in subparagraph 
     (A) is exceeded, all sets on dolphins shall cease for the 
     fishing year concerned;
       ``(E) that if the mortality limit set forth in subparagraph 
     (B) or (C) is exceeded sets on such stock and any mixed 
     schools containing members of such stock shall cease for that 
     fishing year;
       ``(F) in the case of subparagraph (B), to conduct a 
     scientific review and assessment in 1998 of progress toward 
     the year 2000 objective and consider recommendations as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(G) in the case of subparagraph (C), to conduct a 
     scientific review and assessment regarding that stock or 
     those stocks and consider further recommendations;
       ``(H) the establishment of a per-vessel maximum annual 
     dolphin mortality limit consistent with the established per-
     year mortality caps; and
       ``(I) the provision of a system of incentives to vessel 
     captains to continue to reduce dolphin mortality, with the 
     goal of eliminating dolphin mortality.
       ``(29) The term `Declaration of Panama' means the 
     declaration signed in Panama City, Republic of Panama, on 
     October 4, 1995.''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I.

       (a) Authorization for Incidental Taking.--Section 101(a)(2) 
     (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)) is amended as follows:
       (1) By inserting after the first sentence ``Such 
     authorizations may also be granted under title III with 
     respect to the yellowfin tuna fishery of the eastern tropical 
     Pacific Ocean, subject to regulations prescribed under that 
     title by the Secretary without regard to section 103.''.
       (2) By striking the semicolon in the second sentence and 
     all that follows through ``practicable''.
       (b) Documentary Evidence.--Section 101(a) (16 U.S.C. 
     1371(a)) is amended by striking so much of paragraph (2) as 
     follows subparagraph (A) and as precedes subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting:
       ``(B) in the case of yellowfin tuna harvested with purse 
     seine nets in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and 
     products therefrom, to be exported to the United States, 
     shall require that the government of the exporting nation 
     provide documentary evidence that--
       ``(i) the tuna or products therefrom were not banned from 
     importation under this paragraph before the effective date of 
     the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act;
       ``(ii) the tuna or products therefrom were harvested after 
     the effective date of the International Dolphin Conservation 
     Program Act by vessels of a nation which participates in the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program, such harvesting 
     nation is either a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
     Commission or has initiated (and within 6 months thereafter 
     completed) all steps (in accordance with article V, paragraph 
     3 of the Convention establishing the Inter-American Tropical 
     Tuna Commission) necessary to become a member of that 
     organization;
       ``(iii) such nation is meeting the obligations of the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program and the 
     obligations of membership in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
     Commission, including all financial obligations;
       ``(iv) the total dolphin mortality permitted under the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program will not exceed 
     5,000 in 1996, or in any year thereafter, consistent with the 
     commitment and objective of progressively reducing dolphin 
     mortality to levels approaching zero through the setting of 
     annual limits and the goal of eliminating dolphin mortality; 
     and
       ``(v) the tuna or products therefrom were harvested after 
     the effective date of the International Dolphin Conservation 
     Program Act by vessels of a nation which participates in the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program, and such 
     harvesting nation has not vetoed the participation by any 
     other nation in such Program.''.
       (c) Acceptance of Evidence Coverage.--Section 101 (16 
     U.S.C. 1371) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(d) Acceptance of Documentary Evidence.--The Secretary 
     shall not accept documentary evidence referred to in section 
     101(a)(2)(B) as satisfactory proof for purposes of section 
     101(a)(2) if--
       ``(1) the government of the harvesting nation does not 
     provide directly or authorize the Inter-American Tropical 
     Tuna Commission to release complete and accurate information 
     to the Secretary to allow a determination of compliance with 
     the International Dolphin Conservation Program;
       ``(2) the government of the harvesting nation does not 
     provide directly or authorize the Inter-American Tropical 
     Tuna Commission to release complete and accurate information 
     to the Secretary in a timely manner for the purposes of 
     tracking and verifying compliance with the minimum 
     requirements established by the Secretary in regulations 
     promulgated under subsection (f) of the Dolphin Protection 
     Consumer Information Act (16 U.S.C. 1385(f)); or
       ``(3) after taking into consideration this information, 
     findings of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and 
     any other relevant information, including information that a 
     nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on 
     violations which diminish the effectiveness of the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, finds that the 
     harvesting nation is not in compliance with the International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program.
       ``(e) Exemption.--The provisions of this Act shall not 
     apply to a citizen of the United States who incidentally 
     takes any marine mammal during fishing operations outside the 
     United States exclusive economic zone (as defined in section 
     3(6) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1802(6))) when employed on a foreign fishing 
     vessel of a harvesting nation which is in compliance with the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program.''.
       (d) Annual Permits.--Section 104(h) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(h) Annual Permits.--(1) Consistent with the regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to section 103 and the requirements of 
     section 101, the Secretary may issue an annual permit to a 
     United States vessel for the taking of such marine mammals, 
     and shall issue regulations to cover the use of any such 
     annual permits.
       ``(2) Annual permits described in paragraph (1) for the 
     incidental taking of marine mammals in the course of 
     commercial purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna in the 
     eastern tropical Pacific Ocean shall be governed by section 
     304, subject to the regulations issued pursuant to section 
     302.''.
       (e) Revisions and Funding Sources.--Section 108(a)(2) (16 
     U.S.C. 1378(a)(2)) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A).
       (2) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) discussions to expeditiously negotiate revisions to 
     the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American 
     Tropical Tuna Commission (1 UST 230, TIAS 2044) which will 
     incorporate conservation and management provisions agreed to 
     by the nations which have signed the Declaration of Panama;
       ``(D) a revised schedule of annual contributions to the 
     expenses of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission that 
     is equitable to participating nations; and
       ``(E) discussions with those countries participating or 
     likely to participate in the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program, to identify alternative sources of 
     funds to ensure that needed research and other measures 
     benefiting effective protection of dolphins, other marine 
     species, and the marine ecosystem;''.
       (f) Repeal of NAS Review.--Section 110 (16 U.S.C. 1380) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) By redesignating subsection (a)(1) as subsection (a).
       (2) By striking subsection (a)(2).
       (g) Labeling of Tuna Products.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     901(d) of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1385(d)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) It is a violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act for any producer, importer, exporter, 
     distributor, or seller of any tuna product that is exported 
     from or offered for sale in the United States to include on 
     the label of that product the term `Dolphin Safe' or any 
     other term or symbol that falsely claims or suggests that the 
     tuna contained in the product was harvested using a method of 
     fishing that is not harmful to dolphins if the product 
     contains any of the following:
       ``(A) Tuna harvested on the high seas by a vessel engaged 
     in driftnet fishing.

[[Page H9440]]

       ``(B) Tuna harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean 
     by a vessel using purse seine nets unless the tuna is 
     considered dolphin safe under paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Tuna harvested outside the eastern tropical Pacific 
     Ocean by a vessel using purse seine nets unless the tuna is 
     considered dolphin safe under paragraph (3).
       ``(D) Tuna harvested by a vessel engaged in any fishery 
     identified by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (4) as 
     having a regular and significant incidental mortality of 
     marine mammals.''.
       (h) Dolphin Safe Tuna.--(1) Paragraph (2) of section 901(d) 
     of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1385(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a tuna product 
     that contains tuna harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific 
     Ocean by a vessel using purse seine nets is dolphin safe if 
     the vessel is of a type and size that the Secretary has 
     determined, consistent with the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program, is not capable of deploying its purse 
     seine nets on or to encircle dolphins, or if the product 
     meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a tuna product that 
     contains tuna harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean 
     by a vessel using purse seine nets is dolphin safe if the 
     product is accompanied by a written statement executed by the 
     captain of the vessel which harvested the tuna certifying 
     that no dolphins were killed during the sets in which the 
     tuna were caught and the product is accompanied by a written 
     statement executed by--
       ``(i) the Secretary or the Secretary's designee;
       ``(ii) a representative of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
     Commission; or
       ``(iii) an authorized representative of a participating 
     nation whose national program meets the requirements of the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program,

