[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3120-H3140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 153 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 408.

                              {time}  1529


                     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. 408) 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. Gutknecht in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1530

  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 California [Mr. Miller], 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.
  I rise in support of H.R. 408, officially called the International 
Dolphin Conservation Program Act. This, Mr. Chairman, is essentially an 
ocean habitat management act to protect ocean species in the eastern 
tropical Pacific, including not just dolphins, but tuna fish as well, 
particularly juvenile tuna, sea turtles, bill fish, sharks and other 
species.
  This bill has been worked on for the last 3 years by the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young], our committee chairman, and by the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], and by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham], and by others on the committee.
  This is an international declaration, the Declaration of Panama, a 
binding international agreement signed by 12 nations on October 4, 
1995. The nations are Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, 
Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, Venezuela, and of course the 
United States. The United States was ably represented by our State 
Department, and these issues are, of course, of great importance to the 
American people as well as to the international community.
  During the 104th Congress, a nearly identical measure was passed by 
the House overwhelmingly with a 316 to 108 vote. But the Senate had 
insignificant time to consider the measure before the sine die 
adjournment. This year's measure, H.R. 408, amends the Mammal 
Protection Act to encourage fishing methods which protect dolphins and 
the other important species of marine life which I mentioned.
  The bipartisan bill has the support of the administration and various 
environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, 
the Center for Marine Conservation, the National Wildlife Federation, 
and the Environmental Defense League.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the history of this bill 
is very, very important. In 1992, we passed a bill to protect dolphins 
in the eastern tropical Pacific. That bill worked with American 
fishermen. It worked because of the mechanism that was set up, but it 
did not work, Mr. Chairman, in the international community because an 
American law has little force and effect on foreign fishermen, 
particularly foreign fishermen that found other markets and continued 
to fish on dolphins or tuna fish and market them elsewhere.
  So I congratulate the Committee on Resources for this bill. I hope 
that everyone will vote for it. It is good legislation and our 
distinguished colleague, its author, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest] should be congratulated for his hard work, as well as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], for initially bringing this 
matter to our attention more than 3 years ago.
  This is a true marine ecosystem protection bill and worthy of 
Members' support. I urge all Members to vote in favor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, with all 
due respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilcrest] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  This bill is not about protecting dolphins; this bill is about the 
U.S. Department of State arbitrarily dictating changes in U.S. law 
without consulting Congress until after the deed is done.
  I have further remarks, Mr. Chairman, that I will submit, but in the 
interest of time, I would just like to follow up on that remark.
  During committee markup I offered an amendment on bycatch reduction. 
The issue of bycatch should be addressed in this fishery and every 
other fishery with a strong bycatch reduction requirement. The 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilcrest], I am happy to say, was willing 
to accept the amendment. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] was 
willing to cooperate.
  However, word came down to the committee that the State Department 
was firmly opposed to any changes in the legislation. The State 
Department does not want to accept the amendment, did not want to 
accept our amendment, because it would strengthen the commitment by 
including specific bycatch reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 408, the 
International Dolphin Program Act. With all due respect to my good 
friends from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, and from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, 
this bill is not about protecting dolphins. This bill is about the U.S. 
Department of State arbitrarily dictating changes in U.S. law without 
consulting Congress until after the deed is done.
  In 1990, Mexico and Venezuela filed a formal complaint with GATT 
after the Mexican tuna was embargoed for not achieving comparability 
with the United States tuna fleet. The GATT panel ruled that the United 
States had no right to use trade restrictions on a product based on the 
way the product was made or harvested. This finding has broad 
implications for a variety of U.S. consumer protection, health and 
safety, and environmental laws. However it is important to point out 
that the panel did not address the dolphin-safe label itself.
  Since the ruling, Mexico has been pressuring the United States to 
change its dolphin

[[Page H3121]]

protection law so that they can sell their tuna in the United States. 
No one knew until 1995 that the State Department and Mexico were 
negotiating a deal which is now known as the Panama Declaration. This 
agreement requires major changes to U.S. law. The State Department did 
not consult with Congress during the entire process, and now this 
agreement is being rammed through Congress.
  By codifying the Panama Declaration, H.R. 408, eliminates the embargo 
provision in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which is based on the 
rate of dolphin kill. The bill allows tuna caught by nations which are 
members of the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC] to enter 
the U.S. market if the total mortality for all nations remains below 
5,000 annually and allow some tuna caught by the IATTC nations to be 
labeled ``dolphin safe.'' This dolphin mortality level is double the 
amount of the 1996 dolphin mortality level for Mexico and other nations 
fishing in the eastern Pacific. There is no reason why the acceptable 
dolphin kill level should be set at 5,000, thus allowing IATTC nations 
a higher dolphin mortality for dolphin safe tuna sold in the United 
States.
  The measure also narrows the definition of ``dolphin safe'' so that 
the only excludable tuna would be that which involved the killing of no 
dolphins during the fishing operation. It would, however, allow 
unlimited harassment of dolphins. Mexico and other nations want this 
provision so that their tuna will be  bought by unsuspecting Americans 
who trust that the tuna was caught without harassing dolphins. Mexico 
and other nations know the American consumer will not tolerate the 
slaughter of dolphins. This is why the U.S. tuna canning industry 
adopted the dolphin-safe label in the first place. Without a dolphin-
safe label on tuna, consumers will not buy it. We should not change the 
definition without scientific evidence.

  Supporters of H.R. 408 claim that scientific information supports the 
legislation. This is not accurate. The National Marine Fisheries 
Service [NMFS] conducted a study of tuna by-catch in the Eastern 
Tropical Pacific Ocean from dolphin, schoolfish, and log sets from 1989 
to 1992. A pattern emerged showing that by-catch was generally low or 
nonexistent in dolphin sets, low to moderate in school sets and high to 
very high in log sets. There is no doubt that a fishing method using 
the chase and netting of dolphins results in a lower by-catch of other 
species, such as sea turtles and sharks. While the by-catch issue has 
merit and deserves attention, the Panama Agreement does not resolve the 
problem. Other nondolphin methods of fishing for tuna are not being 
considered.
  More importantly, scientists have no evidence that the impacts of 
high speed chase and netting are not harmful to dolphins or dolphin 
populations. Some dolphin populations are chased more than once a day, 
with more than 3 million animals chased every year. Information from 
the NMFS biologists studying these populations indicates that they are 
currently stable at about one-fifth of their original size. NMFS' own 
scientists and the IATTC have reported that these stocks show no signs 
of recovery. We have no idea if the dolphin-set method impacts the 
dolphin fecundity or mortality.
  During committee markup I offered an amendment on bycatch reduction. 
The issue of bycatch should be addressed in this fishery and every 
other fishery with strong bycatch reduction requirements. Mr. Gilchrest 
was willing to accept the amendment. However, word came down to the 
committee that the State Department was firmly opposed to any changes 
in the legislation. The State Department didn't want to accept the 
amendment, because it would strengthen the commitment by including 
specific bycatch reduction program. What really troubles me is that the 
State Department did not base their position on the bycatch reduction 
program on science or the environment. Instead, the State Department's 
sole concern was political expediency.
  The State Department told Congress that H.R. 408 is unamendable. They 
have rejected any attempts at compromise. Congress should not acquiesce 
to a precedent that lowers our environmental laws, consumer protection, 
and health and safety laws just because another nation desires to sell 
its products in America. If the goal of H.R. 408 is to increase trade 
and open our markets to Mexico, the State Department should come clean. 
They should not hide behind a veil of environmentalism.
  Let's vote to protect dolphins and the environment, I strongly urge 
my colleagues to oppose H.R. 408.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young], who I do not think believes that we are a rubber 
stamp for the State Department.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
408, and I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] especially for working 
on this piece of legislation.
  If we really, truly believe in conservation and believe in saving the 
dolphins, and I have probably been in this argument and the discussion 
longer than anybody on this floor, this is a piece of legislation that 
must pass. It is our belief, after studying the results of scientists 
and other people that contributed testimony to the committee, that it 
is not just the dolphins we are talking about in the sea, we are 
talking about other species now that will be caught if we do not sign 
this agreement with the other countries participating.
  It is the right thing to do, because there are more than just 
dolphins there. Yes, they make movies about them; yes, they are pretty; 
and yes, they swim well; and yes, the seas are attractive because they 
are there, but the truth of the matter is there is a lot of other life 
there that must be protected and this is what we are trying to do with 
this legislation.
  The State Department does support it, the administration does support 
it, which gave me great reservation when I found this out, but what we 
are trying to do with the help of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest] is to try to protect the total mass in the sea to make sure 
that there are those species left that are still under jeopardy.
  So I am voting ``yes'' on this legislation. I am going to suggest 
that if we want to save the dolphins we are talking about, if we want 
to lower the mortality rate, if we want to protect these other species, 
then we must vote ``yes'' on this legislation. This is good legislation 
and it is long overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 408, the International 
Dolphin Conservation Program Act, introduced by Congressman Gilchrest.
  This legislation implements the Panama Declaration, an 
internationally negotiated agreement for the protection of dolphins and 
other marine species in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. This 
agreement, which was developed by 12 nations and several environmental 
organizations, will prove the framework for the lasting protection of 
all marine life affected by the yellowfin tuna fishery in the eastern 
tropical Pacific Ocean.
  As strange as this may sound, this legislation, which I support, is 
also supported by the Clinton administration, Greenpeace, the National 
Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, 
the Center for Marine Conservation, the American Tunaboat Owners 
Coalition, the Seafarers' International Union, the Sportfishing 
Association of California, and the National Fisheries Institute. That 
combination alone should make everyone here vote for the bill.
  As most of you are aware, the protection of dolphin populations in 
this fishery has been a goal of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for 
over two decades. We heard from numerous witnesses during the hearings 
held during the last two Congresses that the unilateral embargo 
provisions and the dolphin-safe labeling requirements have not changed 
the nature of the fishery. In fact, the number of sets on dolphins has 
remained fairly stable for years.
  The La Jolla program, on the other hand, has been very successful in 
promoting more efficient operations and a real reduction in dolphin 
mortality. However, this program is voluntary. Through the Panama 
Declaration and this legislation, we how have an opportunity to get 
real international cooperation in maintaining low dolphin mortality for 
the entire fishery.
  Current law has encouraged the practices of fishing on logs or 
schools of tuna. Both of these fishing methods have created new 
problems by magnifying the bycatch of other marine species such as sea 
turtles, billfish, juvenile tunas, and sharks.
  Obviously, we need to address the problem of dolphin mortality, but 
this should be accompanied by a realization that we also need to 
address other bycatch problems as well. The Gilchrest bill does just 
that. H.R. 408 will allow international cooperation, will provide 
international compliance and enforcement, will cap dolphin mortality, 
and will provide the mechanism for reducing other bycatch in the 
fishery.
  We appear to have a rather big disagreement over the method of 
achieving these objectives. Both sides are attempting to protect 
dolphins. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach an agreement 
which addresses some Members' concerns about the dolphin safe label and 
still allows us to move forward to implement the international 
agreement known as the Panama Declaration.
  This disagreement is unfortunate. However, I believe that the 
international cooperation embodied in the Panama Declaration and the

