[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S789-S792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TUNA-DOLPHIN BILL

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week, Senators Stevens and Breaux 
introduced a bill S. 39, that would significantly weaken protections 
for dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean by rewriting--
gutting--the ``dolphin safe'' tuna labeling law that Senator Biden and 
I wrote and urged into law in 1990.
  Today, the $1 billion U.S. canned tuna market is a dolphin safe 
market. Consumers know that the dolphin safe label means that dolphins 
were not chased, harassed, captured, or killed.
  Our definition of dolphin safe became law for all the right reasons. 
Those reasons are still valid today:
  First, for the consumers, who were opposed to the encirclement of 
dolphins with purse seine nets and wanted guarantees that the tuna they 
consume did not result in harassment, capture, and killing of dolphins; 
second, for the U.S. tuna companies, who wanted a uniform definition 
that would not undercut their voluntary efforts to remain dolphin-safe; 
third, for the dolphins, to avoid harassment, injury and deaths by 
encirclement; and fourth, for truth in labeling.
  Our law has been a huge success. Annual dolphin deaths have declined 
from 60,000 in 1990 to under 3,000 in 1995. Why mess with success?
  The Stevens-Breaux bill would permit more dolphins to be killed than 
are killed now.
  The bill promotes the chasing and encirclement of dolphins, a tuna 
fishing practice that is very dangerous to dolphins. It does so by 
gutting the meaning of dolphin safe, the label which must appear on all 
tuna sold in the United States. The ``dolphin safe'' label has worked: 
it doesn't need to be updated, as the bill's sponsors claim.
  A number of arguments have been made in support of the Stevens-Breaux 
bill which I would like refute at this time.


                        1. ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT

  Bill supporters claim that it is supported by the environmental 
community. In fact, only a few environmental groups support the 
Stevens-Breaux bill, while over 85 environmental, consumer, animal 
protection, labor, and trade groups oppose the Stevens-Breaux bill. I 
ask unanimous consent to insert a list of these groups in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks. The fact is that the vast majority of 
environmental organizations in this country and around the world oppose 
the Stevens-Breaux bill.


                           2. EMBARGO ON TUNA

  The bill's supporters say that it is unreasonable for the United 
States to continue to impose a unilateral embargo on other fishing 
nations that wish to sell tuna in our country. I agree. It is time to 
lift the embargo. That is why Senator Biden and I, and a number of our 
colleagues, introduced legislation in the last session of Congress that 
would lift the country by country embargo against tuna that is caught 
by dolphin safe methods. Our bill would give all tuna fishermen the 
opportunity to export to the U.S. market as long as they use dolphin 
safe practices. In other words, we would open the U.S. market and 
comply with international trade agreements without gutting U.S. dolphin 
protection laws.
  We have offered repeatedly over the past year to sit down and 
negotiate a compromise with the administration. We have stated 
repeatedly that we agree it is appropriate to lift the embargo. We want 
to reach a compromise that is in the best interest of the American 
consumer, dolphins, and our U.S. tuna processing industry.

[[Page S790]]

                               3. SCIENCE

  Supporters of the Stevens-Breaux bill believe that we should return 
to chasing and setting nets on dolphins because bycatch of other marine 
species is minimized. I believe that in order to sustain our renewable 
marine resources, we need to take a comprehensive ecosystem approach. I 
also recognize that management of a single species does not always 
produce benefits for the entire ecosystem. The bycatch of juvenile tuna 
and other marine species including endangered turtles, is an issue of 
concern that must be addressed. However, the bycatch arguments used by 
supporters of this bill are not based on solid science. We need more 
research before we can establish that bycatch is a problem.


                         4. OBSERVERS ON BOATS

  Under the scheme supported by this bill, tuna fishing boats would 
continue to have only one observer on each. Currently, that one 
observer only has to observe whether or not a purse seine net was used 
on dolphins. If a net was deployed, the tuna caught on that fishing 
trip cannot be labeled ``dolphin safe''. Under the scheme in the 
Stevens-Breaux bill, an observer would have to see whether there are 
any dead dolphins in the nets that are used to catch tuna. These nets 
are huge--1\1/2\ miles long. How can we expect one single observer to 
know whether or not a dolphin died in a mile-and-a-half long net? This 
observer scheme would be unworkable and unenforceable. It also ignores 
all injuries to dolphin during the chase and encirclement process which 
can lead to eventual death.


