[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11618-S11619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        U.S. TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take the floor to make some comments on 
the current situation in this Senate with regard to relations with some 
of the other countries that we enter into negotiations with on a 
regular basis. I think today is a sad day for this country with regard 
to our relations with other countries with whom we negotiate treaties. 
In fact, this has been a sad week. This has been a sad Congress because 
despite the best efforts of many in this administration who have 
negotiated with friends and allies in other countries around the world 
for years, indeed decades, this Congress this session failed to follow 
through and ratify or approve these treaties that have been negotiated 
in good faith and signed by other countries including the United 
States. Just this session we failed to enact in this Congress a 
chemical weapons treaty.
  Yesterday, I took the floor to lament the fact that this Congress and 
this Senate has refused to ratify the OECD agreement on shipping, which 
was negotiated for years and years and years, which our country signed 
and every country that signed with us expected us to ratify. It will 
not even be brought up in the Senate. Indeed, it was a sad week, and 
today unfortunately once again I say how terribly disappointed I am 
that apparently the Tuna-Dolphin Treaty, which this and previous 
administrations have worked on, which this country has signed along 
with 10 other countries around the world, will not be enacted in this 
Congress.
  If I was a delegate from some other country, I would say, ``You know, 
I don't think I want to negotiate with the United States and spend a 
decade of trying to enter into an agreement which we all agree on and 
then have forces in the Congress stop it from even being considered.'' 
This Tuna-Dolphin Treaty, which we will apparently not bring up, was 
supported by the administration. I have letters from Vice President Al 
Gore, on two separate occasions, to the Republican leader, the 
Democratic leader, and to Members of Congress saying this is an 
important treaty, that it should be passed this session. Yet we have 
forces that say, ``No, it is not going to be considered. It is not 
going to be taken up.''
  It is interesting that some will say it is not environmentally strong 
enough. The Vice President's letter to Senator Daschle and myself and 
to Senator Lott and everybody else points out the strong support that 
this treaty has from environmental groups, from fishing groups, from 
industry groups. It points out that this treaty is supported by major 
environmental groups including Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the 
National Wildlife Federation, the Center for Marine Conservation, the 
Environmental Defense Fund--all have pledged their support. I commend 
them, because many times we have not been on the same side on some of 
these fisheries issues that I have been dealing with for over 20 years 
as a Member of Congress. But they recognize, as I do, that this 
agreement is by far the best agreement that countries could ever enter 
into, to allow an industry of multimillions of dollars to coexist with 
environmentalists who are legitimately concerned about protecting 
dolphin as fishermen are catching tuna in the same vicinity, the same 
areas.
  There have been strong editorials endorsing this agreement from the 
New York Times and from the Washington Post, saying that this, indeed, 
is a solid and sound environmental treaty and should be adopted by the 
Congress--and we are not going to even be able to bring it up.
  The countries around the world that do tuna fishing and have 
conflicts with dolphin, that have agreed to make major and significant 
changes to the way they catch tuna in order to implement this treaty, 
are now going to have the United States say: Well, we got you to 
negotiate it, we got you to sign it, we got you to make these 
concessions, we got you to put observers on your boats but, guess what, 
we are not going to ratify it now. Sorry, we were just joking.
  What kind of feeling do these countries that have spent these years 
negotiating with us have when they find out Congress is not going to 
follow through? Countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rica, 
Nicaragua, Belize, Honduras, France, and Japan, who fish in the eastern 
tropical Pacific, Spain, Colombia, Vanuatu, all of these countries have 
negotiated this agreement in good faith. Environmental groups have 
signed off. The Vice President of the United States has sent two strong 
letters saying this should be passed this year, yet we will not bring 
it up.
  I would say that those who think that they somehow are doing 
something to protect dolphin by killing this treaty are going to find 
that just the opposite will occur. When these countries that I have 
just read off find out the United States has turned its back on them at 
this late date, what incentive do they have to continue to follow the 
rules of this treaty? None. Mexico, for one, will probably--they 
should--file a GATT violation against our country because, right now, 
we are unilaterally banning the importation of tuna caught without 
following procedures that we have determined are the best procedures. 
That, in this Senator's opinion, is a clear violation of GATT because 
it sets into effect a unilateral embargo which is not based on science 
and not based on environmental concerns whatsoever. It is my opinion, 
if they proceed--and why should they not?--now to file a complaint 
against our country for a unilateral embargo of their product, then I 
suggest that, unfortunately, they will probably win that case against 
our country.