[[Page H3122]]

provisions to move fishermen away from destructive fishing practices in 
the Gilchrest bill are the right thing to do.
  I urge all Members to support the Gilchrest bill and the 
international cooperation embodied in the Panama Declaration.
  Mr. Chairman, since coming to Congress, I have been involved with the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Over the years, I have worked 
hard to improve the law and we were successful in enacting a number of 
positive changes in 1994. One of those provisions gave the Secretary of 
the Interior the authority to issue permits to Americans to import 
legally taken polar bear trophies from Canada, both before and after 
1994.
  Our intent in passing this provision was clear: we wanted to make it 
easier for hunters to import polar bear trophies into the United States 
as long as that activity did not adversely affect Canadian polar bear 
populations.
  There are about 13,120 polar bears in the Northwest Territories of 
Canada. According to scientific experts, this population is growing by 
about 3 to 5 percent each year. Since the annual quota for sport 
hunting was 132 animals in 1996, this harvest rate is having little, if 
any, effect on any of Canada's polar bear populations. What this 
activity is doing, however, is providing thousands of dollars to 
Canada's Inuits allowing them to maintain their cultural heritage.
  While some people may disagree with the interpretation which allows 
sport hunting to be included in subsistence quotas, at the same time I 
doubt any of these people have been up to the Northwest Territories. 
Sport hunters are taking the part of the animal which is useless to the 
Canadian Inuit. The gall bladder and any other organ which could be 
traded illegally is destroyed, but the meat, bones, and all that is 
valuable to the Inuit remains in the villages.
  On July 17, 1995, 15 months after enactment of the 1994 amendments, 
the Department of the Interior issued a proposed rule allowing all pre-
1994 polar bear trophies to enter the United States. This was the 
correct interpretation of the 1994 amendments.
  On February 18, 1997, after years of delay, the Department of the 
Interior issued its final rule. The final rule removed the grandfather 
provision. While no rationale explanation was provided, it is clear 
that in a mad rush to avoid litigation, the Department has ignored both 
the scientific data and the congressional intent contained in the 1994 
MMPA amendments. Since the regulations did not follow congressional 
intent, we are now forced to pass legislation requiring the Secretary 
to issue permits to allow the importation of polar bear trophies taken 
prior to the enactment of the 1994 amendments.
  These trophies are dead and will not adversely affect Canadian polar 
bear populations. On the contrary, the importation of these trophies 
will help to conserve Russian and Alaskan polar bear populations. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service's importation fee, which is $1,000, is 
earmarked to go toward conservation and research of these polar bear 
populations.
  We have to remember that these dead bears can no longer influence the 
stability of Canadian polar bear populations. These trophies have been 
sitting in warehouses for many years. The polar bear populations will 
benefit more if we allow the Secretary to issue an import permit and 
use the $1,000 fee for conservation and research.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has stated to my staff that a new 
rulemaking process, which is required under section 103 of the act, 
shall not be necessary to implement this language which authorizes the 
Secretary to issue import permits for pre-1994 trophies to applicants 
providing the appropriate documentation. The Service has indicated that 
a Federal Register notice will be published stating how this new 
language fits into the final rule published on February 18, 1997. The 
Service will have to update the final rule to include this new 
language, but this process will not delay the Secretary from issuing 
permits to applicants immediately after the 30 day public comment 
period has ended.
  This amendment should not be controversial, since the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the Marine Mammal Commission, and the ranking 
Democrat of the committee do not object this provision. I urge Members 
to support my efforts to correct the Fish and Wildlife Service's 
incorrect interpretation of the 1994 Marine Mammal Protection Act.

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                    Fish and Wildlife Service,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1997.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, House Committee on Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: During the hearing held last week on the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service's final regulations on import of 
     polar bear trophies from Canada, the Service and the Marine 
     Mammal Commission testified about the reasons why the plain 
     language of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 
     1994 required the Service to apply all of the substantive 
     criteria of Section 104(c)(5) to the import of all polar bear 
     trophies, regardless of when they were taken. The testimony 
     also described the scientific basis for our determinations 
     that five of Canada's polar bear populations meet the 
     criteria of the Act, as well as new efforts now underway to 
     develop a further proposal that will include two more 
     populations, based on new information received from Canada 
     too late to be included in the first round of determinations. 
     The Service concluded that, based on the current statutory 
     language and available scientific data, it lacked the 
     authority to allow the import of polar bear trophies taken on 
     or before April 30, 1994, from the remaining populations 
     until they meet all of the criteria of the Act.
       During the hearing there also was discussion concerning the 
     position of the Administration regarding potential new 
     legislation which would explicitly exempt bears which are 
     already dead and held in storage in Canada from the four 
     criteria contained in Section 104(c)(5) of the Act. The 
     purpose of this letter is to notify you that the 
     Administration would have no objection to such legislation, 
     provided it is limited to an exemption for polar bear 
     trophies legally taken in Canada on or before April 30, 1994, 
     and that no other exemptions from the provisions of the Act 
     are added. Enclosed with this letter is recommended language, 
     developed in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, 
     that would include an explicit exemption from the 
     requirements of Sections 101, 102, and 104(C)(5)(I) through 
     (iv) of the Act for all trophies taken on or before April 30, 
     1994, provided the permit applicant can show evidence that 
     the trophy was legally taken in Canada.
       In implementing this exemption, the Service would require 
     from applicants a valid Canadian CITES export permit for 
     trophies taken after July 1, 1975 (the date CITES entered 
     into force in Canada), because the issuance of such a permit 
     by the Canadian CITES Management Authority automatically 
     certifies that the specimen was legally acquired. For 
     trophies taken prior to July 1975, in addition to the 
     required CITES pre-convention certificate, the Service 
     would ask for a copy of a Canadian hunting license or 
     other documentation to prove that the specimen was legally 
     taken. With this documentation, there would be no adverse 
     conservation consequences from allowing the import of 
     polar bears taken on or before April 30, 1994, some of 
     which have been in storage in Canada for more than twenty 
     years.
       This language would also not affect the authority of the 
     Service to require that all polar bear trophies be imported 
     through a designated port (unless prior arrangements are made 
     for import of a full mount through a non-designated port) 
     with sufficient prior notice so that Service personnel may be 
     present to inspect the shipment and apply a tag to the 
     trophy. This is important to ensure that there is no 
     stimulation of illegal import or subsequent illegal trade 
     within the United States in polar bear parts. This language 
     would also retain the Service's authority to collect a $1,000 
     fee for each polar bear trophy to be imported. The additional 
     fees generated from imports of trophies from areas not 
     currently eligible for import under existing law and 
     regulations would provide substantially increased benefits 
     for polar bear conservation.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that it has 
     no objection to the presentation of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------,
                                                  Acting Director.
       Enclosure.
                                  ____


        Proposed Legislation for Import for Polar Bear Trophies:

       An Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue 
     permits for the importation of polar bear trophies lawfully 
     taken in Canada on or before April 30, 1994.
       Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 101, 102, and 
     104(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall issue a permit for the importation of 
     polar bear parts (other than internal organs) taken in a 
     sport hunt in Canada to an applicant that submits with a 
     permit application proof that the polar bear was legally 
     harvested in Canada by the applicant on or before April 30, 
     1994. All other provisions of section 104 of the Act, 
     including the charging of an issuance fee, shall be 
     applicable to such permits.
                                  ____


  Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 
              Washington, DC., 20503 May 20, 1997 (House)


                   Statement of Administration Policy

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)


h.r. 408--international dolphin conservation program act (gilchrest (r) 
                      maryland and 29 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     408, as reported by the House Resources and Ways and Means 
     Committees. The bill would implement an international 
     agreement to protect dolphins and the entire ecosystem of the 
     eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

[[Page H3123]]

     
                                  ____
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 1997.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office 
         Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 16, 1997, the Committee on 
     Resources ordered reported H.R. 408, the ``International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program Act.'' This measure, just as 
     H.R. 2823 from the 104th Congress, provides for the 
     implementation of the Declaration of Panama signed in 1995 by 
     the United States and 11 other nations.
       H.R. 408 includes several provisions within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. In implementing 
     the Declaration, the bill amends the ``Dolphin Consumer 
     Information Act of 1989,'' on which the Commerce Committee 
     took action during the 101st Congress. The 1989 Act was 
     incorporated into the reauthorization bill for the Magnuson 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Pub. L. 101-627). 
     H.R. 408 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. 
     The Act would 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.
       Recognizing your Committee's desire to bring this 
     legislation expeditiously before the House, I will not seek a 
     sequential referral of the bill. However, by agreeing not to 
     seek a sequential referral, this Committee does not waive its 
     jurisdictional interest in any matter within its purview. I 
     reserve the right to seek equal conferees on all provisions 
     of the bill that are within my Committee's jurisdiction 
     during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on 
     this legislation. I want to thank you and your staff for your 
     assistance in providing the Commerce Committee with an 
     opportunity to review its jurisdictional interests in H.R. 
     408.
       I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
     the Resource Committee's report on H.R. 2823, and as part of 
     the record during consideration of this bill by the House.
           Sincerely,
                                             Thomas J. Bliley Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in this debate there are going to be many strong 
arguments against this legislation. They point out, of course, my 
colleagues, that this antidolphin bill damages marine ecosystems, 
threatens American jobs and undermines consumer labeling policies. But 
there is one more reason to vote ``no'' on the international dolphin 
conservation program, because it is actually the international drug 
cartel promotion agent.
  According to United States Government estimates, two-thirds of the 
cocaine entering Mexico comes through the eastern tropical Pacific, 275 
tons a year, and most of those drugs end up in American neighborhoods 
and schools. A tuna fishing boat can crisscross the eastern Pacific 
over and over and no one could tell whether it was chasing dolphins or 
evading detection.
  In one instance, the rusting hull of the Don Celso made it appear to 
be a normal fishing vessel until the U.S. Coast Guard stopped the boat 
and searched it and found 7 tons of cocaine concealed on board.
  We know that these successful interceptions are only a fraction of 
the cocaine moving through the Pacific, and there is now substantial 
evidence, Mr. Chairman, that Colombian drug cartels and their Mexican 
allies have moved to gain control of many legitimate tuna fishing 
fleets to use them as front operations in their drug-smuggling 
activities.
  This legislation would double the number of tuna boats in the eastern 
tropical Pacific. Law enforcement is frustrated now by the difficulty, 
but imagine finding those needles in an even bigger haystack.
  Increasing the number of tuna boats will simply increase the ability 
of drug lords to use them for smuggling. This bill ignores that fact 
completely. Before we rush through legislation that will make law 
enforcement's difficult job even more challenging, we should consider 
the impact of our actions.
  Not only does this bill threaten dolphin-safe tuna, it threatens 
drug-free communities and schools. For both of those good reasons, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in this debate make many strong arguments 
against this legislation.
  They point out that this antidolphin bill damages marine ecosystems, 
threatens American jobs, and undermines consumer labeling policies.
  But there is one more reason to vote no on the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program Act--because it is actually the International Drug 
Cartel Promotion Act.
  I serve on the Crime Subcommittee, where we have worked for years to 
improve America's ability to stop illegal drugs at our borders. And we 
have seen the drug smugglers continually adjust to our efforts. When we 
improved interdiction on the land, they started using planes. When we 
began to aggressively intercept those flights, they moved from the 
skies to the seas.
  So the war against drug smugglers has now moved to a new front. In 
this new naval battle, the eastern tropical Pacific is enemy-controlled 
territory. According to United States Government estimates, two-thirds 
of the cocaine entering Mexico comes through the eastern tropical 
Pacific--that's at least 275 tons of cocaine a year. And most of those 
drugs end up in American neighborhoods and schools.
  The smugglers use tuna fishing boats to hide in this vast stretch of 
ocean, because the boats are fast, they are inconspicuous, and they 
have a good alibi for being there. A tuna fishing boat can criss-cross 
the eastern Pacific over and over, and no one could tell whether it was 
chasing dolphins--or evading detection.
  In the last 2 years, authorities have managed to make four gigantic 
seizures of cocaine from tuna boats in the eastern Pacific. In one 
instance, the rusting hull of the Don Celso made it appear to be a 
normal fishing vessel--until the U.S. Coast Guard stopped the boat and 
searched it. After looking for 6 days, the Coast Guard finally found 
nearly 7 tons of cocaine concealed on board.
  But we know that these successful interceptions are only a small 
fraction of the cocaine moving through the Pacific. Most of it gets 
through. And now, there is substantial evidence that the Colombian drug 
cartels and their Mexican allies have moved to gain control of many 
legitimate tuna fishing fleets, to use them as front operations for 
their smuggling in the Pacific.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation would double the number of tuna boats 
in the eastern tropical Pacific. Law enforcement is frustrated now by 
the difficulty of searching for smugglers, but imagine finding those 
needles in an even bigger haystack.
  Increasing the number of tuna boats will simply increase the ability 
of drug lords to use them for smuggling, yet this bill ignores the 
threat completely. Before we rush through legislation that will make 
law enforcment's difficult job even more challenging, at least we 
should consider the impact of our actions.
  Not only does this bill threaten dolphin-safe tuna, it threatens 
drug-free communities and schools. For both reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would just like to quickly quote from a letter that I have from the 
Office of the National Drug Control Policy, Bill McCaffrey. He said, 
this legislation is likely to aid in the fight against drug smuggling 
by increasing the level of scrutiny over the activities of vessels 
involved in this fishery.
  I also have a letter from Barbara Larkin of the United States State 
Department who says, the administration believes that the passage of 
this legislation would actually aid in the fight against drug smuggling 
by increasing the level of scrutiny over these vessels.
  This administration believes that we are headed in the right 
direction on an issue that is obviously a red herring brought up by the 
opponents of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the material referred to.