                      5. INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION

  During the last session, the Panama Declaration was repeatedly 
referred to as a tuna-dolphin treaty, and it was suggested that unless 
the Senate passed the Stevens-Breaux bill, the United States was 
somehow reneging on a binding international agreement. This is simply 
untrue. It is a completely inaccurate characterization of the issue.
  Mr. President, there is no tuna-dolphin treaty.
  No treaty was signed by the United States or any other nation on the 
subject of tuna fishing and the killing of dolphins in the eastern 
tropical Pacific.
  No treaty was submitted to the Senate for ratification, as required 
by the Case-Zablocki Act.
  No treaty was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  None of these things happened because there is no treaty.
  The agreement that the Stevens-Breaux bill relates to is neither a 
treaty nor an international agreement. The so-called Panama Declaration 
is only a political statement--an agreement to agree in the future on a 
binding international agreement.
  The declaration sets forth a series of principles which will 
ultimately be contained in this yet-to-be-drafted international 
agreement. But these principles are so vague and largely hortatory that 
they cannot possibly be read as imposing legal obligations.
  If there were any doubt that the United States did not intend to be 
bound by this declaration, we need only turn to the statement issued by 
the United States representative to the meeting in Panama.

       The U.S. Administration supports this initiative which is 
     an important step on the road to a permanent, binding 
     instrument . . . The initiative . . . is contingent upon 
     changes in U.S. legislation . . . The U.S. Administration 
     needs to work with our Congress on this . . . We do not want 
     to mislead anyone here as to what the final outcome of that 
     process might be.

  It is clear that the administration was not binding the United States 
to anything, other than to work with the Congress to enact this 
legislation.
  That is the commitment of the United States. It is nothing more. If 
we don't pass the Stevens-Breaux bill, no binding agreement will have 
been broken, no international treaty obligation will have been 
violated.
  In summary, the arguments made by the supporters of the Stevens-
Breaux legislation--arguments of fact as well as arguments of law--are 
unsupportable. The bill is not needed for any convincing scientific or 
environmental purpose, and is not needed to meet any binding obligation 
of the United States.
  I remain committed to blocking this legislation in its current form. 
I also remain committed to reaching a compromise solution.
  We have stated repeatedly that we agree it is appropriate to lift the 
embargo. We want to reach a compromise that is in the best interest of 
the American consumer, dolphins, and our U.S. tuna processing industry.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following material be printed in the 
Record immediately following my statement: First a letter to Senator 
Boxer from internationally renowned marine scientist Jacques-Yves 
Cousteau opposing the Stevens-Breaux proposed change of the definition 
of dolphin safe; second, a set of opinion pieces and a letter to the 
editor from Time magazine, the Washington Post, and the Journal of 
Commerce, and third, the list of bill opponents referred to earlier.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Opponents of the Stevens-Breaux Bill

       Action for Animals, California; Americans for Democratic 
     Action, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
     Animals, American Oceans Campaign, American Humane 
     Association, Animal Protection Institute, Ark Trust, 
     Australians for Animals, Bellerive Foundation, Italy & 
     Switzerland; Born Free Foundation, Brigantine New Jersey 
     Marine Mammal Stranding Center, BREACH, UK; Cetacea Defense, 
     Chicago Animals Rights Coalition, Clean Water Action, 
     Coalition for No Whales in Captivity, Coalition Against the 
     United States Exporting Dolphins, Florida; Coalition for 
     Humane Legislation, Colorado Plateau Ecology Alliance, 
     Committee for Humane Legislation, Community Nutrition 
     Institute.
       Defenders of Wildlife, Dolphin Project Interlock 
     International, Dolphin Connection, California; Dolphin 
     Freedom Foundation, Dolphin Defenders, Florida; Dolphin Data 
     Base, Dolphin Alliance, Inc.; Doris Day Animal League, Earth 
     Island Institute, EarthTrust, Education and Action for 
     Animals, Endangered Species Project, Inc.; European Network 
     for Dolphins, Federation for Industrial Retention and 
     Renewal, Fondation Brigitte Bardot, France; Friends of the 
     Earth, Friends of Animals, Friends for the Protection of 
     Marine Life, Friends of the Dolphins, California; Fund for 
     Animals, Fundacion Fauna Argentina, Hoosier Environmental 
     Council, Humane Society of Canada, Humane Society of the 
     Midlands, Humane Society International, Humane Society of the 
     United States.
       In Defense of Animals, Institute for Agriculture and Trade 
     Policy, Interhemispheric Resource Center, International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Dolphin Project, 
     International Wildlife Coalition, International Union of 
     Electronic Workers, Irish Whale and Dolphin Society, 
     Lifeforce Foundation, Maine Green Party, Marine Mammal Fund, 
     Massachusetts Audubon Society, Midwest Center for Labor 
     Research, National Consumers League, National Family Farm 
     Coalition, Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International, 
     Pacific Orca Society, Canada; People for the Ethical 
     Treatment of Animals, Performing Animal Welfare Society, 
     Progressive Animal Welfare Society.
       Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, Pure Food Campaign, 
     Reearth, Reseau-Cetaces, France; San Diego Animal Advocates, 
     Sierra Club, Society for Animal Protective Legislation, South 
     Carolina Association for Marine Mammal Protection, South 
     Carolina Humane Society of Columbia, The Free Corky Project, 
     UNITE, Vier Pfoten, Austria and Germany; Whale Tales Press, 
     Whale Rescue Team, Whale and Dolphin Welfare Committee of 
     Ireland, Whale and Dolphin Society of Canada, Working Group 
     for the Protection of Marine Mammals, Switzerland; Zoocheck, 
     Canada.