     which states that there was an observer approved by the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program on board the 
     vessel during the entire trip and documents that no dolphins 
     were killed during the sets in which the tuna concerned were 
     caught.
       ``(C) The statements referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and 
     (iii) of subparagraph (B) shall be valid only if they are 
     endorsed in writing by each exporter, importer, and processor 
     of the product, and if such statements and endorsements 
     comply with regulations promulgated by the Secretary which 
     would provide for the verification of tuna products as 
     dolphin safe.''.
       (2) Subsection (d) of section 901 of the Dolphin Protection 
     Consumer Information Act (16 U.S.C. 1385(d)) is amended by 
     adding the following new paragraphs at the end thereof:
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1)(C), tuna or a tuna 
     product that contains tuna harvested outside the eastern 
     tropical Pacific Ocean by a vessel using purse seine nets is 
     dolphin safe if--
       ``(A) it is accompanied by a written statement executed by 
     the captain of the vessel certifying that no purse seine net 
     was intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins during 
     the particular voyage on which the tuna was harvested; or
       ``(B) in any fishery in which the Secretary has determined 
     that a regular and significant association occurs between 
     marine mammals and tuna, it is accompanied by a written 
     statement executed by the captain of the vessel and an 
     observer, certifying that no purse seine net was 
     intentionally deployed on or to encircle marine mammals 
     during the particular voyage on which the tuna was harvested.
       ``(4) For purposes of paragraph (1)(D), tuna or a tuna 
     product that contains tuna harvested in a fishery identified 
     by the Secretary as having a regular and significant 
     incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals is 
     dolphin safe if it is accompanied by a written statement 
     executed by the captain of the vessel and, where determined 
     to be practicable by the Secretary, an observer participating 
     in a national or international program acceptable to the 
     Secretary certifying that no marine mammals were killed in 
     the course of the fishing operation or operations in which 
     the tuna were caught.
       ``(5) No tuna product may be labeled with any reference to 
     dolphins, porpoises, or marine mammals, unless such product 
     is labeled as dolphin safe in accordance with this 
     subsection.''.
       (i) Tracking and Verification.--Subsection (f) of section 
     901 of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1385(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Tracking and Verification.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall issue 
     regulations to implement subsection (d) not later than 3 
     months after the date of enactment of the International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program Act. In the development of these 
     regulations, the Secretary shall establish appropriate 
     procedures for ensuring the confidentiality of proprietary 
     information the submission of which is voluntary or 
     mandatory. Such regulations shall, consistent with 
     international efforts and in coordination with the Inter-
     American Tropical Tuna Commission, establish a domestic and 
     international tracking and verification program that provides 
     for the effective tracking of tuna labeled under subsection 
     (d), including but not limited to each of the following:
       ``(1) Specific regulations and provisions addressing the 
     use of weight calculation for purposes of tracking tuna 
     caught, landed, processed, and exported.
       ``(2) Additional measures to enhance observer coverage if 
     necessary.
       ``(3) Well location and procedures for monitoring, 
     certifying, and sealing holds above and below deck or other 
     equally effective methods of tracking and verifying tuna 
     labeled under subsection (d).
       ``(4) Reporting receipt of and database storage of radio 
     and facsimile transmittals from fishing vessels containing 
     information related to the tracking and verification of tuna, 
     and the definition of sets.
       ``(5) Shore-based verification and tracking throughout the 
     transshipment and canning process by means of Inter-American 
     Tropical Tuna Commission trip records or otherwise.
       ``(6) Provisions for annual audits and spot checks for 
     caught, landed, and processed tuna products labeled in 
     accordance with subsection (d).
       ``(7) The provision of timely access to data required under 
     this subsection by the Secretary from harvesting nations to 
     undertake the actions required in paragraph (6) of this 
     subsection.

     The Secretary may make such adjustments as may be appropriate 
     to the regulations promulgated under this subsection to 
     implement an international tracking and verification program 
     that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements established by 
     the Secretary under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III.

       (a) Heading.--The heading of title III is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM''.
       (b) Findings.--Section 301 (16 U.S.C. 1411) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In subsection (a), by amending paragraph (4) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) Nations harvesting yellowfin tuna in the eastern 
     tropical Pacific Ocean have demonstrated their willingness to 
     participate in appropriate multilateral agreements to reduce, 
     with the goal of eliminating, dolphin mortality in that 
     fishery. Recognition of the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program will assure that the existing trend of 
     reduced dolphin mortality continues; that individual stocks 
     of dolphins are adequately protected; and that the goal of 
     eliminating all dolphin mortality continues to be a 
     priority.''.
       (2) In subsection (b), by amending paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     to read as follows:
       ``(2) support the International Dolphin Conservation 
     Program and efforts within the Program to reduce, with the 
     goal of eliminating, the mortality referred to in paragraph 
     (1);
       ``(3) ensure that the market of the United States does not 
     act as an incentive to the harvest of tuna caught with 
     driftnets or caught by purse seine vessels in the eastern 
     tropical Pacific Ocean that are not operating in compliance 
     with the International Dolphin Conservation Program;''.
       (c) International Dolphin Conservation Program.--Section 
     302 (16 U.S.C. 1412) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 302. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.

       ``(a) Regulations To Implement Program Regulations.--(1) 
     The Secretary shall issue regulations to implement the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program.
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue 
     regulations to authorize and govern the incidental taking of 
     marine mammals in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, 
     including any species of marine mammal designated as depleted 
     under this Act but not listed as endangered or threatened 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.), by vessels of the United States participating in the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program.
       ``(B) Regulations issued under this section shall include 
     provisions--
       ``(i) requiring observers on each vessel;
       ``(ii) requiring use of the backdown procedure or other 
     procedures equally or more effective in avoiding mortality of 
     marine mammals in fishing operations;
       ``(iii) prohibiting intentional deployment of nets on, or 
     encirclement of, dolphins in violation of the International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program;
       ``(iv) requiring the use of special equipment, including 
     dolphin safety panels in nets, monitoring devices as 
     identified by the International Dolphin Conservation Program, 
     as practicable, to detect unsafe fishing conditions before 
     nets are deployed by a tuna vessel, operable rafts, 
     speedboats with towing bridles, floodlights in operable 
     condition, and diving masks and snorkels;
       ``(v) ensuring that the backdown procedure during the 
     deployment of nets on, or encirclement of, dolphins is 
     completed and rolling of the net to sack up has begun no 
     later than 30 minutes after sundown;
       ``(vi) banning the use of explosive devices in all purse 
     seine operations;
       ``(vii) establishing per vessel maximum annual dolphin 
     mortality limits, total dolphin mortality limits and per-
     stock per-year mortality limits, in accordance with the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program;
       ``(viii) preventing the intentional deployment of nets on, 
     or encirclement of, dolphins after reaching either the vessel 
     maximum annual dolphin mortality limits, total dolphin 
     mortality limits, or per-stock per-year mortality limits;
       ``(ix) preventing the fishing on dolphins by a vessel 
     without an assigned vessel dolphin mortality limit;

[[Page H9441]]

       ``(x) allowing for the authorization and conduct of 
     experimental fishing operations, under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, for the purpose of 
     testing proposed improvements in fishing techniques and 
     equipment (including new technology for detecting unsafe 
     fishing conditions before nets are deployed by a tuna vessel) 
     that may reduce or eliminate dolphin mortality or do not 
     require the encirclement of dolphins in the course of 
     commercial yellowfin tuna fishing;
       ``(xi) authorizing fishing within the area covered by the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program by vessels of the 
     United States without the use of special equipment or nets if 
     the vessel takes an observer and does not intentionally 
     deploy nets on, or encircle, dolphins, under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe; and
       ``(xii) containing such other restrictions and requirements 
     as the Secretary determines are necessary to implement the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program with respect to 
     vessels of the United States.
       ``(C) The Secretary may make such adjustments as may be 
     appropriate to the requirements of subparagraph (B) that 
     pertain to fishing gear, vessel equipment, and fishing 
     practices to the extent the adjustments are consistent with 
     the International Dolphin Conservation Program.
       ``(b) Consultation.--In developing regulations under this 
     section, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of 
     State, the Marine Mammal Commission and the United States 
     Commissioners to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 
     appointed under section 3 of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 
     (16 U.S.C. 952).
       ``(c) Emergency Regulations.--(1) If the Secretary 
     determines, on the basis of the best scientific information 
     available (including that obtained under the International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program) that the incidental mortality 
     and serious injury of marine mammals authorized under this 
     title is having, or is likely to have, a significant adverse 
     effect on a marine mammal stock or species, the Secretary 
     shall take actions as follows--
       ``(A) notify the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission of 
     the Secretary's findings, along with recommendations to the 
     Commission as to actions necessary to reduce incidental 
     mortality and serious injury and mitigate such adverse 
     impact; and
       ``(B) prescribe emergency regulations to reduce incidental 
     mortality and serious injury and mitigate such adverse 
     impact.
       ``(2) Prior to taking action under paragraph (1) (A) or 
     (B), the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of State, 
     the Marine Mammal Commission, and the United States 
     Commissioners to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
       ``(3) Emergency regulations prescribed under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be published in the Federal Register, together 
     with an explanation thereof; and
       ``(B) shall remain in effect for the duration of the 
     applicable fishing year; and