                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to respond to your 
     committee's request for answers to questions concerning H.R. 
     408, specifically allegations that purse seine vessels 
     engaged in tuna harvesting in the eastern tropical Pacific 
     Ocean are involved in drug trafficking.
       The Department of State has been working with the United 
     States Coast Guard, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy to examine this question. Of the over one 
     hundred fishing vessels participating in the International 
     Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP), only a few have in the 
     past been linked to suspect activities or persons, and a 
     recent review of available information elicited no hard 
     evidence to confirm the allegation that vessels in the IDCP 
     are involved in organized drug trafficking activities.

[[Page H3124]]

       As a general matter, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act prohibits foreign-flag 
     vessels from conducting fishing operations within the U.S. 
     Exclusive Economic Zone (``EEZ'') unless there is a governing 
     international fisheries agreement (``GIFA'') in force between 
     the United States and the flag state of the vessel. No GIFAs 
     are in force for any of the nations participating in the 
     purse seine tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific 
     Ocean. Even if such GIFAs were in force, foreign fishing 
     within the U.S. EEZ could occur only if a surplus of fish was 
     determined to exist and if the Secretary of State allocated a 
     portion of that surplus to vessels of the flag State. In 
     fact, there has been no such surplus identified for several 
     years. Nothing in H.R. 408 would alter that circumstance.
       Transshipments involving foreign vessels in the EEZ are not 
     allowed unless a GIFA is in force, or unless a permit is 
     issued under section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (as 
     amended by section 105(d) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act). 
     No transshipment permits have been issued under section 
     204(d), nor have any applications been received from vessels 
     in the IATTC La Jolla program. In order to issue a permit 
     under section 204(d), the Secretary of Commerce must 
     determine that the transportation of fish or fish products 
     will be in the interest of the United States.
       Similarly, the Nicholson Act generally prohibits foreign-
     flag vessels from landing fish in U.S. ports. While there are 
     a small number of limited exceptions to this rule (e.g., for 
     the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa), none of those 
     exceptions applies to the tuna fishery of the eastern 
     tropical Pacific Ocean. Accordingly, the foreign-flag vessels 
     that participate in that fishery cannot land their catch in 
     U.S. ports. Nothing in H.R. 408 would alter that circumstance 
     either.
       Moreover, the Administration believes that the passage of 
     this legislation would actually aid the fight against drug 
     smuggling by increasing the level of scrutiny over the 
     activities of vessels involved in the eastern tropical 
     Pacific tuna fishery. There will be an observer on every 
     vessel participating in the dolphin protection program, and 
     the observer will be tracking the tuna from the net to the 
     hold to the dock. This increase in oversight of vessels which 
     could be used for smuggling will decrease the likelihood of 
     their being used as part of the drug trade. The enactment of 
     H.R. 408/S. 39, although obviously not designed as a 
     counterdrug measure, will accomplish these things, and would 
     also enhance the general level of cooperation among nations 
     in the region, which could benefit the fight against drug 
     smuggling.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program there is no 
     objection to the submission of this report.
       I hope this information is useful to you. Please do not 
     hesitate to call if we can be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                               Barbara Larkin,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
     Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____



                                 Office of the Vice President,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 1997.
     Hon. Wayne Gilchrest,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Gilchrest: I am writing to thank you 
     for your support of H.R. 408, the ``International Dolphin 
     Conservation Program Act.'' 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, dolphin mortality in the Eastern Tropical 
     Pacific tuna fishery has been reduced far below historic 
     levels. The bill 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 in 1995 by the United States and 11 other nations, 
     but will not take effect unless the Congress acts on H.R. 
     408.
       This legislation is supported by major environmental groups 
     including Greenspace, the World Wildlife Fund, the National 
     Wildlife Federation, the Center for Marine Conservation, and 
     the Environmental Defense Fund. The legislation also is 
     supported by the U.S. fishing industry.
       I am hopeful that this important legislation will be passed 
     by the full House when it comes to the floor this week. 
     Again, thank you for your support of H.R. 408.
           Sincerely,
                                                          Al Gore.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
H.R. 408. This is a unique opportunity to approve legislation that 
would meet our environmental concerns over dolphin mortality, put us in 
compliance with our international obligations, and use multilateral 
standards for the imposition of sanctions, instead of unilateral 
standards that violate the WTO.
  This bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means to address 
its trade aspects. We reported it out as approved by the Committee on 
Resources without further amendment and a strong bipartisan vote. I 
support the bill because it would replace the current use of U.S. 
unilateral 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. Proof of the 
benefits of H.R. 408 is the fact that this legislation is supported by 
the administration and key environmental groups such as National 
Wildlife Federation, Center for Marine Conservation, 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 it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, let me respond, if I could, to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], my good friend. Unfortunately in this 
case, I need to make the point to him that during the last 18 months, 
four record-breaking seizures of cocaine on fishing vessels have been 
made by the United States and other authorities. I think in a year when 
this body was highly critical of Mexico's ability and willingness to 
cooperate with the crackdown on drugs, we should be extremely cautious 
about providing another opportunity to penetrate our borders and 
circumvent our loss.
  On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States, I will include 
for the Record a document, I would like to introduce a document 
analyzing and documenting the relationship between the growing drug 
trade, Mexican tuna fishing and a history of United States seizures of 
foreign fishing vessels.
  I continue to support measures to protect dolphin, but at the same 
time I am worried that passage of the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program Act may lead to a different and more serious 
problem. I want to save dolphins, but it seems to me that stopping 
drugs is critically important at the same time. So unfortunately, I 
have to oppose this measure. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the 
document to which I earlier referred.

   Lifting the Tuna Embargo and Changing the Dolphin Safe Label: The 
               Predicted Impact on Narcotics Trafficking

       How are Drug Smuggling and our Tuna/dolphin Laws Related? 
     Narcotics smuggling and dolphin-deadly tuna fishing by 
     chasing and encircling dolphins with purse-seine nets take 
     place in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Mexico, 
     which wants the U.S. to change its laws to re-open our market 
     to tuna caught this way, is also a major narcotics 
     trafficking country with smuggling operations in the ETP.
       The Flow of Narcotics into the United States: According to 
     the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), over 70% of 
     all cocaine entering the U.S. comes through Mexico. At least 
     two-thirds of the cocaine that enters Mexico is shipped in 
     maritime vessels from other Latin American countries--at 
     least 275 tons of cocaine transit the ETP every year. It is 
     then smuggled into the U.S. over various land and water 
     routes from Mexico into California, Arizona, and Texas.
       Narcotics Travel via Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean: 
     Maritime vessels, such as fishing trawlers and cargo ships, 
     are becoming more widely used by drug cartels to smuggle 
     cocaine because the risk of capture is so low: The vastness 
     of the ocean makes intercepting ships nearly impossible. In 
     fact, U.S. law enforcement officials have stated that, 
     without informants, drug shipments in maritime vessels are 
     essentially impossible to detect. Drug interdiction in the 
     eastern Pacific is made more difficult because the U.S. has 
     few law enforcement cooperative agreements with Pacific 
     nations. Even when ships are apprehended, actually finding 
     the drugs is

[[Page H3125]]

     extremely difficult, because the illicit cargo is hidden in 
     hard-to-find compartments. Moreover, many fishing vessels are 
     equipped with radar and scanners that allow them to determine 
     if they are being followed, giving them an edge over law 
     enforcement officials.
       Tuna-type Vessels are Well-suited for Narcotics Tafficking: 
     A class 5 or 6 tuna vessel--the type used to set purse-seine 
     nets on dolphins--is capable of concealing multi-ton 
     shipments of cocaine with much less risk of discovery than 
     other smuggling methods. Class 5 and 6 tuna vessels fish on 
     the high seas for months at a time. Although they may embark 
     for specific fishing areas, these areas cover hundreds of 
     square miles. Furthermore, unlike a cargo vessel, which 
     generally travels directly from point ``A'' to point ``B,'' a 
     fishing vessel may traverse an area many times--creating 
     unique opportunities for transporting illegal goods.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I want people to take a look at what they are being asked to 
do. They are being asked to vote for a bill and the title of the bill 
is the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
  Now, what it is all about is the strength of American markets. The 
reason we have practices that say we have to fish safe for dolphins is 
because of these cans that we sell in American grocery stores, and on 
them is a symbol that says, dolphin-safe. What we want to do by this 
law is to change that. We want to change truth in labeling.

                              {time}  1545

  This is all about labeling, Mr. Chairman. This is about the U.S. 
market, this is about the U.S. consumers, this is about us. What it is 
about is that this bill says because of a 1991 trade dispute, that we 
ought to let that dispute dictate how we sell products in American 
stores.
  This is all wrong, because what this bill recognizes is that in the 
process of doing that we will double the number of dolphin that will be 
killed. This is about access to American markets. It is about 
corporations who are using the American markets to sell their product, 
the tuna that are caught in the oceans far off our coastline, but 
because the American public buys so much tuna, they know they can only 
sell it in this country if they do it the way the consumers want to do 
it.
  Along comes a law and says, hey, let us change that. Let us change 
the labeling on the can, let us change the practices, so in fact we can 
go out and in the process we may kill more dolphins. That is not what 
the American public wants. The consumer does not want to be tricked, 
does not want to be cheated. Remember, the consumers are the ones that 
started this process. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], who knows as well as I do that this legislation 
does not allow foreign fishermen to land in the United States, and 
therefore there is no increased possibility of drug traffic.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 408, the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. I think it is an 
exceptional bill. It provides an international solution to an 
international problem, the regulation of tuna fishing in the open seas. 
It is a good bill. It reflects a compromise among many competing 
interests.
  In recent years tuna fishermen have developed new, innovative methods 
which enable them to capture tuna without ensnaring dolphins at the 
same time. In addition, tough new monitoring procedures have been 
instituted and international oversight responsibilities strengthened. 
Over time these procedures have been increasingly internationalized, 
most recently through permanent binding procedures set forth in the 
Declaration of Panama.
  By implementing the Panama Declaration, H.R. 408 brings us along to 
the next step in this evolutionary process. It provides incentives 
needed for other nations to remain in compliance by providing those 
nations who abide by the agreement with access to an important export 
market. Make no mistake about it, these market incentives are 
absolutely critical to the continued success of the program.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have to endanger the future of our tuna 
stocks and needlessly put sea turtles and other species at risk, 
jeopardize the continued viability of a successful dolphin protection 
program, and renege on our international obligations to save an 
extremely small number of dolphins. That is absolutely senseless, 
especially when we have the technology to protect these species and 
protect dolphins. I urge Members' support of H.R. 408.
  But first, I think we need to put a little historical perspective on 
this debate, Mr. Chairman.
  In the mid-1970's dolphin mortality rates were clearly at 
unacceptable levels. Over 500,000 dolphins were killed each year in 
pursuit of tuna stocks. In response to this unacceptable loss of life, 
5 years ago the United States placed an embargo on the importation of 
any tuna caught using primitive encirclement measures.
  It locks in the reforms of the Panama Declaration, reiterates our 
support of the International Dolphin Conservation Program [IDCP], and 
strengthens compliance procedures.
  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. 
Without the U.S. market as an incentive, these nations are bound to 
revert to destructive fishing practices of the past, and we'll end up 
with dolphin kill ratios as high as we had in the 1970's and 1980's. If 
we don't act today and enact this legislation, we will turn back on 
treaty obligations negotiated in good faith and discourage fishermen 
from other countries from using safer fishing methods.
  But this bill does more than protect dolphins. It provides an 
effective method to conserve the total marine ecosystem in the eastern 
Pacific. The fishing practices encouraged by some groups would result 
in an unreasonably excessive by-catch 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 some opponents to this bill are likely to endanger the 
long-term health of tuna stocks themselves as these procedures tend to 
capture a large amount of immature tuna.
  We can do both. And, this bill does both. We have the technology to 
preserve the marine ecosystem and protect the dolphin. Let's do it. 
Let's implement this bill. Let's keep the dolphin, and the marine 
ecosystem, safe. I urge support of H.R. 408.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising in opposition to H.R. 408. I think this is 
truly an issue of labeling. The American public demanded and came to 
accept the fact that tuna with the tuna safe label was tuna where 
dolphins were not harmed.
  H.R. 408 does something that I think we should explain. What H.R. 408 
does, it says that you can now harass dolphins, you can separate them 
from their calves. We do not know if that hurts them. You can move them 
when they are feeding. We do not know if that hurts them, but the 
American public thinks that that might be harmful. The American public 
has come to believe that when we say dolphin safe, we mean it. So this 
is a question of trust.
  What H.R. 408 would do is if dolphin were caught in the net, if we 
went back to that kind of fishing and it was removed while still alive, 
it would not be counted as a dolphin killed. That is all that H.R. 408 
says, is that the dolphin must not be dead. So then they throw this 
dolphin overboard. How long does it last? We do not know.
  What I think we have to understand is that this is a situation of 
pressure. We have an enormous market, as has been pointed out, and 
foreign fisheries would like to be part of that market. But our 
American fisheries have lived by the rules of dolphin safe. Our 
American fisheries have said that they would abide by U.S. law.
  Why are we opening up this great market to foreign fisheries that 
could allow dolphin to be actually killed, maybe not in sight, but 
killed, and still have that dolphin safe label?
  Mr. Chairman, I think that foreign fisheries will continue to fish in 
the way they always have, but what we do not have to do is give them 
access to our markets. The consumers, little children in this country, 
fought for this label, this dolphin safe label. I think we should 
protect it and keep it for the American fishery.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page H3126]]