                                         The Cousteau Society,

                                    Chesapeake, VA, July 12, 1996.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for your letter about the 
     Panama Declaration. Here at The Cousteau Society/Equipe 
     Cousteau, my staff has been following the heated discussions 
     among environmental organizations about the Declaration and 
     pertinent legislation in the United States.
       We agree with the proponents of the Panama Declaration that 
     it is time to move away from trade sanctions and toward 
     engaging all tuna-fishing nations in a commitment to 
     techniques that are truly dolphin-safe. At the same time, we 
     cannot accept a compromise that approves of catching tuna by 
     chasing and encircling dolphins. We have faith that the 
     nations involved can find a better solution.
       Our best wishes to you in your work.
           Sincerely,
     Jacques-Yves Cousteau.
                                                                    ____


                    [From the Monitor, Mar. 4, 1996]

Chicken of the Sea?--A ``Dolphin-Safe'' Tuna Flap Makes the U.S. Squirm

                           (By Eugene Linden)

       Call it the flipper flip-flop. A squabble over attempt to 
     amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act is forging some 
     strange alliances even as it opens up a bitter rift in the 
     environmental movement. In the end, it may be business 
     interests--once the villains in the

[[Page S791]]

     piece but now terrified of a boycott by dolphin-loving 
     consumers--that decide the matter.
       At issue are amendments to the 1972 act, which forbade 
     imports of tuna caught using nets to encircle dolphins that 
     for unexplained reasons swim together with tuna in parts of 
     the Pacific. Before the act, this method suffocated as many 
     as 500,000 of the marine mammals each year. After 1972, 
     American fishermen drastically reduced their dolphin kill, 
     but in the 1980s the number of dolphins killed by foreign 
     boats rose dramatically.
       Then in 1989, environmental activist Sam LaBudde galvanized 
     public opinion by releasing dramatic videos of drowning 
     dolphins. In 1990, StarKist, the world's largest tuna canner, 
     responding to consumer sentiment, announced that it would buy 
     only tuna caught by other methods. That same year, LaBudde's 
     group, Earth Island Institute, successfully sued the Bush 
     Administration to bar tuna imports from Mexico and other 
     Latin American countries that failed to protect dolphins. 
     European nations followed suit, which extended the embargo to 
     an estimated 80% of the canned-tuna consumer market.
       Mexico promptly filed an international trade complaint. But 
     it also took steps to reduce dolphin deaths, and by 1995 the 
     number of dolphins killed by tuna fishermen annually had 
     dropped below 5,000 worldwide--demonstrating, Mexicans 
     assert, that fishing boats can encircle dolphins without 
     killing the animals. The U.S. and a coalition of green groups 
     met with Latin nations in Panama last October to hammer out 
     new guidelines for environmentally sound tuna fishing. Their 
     declaration permits encirclement so long as onboard observers 
     certify that no dolphin drowned during the netting operation, 
     and its provisions became the basis for a bill introduced by 
     Alaska Senator Ted Stevens that would, among other things, 
     lift the U.S. embargo. California Senator Barbara Boxer, a 
     Democrat, has introduced a competing bill that would also 
     lift the sanctions on the Latin nations but maintain them on 
     individual vessels that catch tuna by encirclement of 
     dolphins.
       Proving once again that politics makes strange bedfellows, 
     the Clinton Administration has sided with Stevens--a leader 
     of Republican efforts to roll back environmental 
     regulations--as have the Environmental Defense Fund, the 
     World Wildlife Federation and the Center for Marine 
     Conservation. They argue that unless the Latin nations are 
     given credit for their efforts, they will simply resume their 
     bad old ways. Meanwhile, Earth Island Institute, the Sierra 
     Club, the Humane Society and Friends of the Earth vehemently 
     oppose the Stevens bill and support Boxer's charging that the 
     delegation in Panama sold out the dolphins to free trade.
       Proponents of the Boxer bill say complicated enforcement 
     procedures and the potential for corruption under the Stevens 
     bill will mean that dolphin deaths will rise again. 
     Proponents of the Stevens bill argue that the alternatives to 
     encircling dolphins have proved destructive to both tuna 
     populations and other species, such as sea turtles and 
     sharks. All that leaves Anthony O'Reilly, chairman of H.J. 
     Heinz Co., which owns StarKist, loath to make any change that 
     might be misinterpreted by dolphin-loving consumers. ``I 
     believe the definition should not be changed in the absence 
     of consensus of scientists and public opinion,'' he says. And 
     he's the one who has to move the goods.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 23, 1996]