     The Secretary may terminate such emergency regulations at a 
     date earlier than that required by subparagraph (B) by 
     publication in the Federal Register of a notice of 
     termination, if the Secretary determines that the reasons for 
     the emergency action no longer exist.
       ``(4) If the Secretary finds that the incidental mortality 
     and serious injury of marine mammals in the yellowfin tuna 
     fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean is continuing 
     to have a significant adverse impact on a stock or species, 
     the Secretary may extend the emergency regulations for such 
     additional periods as may be necessary.
       ``(d) Research.--The Secretary shall, in cooperation with 
     the nations participating in the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program and with the Inter-American Tropical 
     Tuna Commission, undertake or support appropriate scientific 
     research to further the goals of the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program. Such research may include but shall not 
     be limited to any of the following:
       ``(1) Devising cost-effective fishing methods and gear so 
     as to reduce, with the goal of eliminating, the incidental 
     mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in connection 
     with commercial purse seine fishing in the eastern tropical 
     Pacific Ocean.
       ``(2) Developing cost-effective methods of fishing for 
     mature yellowfin tuna without deployment of nets on, or 
     encirclement of, dolphins or other marine mammals.
       ``(3) Carrying out stock assessments for those marine 
     mammal species and marine mammal stocks taken in the purse 
     seine fishery for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical 
     Pacific Ocean, including species or stocks not within waters 
     under the jurisdiction of the United States.
       ``(4) Studying the effects of chase and encirclement on the 
     health and biology of dolphin and individual dolphin 
     populations incidentally taken in the course of purse seine 
     fishing for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific 
     Ocean. There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Commerce $1,000,000 to be used by the 
     Secretary, acting through the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service, to carry out this paragraph. Upon completion of the 
     study, the Secretary shall submit a report containing the 
     results of the study, together with recommendations, to the 
     Congress and to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
       ``(5) Determining the extent to which the incidental take 
     of nontarget species, including juvenile tuna, occurs in the 
     course of purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna in the 
     eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, the geographic location of 
     the incidental take, and the impact of that incidental take 
     on tuna stocks, and nontarget species.

     The Secretary shall include a description of the annual 
     results of research carried out under this subsection in the 
     report required under section 303.''.
       (d) Reports.--Section 303 (16 U.S.C. 1414) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 303. REPORTS BY THE SECRETARY.

       ``Notwithstanding section 103(f), the Secretary shall 
     submit an annual report to the Congress which includes each 
     of the following:
       ``(1) The results of research conducted pursuant to section 
     302.
       ``(2) A description of the status and trends of stocks of 
     tuna.
       ``(3) A description of the efforts to assess, avoid, 
     reduce, and minimize the bycatch of juvenile yellowfin tuna 
     and other nontarget species.
       ``(4) A description of the activities of the International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program and of the efforts of the United 
     States in support of the Program's goals and objectives, 
     including the protection of dolphin populations in the 
     eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and an assessment of the 
     effectiveness of the Program.
       ``(5) Actions taken by the Secretary under subsections 
     (a)(2)(B) and (d) of section 101.
       ``(6) Copies of any relevant resolutions and decisions of 
     the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and any 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this title.
       ``(7) Any other information deemed relevant by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (e) Permits.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1416) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 304. PERMITS.

       ``(a) In General.--(1) Consistent with section 302, the 
     Secretary is authorized to issue a permit to a vessel of the 
     United States authorizing participation in the International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program and may require a permit for the 
     person actually in charge of and controlling the fishing 
     operation of the vessel. The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     procedures as are necessary to carry out this subsection, 
     including, but not limited to, requiring the submission of--
       ``(A) the name and official number or other identification 
     of each fishing vessel for which a permit is sought, together 
     with the name and address of the owner thereof; and
       ``(B) the tonnage, hold capacity, speed, processing 
     equipment, and type and quantity of gear, including an 
     inventory of special equipment required under section 302, 
     with respect to each vessel.
       ``(2) The Secretary is authorized to charge a fee for 
     issuing a permit under this section. The level of fees 
     charged under this paragraph may not exceed the 
     administrative cost incurred in granting an authorization and 
     issuing a permit. Fees collected under this paragraph shall 
     be available, subject to appropriations, to the Under 
     Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere for expenses 
     incurred in issuing permits under this section.
       ``(3) After the effective date of the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program Act, no vessel of the United States 
     shall operate in the yellowfin tuna fishery in the eastern 
     tropical Pacific Ocean without a valid permit issued under 
     this section.
       ``(b) Permit Sanctions.--(1) In any case in which--
       ``(A) a vessel for which a permit has been issued under 
     this section has been used in the commission of an act 
     prohibited under section 305;
       ``(B) the owner or operator of any such vessel or any other 
     person who has applied for or been issued a permit under this 
     section has acted in violation of section 305; or
       ``(C) any civil penalty or criminal fine imposed on a 
     vessel, owner or operator of a vessel, or other person who 
     has applied for or been issued a permit under this section 
     has not been paid or is overdue, the Secretary may--
       ``(i) revoke any permit with respect to such vessel, with 
     or without prejudice to the issuance of subsequent permits;
       ``(ii) suspend such permit for a period of time considered 
     by the Secretary to be appropriate;
       ``(iii) deny such permit; or
       ``(iv) impose additional conditions or restrictions on any 
     permit issued to, or applied for by, any such vessel or 
     person under this section.
       ``(2) In imposing a sanction under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall take into account--
       ``(A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 
     prohibited acts for which the sanction is imposed; and
       ``(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of 
     culpability, any history of prior offenses, and other such 
     matters as justice requires.
       ``(3) Transfer of ownership of a vessel, by sale or 
     otherwise, shall not extinguish any permit sanction that is 
     in effect or is pending at the time of transfer of ownership. 
     Before executing the transfer of ownership of a vessel, by 
     sale or otherwise, the owner shall disclose in writing to the 
     prospective transferee the existence of any permit sanction 
     that will be in effect or pending with respect to the vessel 
     at the time of transfer.
       ``(4) In the case of any permit that is suspended for the 
     failure to pay a civil penalty

[[Page H9442]]

     or criminal fine, the Secretary shall reinstate the permit 
     upon payment of the penalty or fine and interest thereon at 
     the prevailing rate.
       ``(5) No sanctions shall be imposed under this section 
     unless there has been a prior opportunity for a hearing on 
     the facts underlying the violation for which the sanction is 
     imposed, either in conjunction with a civil penalty 
     proceeding under this title or otherwise.''.
       (f) Prohibitions.--Section 305 is repealed and section 307 
     (16 U.S.C. 1417) is redesignated as section 305, and amended 
     as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a):
       (A) By amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) for any person to sell, purchase, offer for sale, 
     transport, or ship, in the United States, any tuna or tuna 
     product unless the tuna or tuna product is either dolphin 
     safe or has been harvested in compliance with the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program by a country that 
     is a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission or 
     has initiated steps, in accordance with Article V, paragraph 
     3 of the Convention establishing the Inter-American Tropical 
     Tuna Commission, to become a member of that organization;''.
       (B) By amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) except in accordance with this title and regulations 
     issued pursuant to this title as provided for in subsection 
     101(e), for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction 
     of the United States intentionally to set a purse seine net 
     on or to encircle any marine mammal in the course of tuna 
     fishing operations in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean; 
     or''.
       (C) By amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) for any person to import any yellowfin tuna or 
     yellowfin tuna product or any other fish or fish product in 
     violation of a ban on importation imposed under section 
     101(a)(2);''.
       (2) In subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``(a)(5) and'' 
     before ``(a)(6)''.
       (3) By striking subsection (d).
       (g) Repeal.--Section 306 is repealed and section 308 (16 
     U.S.C. 1418) is redesignated as section 306, and amended by 
     striking ``303'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``302(d)''.
       (h) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents in the 
     first section of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 is 
     amended by striking the items relating to title III and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:

        ``TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM

``Sec. 301. Findings and policy.
``Sec. 302. Authority of the Secretary.
``Sec. 303. Reports by the Secretary.
``Sec. 304. Permits.
``Sec. 305. Prohibitions.
``Sec. 306. Authorization of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO THE TUNA CONVENTIONS ACT.

