[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.
____________________