                  ``Dolphin-Safe'' Claim is in Danger

                          (By Colman McCarthy)

       On the label of every can of tuna sold in the United States 
     is the phrase ``dolphin safe.'' This means that tuna were not 
     caught by intentionally setting encircling nets on dolphins. 
     In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, fleets locate the deeper-
     swimming tuna by tracking dolphins.
       The story of how ``dolphin safe'' came to be imprinted on 
     labels is proof that environmentally harmful practices can be 
     turned around when enough well-organized citizens demand it. 
     Credit is shared by schoolchildren, their parents and 
     teachers who threatened to boycott tuna because dolphins were 
     also killed in the catch, and by such groups as the Humane 
     Society of the United States, which has been toiling on this 
     marine issue for more than 20 years.
       Legislatively, the Dolphin Consumer Information Act was 
     passed in 1990. Then came the International Dolphin 
     Conservation Act, which bans the import and sale of tuna 
     caught in nets that encircle dolphins. Both laws represent 
     years of work by progressive politicians to ensure that 
     dolphins are nearly as safe as they were before tuna fleets 
     took to the high seas in 1959 with deadly mile-long purse 
     seine nets. Over three decades, more than 7 million died in 
     the nets. Under the laws, dolphin mortality has been reduced 
     by 96 percent.
       In politics, success in one thing, defending it another.
       The integrity of the legislation, as well as the safety of 
     dolphins, is at serious risk. The problem is not with the 
     domestic tuna fleet. California-based, it amounts to only a 
     half-dozen boats and with the owner eschewing settings nets 
     on dolphins. It is the fleets of a few foreign nations--
     Mexico mainly, which has nearly 40 factory boats in the 
     eastern Pacific--that want to market dolphin-unsafe tuna in 
     the United States.
       Mexico's fishers and their lobbyists in Washington are 
     taking comfort in legislation offered by Sens. Ted Stevens 
     (R-Alaska) and John Breaux (D-La.). Their bill, which 
     recently was approved by a Republican controlled committee, 
     would redefine ``dolphin safe'' to something like ``Well, 
     pretty safe.'' Dolphins would be fair game for nets, along 
     with the practice of helicopters and speedboats chasing the 
     traumatized creatures into them.
       To ward off troublesome school kids who like dolphins and 
     might take to boycotting again, the Stevens-Breaux bill 
     requires the fishers to ``back down''--release dolphins from 
     the nets while still tightening them around tuna. If no 
     dolphins were ``observed'' dead in the nets, the dolphin-safe 
     claim could be made.
       Now the waters murk up. Even if an independent-minded 
     observer can be found and be given the run of the factory 
     boat by the Mexican captain, how precisely can one person 
     monitor a mile's worth of nets in a waving sea? What about 
     when they are sleeping or down below eating? What if the 
     captain who isn't likely to be a dues-paying member of the 
     Humane Society, disputes the observer's count of dead 
     dolphins? Whose word is to be believed?
       And then there is the effectiveness of enforcement. Jeffrey 
     Pike of the Dolphin Safe Fair Trade Campaign, a group opposed 
     to Stevens-Breaux, testified before Congress on the lack of 
     enforcement powers by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
     Commission, a regulatory group. When observers have cited the 
     deaths of dolphins, ``the reports are not acted on'' by the 
     commission. ``To date, despite the fact that hundreds of 
     violations have been reported, no monetary fines have been 
     collected or penalties assessed. . . . In 1994, during four 
     trips IATTC observers reported that they were prohibited by 
     the vessel captain from carrying out their duties, an offense 
     for which . . . a penalty of $50,000 each for the captain and 
     vessel owners [is recommended]. In no case was the penalty 
     collected.''
       Congress and U.S. courts are powerless to regulate Mexican 
     and other Latin fleets in international waters. They do have 
     power--and are exerting it through legislation--to ban the 
     import and sale of dolphin-unsafe tuna. Legislation offered 
     by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) does not lower dolphin 
     protection standards. Stevens-Breaux supporters argue that if 
     U.S. laws aren't modified, Mexico will drop its economic 
     anchor in countries that lack dolphin-safe requirements.
       This argument drowns in a deep sea of facts. The United 
     Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports that 90 
     percent of the world's consumers of tuna live in the United 
     States, Canada and Europe, which impose dolphin-safe 
     requirements. Mexico, like the U.S. tuna fleet before it, had 
     better face economic reality, even as it may find the 
     environmental kind unpalatable.
       It comes down to language on labels. The public wants the 
     factual words ``dolphin safe'' on the cans. It doesn't want 
     dolphin deadly.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Journal of Commerce, Jan. 2, 1997]