  Mr. Chairman, we currently have a voluntary agreement which has 
resulted in a huge decrease in dolphin mortality associated with tuna 
fishing. This bill would change U.S. law so that that voluntary 
agreement can essentially be incorporated into a new binding 
international agreement and standard.
  The issue of dolphin safe labeling is at the heart of this matter. I 
believe this bill would make that labeling truer; that is, more 
accurate, not less, and fewer dolphin kills, not more, and with no tuna 
being able to bear the dolphin safe label if impartial international 
observers determined there had been any dolphin kills.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill locks in a change in fishing practices and 
standards with a demonstrated track record of reducing exactly the sort 
of thing that we want to eliminate, unnecessary mortality for dolphin 
associated with tuna fishing. I cannot understand why Greenpeace, any 
number of other reputable environmental organizations, would back this 
if they did not see that as the truth.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. I believe we need to pass it to 
continue to make progress in further reducing the dolphin mortality 
associated with fishing for tuna.
  I think we all agree about that goal, the goal of saving dolphins. 
But clearly opinions are divided about the best way to reach it--and so 
there's a division of opinion about this bill, as there was about the 
similar bill that passed the House last year but died when the Senate 
failed to act.
  We all remember 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.
  Many people credit this improvement to the current law setting 
criteria for labeling tuna sold in the United States as dolphin safe--
and there's no doubt that law has helped. But to an even greater extent 
the progress we've made in the result of an agreement among the nations 
whose boats fish in the eastern Pacific. And that's the problem, 
because that agreement is strictly voluntary. It's not binding.
  In 1995, an important step was taken when a dozen tuna-catching 
nations--including the United States--met in Panama to develop a 
binding international agreement to replace the present, strictly 
voluntary agreement. The result of those talks was 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 bill, 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 
United States 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 
criteria for labeling tuna as dolphin safe. That change is the most 
controversial part of the bill, but it is an essential part and should 
be approved.

  Remember, right now, under current law that the dolphin safe label on 
a can of tuna doesn't necessarily mean that no dolphins died in 
connection with the catching of those fish. Instead, it just 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 in fact dolphin were killed.
  In contrast, under the Panama Declaration--as implemented by H.R. 
408--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--instead 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, one that should be 
made even if the current law was completely consistent with 
international trading rules--which it isn't.
  And that isn't just my opinion, or the opinion of other supporters of 
NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. For example, Greenpeace 
strongly opposed NAFTA, but supports H.R. 408 because they recognize 
that the Panama Declaration is good conservation policy and this bill 
to implement that agreement is a good conservation measure--one with 
sanctions that would be effective because they are part of a binding 
international agreement, unlike the restrictions in our current dolphin 
safe law.
  Furthermore, we need to recognize that 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 labeling standard.
  So, Mr. Chairman, while I respect the views of its opponents, I think 
this is a good bill--good for dolphins, good for the ocean ecosystem, 
and good for our relations with other tuna-fishing countries. It's 
supported by the administration and the U.S. fishing industry as well 
as by a number of 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. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, today we will hear this bill is good 
for the environment, good for the dolphins, good for other species of 
fish, and good for the U.S. consumers. I respectfully disagree with 
such an assessment.
  Mr. Chairman, when annual dolphin deaths were 100,000 per year, the 
U.S. consumers revolted and said they would not buy tuna caught while 
dolphins were being killed in record numbers, I remind my colleagues. 
Mr. Chairman, this came about not because of the politicians, not 
because of the environmentalists, not because of the scientists, but 
the American consumers. They were the ones that were up in arms.
  The record numbers that I mentioned, 100,000 recorded dolphin deaths 
per year, an estimated 7 million dolphin deaths total, and dolphin 
stocks depleted to 25 percent of prior levels with no signs of 
increasing numbers, these numbers were and are staggering, Mr. 
Chairman.
  As a result of the U.S. consumer boycott of canned tuna, the major 
tuna companies took the lead in changing the methods and locations in 
which tuna were caught. The result of these changes has been a 
significant reduction in the number of dolphin deaths from 100,000 per 
year to less than 2,500 this year. This has been accomplished under 
current law, and every indication is that the number of dolphin deaths 
will continue to decline under current law. With a record like that, 
Mr. Chairman, I find little reason to change the current law.
  Mr. Chairman, the history of this legislation is clear. It resulted 
from negotiations between foreign governments in Central and South 
America and five environmental groups.
  Why do these foreign governments support this legislation? Because 
they want the money that can be earned from selling their canned tuna 
in the United States. In fact, Mexico is so concerned about its 
perceived right to sell canned tuna in the United States that it is 
prepared to renew a trade action against the United States because our 
laws currently do not permit tuna caught by chasing and encircling 
dolphins to be sold here.
  Mr. Chairman, from Mexico's perspective our effort to protect the 
lives of dolphins is an illegal trade barrier, and the Mexican 
Government has told the United States Government in no uncertain terms 
that if we do not

[[Page H3127]]

change our laws, and I want to emphasize, if we do not change or amend 
our laws so more dolphins can be killed each year, Mexico will file an 
action against the United States with the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit, Congress is presented with the agreement, and 
is told now, take it or leave it. I respectfully ask my colleagues, 
vote this legislation down.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 408, a bill 
which will legalize an increase in the number of dolphin deaths and 
deceive U.S. consumers who have learned to trust the dolphin safe label 
as a sign that dolphins were not harmed during the capture of tuna 
canned carrying that label. H.R. 408 nearly doubles the number of 
dolphins which can be killed, and lowers the standards behind the 
dolphin-safe label.
  The supporters of this bill say we need this legislation to further 
reduce dolphin mortality in future years. If that is true, then I ask 
why does the legislation permit dolphin deaths to rise to 5,000 per 
year? This increase will not benefit the dolphins, so I ask you who 
will benefit from this provision?
  I said earlier that one way the dolphin mortality was reduced 
significantly was that the U.S. tuna fleet changed its location. U.S. 
tuna boats stopped catching tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific, where 
the tuna swim under the dolphins, and moved to the western tropical 
Pacific, where the tuna do not swim under schools of dolphins.
  The supporters of this legislation want you to believe that if their 
legislation is adopted, the fishing fleet will return to southern 
California, and that tuna canning plants will reopen in southern 
California. The truth is that cleaning and canning tuna is a labor-
intensive industry, and those jobs are not going to go to southern 
California as long as NAFTA and GATT are in force. In fact, the U.S. 
tuna industry is one more example of well-paying jobs currently held on 
U.S. soil which are expected to move to foreign soil over the next few 
years.
  If this legislation is enacted into law, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet 
will move to Mexico, new cleaning and canning plants will be 
constructed in Mexico, and then the canned tuna will be shipped into 
the United States duty-free under NAFTA. Now I ask you, who do you 
think will benefit from that development?
  In an effort to ease tensions between Mexico and the United States, 
the administration is supporting this agreement, an agreement to which 
they weren't even a party.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is about saving dolphins, this is 
trade legislation masquerading as environmental legislation. What makes 
the bill even worse is that from the U.S. perspective, this is bad 
trade legislation. Who benefits from this legislation? Not our 
constituents.
  What the U.S. consumer gets is a watered down definition of the 
dolphin safe label. Keep in mind that the label does not change, only 
the meaning of the label. So the typical American consumer will be able 
to go to a grocery store and see a variety of canned tuna for sale. 
Some will have the current dolphin safe label and some will not. 
Unfortunately, because the dolphin safe label will not have changed, 
many consumers will be deceived into believing that the tuna was caught 
in a truly dolphin safe manner when in fact that is not the case.
  So, I get back to my recurring question: Who benefits from this 
legislation? Well, the immediate beneficiary of this bill would be 
Mexico. The Mexican fishing industry gets access to the lucrative 
United States market for canned tuna. This means more jobs for Mexican 
fishermen, more jobs for Mexican fish cleaners, more jobs for Mexican 
truck drivers, more business for the Mexican ports which translates to 
increased fees paid to the Mexican state and federal governments.
  It turns out a lot of people will benefit from this legislation. 
Unfortunately, none of them are our constituents. What do we get out of 
this legislation? We get fewer jobs and increased dolphin kills. Some 
call this win-win legislation.
  Last year when we considered this legislation I spoke at length about 
Samoan culture and my personal experience with dolphins. I mentioned 
then that the dolphins were not able to speak for themselves, so I 
would try to look out for their safety. The dolphins still don't have a 
representative here in Congress. The dolphins didn't have a 
representative in Panama either when this agreement was negotiated. 
Maybe that's why some call this win-win legislation. The Mexican 
fishing industry wins. And I guess, since many of the modern Mexican 
fishing boats are owned by known drug traffickers, they win too.
  So all along I've been asking who wins, when maybe the better 
question is who loses with this legislation? The U.S. worker loses, the 
U.S. consumer loses, and the U.S. cities where tuna is shipped from and 
landed lose, too. That sounds pretty one-sided to me.
  Is this win-win legislation? I guess it depends on your perspective, 
doesn't it?
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from Gwen Marshall.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