       (a) Membership.--Section 3(c) of the Tuna Conventions Act 
     of 1950 (16 U.S.C. 952(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) at least one shall be either the Director, or an 
     appropriate regional director, of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service; and''.
       (b) Advisory Committee and Scientific Advisory 
     Subcommittee.--Section 4 of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 
     (16 U.S.C. 953) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 4. GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 
                   SUBCOMMITTEE.

       ``The Secretary, in consultation with the United States 
     Commissioners, shall:
       ``(1) Appoint a General Advisory Committee which shall be 
     composed of not less than 5 nor more than 15 persons with 
     balanced representation from the various groups participating 
     in the fisheries included under the conventions, and from 
     nongovernmental conservation organizations. The General 
     Advisory Committee shall be invited to have representatives 
     attend all nonexecutive meetings of the United States 
     sections and shall be given full opportunity to examine and 
     to be heard on all proposed programs of investigations, 
     reports, recommendations, and regulations of the commission. 
     The General Advisory Committee may attend all meetings of the 
     international commissions to which they are invited by such 
     commissions.
       ``(2) Appoint a Scientific Advisory Subcommittee which 
     shall be composed of not less than 5 nor more than 15 
     qualified scientists with balanced representation from the 
     public and private sectors, including nongovernmental 
     conservation organizations. The Scientific Advisory 
     Subcommittee shall advise the General Advisory Committee and 
     the Commissioners on matters including the conservation of 
     ecosystems; the sustainable uses of living marine resources 
     related to the tuna fishery in the eastern Pacific Ocean; and 
     the long-term conservation and management of stocks of living 
     marine resources in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In 
     addition, the Scientific Advisory Subcommittee shall, as 
     requested by the General Advisory Committee, the United 
     States Commissioners or the Secretary, perform functions and 
     provide assistance required by formal agreements entered into 
     by the United States for this fishery, including the 
     International Dolphin Conservation Program. These functions 
     may include each of the following:
       ``(A) The review of data from the Program, including data 
     received from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
       ``(B) Recommendations on research needs, including 
     ecosystems, fishing practices, and gear technology research, 
     including the development and use of selective, 
     environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear, and on 
     the coordination and facilitation of such research.
       ``(C) Recommendations concerning scientific reviews and 
     assessments required under the Program and engaging, as 
     appropriate, in such reviews and assessments.
       ``(D) Consulting with other experts as needed.
       ``(E) Recommending measures to assure the regular and 
     timely full exchange of data among the parties to the Program 
     and each nation's National Scientific Advisory Committee (or 
     equivalent).
       ``(3) Establish procedures to provide for appropriate 
     public participation and public meetings and to provide for 
     the confidentiality of confidential business data. The 
     Scientific Advisory Subcommittee shall be invited to have 
     representatives attend all nonexecutive meetings of the 
     United States sections and the General Advisory Subcommittee 
     and shall be given full opportunity to examine and to be 
     heard on all proposed programs of scientific investigation, 
     scientific reports, and scientific recommendations of the 
     commission. Representatives of the Scientific Advisory 
     Subcommittee may attend meetings of the Inter-American 
     Tropical Tuna Commission in accordance with the rules of such 
     Commission.
       ``(4) Fix the terms of office of the members of the General 
     Advisory Committee and Scientific Advisory Subcommittee, who 
     shall receive no compensation for their services as such 
     members.''.

     SEC. 7. EQUITABLE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that each nation 
     participating in the International Dolphin Conservation 
     Program should contribute an equitable amount to the expenses 
     of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Such 
     contributions shall take into account the number of vessels 
     from that nation fishing for tuna in the eastern tropical 
     Pacific Ocean, the consumption of tuna and tuna products from 
     the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and other relevant factors 
     as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect upon certification by the Secretary of State to the 
     Congress that a binding resolution of the Inter-American 
     Tropical Tuna Commission, or another legally binding 
     instrument, establishing the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program has been adopted and is in effect.

  The CHAIRMAN. No other amendment shall be in order except a further 
amendment printed in House Report 104-708, which may be offered only by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or his designee, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject 
to amendment.


                    amendment offered by mr. studds

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Studds: In section 901(d)(2)(B) of 
     the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (as proposed 
     to be amended by section 4(h)(1) of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text), 
     insert ``, chased, harassed, injured, or encircled with 
     nets'' after ``killed'' in each of the places it appears.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and a Member opposed each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by stating most emphatically 
that I would very much prefer not to be standing here debating this 
issue or offering this amendment. I have very little doubt that by now 
every Member in this Chamber, and there must be at least six of them, 
and those who are watching, are thoroughly confused about how best to 
save dolphins. Apparently, so are the environmental groups, and, quite 
frankly, so am I.
  Nonetheless, I offer this amendment because the one portion of this 
debate that should not be confusing is the definition of the word 
``safe,'' notwithstanding the fact that people in this city have been 
always able to take short English words and euphemize the meaning out 
of them. When I grew up, safe meant secure from danger, harm or evil. 
That is what the dictionary says it means.
  Under this bill, safe would permit doing all kinds of things to 
dolphins,

[[Page H9443]]

including seriously injuring them, and as long as no one actually 
noticed it happening, they might even be able to kill them. This 
legislation would define as safe a process that stops dolphins from 
feeding, separates mothers from their calves, injures animals, and 
allows them to be chased for hours until they are unable to swim any 
longer. We can only hope that the Committee on the Judiciary does not 
get a hold of this reasoning the next time it takes up reform of the 
criminal code.
  For three of the four debates during which we have had strong 
bipartisan support for legislation protecting dolphins from the 
extraordinary slaughter that occurred in this fishery, I had the honor 
of chairing the subcommittee of jurisdiction. We passed the law 
requiring truth in tuna labeling because American consumers, American 
voters, and American schoolchildren demanded it. They made it clear 
that they did not want to endorse the selling of a product whose 
harvesting caused any harm to dolphins. Since its enactment in 1972, 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act has prohibited any, quote, attempt to 
harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal, unquote.
  Again, it is illegal under current law to harass, hunt, capture or 
kill any marine mammal. That language is in the law because we know 
that these activities are not safe from marine mammals.
  Those who support the labeling change in this bill, I am sure, would 
not allow whale-watching vessels in my district to harass whales and 
separate mothers from nursing calves and then market those cruises as 
safe for whales. I suspect they would not allow Mr. Young's oil 
companies to conduct exploratory drilling that disrupts the feeding 
behavior of whales and then call the oil whale-safe.
  Two years ago, some of the environmental groups that are supporting 
this bill blocked regulations allowing dolphin-feeding cruises in 
Florida and in Texas because they were convinced that the harassment of 
dolphins was not safe.
  The double standard in this bill, put there for Mexico's sake, 
violates in my judgment the integrity of everything we on both sides of 
this aisle have worked to achieve over the last 20 years.
  The amendment is simple. It did not get read but it would have taken 
less time to read it than to designate it. It simply adds after the 
word ``killed,'' and I quote, ``chased, harassed, injured or encircled 
with nets.'' You cannot do any of those things under our amendment and 
call it dolphin safe.
  The amendment leaves intact the provisions of the bill that lift the 
embargoes on tuna. It leaves intact the remainder of the international 
agreement. But it retains honest information for American consumers, 
and that is all it does.