                        Dolphins, Tuna and Trade

                        (By Rodger Schlickeisen)

       A Dec. 16 editorial endorsed the Stevens-Breaux bill as the 
     best approach for continuing the decline in dolphin 
     mortalities and implementing the Panama Agreement for an 
     enforceable fishery management policy in the eastern Pacific 
     Ocean. As members of Congress long involved with this issue, 
     we take exception to this statement of support.
       Despite popular sentiment behind the current ``dolphin 
     safe'' label--which means what it says--the Stevens-Breaux 
     bill would allow tuna caught using deadly netting and 
     encirclement techniques to be sold as ``dolphin safe'' as 
     long as no one saw any dolphins die. Supporters of the 
     Stevens-Breaux bill argue that because an international 
     observer will be on each tuna boat in the eastern Pacific 
     Ocean, dolphin mortality will be easily monitored and 
     controlled. That argument just doesn't hold water. One 
     observer cannot possibly monitor the entire catch of a 100-
     foot vessel or investigate the contents of a mile-long purse 
     seine net, particularly when the deadly dolphin chase is 
     being carried out by speedboats traveling ahead of the mother 
     ship with no observers on board.
       Another assertion by the bill's proponents--that unless we 
     weaken our laws substantially, international fishing 
     operations will soon abandon the U.S. market and its dolphin-
     safe fishing techniques in favor of the lucrative and 
     permissive Asian and Latin American markets--also lacks any 
     credibility. The fact is that the U.S. market remains the 
     world's largest, accounting for more than 60 percent of 
     global tuna sales. And the European Community, the second-
     largest market, has dolphin-safe tuna practices that 
     practically mirror the Boxer-Biden bill. Together, the United 
     States and European Community dominate the world's tuna 
     market.
       Ultimately, the victim of this extreme effort to gut 
     dolphin protection laws would be not only the dolphins, but 
     also American consumers. By changing the definition of 
     ``dolphin safe,'' as the Stevens-Breaux bill proposes, even 
     tuna caught by killing hundreds or thousands of dolphins 
     could conceivably receive this label.

[[Page S792]]

       There is a better way: The Boxer-Biden International 
     Dolphin Protection and Consumer Information Act of 1995. This 
     bill maintains every word of the current dolphin-safe 
     definition, while continuing the existing ban on selling all 
     other types of tuna. Our bill also makes the necessary 
     changes in current law to incorporate the Panama Agreement (a 
     broad management plan for the eastern Pacific Ocean recently 
     signed by the United States and 11 other countries).
       Most significantly, our bill provides an important 
     incentive for foreign and domestic tuna fishermen to fish in 
     a dolphin-safe manner: access to the U.S. market. Under our 
     bill, the ban on all tuna imports from countries that don't 
     exclusively follow dolphin-safe practices will be amended to 
     allow fishermen who use these methods to sell that tuna in 
     the vast $1 billion U.S. market. This important modification 
     will reward those who have altered their fishing methods and 
     encourage the rest to follow suit.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Journal of Commerce, Aug. 2, 1996]

                        Dolphins, Tuna and Trade

                        (By Rodger Schlickeisen)