     In Re: H.R. 408 regarding the Dolphin Safe Tuna issue 
       Scheduled for House Floor Vote, Thursday, May 22, 1997
     Attn. those dealing with Environmental & Foreign Trade Issues
       Congressional Quarterly has had two great articles on this 
     issue recently, April 12th page 841-2 and April 19th page 
     908-9 that are required reading for anyone new to this issue. 
     The main reason for this vote is to bring a popular U.S. 
     environment law into compliance with GATT (General Agreement 
     on Tariffs and Trade). Both articles were under the title of 
     Environment so as one considered both an environmental and 
     trade activist I'm hoping to help clarify the environmental 
     position on this issue.
       As you know, Greenpeace was one of the larger environmental 
     groups opposed to NAFTA. I worked for them as a canvasser out 
     of the Cincinnati office the summer of the NAFTA campaign. 
     The word at that time was that Greenpeace was feeling 
     financial pressure from the large grantors because of its 
     stand against NAFTA. The environmental community was 
     considered split during the NAFTA campaign but in general the 
     local grassroots type groups were opposed to NAFTA and the 
     larger grant funded groups were in support of NAFTA--the 
     money trail was obvious. Greenpeace has closed its Cincinnati 
     office and many other local offices so they are obviously 
     hurting for money. As sad as it is, it came as no surprise 
     that Greenpeace was willing to sell out their previous 
     position against allowing foreign trade agreements to weaken 
     U.S. environmental law by condoning the results of the 1995 
     Panama Agreement regarding the Dolphins. Environmental 
     groups, like politicians, can be guilty of finding ways to 
     justify a position for the right amount of money. I'm glad 
     that I've been able to arrange my finances so that I'm not 
     likely to get myself in that unfortunate position.
       I know that supporters of H.R. 408 say it will be better 
     for dolphins if the U.S. market is changed as it recommends 
     but they don't account for the fact that the main reason the 
     foreign countries support H.R. 408 is that it would increase 
     their tuna exports to the U.S. market. Increased fishing for 
     tuna in the tropical waters will increase the dolphin 
     mortality over current numbers because more tuna will be 
     caught to sell to the large U.S. market. As you know from the 
     CQ articles, it is not likely that the observer system will 
     actually work since one observer can't be everywhere he needs 
     to be and for financial reasons could probably be paid to 
     look the other way anyway. I apologize for my cynicism but I 
     just can't condone the position that H.R. 408 is what is 
     right for the dolphins. As a mammal, dolphins don't reproduce 
     at the abundant rate that fish do and each dolphin mother has 
     to spend time feeding and raising its young, as do all 
     mammals, so dolphins do need to be protected from fishing 
     techniques that basically mine the sea.
       The real reason for H.R. 408 is to help the U.S. avoid 
     embarrassing WTO (World Trade Organization) sanctions and/or 
     fines. Those of us who opposed NAFTA and the creation of the 
     WTO and expansion of GATT said that it would be no time at 
     all before the U.S. started changing its laws to comply with 
     lower international standards. During the debate over GATT 
     expansion, one pro-GATT trade staffer assured me that she was 
     sure the U.S. would pay the fine before they'd ever consider 
     overturning the popular Dolphin Safe Tuna laws. It appears 
     she was wrong. As you know the U.S. Clean Air Act lost in the 
     recent WTO challenge regarding gasoline refined in foreign 
     countries and the EU lost the U.S. challenge regarding their 
     refusal of hormone laden beef. A vote for H.R. 408 is a vote 
     for the U.S. Congress to give away their right to make laws 
     that are popular with the U.S. public.
       I understand that some people have adopted ``free trade'' 
     as a religion just as I have adopted ``the right to a healthy 
     existence for all species'' as my religion. Free trade 
     agreements' ability to change popular national, regional, and 
     local laws is the real reason for this vote. The complaint 
     with the current Dolphin Law is not that it kills too many 
     dolphins, but that it is in violation of GATT. There is no 
     definite proof that a vote for H.R. 408 would be better for 
     the dolphin as its proponents claim. As an environmentalist, 
     I know we need to look for the truth behind the rhetoric and 
     ask you to do the same and oppose H.R. 408. The religion of 
     ``free trade no matter what'' does need to be challenged 
     objectively. We can't afford to sacrifice our popular laws to 
     the alter of free trade. Please vote against H.R. 408.
       Please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss this 
     further. Leave a message on my answer machine and I can 
     return your call after 3:30 PM. Your support would be 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gwen Marshall.

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from American Samoa if he knows 
that Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for Marine 
Conservation, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental 
Defense Fund all strongly support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham].

[[Page H3128]]

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me that some 
people on the other side of this issue state their opinions as fact. I 
would say they are factually challenged. That is refuted in every 
single document that we have. When we go into the full House I will 
submit for the Record documents from the Coast Guard, from the Office 
of Drug Policy, from the DEA, from General McCaffery, stating that 
their claims are false. Why would they do that?
  Well, we have fund-raising letters here from some of their 
organizations that would like to put money into their campaigns, but 
there are some general people, I think, that are misinformed. First of 
all, I would like to say that dolphin-safe is not dolphin-safe under 
the current system. There is a certain amount and percentage that can 
actually go into that.
  I would like to state to the Members and show them exactly in the 
rule, in this bill, it says and I quote, No tuna will be labeled 
dolphin-safe unless absolutely no dolphins were killed. This is 
verified by an on-board international IATTC observer. These observers 
are made up of 35 scientists. Some of those are like Scripps 
Oceanographic and the natural association. These are trained observers, 
trained, in every single boat.
  When Members talk about drug boats, the one they talk about with the 
cocaine was from Ecuador. That was a dolphin-safe label. They did not 
even have observers on it. It did not even have fishing equipment on 
it. It was a drug boat. It had no observers.
  When they pull up to a dock, under the current system, it is checked 
there. We have 100-percent trained observers on every single boat. If 
there is one dolphin killed in that, then it cannot be dolphin-safe.
  Mr. Chairman, we have many officials in other countries that are pro-
America, pro-reform. A classic example is Secretary Comacho in Mexico. 
He is trying to make some changes, to move toward the United States. Do 
we slap Mexico in the face for positive movements in that? I say no.
  Many of our American consumers still mistakenly believe that the 
dolphin-safe policies protect the labels. It does not. Earth Island 
gets millions of dollars every year for managing it. That is what is at 
issue here. They forego that if these countries go in. This is a show-
me-the-money debate, not for the debate, what they are talking about.
  The groups who are opposed to the bill have conducted one of the most 
blatant misinformation campaigns I have ever seen. I think it is unfair 
to the American people. To do this, they would sacrifice the healthy 
conservation of the entire 8 million miles of the eastern tropical 
Pacific ecosystem.
  Our bill has support by all the diverse groups. Vice President Al 
Gore, I have the letter here, says that this will strengthen and make 
safe dolphin mortality, as well as the President, the Secretary of 
State, and the rest of them.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, I want 
to emphasize the point the gentleman was making about dolphin-safe. 
People believe the label on the can actually means dolphin-safe. Is the 
gentleman aware that in 1993, 4,500 dolphins died as a result of the 
current practice in the eastern tropical Pacific, and between 9,000 and 
13,000 dolphins died in the Sri Lanka fishery during the same year?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am, and it was also put into the dolphin-safe 
labels.
  Mr. SAXTON. Our new system has a target of zero dolphin deaths?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Zero.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 408, 
a bill that many of my constituents have termed the Dolphin Death Act. 
Let me begin by saying that I do not impugn the intentions of the 
bill's sponsors. We all support the goals of a strong economy and the 
protection of animals.
  Let us be clear about what this bill does. It changes the definition 
of dolphin-safe tuna. H.R. 408 changes the definition of dolphin-safe 
tuna to allow tuna to be sold under the dolphin-safe label even if 
dolphins were chased, harassed, or seriously injured by encirclement 
nets during the tuna catch.
  Proponents argue that the bill maintains the validity of the dolphin-
safe label because it requires vessel captains to certify that no 
dolphins were observed dead in the nets.

                              {time}  1600

  Aside from the obvious imperfections in human judgments, dolphin-safe 
means more than just no dolphins died during the catch. There is a 
mounting body of scientific evidence that suggests that chasing and 
encircling dolphins with purse seine nets leads to delayed mortality 
and decreased reproductive potential. Both essentially weaken dolphin 
stocks; hardly, I suggest to my colleagues, dolphin-safe.
  Several years ago Congress passed laws to embargo the import of tuna 
caught by setting nets on dolphins. We took this action because it was 
bad for dolphins then. Nothing has changed, chasing dolphins down with 
helicopters and speed boats and encircling them with nets is inhumane. 
It not only causes distress and physical injury, it can also lead to 
dead dolphins in the future, long after the traumatic chases have 
ended. Now we are being asked to change our laws because of pressure 
from other countries and then, to add insult to injury, compound the 
mistake by selling dolphin deadly tuna under the dolphin-safe label. 
This is simply wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, when someone goes to the supermarket, picks up a can of 
tuna and sees the dolphin-safe label, he or she expects it to mean what 
it says. This bill removes, I think, that certainty. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose passage of this bill. It sets a dangerous 
precedent that we should soundly reject.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 408--a bill many of 
my constituents have termed ``The Dolphin Death Act.''
  Let me begin by saying that I do not impugn the intentions of the 
bill's sponsors. We all support the goals of a strong economy and the 
protection of animals. Unfortunately, this bill falls short on the 
second count. In fact, not only does it fail to adequately protect 
dolphins, it will contribute to confusion and may mislead consumers 
about what ``dolphin safe'' tuna actually means.
  Let us be clear about what this bill does: it changes the definition 
of dolphin safe tuna.
  H.R. 408 changes the definition of dolphin safe tuna to allow tuna to 
be sold under the dolphin safe label even if dolphins were chased, 
harassed, or seriously injured by encirclement nets during the tuna 
catch.
  Proponents of H.R. 408 argue that the bill maintains the validity of 
the dolphin safe label because it requires vessel captains to certify 
that no dolphins were ``observed'' dead in the nets. Aside from the 
obvious imperfections in human judgments, dolphin safe means more than 
just no dolphins died during the catch.
  There is a mounting body of scientific evidence that suggests that 
chasing and encircling dolphins with purse seine nets leads to delayed 
mortality and decreased reproductive potential. Both essentially weaken 
dolphin stocks. Hardly dolphin safe.
  Several years ago, Congress passed laws to embargo the import of tuna 
caught by setting nets on dolphins. We took this action because it was 
bad for dolphins then. Nothing has changed--chasing dolphins down with 
helicopters and speed boats and encircling them with nets is inhumane. 
It not only causes distress and physical injury--it can also lead to 
dead dolphins in the future, long after the traumatic chases have 
ended.
  Now, we are being asked to change our laws because of pressure from 
other countries and then, to add insult to injury, compound the mistake 
by selling dolphin deadly tuna under the dolphin safe label. This is 
simply wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, when someone goes to the supermarket, picks up a can of 
tuna and sees the dolphin safe label, he or she expects it to mean what 
it says. This bill removes that certainty.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose passage of this bill. It sets a 
dangerous precedent that we should soundly reject.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would like to say to the gentleman from Florida that we were also 
concerned about this issue, and we found after months of study no 
evidence that there is any delayed mortality from animals encircled and 
harvested in nets. No evidence at all, none, zero, zilch, nada. And so 
in spite of that, we are authorizing $1 million to study this very 
issue because we remain concerned about it. But the fact is, there is 
no evidence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
San Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray].
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3129]]