  But even more important than some case before a GATT commission, as 
serious as that is, I am very concerned that other environmental 
efforts that people negotiate and try to enter into agreements on with 
these countries will not be able to be reached. We have just worked 
very hard with Mexico in order to get them to agree--and the Presiding 
Officer now in the chair knows this--to get Mexico to agree to take 
certain actions to protect turtles in their area. We have to do it in 
our country, and our shrimpers are adversely affected, but we are doing 
it. We have tried to get other countries to follow the same rules and 
regulations that we are following in trying to protect turtles. Yet, 
when we tell them with this agreement, ``We do not care what you 
negotiate, we are not going to enact it,'' then they are not going to 
have an incentive to follow these new rules and regulations that they 
have agreed to.
  It is most unfortunate--most unfortunate--we are not able to enact 
this agreement, which has such far-reaching meaning as far as 
conservation is concerned.
  The current situation is, I think, not very good, frankly. We have 
all of our people who buy tuna in stores have it labeled ``dolphin 
safe,'' and that is supposed to mean it was caught without any dolphin 
being killed by the fishermen. But it only affects one type of fishing, 
and that is the encirclement method, where fishermen encircle their 
nets around an area where dolphin are in order to catch the tuna that 
are below the dolphin. But fishermen can currently use any other 
effort, from log fishing, from school fishing, from kill fishing for 
tuna with nets of a certain size, and kill dolphin in the process and 
still allow it to come into this country and label it ``dolphin safe.'' 
That is not dolphin safe, if you take it to mean that dolphin should 
not be killed.
  This agreement, for the first time, says we do not care how you fish, 
let us look at all the methods, and if the methods then produce tuna 
without any dolphin being killed, then you can label it dolphin safe. 
That is a huge improvement over the current situation, a huge 
improvement over the current practices by the industry out there 
because it looks at all methods of fishing, not just one method of 
fishing.
  So it is very unfortunate that we will not be able to enact this 
legislation. It really has been bipartisan. We have had professional 
scientists who are not Republican or Democrat negotiate this

[[Page S11619]]

for years with these 11 other countries in addition to the United 
States. We have had strong bipartisan support from Senator Stevens, a 
cosponsor of this legislation with me; from Congressman Wayne Gilchrest 
from the House side, who has been a leader in this area; from 
Congressman Cunningham, who has been very helpful on this. There have 
been a large number of people and the environmental groups that have 
recognized this is by far the best opportunity because they see, as I 
do, these other countries in this area.

  I am so distressed that we are wasting this golden opportunity 
because I think, as other environmental groups think and feel, if we do 
not enact this treaty, we are going to lose the great progress that has 
already been made. These countries now that are trying to cooperate are 
going to lose any incentive to do so. I think, from the gill fishing 
industry and the sport fishing industry, when these countries see what 
we are doing to them, they are going to, all of a sudden, say why 
should we allow you to fish in our waters for marlin and for billfish? 
They can move in that direction, causing us great problems in those 
areas, not to mention they would lose their incentive to have observers 
on their boats, where they now have observers on every tuna boat that 
reports to the public exactly what happens. If we lose that, do some 
groups realize what we are losing?
  I suggest, in conclusion, we have missed a tremendous opportunity. 
This is the second time in 1 week I have come to the floor and had to 
say how unfortunate it is and how saddened I am by the fact we cannot 
approve agreements this country has entered into in good faith and that 
we have signed, because some people think they are not perfect. Nothing 
we do is perfect. But this agreement is a good, solid agreement. It 
should have been ratified. It should have been approved. Vice President 
Al Gore was strongly behind it. Responsible environmental groups were 
strongly behind it. Industry was strongly behind it. It almost makes 
you ask the question, how can this be?
  How unfortunate that is, the situation we are in, and I fear for the 
consequences in a number of areas, particularly environmental laws, 
rules, regulations and standards. I think they will come tumbling down 
as a result of this effort in killing this agreement today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________