[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 31, 1996

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, When Congress considered NAFTA, this 
Congress received the unqualified assurance from Ambassador Kantor that 
U.S. environmental laws and standards would not be lowered if Congress 
approved the agreement.
  Well--here we are--about to do just that as we consider the Gilchrest 
bill and its changes to the ``Dolphin Safe'' label.
  After an outcry from Americans, many of them school children, U.S. 
tuna companies announced in 1990 that they would not buy tuna caught 
while harming dolphins. The U.S. tuna fleets moved to the waters of the 
western Pacific nations where the tuna do not swim with the dolphins. 
The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, 1990, codified that 
tuna harvested with large scale nets is not ``Dolphin Safe.''
  H.R. 2823 lowers our labeling standards and misleads the American 
consumers. It would allow tuna to be labeled ``dolphin safe'' even 
though it was caught with encirclement techniques that we know killed 
and injured hundreds of thousands of dolphins before environmental laws 
and industry practices changed fishing techniques.
  H.R. 2823 would allow tuna to be certified ``dolphin safe'' merely if 
an observer didn't see any dolphins die. However, nothing in this bill 
would preclude severely injured dolphins to be dumped back into the sea 
to die.
  American children deserve ``dolphin safe'' labels that they can take 
at face value--one that means what it says. We have a labeling system 
that consumers requested and have come to rely on. Altering the meaning 
of the label is nothing short of fraud perpetrated on America's kids!
  I urge you to support the Studds amendment which would protect the 
``dolphin safe'' label.

                          ____________________