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, this issue invokes a lot of emotion. We 
all feel very strongly about our bond with dolphins and porpoises. As 
somebody who spends a lot of time in the ocean, I, no less than anybody 
else, feel strongly about it.
  But this issue really needs to be looked at in the strong light of 
science. Two major components that we have recognized in the last 
decade that we have to do if we are going to be responsible to the 
environment is first abandon the monospecies concept of species 
management and use multispecies management; look at the big picture 
from nature's point of view. The other issue is to go from the 
mononational to the international strategies when we are addressing 
environmental problems. H.R. 408 makes that transition from the old law 
that basically only looked at dolphins, only related to the impacts of 
the environment based on dolphins, but de facto, unintentionally 
encouraged and actually made basically the only economic opportunity a 
thing called log fishing, which as many scientists will document, has 
caused the deaths of endangered species and subspecies that were never 
meant to be hurt by the original law.
  I do not think we should have to make a choice between Flipper over 
here and the Ninja Sea Turtles over there. I think everyone recognizes 
that we should look at the big picture from the species management 
point of view.
  The second item is the global approach.
  Mr. Chairman, we all remember the gross and graphic photos of 
dolphins being pulled up in nets and being dragged down. I would ask us 
all to remember, please remember, that graphic photo was not of an 
American tuna boat. It was of a foreign tuna boat. We can vote no on 
this proposal and act like we have washed our hands of the 
responsibility, but if we walk away from an international agreement to 
finally make the rest of the world responsible for addressing this 
problem with us, we will be walking away from an opportunity to save 
those dolphins for the future.
  It is all fine to play Pontius Pilate and wash our hands and say we 
are so pure because we kept with the old law when we have walked way 
from this opportunity. I ask Members not to walk away from the 
opportunity of doing what is right for science, right for the dolphins, 
right for good environment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 408.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislation allows for the altering of 
the dolphin-safe definition and permits fishermen to chase and net 
dolphins. Under H.R. 408, tuna would be labeled as dolphin-safe and 
permitted to enter the United States even if dolphins were chased, 
netted or harmed, seriously injured or even killed, as long as the dead 
dolphin was not observed. I think that was brought home by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon in what she said.
  The current U.S. embargo on nondolphin-safe products has been 
effective in reducing the number of dolphin deaths. Last year there 
were only 2,374 dolphin deaths. Unfortunately, the enactment of H.R. 
408 will allow for a doubling of last year's mortality rate to be at 
5,000. If we look at this chart here, we can see basically the 
difference between the two piles of dolphins that were killed in 1996 
as opposed to the numbers that would be authorized by H.R. 408. 
Obviously, it is a doubling, a significant difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that it needs to be stressed that there are 
other options. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 
introduced the Dolphin-safe Fishing Act, which I have cosponsored. The 
Miller bill would retain the current definition of dolphin-safe, 
ensuring that dolphin-safe cannot appear on cans of tuna in which the 
dolphins were chased, netted, killed, or seriously injured.
  So we are not talking about something that is pie in the sky. There 
is an option. We do not need this bill. And I have to say that, as in 
the 104th Congress, I will not support a bill that does not include the 
dolphin-safe definition that I voted for under the Dolphin Protection 
Consumer Information Act. This is deception. People expect that, when 
they see the dolphin-safe label, that it means that dolphins are not 
being killed or seriously harmed or the other things that are going to 
be allowed under this bill.
  I would urge Members of this House not to buckle to foreign demands 
and not to change our laws without the input from those who fought so 
hard to make sure the consumer safety standards and environmental 
concerns are enacted. I feel very strongly that what is going on here 
is a serious deception to the American public. When they take that can 
of tuna and it says dolphin-safe, it should mean that.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San 
Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray].
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, let me just say the 5,000 number is being 
bandied around as if whatever is on paper ends up being reality. The 
House of Representatives has to recognize it is a real world out there. 
The 5,000 number exists in the law today. The mortality rate is half of 
that. If the industries and the fishermen out there now are not killing 
at the rate of limit, how can we assume that somehow by keeping the 
same number it will double the kill? It is irrational. It is trying to 
play to emotions. Let us try to keep it to science.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, it is also true, is it not, that because of 
the observers on the boats that will be pursuant to the new law, that 
we have a realistic target of zero dolphins?
  Mr. BILBRAY. That is the goal. Do not accept the old law that has 
basically caused things that we did not know, but take it one step 
further and go to zero. Zero option is the goal here. The fact is it is 
unfair for somebody to take a look at a number that exists today and 
then try to blame this legislation for possible killings that are not 
going on today.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason we are here is because we fully understand 
what is attempting to be done in this legislation; that is, to go from 
the current dolphin kill of 2,400 up to 5,000 with the intent of zero. 
I appreciate the intent to zero. The 5,000 is not in the law. That is 
an agreement. That is a voluntary agreement that we have.
  The other thing that we know is not real about this is, again, there 
is an intent to reduce bycatch but there is no requirement that the 
bycatch be reduced. That is why over 80 organizations, labor 
organizations, organizations concerned about the humane treatment of 
animals, environmental organizations have all come out against this 
legislation.
  I appreciate you have five environmental organizations. These are the 
same people that went out and negotiated along with this administration 
on NAFTA, told us this would never happen. And now as a result, we are 
back here because the Mexicans threaten either to kill more dolphins or 
to go the World Trade Organization and tell us to overturn American 
laws designed to protect consumers and to protect dolphins. That is why 
we are here today, because of the arrogance of these people in Mexico 
who have been fishing dolphins unsafe for the last 10 years.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair as to the time 
remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 
14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], who worked so hard on this 
bill.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I will take a little more time later to 
explain all of the accusations by the other side of the aisle, but very 
quickly now, the reason there are fewer dolphin deaths in the eastern 
tropical Pacific is precisely because of this legislation. Twelve 
countries have agreed to use the regime, the structure to ensure that 
dolphins are not killed.
  Prior to this legislation, prior to this agreement, if Members look 
at this photograph, this is the bycatch that we

[[Page H3130]]

were living under before. This agreement, if we sign into it, 
eliminates the bycatch problems. We were up to this number of dolphin 
deaths.
  If we look on the top of this graph, each of these dolphins represent 
5,000 dolphins dead. The Panama agreement, as it is now working, 
reduces this number down to this number. Because of this agreement, a 
few years ago the maximum number of acceptable dolphin deaths by the 
Panama agreement was 9,000. There were about 2,500 killed. Who pushed 
it down to a 5,000 maximum level? The United States.
  What is the biological accepted limit for the number of dolphin 
deaths in the eastern tropical Pacific without endangering the species? 
Sixty thousand. Not only have we reduced it from 100,000 to 60,000 to 
9,000 to 5,000, this legislation and this international agreement is 
going to push it down to lower than that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, to 
say that the gentleman has the sequence mixed up. It is current law 
that is driving that down. If we pass this law, we can add a dolphin on 
the bottom of the chart for the 5,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [(Mr. 
Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] for yielding me the time.
  When consumers buy a can of tuna fish, American consumers, they buy 
this can labeled dolphin safe. That label means something to them. It 
means that they are not, through their purchase, killing dolphins. That 
is a guarantee that people care about, because after all it was the 
consumer, it was people who put pressure on the Congress to create the 
dolphin safe designation in 1990. The label has worked. As tuna fleets 
have catered to public demands for dolphin safe tuna, the number of 
dolphins killed each year has dropped from tens of thousands to just 
over 2,000.
  But today we are being asked to pull a fast one on the American 
public. The bill under consideration would more than double the number 
of dolphin deaths but leave the dolphin safe label untouched. Consumers 
will not be told a thing about it. That is wrong.
  It would also set a dangerous precedent in our relationships with our 
neighbor to the south, Mexico, and other trading partners who claim 
that America's high standards for environmental and consumer protection 
restrain trade.
  At its core this bill is not designed to help the American tuna 
fleet, which is relatively small. It is designed to head off a 
contentious encounter with Mexico whose fishing fleet would rather not 
concern itself with dolphin safety when hauling in tuna. And as bad as 
this is for dolphins, it sets a precedent for Americans that is even 
worse.
  If we let Mexico and other trading partners dictate our standards, we 
not only sacrifice our own sovereignty, we sacrifice our safety. We 
cannot afford to go backwards. We have come forward over the years. 
This takes us backwards.
  America maintains high standards for a reason. Just 2 months ago, 
nearly 200 school children in my State of Michigan contracted hepatitis 
A virus from contaminated Mexican strawberries. These poison berries 
had been illegally slipped into our school lunch program. As a result, 
health officials had to give shots to more than 11,000 students in 
Michigan and California who might have been exposed to the virus.

                              {time}  1615

  We need to tighten our safety standards, not weaken them.
  During the NAFTA debate 4 years ago, treaty proponents promised that 
the agreement would not be used to weaken U.S. environmental 
protections. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Murtha], who walks 
in front of me now, knows very well. He was there arguing with me on 
this very point. But today, under this agreement and under GATT, 
commonsense measures such as increasing inspection of imported food, 
requiring labels noting country of origin, and providing consumers with 
the other relevant information are considered tantamount to restricting 
trade.
  So this is an issue we confront with dolphin-safe tuna labeling. 
Mexico first challenged our labeling law 6 years ago and is still 
demanding we lower our standards. This bill would do exactly that, and 
set a bad precedent in the process. It would send a signal to the world 
that America will weaken our consumer protection if we are challenged 
by a trading partner.
  This is not a precedent we want nor is it one I will accept. America 
is the leader; we are not a follower. Our environmental and consumer 
standards are the highest in the world. Let us keep them that way, and 
I encourage others to meet them.
  This bill asks us to condone the slaughtering of thousands of 
dolphins, then hide the truth from the American public. It will 
undermine our sovereignty, it will undermine our safety, it will 
perpetuate this crazy trade scheme we are now involved in around the 
world.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I commend my 
colleague from California for his leadership in opposition to it.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker, and the gentleman 
managing the bill, this was so very important to them that under the 
rule, while they had another half-hour, they spent the whole time on 
another issue. So this must not be that important an issue for them to 
support, but it is to the American people.
  Under the current system we can actually have a percentage of dolphin 
that go into a tuna safe label, and the American people are saying no, 
that is wrong. If we want to turn our heads to that, then we should go 
ahead and say we protect the old system. If we want to protect the old 
system that allows us to kill billfish and allows us to kill turtles, 
allows us to kill endangered species and bycatch, then we should go 
ahead and do not turn around because the current fishing methods they 
use damage those systems.
  We are trying to improve it. Twelve other nations came together. That 
is pretty respectable. They are trying to make a change not just 
because of trade but because they are trying to protect the species for 
future generations. They understand this is how they make their 
livelihood and they want that to continue, not to end.
  If we take a look at General McCaffrey and every organization, 
including the Vice President and the President of the United States, 
they say the gentlemen on the other side are wrong.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, we are here because of GATT and we need to 
acknowledge that. We are really here because of GATT telling the United 
States and telling this Congress and telling the American people that 
we have to follow a certain procedure in terms of dolphin safety.
  I want to talk a little bit very quickly about specifics. This bill, 
if it passes, will allow a procedure in terms of catching tuna which 
uses dolphins, literally uses dolphins by helicopter sighting, and 
wraps around the necks of the dolphins, which openly is incredibly 
disturbing. The way the bill sets up the procedure to allow that 
fishing method to exist, with observers on tuna boats, is that if they 
do not kill a dolphin, then it can be labeled safe. And then the next 
catch, if they kill a dolphin, the next catch is not safe.
  If we know the specifics of this legislation, it defies logic. It 
defies logic to think that it will work. It just cannot work. It is a 
bad deal for the American people, it is a bad deal for GATT, it is a 
bad deal for the dolphins. We can negotiate a better deal, and I urge 
its defeat.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
State of Florida [Mr. Deutsch] and if he would yield to me for a 
question, I would ask him this.
  We have a domestic law currently which regulates U.S. fishermen. 
There are 11 other countries in this fishery. What would the gentleman 
suggest that we do to domestic law to protect dolphins in the 
international fishery?
  We have tried to put in place this international agreement. What 
would the gentleman suggest if he is opposed to our effort?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I am really talking about the practical

[[Page H3131]]