       The debate over tuna-dolphin legislation, which reached the 
     floor of the House of Representatives this week, has become 
     as tangled as an old fishing net. But it unravels to one 
     basic reality: The Clinton administration and a few 
     environmental groups are pushing legislation that would 
     weaken the ``dolphin-safe'' program and allow the slaughter 
     of thousands of dolphins annually. While this harmful 
     legislation passed the House this week, there is still time 
     to stop it when a companion bill reaches the Senate floor 
     after the August congressional recess.
       Thanks to the efforts of millions of schoolchildren and a 
     coalition of conservation groups, since 1990 U.S. law has 
     provided labels on cans to let consumers know whether tuna 
     was caught by dolphin-safe methods.
       Tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific tend to school beneath 
     dolphins, so historically fishermen set nets on the dolphins 
     to catch the tuna below, killing at least 7 million dolphins 
     since the 1950s. Dolphin mortality has dropped dramatically, 
     however, since the U.S. embargo of dolphin-unsafe tuna 
     imports.
       After its string of environmental victories against a 
     hostile Congress, why would the administration seek to weaken 
     such a popular environmental program and hand opponents an 
     opportunity to regain ground on the environment? Considering 
     that the majority of environmental organizations support the 
     current dolphin-safe standard, why would a few support 
     regression to a discredited method of fishing?
       The answer is that Flipper has become entangled in deadly 
     trade politics. Latin American countries are pressuring the 
     administration to lift the embargo, which Mexico has 
     challenged successfully before the World Trade Organization. 
     They not only want to settle this longstanding dispute, but 
     help boost the Mexican economy before the November election, 
     in which Nafta will be an issue. Some want to appease 
     Mexico's demands because they fear foreign tuna boat 
     operators otherwise will abandon any safeguards.
       Mexican lobbyists have convinced the administration that 
     only changing the definition of dolphin-safe can ensure them 
     access to the U.S. market, despite the fact that roughly a 
     dozen Mexican tuna boats already fish dolphin-safe. The bill 
     promoted by the administration would change the current 
     definition to allow a dolphin-safe label on tuna caught by 
     encircling, harassing and chasing dolphins--as long as no 
     ``observed'' dolphin deaths occurred.
       The assumptions of bill proponents are based on misleading 
     industry information. For example, although they say 10 
     million dolphins exist in the eastern tropical Pacific, the 
     tuna mostly follow two imperilled populations--spotted and 
     spinner dolphins--which represent only a tiny fraction of the 
     claimed millions. Although these two populations were 
     recently listed as ``depleted'' under the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act, the administration proposal would allow 
     setting nets on them.
       Bill proponents claim that dolphin-safe fishing methods 
     cause by-catch of other marine life such as sea turtles and 
     sharks. They also claim that ``new'' techniques have been 
     developed that make netting dolphins safer.
       Marine biologist and tuna boat owner John Hall scoffs at 
     those claims. He says the method of releasing dolphins from 
     nets was developed by U.S. fishermen three decades ago and 
     their recent adoption by some foreign fishermen has brought 
     about no measurable protection for spotted and spinner 
     dolphins. Moreover, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture 
     Organization states that this fishery's by-catch under the 
     present dolphin-safe definition is among the lowest in the 
     world.
       Furthermore, ``observed'' dolphin deaths under the new 
     definition would not account for all deaths, according to 
     Albert Myrick, who has coordinated U.S. research on dolphin 
     stress. Current data strongly suggest that dolphins 
     experience physiological damage and death after release from 
     nets.
       We lack viable means of ensuring that dolphins will not be 
     killed when fishing nets are set on them. This year Mexican 
     fishermen are known to have thrown observers off their boats. 
     Many involved in the fishery are unconvinced that the present 
     observer system can handle the intensive monitoring that 
     enforcement of the new definition would require.
       A grass-roots coalition of more than 80 environmental, 
     consumer and animal welfare groups oppose weakening the 
     present dolphin-safe standard.
       U.S. tuna canneries, which six years ago went dolphin-safe 
     in the face of unprecedented public pressure, also are 
     concerned.
       They rightly fear that they not only could lose their hard-
     won competitive advantage over foreign dolphin-unsafe 
     canneries, but also again face boycotts over the misleading 
     new label.
       Ironically, if the president would abandon his attempt to 
     change the definition of dolphin-safe, improvements could be 
     made.
       All agree that the present practice of embargoing all tuna 
     from a country like Mexico for the behavior of a few bad 
     fishermen is counterproductive.
       We could allow the dolphin-safe tuna from Mexican fishermen 
     to gain access immediately to the U.S. market.
       This politically smart move also would be the right one.

                          ____________________