  Not long ago we held a debate on this floor about truth in nutrition 
labeling. Right now there is a bipartisan effort under way in both 
Chambers to establish simple labels on clothing and sporting goods that 
would inform consumers if those products were made by child labor. 
Labeling means something to consumers. It means trust.
  The American people know what the word ``safe'' means. If we cannot 
be honest about the meaning, then we should probably get rid of the 
label. Perhaps we could call it ``good for Mexico,'' or ``NAFTA-
consistent,'' or ``caught under international guidelines,'' but we 
should not call it safe for dolphins, because by any standard, semantic 
or otherwise, it is not.
  Let me once again remind my colleagues that the amendment does not 
address the international agreement. it does not address the embargo. 
It simply says that we retain the sanctity and the meaning of the label 
``dolphin-safe'' which has been so successful as it is now in current 
law, which says that if they want to use that label on imported tuna, 
they not only have to demonstrate that that tuna was caught in a way 
that did not kill dolphins but did not involve chasing, harassing, 
injuring, or encircling with nets the aforementioned dolphins.
  Like the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I too have communed 
with my own dolphins on this matter and, as I have in the past, I can 
assure my colleagues that in unequivocally dolphin ways they have made 
it very clear to me that they support this amendment. That is pretty 
tough. I know the gentleman from Alaska is going to suggest that these 
may be a regional dialect in question here, and that dolphins in other 
parts of the country may be saying something different, but I rather 
doubt that.
  I am also prepared to stipulate, as suggested by the gentleman from 
New York, that the gentleman from Maryland is a class act. I think I 
made that observation myself even before the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert] did. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. I wish there 
were more like him in this Chamber.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I usually agree with my esteemed colleague from 
Massachusetts on fishery issues. He and I have worked together for 24 
years and rarely do we disagree on the issues of fisheries. I must 
oppose his amendment, though, because the Gilchrest bill implements the 
Panama Declaration, as discussed in general debate, which locks into 
place binding conservation management measures for dolphin and other 
marine life.
  This bill is supported, as has been said before, by five 
environmental organizations, the American Tunaboat Owners, the National 
Fisheries Institute, the Seafarers' International Union, the California 
Federation of Labor, the United Industrial Workers, the American 
Sportfishing Association, and the Clinton administration, although that 
gives me some reservation.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2823 recognizes the international voluntary 
compliance with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission's dolphin 
conservation program, which has been in place for the past 4 years. 
This bill incorporates provisions into U.S. law to continue the 
international cooperation and compliance.
  Over the last couple of months, Mr. Gilchrest has worked to address 
the concerns of the opponents to H.R. 2823. However, the definition of 
dolphin-safe has kept the two sides from reaching an agreement.
  The amendment being offered by Mr. Studds was offered at subcommittee 
markup by Congressman Farr and was defeated. The Studds-Miller 
amendment will keep the current dolphin-safe definition which will 
continue to outlaw the use of fishing practices with the lowest 
bycatch, despite technological breakthroughs which have reduced dolphin 
mortality by 97 percent.
  The proponents of this amendment will tell you that by keeping the 
current dolphin-safe definition, it will protect dolphins. However, the 
Studds-Miller amendment will not end the encirclement of dolphins by 
foreign fishermen in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Since the 
adoption of the embargo in 1992, the number of dolphin sets has not 
decreased. Approximately 50 percent of sets by foreign fleets are on 
dolphin schools despite the embargo. The Studds-Miller amendment also 
promotes fishing practices which have a high bycatch of juvenile tuna, 
billfish, sea turtles and sharks.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2823 promotes conservation and management measures 
based on science. It does not promote the protection of one species 
over the needs of other marine species. This legislation protects 
dolphins and other marine life.
  The Studds-Miller amendment, on the other hand, will jeopardize the 
progress made in reducing dolphin mortalities in the eastern tropical 
Pacific Ocean and do nothing to protect other marine life. Finally, the 
amendment will negate all of the international cooperation and 
compliance envisioned in the Panama Declaration.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Studds-Miller 
amendment. I think it will actually cut this bill.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to believe the 
gentleman from

[[Page H9444]]

Alaska has been here for 24 years given his appearance, but we will 
have to take his word for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Studds 
amendment. This amendment does one thing, it protects the integrity of 
the ``dolphin safe'' label.
  Now, it is really very simple. The rest of the world would like to 
get into our market, they would like to sell their product under the 
label ``dolphin safe,'' but without this amendment and under this bill, 
tuna fisheries could chase, harass, injure dolphins and still get the 
benefit of the ``dolphin safe'' label.
  Now, maybe in this bill we should have a ``dolphin less-safe'' label 
or a ``dolphin almost-safe'' label, but if we want the consumers to 
rely on the ``dolphin safe'' label, we must pass the Studds amendment 
because we simply do not know what the effects are of chasing and 
harassing these mammals. However, marine mammal biologists believe that 
the trauma that dolphins endure under this type of encirclement does 
lead to the diminishment of the dolphin populations.
  I would remind my colleagues that our first obligation is to the U.S. 
consumer, not, not to the Mexican Government. We cannot allow our 
domestic consumer protection laws and environmental laws to be held 
hostage.
  Please join me and the millions of Americans who want the opportunity 
to choose the type of tuna they are buying. They want to know that 
``dolphin safe'' means ``dolphin safe.'' Support the Studds amendment. 
Make this bill significantly better.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my colleague from New 
Jersey for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2823 and against the Miller-
Studds amendment. I first want to compliment my colleague from 
Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, for his leadership on this legislation. He has 
done a great job in bringing this issue forward, which would implement 
the Panama Declaration by opening up the U.S. market to tuna caught in 
compliance with the Tuna Commission Program, which would reduce dolphin 
mortality, lessen the bycatch of other forms of marine life and sustain 
dolphin and fish populations for the future.
  Mr. Chairman, people are most concerned with the practice of dolphin 
encirclement by fishing vessels. The rate of dolphin mortality under 
the Panama Declaration has dramatically declined because of the 
declaration's goals to strictly limit any deaths, provide tuna-boat 
crew training, and require internationally trained observers on all 
tuna vessels. This bill requires that the annual mortality rate be 
further reduced to less than a fraction of 1 percent of the dolphin 
population, leading to the elimination of dolphin mortalities 
altogether. The ``dolphin-safe'' label is preserved because certified 
inspectors aboard ship guarantee that no dolphins were killed.
  We should not forget that other methods of catching tuna kill other 
sea life. Tuna have been known to swim near logs and debris close to 
shorelines. Fishermen who cast their nets to catch these tuna don't 
kill dolphins, but they do kill a huge bycatch of sharks, endangered 
sea turtles, and juvenile tuna whose survival is crucial to tuna 
prosperity years from now.
  Because of the progress made through an international effort led by 
the United States, we have negotiated an agreement among all the 
countries that have fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific. Dolphin 
conservation gains have come as a result of more careful fishing and 
international cooperation, and we must continue with this progress by 
passing H.R. 2823.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment that 
would compromise this bill. Let us pass H.R. 2823. It is in the 
interest of the environment, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Studds amendment and let me 
tell my colleagues why. There is a problem that I think the author, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], is trying to address. We all 
want to address that problem, and that is the problem of bycatch. But 
the bill, as written, really does not do that without harming dolphins, 
and that is why the Studds amendment makes the bill a better bill.
  It is very simple. In America we have what we call truth in labeling. 
For 6 years U.S. consumers have been buying tuna in the stores that say 
that it is dolphin safe. We all know what the word ``safe'' means, our 
constituents know what it means, school kids know what it means. They 
are confident that tuna labeled as ``dolphin safe'' has not been caught 
in a way that harms dolphins.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] is 
offering only puts 6 words into law. If the bill goes through right 
now, however, dolphins that are chased and die can be labeled ``dolphin 
safe.'' Dolphins that are harassed and die can be labeled ``dolphin 
safe.'' Dolphins that are injured or encircled with nets and die can be 
labeled as ``dolphin safe.''
  That is not truth in labeling, and that is the problem here. We need 
to have truth in labeling.
  I urge my colleagues, add these 6 words to this bill to make it a 
good bill, to make it a better bill, to make it a bill we can all vote 
for and support, because that is what the American people want. They do 
not want us in Congress to play tricks with labels on cans in order to 
enhance an industry that fishes way offshore from here.
  Changing the definition of ``dolphin safe'' now without a sound 
scientific basis for that decision not only risks undercutting the 
progress we have made in the last decade to protect dolphins, but it 
also misleads the Amercan consumers.
  Vote ``yes'' on this simple amendment. Restore order to this bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who was the first to point out to me that this 
bill not only protects dolphins, but it also protects sea turtles, 
sharks, and billfish.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for his applause.
  Mr. Chairman, if we could just look at this photograph over here for 
a second, what I want to try to display to my colleagues is the present 
condition of the marine ecosystem under the present law.
  When we talk about bycatch, that means discarded fish, that means 
discarded marine mammals, that means discarded reptiles, that means 
discarded turtles, sea turtles, many of which are endangered.
  If we look at this picture, up in the right-hand corner we will see 
sharks that are discarded in the present process of fishing techniques.
  If we look at this photograph here, we will see in this trough 
immature tuna that will not be able to spawn, that will not sustain the 
population.
  The basic point I want to get across here is that we need to find new 
methods of fishing, new techniques. Unless we change what we are doing 
at the present time, and unless we have an agreement with other 
countries to try to preserve and sustain the resources of our coastal 
oceans, we cannot do it alone.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman to explain 
perhaps to Members who are not on the committee why it is that fishing 
on log sets and why it is that fishing on schools of tuna produces a 
larger bycatch than the proposed method of fishing on dolphins.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will try to in 60 
seconds educate people on encirclement, log sets, and tuna sets, if I 
can.
  Basically, encirclement the way we did it in the past was bad. We had 
an embargo, we ended it, we reduced the dolphin kills from 100,000 a 
year down to under 4,000 a year. That is what we are trying to do here.