level. And hopefully my colleague and I, both of us are well-
intentioned with our desires.
  But I think on a practical level the Mexicans, and that is what we 
are really talking about, the Mexican fishermen who want to enter the 
United States market, which they have not been able to do because of 
the marketing aspect of dolphin safe tuna, this really changed it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an 
important point. The fact is that the availability is there, as we have 
suggested, to renegotiate this. Half of the Mexican fleet, in fact, 
fishes dolphin-safe. The other half has chosen not to do that. And what 
they would prefer, rather than fish dolphin-safe, is to drive down the 
laws of the United States.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that the 
gentleman from California just proved my point. He said that half of 
the international community is not complying. Those were his words. And 
this agreement brings them voluntarily into compliance.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, why are we giving away our national 
sovereignty in the name of global trade?
  H.R. 408 is a giveaway of our national right to self-determination. 
What it does is, it repeals the U.S. ban on tuna caught by methods that 
kill dolphins and depletes the meaning of the dolphin-safe label which 
American consumers want and count on.
  The reason we are here today to consider repealing an important 
United States law, is because an international panel of trade 
bureaucrats determined, in a case brought against the United States by 
Mexican fishing and governmental interests, that the American dolphin-
safe standard was a barrier to trade. Get that, a barrier to trade. And 
a barrier to America's high trade standards.
  I believe that the American people do not want to erase significant 
achievements in consumer workplace and environmental protection. 
America's high standards should not be for sale nor should they be for 
trade.
  Vote ``no'' on H.R. 408 and let us preserve our sovereignty. Protect 
our democratic institutions and carry out our constitutional duties to 
represent the wishes and the best interests of our constituents rather 
than international trade bureaucrats.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry at this 
point?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, is it not this Member's right to close the 
debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SAXTON. And may I ask for the time remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 9\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has 
8\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland, [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey about 
his statement where the United States is giving up its sovereignty.
  A couple of quick points. When the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] and myself began to work on this particular issue, to us, 
to the gentleman from California and myself, this had nothing to do 
with GATT, it had absolutely nothing to do with NAFTA, it had nothing 
to do with the World Trade Organization, it had nothing to do with 
sovereignty of anybody. We knew we were going to retain our 
sovereignty.
  We came up with this regimen, with this idea, with this structure 
with many other groups, including our U.S. State Department and 
including Greenpeace, an environmental organization that opposes GATT.
  This is not about GATT or NAFTA, this is about protecting dolphins in 
the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. This is about protecting the marine 
ecosystem in the eastern tropical Pacific with an international 
agreement. This has nothing to do with the U.S. giving up our 
sovereignty. We, in fact, are imposing this structure on 11 other 
countries.
  So this is about the United States retaining our sovereignty and 
entering into an international agreement to protect the marine 
ecosystem in the Pacific Ocean.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I differ with my colleagues on the other side. I think, 
in fact, we are here because of the international trade agreements. I 
believe we are here because there are those who insist that somehow 
that American environmental labor standards will be destroyed on the 
altar of what is called free trade.
  This is a bad bill. It is bad environmental policy, it is bad trade 
policy, and it is bad foreign policy. It does precisely what we were 
told NAFTA and GATT would not do: It demands that U.S. sovereignty play 
second stage to the demands of our trading partners.
  I appreciate why the gentleman is involved, and he is involved in 
good faith in this legislation, but we are here today because of those 
international agreements, because of those demands of our trading 
partners that somehow we change the label because they view this as a 
trade barrier to free trade. Rather than them change the manner in 
which they fish, rather than their engaging in fishing as our fleet 
does, as a good portion of the Mexican fleet does, they have chosen to 
go ahead and to decide to fish in a manner which is dolphin unsafe.
  Less than a decade ago, millions of American consumers, led by the 
schoolchildren of this Nation, demanded the creation of the dolphin 
protection law because of the needless slaughter of hundreds of 
thousands of marine mammals by tuna fishermen. The U.S. tuna industry 
responded by announcing they would only sell dolphin-safe tuna.
  The Congress, after lengthy deliberations that included all the 
stockholders, passed a law establishing dolphin-safe labeling 
standards. Those efforts have had a dramatic success. That is the 
current law. Dolphin deaths last year were less than 2,400 dolphins 
compared to more than 100,000 a few years ago.
  The dolphin protection law has worked, but because the bill before us 
today would renounce the very program that has achieved the goals we 
sought when the dolphin protection law was enacted, I do not think we 
should go along with those calls for repeal.
  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, no, it is on behalf of Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, 
and other nations that are trying a little bit of environmental 
blackmail. They have said that if we do not weaken our laws, if we do 
not allow dolphin unsafe tuna into this country, they will go out and 
slaughter more dolphins.
  That is the blackmail. If we do not change our laws that American 
consumers demand, they reserve the right to go out and fish in a manner 
that would cause the slaughter of thousands and thousands, tens of 
thousands of dolphins. What they will find out is that product is not 
welcome here and it is not welcome anywhere. We cannot become a party 
to that deception.
  There are some very serious problems with this legislation, and the 
most important is that it would do exactly what the proponents of the 
trade agreements pledged it would not do, driving down these 
environmental standards through pressures from countries who do not 
want to meet those standards.
  Let us be clear. The driving force is Mexico, that does not want to 
meet these standards for dolphin-safe labeling. The fact is that H.R. 
408 allows the dolphin deaths to double. On its way to zero it insists 
it has to go to 5,000.
  The fact is it is a little bit like the balanced budget amendment 
last night. On our way to a balanced budget in the year 2002, we have 
to increase the deficit in 1998 and 1999. I do not get it, the

[[Page H3132]]

American people do not get it, but that is why 80 labor, environmental, 
animal rights organizations from all across the country and all across 
the world have joined to oppose this legislation, and we ought to stand 
with those individuals.
  We understand that it is not just about dolphins being killed, it is 
about, as allowed under this legislation, the continued harassment, the 
encircling and the injuring of those dolphins. If they can kick a live 
dolphin overboard, if they can throw them out of the net, then somehow 
it is all dolphin-safe.

                              {time}  1630

  Yet, we do not know that to be true. That is why they have a study. 
We would suggest maybe they would want to do the study and find out in 
fact whether it is true or not before they decide to change the label 
and allow people to fish in the dolphin unsafe fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], who was on a pretty good roll. I think he was making some very 
good points, and I appreciate him taking the time to yield to me.
  The bottom line for me, Mr. Chairman, is that the Americans, as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] said, made a decision and, in 
fact, they said we are not going to buy tuna, we are going to boycott 
this product until we are sure that these dolphins are not being 
killed. At least it is held at a minimum. So the Americans decided and 
this Congress decided that we were going to enact a law. We took a 
course of action.
  Mexico did not like that course of action. But you know what? They do 
not control the United States Congress in Mexico. We control the United 
States Congress. At least, I thought we did, until we finally came up 
with something that was passed back in 1994 by a lame-duck Congress 
called GATT. And this has really left us with the situation right now 
where, in order to try to comply with the terms of the new GATT, we 
have some people in this country, in Washington, DC, that are saying, 
let us lower our standards in regard to the safety of dolphins, let us 
not be as concerned as we are with the dolphins.
  But at least two stocks of dolphins, the eastern spinner dolphin and 
the northern offshore spotted dolphin, now are less than 25 percent of 
their original populations. Although the supporters of H.R. 408 claim 
these stocks should be recovering and this legislation would allow them 
to recover, the reality is they are not recovering in spite of years of 
lowered mortality.
  And we believe that the reason for this, the complete lack of 
recovery, is that the stocks are severely affected by constantly being 
chased and netted. I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] that there is a threat hanging over these dolphins. The threat 
is, if we do not pass H.R. 408, if we do not drop our standards for 
dolphins, that the Mexicans are going to go out, their fisherman are 
going to go out and even deplete more of the dolphin stock in the 
eastern Pacific. This is a shame, and we should not put up with it. We 
should vote against H.R. 408.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation. I think this is a bad bill. It is bad for the environment. 
It is bad for the dolphins. It is bad for American trade policy. And I 
urge the House to vote ``no''.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on one statement that my 
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] just made. He said, 
I believe he used these exact words, this bill will drive down 
environmental standards.
  Greenpeace does not think so. That is why they endorsed it. The World 
Wildlife Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, the National 
Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental Defense Fund do not think it 
will drive down environmental standards either. They think it will help 
to save endangered species like the sea turtle because of our change in 
fishing methods mandated under the new bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] is 
recognized for 7\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
also want to reemphasize the participation of the gentleman from 
California, Duke Cunningham, in this legislation. His efforts started 
back in 1992.
  It has been mentioned on the floor here a number of times that the 
United States only has a small fishing fleet related to tuna fish. The 
reason for that is that our fishing fleet virtually became extinct 
because of the embargo that we have placed on importing tuna using 
encirclement of dolphins.
  Now while we want to protect the dolphins, and this legislation will 
in fact protect the dolphins, Duke Cunningham and a number of other 
people along the southern coast of southern California also wanted to 
protect the livelihood of individuals that fished throughout the 
Pacific Ocean, especially the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, to pay 
their mortgages and raise their children and have a quality of life and 
standard of living that all of us would want to achieve. And because of 
the mismanagement of the legislation and because of the lack of ability 
to come to an international agreement, most of those people lost their 
jobs.
  So what happens? Do we ignore that? I think we, as human beings, are 
intelligent enough to do two things: Provide jobs for people that need 
to extract natural resources and, also, protect those natural 
resources. And that is exactly what this legislation does.
  A number of people on the other side of the aisle mentioned numerous 
times that dolphin deaths have been reduced down to about 2,500. The 
reason for that is the agreement reached by these 12 countries, which 
the United States needs to now become a partnership with, these other 
11 countries, countries like Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Equador, 
France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Spain.
  How do we treat these other countries in the international community? 
Do we insult them or do we treat them with dignity and respect? Can we 
solve all the world's environmental problems alone, just the United 
States, or do we need to have some sense of responsibility on this 
globe to have an agreement with our neighbors? We cannot solve the 
environmental problems for this world in the United States alone. We 
need international agreements.
  This international agreement does the two things that we need to have 
done. It provides jobs for people. It raises their standard of living. 
And it also protects the environment. This protects the marine 
ecosystem by looking at it as a complete system.
  Now, my colleagues have mentioned a number of times that the dolphin 
deaths have been reduced dramatically; and, yes, that is correct, 
because of the Panama agreement. This was under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act when just the United States adhered to it.
  If you look at the chart over here, each one of these dolphins 
represents 5,000 deaths. This is under our environmental regulations, 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. But we could not do it alone. This is 
what it looks like now with this agreement, with 12 countries involved 
in understanding, yes, these 12 countries are going a long way into 
understanding the mechanics of natural processes. We have to do that.
  The next frontier on this planet is not space. The next frontier is 
understanding how we live on this planet with a bulging population, we 
cannot do anything about that, with all our neighbors bulging even more 
than this country, trying to understand how we can fit in with the 
limited resources. With more people catching fewer fish, we need to 
produce more fish; and this is the agreement that will do that.
  I would like to just go over some of the charges from the other side. 
Our State Department, our State Department, our U.S. State Department 
negotiated this deal, not some foreign country. Our State Department 
negotiated this deal with mutual respect for the countries involved.
  The gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombia] said that we knuckled 
under to the State Department because we would not negotiate a change 
of

[[Page H3133]]