[[Page H9445]]

  Log sets. Tuna, for some strange reason, will swim under something. 
If they do not swim under dolphins like mature tuna fish do, they will 
swim under logs. Now, we have a lot of immature tuna that swim under 
logs. We do not have any dolphins there, but when they encircle the 
tuna and catch them in these big nets, not only do they catch tuna 
fish, but what we see in these pictures here is they catch many more 
marine species.
  These species are under stress because they are being discarded. They 
are not being used.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield. 
This is an important point.
  If we prohibit fishing on dolphins, which we now believe we can do 
much safer than we used to, then we not only permit fishing on log sets 
and permit fishing on schools, but we encourage those fishermen who 
would normally be fishing in a safer way on dolphins to go fish on log 
sets and on schools where we get this higher bycatch.
  Mr. GILCHREST. The whole reason for this particular legislation is 
threefold: to reduce the number of dolphins killed, to reduce the 
number of marine species that are killed in the process of catching 
tuna, and to set up an agreement that we are sponsoring to ensure the 
sustainability of the marine ecosystem. We can then open the door to a 
number of other environmental agreements, including global warming.
  What I want to do is to talk briefly on some of the charges that the 
other side has made.
  Last year there were 3,300 dolphins killed in the eastern tropical 
Pacific. That is down 99 percent from what it was. That is using this 
particular technique.
  Why do we have in our bill a maximum, maximum, of 5,000 dolphins 
killed? That is because there will be more fishers in the fishery, so 
we need to have some reasonable number. Five thousand dolphins killed 
is biologically insignificant as assessed by some of the best 
scientists in the world. One of them is from the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, a woman named Elizabeth Edwards, who says 
that is biologically insignificant.
  We understand that. We do not accept the 5,000 number. We will 
continue to work toward zero.
  Here is what Dr. Edwards says about the study, that the process that 
we are trying to get into law stresses dolphins to the degree that it 
harms them. She says, ``In particular the 5 reviewers were unanimous in 
their opinion that the study failed to confirm the stated conclusion 
that dolphins were experiencing acute continuous stress.''

                              {time}  1915

  So I wanted to dismiss that accusation that the encirclement, where 
you allow the dolphins to get out, which is what we are doing, causes 
stress that harms the dolphin. There is no evidence to that effect. The 
Center for Marine Conservation, one of our more sophisticated, 
respected environmental groups around the country, says arguably stress 
is not found to lead to species decline, the stress that they 
experience in this encirclement. And understand, we do not want to 
encircle dolphins. This is not the last step in this process. This 
international agreement does not end the way we catch tuna fish.
  This international agreement by the United States, by the 
environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Center for Marine 
Conservation, we want to continue to use the expertise of the United 
States to find ways to ensure the sustainability of the marine 
ecosystem and reduce dolphin kills to zero and some day hopefully end 
encirclement entirely. But we cannot do it alone. We need this 
international agreement. I want to point out one other thing. IATTC is 
showing an increase in dolphin population.
  Now, the comment that we are importing tuna fish for the purpose of 
doing something for the benefit of Mexico or Mexican fishermen, and we 
are not concerned about the death of dolphins. Well, I want to say 
something. In our bill, on every single boat there will be, there must 
be, observers in order to sell that tuna fish into the United States. 
So we will know, however unfortunate it might be, every single dolphin 
death. And we will know that because we have observers on board those 
boats. Since we have observers on those boats, we recognize in the past 
year there has been 3,300 dolphin deaths, but we know that, and we are 
trying to reduce that.
  Now, the present regime, before this legislation goes into effect, we 
are getting much of our tuna fish, if not most of our tuna fish, from 
the western tropical Pacific, where there are no observers on those 
boats, and it is fundamentally understood. It is fundamentally 
understood that from 10,000 to 40,000 dolphins are killed a year. We 
have no control over that. Do we want to have dolphin kills without 
anybody to observe those dolphin deaths and then quite likely import 
that tuna, can it in the United States, and then label it dolphin safe? 
I would much rather have an understanding as to the number of dolphin 
deaths and a continuous effort to reduce those dolphin deaths.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Miller-Studds 
amendment and to support the legislation. It is an international 
agreement of very positive proportions so that we can continue down the 
road as a planet, as a world population that is continuing to increase 
to have some sense of understanding together as a global community to 
sustain the limited resources that are essential for the food of this 
planet.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to correct one thing. The gentleman from 
Maryland may be right or he may be wrong, but he is simply asserting 
something without documentation. There has only been one study to date 
that we know on the effect of encirclement of dolphins, and I am 
holding it in my hand. It is from the Journal of Pathophysiology, and 
it has the imposing title of ``Adrenocortical Color Darkness and 
Correlates as Indicators of Continuous Acute Premortem Stress in Chased 
and Purse-seine Captured Male Dolphins.'' So there. I want the record 
to reflect that, done by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the 
only study we have suggests, does not assert, suggests to the contrary.
  Now, the dolphins as usual speak for themselves. There are two 
species that have been consistently, over time, chased and netted in 
this fishery: The eastern spinner dolphin and the northern offshore 
spotted dolphin. I do not know which one the gentleman is communing 
with. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, these two 
populations are at less than 20 percent of their original size. This is 
an indisputable fact due to the 8 million deaths that have taken place 
over the last 20 years.
  Now, we have been enormously successful in reducing those deaths, as 
most people have mentioned speaking on both sides of this issue, but, 
and this is a large ``but,'' in spite of the much observed lower level 
of dolphin deaths these two dolphin populations are now growing. The 
fact is worth repeating. Although dolphin deaths have dropped from 
approximately 100,000 annually to about 3,600, we see no increase in 
these populations.
  Many biologists believe that the constant injury and harassment of 
these animals is preventing the recovery of the populations. I do not 
pretend to assert that as fact. I have been quite open from the 
beginning that I do not know. But I suggest that no one else here knows 
either. Insofar as we have any study to suggest that the contrary may 
be true, to assert something on the floor of this hallowed institution 
does not make it so, and in this case it might be that a little bit of 
humility and caution might be in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. 
Consumers have a right to know that ``dolphin safe'' means that 
dolphins were not harassed or killed. That is what the label has meant 
for the last 6 years.
  Under the Studds amendment, tuna can be sold in the United States 
regardless of whether it was caught using safe techniques, but it could 
not be labeled ``dolphin safe'' unless it meets the standard that every 
American consumer has relied upon and should be able to continue to 
rely upon.
  It is hard to believe that chasing dolphins by speedboats and 
helicopters until they are too exhausted to escape

[[Page H9446]]

and then encircled in a purse-seine net can be considered safe. At 
worst, the netted dolphins face the risk of crushed bones, loss of 
fins, or suffocation in the nylon nets. At the very least, mortal 
injuries may ensue from separation of mothers from their calves or the 
severe stress caused by this harassment which may have detrimental 
effects.
  One study suggests that there may be immediate effects of stress on 
these animals or long-term effects on the population as a whole, as 
indicated by the reduced pregnancy rates from heavily fished areas. 
There are signs that netting dolphins may have adverse effects, with 
the stress being one possible cause.
  All of which may not necessarily go observed as the dolphins also 
sink or survive the experience only to die later. Meaning that the 
change to the ``dolphin safe'' label would render it worthless as now 
observed, and I quote, ``observed,'' mortalities occurred during the 
netting.
  The bottom line is that the only true safe method to fish for tuna is 
to remove dolphins from the equation. The public knows this and so do 
over 80 environmental groups that support this amendment. That is why I 
voted for the current definition of dolphin safe in 1990 under the 
Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act.
  At Mexico's request in 1991, a GATT panel found that trade embargoes 
on tuna imports under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
did not meet with trade obligations. But the dolphin-safe label was not 
an issue before the GATT dispute panel; only the embargo itself. There 
is no legitimate trade conflict with the dolphin-safe label. The Studds 
amendment will continue to preserve the dolphin-safe label, which is an 
integral part of dolphin protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following ``Dear Colleague'' letter for 
the Record.