words in the agreement. Well, the two words that Mr. Abercrombia is 
talking about is ``shall,'' and Mr. Abercrombia wanted the word 
``shall''; the agreement says the word ``should.'' We looked into that, 
and it is unconstitutional for the U.S. Constitution to tell the State 
Department ``you shall do this.'' It is just a matter of semantics.
  Now the label dispute. If you pick up a can of tuna fish, I do not 
happen to have one right here, but if you pick up a can of tuna fish, 
it has a little dolphin on it. That dolphin means that that can of tuna 
fish is dolphin safe. But, in all practicality, nobody in the eastern 
tropical Pacific, the western tropical Pacific, or anywhere in the 
Pacific Ocean knows whether or not any of those tuna fish were caught 
without killing dolphins. There are no observers. There are no 
observers anywhere. So we just simply do not know.
  The present regime of dolphin safe is specific to a gear or a fishing 
technique. It has nothing to do with whether or not dolphins were 
killed. What we tried to do in our bill, or what we do in our bill, is 
to ensure that every single boat that sells tuna fish in the United 
States, whether they are from Panama, or France, or Belize, or Mexico, 
or anywhere, every single boat must have a licensed biological observer 
on board. And if he or she observes a dolphin being killed, they cannot 
label that dolphin safe.
  The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] talked about the stress of 
dolphins. I want to show my colleagues the stress of bycatch without 
this legislation. If you look, you will see sharks, you will see sea 
turtles, you will see juvenile tuna fish, you will see a whole range of 
marine mammals. This is not stress, this is death.
  Now about the stress of dolphins being encircled. The National 
Science Foundation in 1992 found absolutely no evidence that dolphins 
were stressed when they were encircled and then pushed out of the back 
of the net. California at Berkeley biologists found no evidence of 
stress in the dolphins. And yet we have put into this bill $1 million 
to further study this issue. And if we find out that there is any 
stress at all, then we are going to change the regime.
  The issue of sovereignty has come up a number of times. This is not 
about sovereignty. This is about the United States imposing this regime 
on 12 other countries. I encourage the House to vote for H.R. 408.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 408, the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. This bill is flawed on 
several counts. I have two primary concerns. First, the bill doubles 
the amount of dolphins allowed to be killed every year. Second, it 
makes a mockery of the dolphin-safe label used on all tuna sold in the 
United States.
  As a supporter of free trade, including NAFTA, I do not believe that 
trade should be a reason for the United States to change its definition 
of ``dolphin-safe.'' We can address the specific trade concerns raised 
by Mexico and other countries which are subject to tuna embargo because 
of their fishing practices which result in the death of dolphins, 
without denying or lying to the American consumer.
  If we pass H.R. 408, dolphin-safe will merely mean ``no dolphin 
killed,'' even though dolphins can be chased, encircled, injured, 
pulled onto a boat and dumped back in the ocean under this bill. This 
would be considered safe, as long as the dolphin is not seen dying on 
the boat or in the net. Mother dolphins can be separated from their 
feeding young, chased dolphins can be exhausted and fatigued to the 
point of death by cruel practices, but it will be called dolphin-safe 
under this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Let's keep truth in 
labeling. Don't lie to the American consumer.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. 
H.R. 408 is a deeply flawed bill that threatens marine mammal 
populations to the benefit of foreign trading partners. This bill is 
bad for trade, bad for the environment, and bad for consumers.
  In 1990, environmental, animal and consumer activists won a victory 
with the advent of the dolphin-safe label for commercially sold tuna. 
From that time, no product could be labeled dolphin-safe if the tuna 
were caught by chasing, harassing, or netting dolphins. 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 2,754 last 
year.
  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.
  In fact, almost any fishing activity would be termed dolphin-safe 
provided that no dolphins were observed to die during the catch. Prior 
to the dolphin-safe label, dolphin populations had been depleted by as 
much as 80 percent. The dolphin-safe label stopped this trend and 
proved to be one of the most successful consumer initiatives in U.S. 
history. Americans care about what is left of our natural environment 
and the threatened creatures who inhabit it.
  Dolphin-safe must mean that dolphins are safe and not unnecessarily 
injured or killed in the hunt for tuna. H.R. 408 allows an increase in 
dolphin deaths and unlimited injury and harassment of dolphins. That is 
by no means dolphin-safe.
  Proponents of H.R. 408 would have foreign trading partners define our 
domestic markets without congressional oversight and without public 
scrutiny. H.R. 408 is designed to solve a trade problem defined by 
foreign fisheries--not an environmental problem defined by the American 
public. If enacted, this law would establish a precedent for other 
labeling laws designed to protect and inform American consumers.
  Americans rely on labeling information. We cannot allow foreign 
interests to determine our domestic priorities and relax our higher 
environmental standards. If foreign corporations are successful in 
relaxing our labeling laws, American consumers will not have 
information about the safety or origin of the products they buy. The 
dolphin label works and consumers have overwhelmingly supported 
dolphin-safe tuna at the market. H.R. 408 is an attempt by foreign 
interests to compete unfairly with American higher standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote against H.R. 408 which 
would enable us to keep the promise made to the American people. Trade 
agreements should not result in the weakening of U.S. environmental 
laws. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, when Congress considered NAFTA, members of 
this committee received the unqualified assurance form 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 Gilcrest 
bill and its changes to the dolphin-safe label.
  A brief explanation of the fishing techniques of the Mexicans--our 
trading partner pushing for the change in law--might help the Members 
understand what is at stake here. Schools of large yellow fin tuna swim 
beneath schools of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The 
dolphin schools--often 400-500 animals--are chased at high speeds by 
helicopter and speed boats for periods of 30 minutes to several hours. 
When the dolphins become too exhausted to swim, encircling nets are 
dropped around the dolphins and the tuna.
  Many dolphins become trapped in the nets and drown. Others die from 
injury of extreme exhaustion.
  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. 408 lowers our labeling standards and misleads the American 
people. 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. 408 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.
  H.R. 408 would condone 5,000 dolphins deaths in 1997 in exchange for 
a promise of reduced dolphin mortality in future years. If this bill 
were a serious attempt to reduce dolphin mortality in tuna fishing, it 
would have started with current mortality levels of 2,574 in 1996.
  American consumers--American children--deserve a dolphin-safe label 
that they can take at face value--one that means what it says. We have 
a labeling system that consumers trust. Altering the meaning of the 
label is nothing short of consumer fraud.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to our environmental laws being 
dictated by the Mexican fishing industry and I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 408.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 408, which 
will lock in strong,

[[Page H3134]]

enforceable international dolphin protection measures, and prevent the 
loss of other sensitive or endangered species to ``bycatch'', such as 
sharks, sea turtles, and juvenile tunas.
  In doing this, I don't intend to talk about sinister foreign policy 
conspiracies, environmental sovereignty violations, black helicopters, 
and the like, but rather about marine species management. I strongly 
believe that the battle for sound species management is never over; it 
is not accurate or practical to say ``well, we took care of that 
problem in the 1970's or the 1980's, so we don't need to revisit it to 
make sure it is working the way we intended it to.''
  We are trying to embrace the idea of moving beyond single-species 
management to multispecies management, and looking at the big picture, 
the interrelationship of all species among themselves and the 
environment. As part of this, we need to pursue expansion of our 
domestic species management strategies into an international approach; 
to take the good science that we try to apply to our national 
environmental plans and use it to address broader concerns.
  Some today would prefer to believe that dolphins and only dolphins 
are the issue at hand. But we have to recognize that the time has come 
for more global, long-term policies to assure that we address the 
question of dolphin protection in the big picture.
  I think that the Panama Declaration is one of those rare products 
which recognizes that to be effective, we have to look at the whole 
environment, and not simply have tunnel vision, or a ``species of the 
month'' mentality. We have to be able to expand our perspectives, and 
move to a broader, more inclusive management approach. This means going 
beyond simple defense of the status quo.
  The status quo is not something that you or I want to carry into the 
next century, and say ``this is the best America and the word could do 
for the ocean and all its wildlife.'' We have taken a world leadership 
role in environmental strategies up to this point. There are those who 
would say that isolationism, in either trade, or foreign policy, or 
even environmental issues is the way we should proceed.
  I strongly disagree with this philosophy, and believe that we have to 
maintain our role as the world leader in establishing sound 
conservation strategies. This is essential if we are to avoid letting 
problems go unnoticed until they reach crisis proportions, such as a 
sea turtle population or fish species beginning to ``crash'' from the 
law of unintended consequences.
  This issue of ``bycatch'' is one that has to be addressed, and will 
be addressed in the context of H.R. 408. I doubt that any of us mean to 
say ``the only priority of this Congress is dolphins and only dolphins, 
and we don't want to be bothered with the accidental destruction of 
other species other than dolphins''.
  The agreement which is embodied in H.R. 408 locks in our existing 
successes in increased dolphin protection, and reduced mortality rates. 
More importantly, it expands the sophistication of our conservation 
strategy to take into account the impacts on endangered sea turtles, or 
billfish, and especially immature and nonmarketable young tuna. We 
shouldn't focus on one species only, at the expense of others, yet this 
is what is happening under existing fishing practices.
  H.R. 408 does the right thing--it will continue our amazing record of 
success in balancing strong dolphin protection measures with 
progressive tuna fishing methods, and expand those protections to 
include other species which are now being negatively impacted by the 
old strategy. We need to be brave enough to take this step. We who 
claim to truly care about the environment have not only the right, but 
the responsibility, to do the right thing to improve and strengthen our 
environmental laws when science indicates there is a need to do so.
  To my colleagues today, I say this--if we want to truly save dolphins 
for our children and theirs, and to take a comprehensive approach to 
protecting sensitive ocean species, then we need to move this bill 
forward. The President will sign it into law, and sound science and 
bipartisanship will have triumphed over emotion to do the right thing 
for our environment. Let's take this step to make that happen. Support 
H.R. 408.

            [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 dolphin 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. As 
     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 presented 
     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 a 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 onboard observers certify that no dolphins were 
     killed.
       Under current law, no tuna can be sold as ``dolphin-safe'' 
     in 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 Humane 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 100 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 attained 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' to be killed 
     outright.''

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
408, a bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
  It is unfortunate that after over 20 years the progress made by the 
United States tuna industry regarding technology and methods of how to 
best harvest tuna with the goal of saving dolphins is at risk. It is in 
the nature of dolphins to swim along with schools of tuna and if the 
nets are not designed to prevent dolphin capture and subsequent 
drowning, then many more dolphins will die. The provisions of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 which protect these dolphins is 
now on the endangered legislation list by the consideration of H.R. 
408.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that it is not good public 
policy to go along to get along, especially in the form of this 
International Dolphin Conservation Program which would cost more than 
just the lives of thousands of dolphins. This legislation would renege 
on an agreement with the American tuna consumer by allowing the 
dolphin-safe label to be reduced to a ridiculous meaningless state.
  Charlie Tuna's proud announcement that Starkist tuna would carry the 
safe-for-dolphins label heralded the end to consumer boycotts

[[Page H3135]]

and protests regarding the plight of dolphins as a result of industrial 
tuna fishing.
  Our children have grown up learning to love dolphins from the popular 
television shows and aquatic attractions around the Nation which 
feature dolphin exhibitions. Their outstanding abilities to learn and 
remember complicated tasks have been compared to human beings. The 
remarkable thing about dolphins is that they harbor no harm toward 
human beings and have been an aid to us as we attempt to better 
understand the oceans which comprise three-fifths of the Earth's 
surface.
  Today, this Congress should not leave the dolphins' fate to the four 
winds. The American consumer demonstrated their commitment to the 
preservation of the dolphins during the 1970's with boycotts of tuna 
sales and public demonstrations indicating a willingness to pay more 
per can for tuna if that is what it would take to save them. The 
American consumer insisted on knowing which companies were and were not 
complying with better methods of harvesting tuna by the display of the 
tuna safe symbol.
  I ask that my colleagues vote against this measure and work to move 
other countries to our environmental high ground.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 
of rule XXIII 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. 408

                    Offered By: Mr. Young of Alaska

               (Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute)

       Amendment No. 1: Strike all after the enacting clause and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:

     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 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 1997, 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

[[Page H3136]]

     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.
       ``(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.''.

     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:

[[Page H3137]]

       ``(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;
       ``(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:

[[Page H3138]]

     ``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 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 OF 1950.

       (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) General 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.''.
       (c) Bycatch Reduction.--The Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 
     (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

[[Page H3139]]

         ``REDUCTION OF BYCATCH IN EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC OCEAN

       ``Sec. 15. The Secretary of State, acting through the 
     United States Commissioners, should take the necessary steps 
     to establish standards and measures for a bycatch reduction 
     program for vessels fishing for yellowfin tuna in the eastern 
     tropical Pacific Ocean. The program shall include to the 
     extent practicable--
       ``(1) that sea turtles and other threatened species and 
     endangered species are released alive, to the maximum extent 
     practicable;
       ``(2) measures to reduce, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the harvest of nontarget species;
       ``(3) measures to reduce, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the mortality of nontarget species; and
       ``(4) measures to reduce, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the mortality of juveniles of the target 
     species.''.

     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. POLAR BEAR PERMITS.

       Paragraph (5) of section 104(c) of the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In subparagraph (A), by striking ``, including polar 
     bears taken but not imported prior to the date of enactment 
     of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994,''.
       (2) By adding the following new subparagraph at the end 
     thereof:
       ``(D) The Secretary of the Interior shall, expeditiously 
     after the expiration of the applicable 30-day period under 
     subsection (d)(2), issue a permit for the importation of 
     polar bear parts (other than internal organs) from polar 
     bears taken in sport hunts in Canada before the date of 
     enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 
     1994, to each applicant who submits, with the permit 
     application, proof that the polar bear was legally harvested 
     in Canada by the applicant. The Secretary shall issue such 
     permits without regard to the provisions of subparagraphs (A) 
     and (C)(ii) of this paragraph, subsection (d)(3) of this 
     section, and sections 101 and 102. This subparagraph shall 
     not apply to polar bear parts that were imported before the 
     effective date of this subparagraph''.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 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.
       (b) Provisions Effective Upon Enactment.--Section 8 and 
     this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment is in order except the amendment printed 
in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or his designee. The amendment 
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.
  Since there are no amendments, the question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute made in order by the rule as an original 
bill.
  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. 
Gillmor] having assumed the Chair, Mr. Gutknecht, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 408) 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 
153, he reported the bill back to the House with an 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 passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262, 
nays 166, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               YEAS--262

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez

[[Page H3140]]


     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Andrews
     Hyde
     Lewis (GA)
     Radanovich
     Schiff
     Snowbarger

                              {time}  1706

  Messrs. HORN, McHALE, BILIRAKIS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. BISHOP, and 
Mr. BENTSEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SKEEN, KANJORSKI, and FROST changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________