                    Save the ``Dolphin Safe'' Label

       Dear Colleague: H.R. 2823, ``The International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program Act'' will change U.S. law and allow 
     tuna caught by methods that injure and terrorize dolphins to 
     be labeled ``Dolphin Safe.'' The bill's proponents admit that 
     under H.R. 2823, the number of dolphins that will be killed 
     could rise. In fact, H.R. 2823 specifically permits a 25% 
     increase in the number of dead dolphins.
       This legislation would perpetuate a fraud on American 
     consumers.
       Consumers have a right to know that ``Dolphin Safe'' means 
     that dolphins were not harassed or killed. That is what the 
     label has meant for the past 6 years.
       Under the Studds amendment, tuna can be sold in the United 
     States regardless of whether it was caught using safe 
     techniques. But it could not be labelled ``Dolphin Safe'' 
     unless it meets the standard that every American consumer has 
     relied upon and should be able to continue to rely on.

                  WHAT THE ``DOLPHIN SAFE'' LABEL MEANS                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           H.R. 2823 (Gilchrest)                  Studds Amendment      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolphins can be encircled, harassed,        Current law: no harassing   
 injured and tuna can still be called        techniques, no dolphin     
 Dolphin Safe); 25% increase in dolphin      injuries, no dolphin       
 mortality allowed.                          deaths; non-safe tuna may  
                                             be sold without the label. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       If we can't save dolphins, at least we can save the label.
       Support the ``Dolphin Safe'' Label: Support the Studds 
     Truth in Labelling Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Sam Farr.
     Frank Pallone, Jr.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for purposes of responding to the author of 
the amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, in response to the assertion of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, let me respond to the study that was done 
on stress by Dr. Elizabeth Edwards of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. This is what she said about the study 
concerning stress in dolphins:
  ``While all five reviewers felt that post-mortem examination of one 
or more physiological or histological samples taken from dolphins 
killed during purse-seining might well provide some indication of types 
and amounts of stress the animals may have experienced prior to death, 
none of the reviewers,'' talking about the study that was done, ``none 
of the reviewers felt that the body of work described in this paper 
presented any convincing evidence. In particular, the reviewers'' of 
the study ``were unanimous in their opinion that the study failed to 
confirm the stated conclusion * * *''
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San 
Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully have to oppose the Studds 
amendment, and I would like to clarify that. I oppose the amendment 
because it locks us into the old concepts of species management that 
might have served us well in the seventies and the eighties, but is 
totally deficient for the latter part of the nineties and going into 
the next century.
   Mr. Chairman, one of the great accomplishments that we are seeing 
this decade is the movement from single-species management to 
multispecies management when it comes to environmental protection. This 
amendment would lead us back into single-species management.
   Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone who originally supported this 
legislation meant to endanger sensitive marine species or to encourage, 
if not mandate, fishing practices that would directly and negatively 
impact different species, including endangered species. The loss of 
endangered sea turtles as a result of the present alternative to this 
legislation, H.R. 2823, the main bill, was, I think, totally unforeseen 
back in the 1970's and the 1980's, and new science says that we need to 
address this.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to make this a battle between 
Flipper and the Ninja Turtles; that we are going to have to choose 
between porpoises and billfish, or dolphins and endangered turtles. I 
think there is a proper way to do this, and one of the ways is to 
direct our fishing practices in a manner that would facilitate 
protection of multiple species, as H.R. 2823 would do. This amendment 
would strike that concept and move us back to the era of the 1970's and 
1980's; the old concept that we will only look at one species rather 
than the entire environment.
   Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues consider the fact that both 
Vice President Gore and Greenpeace, among others, recognize that it is 
time to move forward and be more progressive and more global in our 
approach to ocean species management. America must lead, but we cannot 
do this alone, and species management cannot be done appropriately when 
focused only on one species or subspecies. This amendment would move us 
back to that position, that would hamstring us in addressing these 
protection issues in a comprehensive manner.
  So I would ask the supporters of the motion to recognize its 
unintentional but negative impact to endangered marine species, and to 
reflect on the facts which are that this Studds amendment does not 
address the concerns that we need to address to definitely protect 
dolphins and other ocean animals.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill H.R. 2823, the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act and in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  I think this is an exceptional bill providing an international 
solution to an international problem, and that is the regulation of 
tuna fishing in the open seas. It is a good bill and reflects a good 
compromise among a lot of competing interests. But, I think we need to 
start by putting it in historical perspective.
  In the mid-1970's, dolphin mortality rates were clearly at 
unacceptable levels. Over 500,000 dolphins were being killed each year 
in pursuit of tuna stocks. So in response to this unacceptable loss of 
life among the dolphin population, 5 years ago the United States placed 
an embargo on the importation of tuna caught using primitive 
encirclement measures.
  But as has been pointed out in this debate, in recent years tuna 
fishermen have developed new and innovative methods which enable them 
to capture tuna without ensnaring dolphins at the same time. We have 
tough new monitoring procedures that have been instituted and 
international oversight responsibility has been strengthened.

[[Page H9447]]

  Over time, these procedures have become increasingly 
internationalized, first through voluntary compliance with the La Jolla 
Agreement, then through permanent binding procedures set forth in the 
Panama Declaration.
  By implementing the Panama Declaration, H.R. 2823 brings us along in 
the next step as the gentleman from Maryland has suggested, the next 
step in this evolutionary process. It locks in the reforms of the 
Panama Declaration and strengthens compliance procedures. The bill also 
provides incentives needed for other nations to remain in compliance by 
providing those nations who abide by the agreement with access to their 
most important tuna market, the United States.
  It was this issue with Mexico and my work with the United States-
Mexico Interparliamentary Conference that brought me first to this 
issue.

                              {time}  1930

  Make no mistake about it, these market incentives are absolutely 
critical to the continued success of the program. The procedures 
required under the Panama Declaration are costly: on-board observers on 
all tuna boats, individual boat licensing, and use of nets and divers 
to ensure the safety of the dolphin population.
  But let us be blunt. Without the U.S. market as an incentive, these 
nations are certain to revert to destructive fishing practices of the 
past and just export to the markets that they can, and we will end up 
with dolphin kill ratios as high as we had in the 1970's and 1980's. If 
we do not act today and enact this legislation without amendment, what 
we have left is a dolphin-safe label but no dolphins.
  As has been pointed out, this bill does more than protect dolphins. 
It provides an effective method to conserve total marine ecosystem in 
the eastern Pacific. The fishing practices encouraged by proposed 
alternative legislation result in an unreasonably excessive bycatch of 
a number of different species, including endangered sea turtles, 
sharks, billfish, and large numbers of tuna and other fish species. In 
fact, the fishing procedures advocated by the opponents to this bill 
are likely to endanger the long-term health of tuna stocks themselves.
  We need this bill. We can do it. We can have tuna fishing, and we can 
protect dolphins. We have the technology to preserve the marine 
ecosystem and protect the dolphin. Let us do it. Let us implement the 
legislation of the Panama Declaration. Keep the dolphin and the marine 
ecosystem safe. I urge support for the bill and opposition to the 
Studds amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, now that English is about to become the 
official language and we have La Jolla and Saint Diego, I guess I 
should yield to the gentlewoman from Saint Frank or Saint Francis, 
whatever that will become once we become English speaking.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise 
in support of his amendment.
  It is a wonderful thing in the House of Representatives that we are 
expressing all of this concern for the dolphin. Hopefully, this will 
carry over to the human species as well.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I rise in opposition to the legislation as it 
is and in the hopes that our colleagues will vote in support of the 
Studds amendment. As has been said, in 1990, environmental, animal and 
consumer activists won a victory with the advent of the dolphin-safe 
label for commercially sold tuna. No product can be labeled dolphin-
safe if the tuna is caught by chasing, harassing or netting dolphins. 
The issue before the house tonight is about what can be labeled 
dolphin-safe.
  The dolphin-safe label has worked to preserve dolphin populations. 
After Congress adopted its ban of imported tuna caught using enclosure 
nets in 1992, the dolphin mortality rate dropped from 100,000 per year 
to less than 3,000, as has been indicated.
  The bill before us would change the meaning of dolphin-safe to allow 
activities that would include highspeed chases with boats and 
helicopters, the separation of mothers from their calves, the 
withholding of food from trapped schools and the deliberate injury of 
dolphins to prevent the school from escape.
  I call to the attention of my colleagues this chart which compares 
what the dolphin-safe label means.
  Under the bill, it means this. Under the public view, dolphin-safe 
means this. We have got to keep faith with the public in our truth-in-
labeling.
  In fact almost any fishing activity would be termed dolphin-safe 
provided that no dolphins were observed to die during the catch. 
Dolphin populations have been depleted by as much as 80 percent. The 
dolphin-safe label stopped this trend and has proved one of the most 
successful consumer initiatives in U.S. history. Americans care about 
what is left of our natural resources and the threatened creatures who 
inhabit them.
  The Studds amendment maintains the integrity of the dolphin-safe 
sticker to the definition of the label. Dolphin-safe must mean that 
dolphins are safe and not injured or killed in the hunt for tuna.
  H.R. 2823 allows an increase in the dolphin deaths and unlimited 
injury and harassment of dolphin. That is by no means dolphin-safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the Studds amendment 
which would enable us to keep the promise made to the American people. 
The trade agreements would not result in the weakening of U.S. 
environmental laws. At the same time, it would help us live up to those 
trade obligations and protect dolphins. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the 
Studds amendment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who is busy reerecting some visual aids.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  If I may, the gentleman from California asked me to get my own chart 
so I will not use the chart that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] used just a second ago. What I would like to do, when we looked 
at the chart from Ms. Pelosi, the fine gentlewoman from California, she 
showed us a dolphin sort of beat up and said that that is what is going 
to happen under our bill, and then a dolphin that looked really healthy 
and find and not beat up. That is what would happen with their bill and 
their dolphin-safe bill.
  What I want to explain though, just another point, existing law, 
10,000-40,000 dolphins are killed that are not observed. Many likely 
are killed in the process of catching tuna fish that are sold in the 
United States because we do not observe those deaths as dolphin-safe 
with the label.
  What we want to do is put an observer on every single boat, every 
single time they fish for dolphins, every single time they fish for 
tuna, and they cannot sell that tuna in the United States unless they 
have a licensed observer on board. We want to protect the system, 
protect the truth in labeling. Vote against the Studds amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] so that he may politely but devastatingly 
respond to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the chart is terribly graphic 
and makes the point. We will have observers on the boat. What observers 
can observe is dolphins being, for example, encircled, harassed, hunted 
down, maimed, and injured. Under that bill that is what is allowed.
  Under current law, that is not allowed, that is not allowed. And to 
be sold on supermarket shelves, the tuna that results cannot be sold as 
dolphin-safe. What we are saying is, you can have your ocean management 
techniques, you can try your bycatch, you can do all of those things. 
But when it results in a dolphin being maimed, being harassed and being 
chased and being stressed and being exhausted, do not try to tell the 
American consumer that that is dolphin-safe.
  What the Studds amendment says is let the consumer choose. Let the 
consumer choose. They can choose the existing can of tuna with the 
existing label under the Studds amendment that they know is dolphin-
safe. Or they can choose some pale imitation that lets you kill an 
increased number of dolphins, lets you harass, lets you encircle, lets 
you stress, lets you harm, lets you maim, all with observers.

[[Page H9448]]

  The American people do not want observers to this activity. They want 
an end to this activity. That is what the Studds amendment allows to 
happen.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I observe no further requests for time on this side. If the gentleman 
has the right to close and intends to use it, I trust he will do it 
with humane brevity. I challenge the gentleman to prove to a certainty 
that anything that can be said has not already been said.
  With that in mind and secure in the feeling that what has been said 
on behalf of the amendment far outweighs in subtlety and in strength 
and in humor and goodwill that which has been said in opposition to the 
amendment, I confidently, quietly, and quickly yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for purposes of closing debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is right. Much of what has been 
said has been said. It is pretty obvious to me that the weight of the 
arguments in opposition to the gentleman's amendment are strong and 
heavy and that we should move to a vote, hopefully directly to final 
passage.
  Just let me close by summarizing. A vote in favor of final passage 
and previously to that, I suppose, against the Studds amendment enables 
the United States to join with 11 other countries to put in place 
fishing methods agreed to by those 12 countries that will protect 
dolphins, protect sea turtles, protect sharks, protect billfish, and 
protect juvenile tuna. That is what the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Bilbray] was referring to when he talked about multispecies management.
  It is true, I suspect, that if we were to reject this bill and in so 
doing enact the Studds amendment, I suppose that unilaterally we could 
protect dolphins in 1 country out of the 12. My understanding is that 
that includes presently something in the neighborhood of six to eight 
fishing boats on the west coast of the United States. That is what we 
would be regulating, six to eight boats in one country as opposed to 
many boats in a dozen countries.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, 
once again, that it would be unusual for the major environmental 
groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental 
Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for 
Marine Conservation, and others to join with this chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans and the Clinton 
administration and variety of labor groups in supporting final passage 
of this bill, if it were subject to all of the charges that have been 
made by some of the opponents.
  Obviously, we hope that this bill passes. As one who has been a 
supporter of marine wildlife and aqua wildlife all of my career, along 
with many other Members, such as Mr. Gilchrest and others from both 
sides, we believe on a bipartisan basis that this bill deserves to be 
passed, should be passed, and will implement a very important 
international agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members on both sides of the aisle for strong 
bipartisan support and encourage a ``no'' vote on the Studds amendment 
and obviously a ``yes'' vote on final passage.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offers American consumers 
exactly what we know they want. It took American citizens more than two 
decades to get the Congress to end the slaughter of dolphins and adopt 
dolphin-safe labeling of tuna.
  The terrible pictures of herds of dead dolphins in a sea of red are 
practically gone from memory. It's been great environmental success.
  Without the Studds amendment the underlying bill moves us backward. 
No, it doesn't mean that we'll return to the days of mass dolphin 
slaughter, but it does mean that dolphins will be chased, harassed, and 
encircled.
  Perhaps there is no mammal more symbolic of American's love and 
concern for animals--than the dolphin.
  As this Congress desperately attempts to recast itself in the wake of 
its poor environmental record--no vote is easier and will please such a 
broad spectrum of the American public than the Studds amendment.
  Recently, this Congress has voted for consumer-friendly right-to-know 
provisions in several bills.
  Yet today, this bill aims to confuse the dolphin-safe label and 
deceive the American public.
  Americans want to know which tuna has been caught without risks to 
dolphins.
  The dolphin-safe label ought to mean what it says.
  Finally, I believe it's fair to say that no one in recent memory in 
this body has done so much to protect so many of one individual species 
than my colleague from Massachusetts.
  We should honor his 20 years of work and expertise by supporting the 
Studds amendment.
  If Studds does not pass--we could be faced with another tuna boycott 
until the American public can be sure that dolphin-safe labels are 
telling the truth.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important and 
necessary amendment, and I thank Representatives Studds and Miller for 
all of their efforts to protect our planet's ocean life and our 
Nation's consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple: It protects dolphins from 
being chased, harassed, injured, or encircled with nets by tuna 
fishermen.
  It's necessary because the underlying legislation would allow 
unlimited harassment and injuring of dolphins, so long as no more than 
5,000 are actually killed in the eastern tropical Pacific each year. 
Despite increased deaths and injury to dolphins, tuna caught under the 
provisions of the underlying legislation could still be labeled in the 
United States as dolphin-safe. That's not acceptable. In my view, there 
should be zero dolphin deaths associated with our dolphin-safe label.
  Seven years ago, 100,000 dolphins were slaughtered each year. As a 
result of the U.S. tuna industry's voluntary policy of refusing to 
purchase tuna caught while harming or killing dolphins, that number has 
dropped to approximately 3,200--an impressive 97 percent.
  The Studds amendment retains the integrity of the dolphin safe label 
by ensuring that dolphins are not harassed while fishing for tuna. 
Although H.R. 2823, even if improved by the Studds/Miller amendment, 
would condone more dolphin deaths than are associated with the current 
U.S. dolphin safe label, it would actually result in fewer dolphin 
deaths worldwide. This is because only 5,000 deaths total would be 
permitted, and only those foreign fishermen that fish in compliance 
with the 5,000 limit would be able to sell their tuna to the U.S. 
market.
  Consumers need to know that dolphin safe means what it says. The 
Studds amendment although imperfect, helps move us in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Studds amendment, 
support the wishes of the American consumer, and support the dolphins.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 260, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--161

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo

[[Page H9449]]


     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--260

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Brownback
     Flake
     Ford
     Hastert
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McDade
     Serrano
     Thomas
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. ARCHER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. RAHALL, and Mr. HOLDEN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fox 
of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, have had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2823) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 
support the International Dolphin Conservation Program in the eastern 
tropical Pacific Ocean, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 489, he reported the bill back to the House with the 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 316, 
noes 108, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--316

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--108

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bilirakis
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)

[[Page H9450]]


     Bunn
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rivers
     Rose
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachus
     Brownback
     Flake
     Ford
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McDade
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2020

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________