[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 112 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 31, 1997

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, much of the controversy surrounding H.R. 
408 concerns the redefinition of the ``dolphin safe'' label--an issue 
of particular significance to me and to the residents of the 10th 
Congressional District of Massachusetts, home of the Center for Coastal 
Studies in Provincetown, a world-class marine mammal research facility.
  One of the reasons I opposed this bill when it was first brought to 
the House floor was that there is no scientific justification for a 
change in the dolphin-safe label. Common sense suggests that the 
repeated harassment and chasing of dolphins jeopardizes their well-
being. Along with a number of my colleagues, I wanted to see evidence 
that chasing and netting dolphins in the course of tuna fishing was 
safe for dolphins before agreeing to change the definition of the 
``dolphin safe'' label.
  The bill before us is a compromise between proponents of an immediate 
label change and those of us who contend instead that policy should 
reflect scientific method. The bill mandates a 3-year study on the 
effect of the intentional chase and encirclement on dolphins and 
dolphin stocks taken in the course of tuna fishing.
  Based on the initial results of this study, the Secretary of Commerce 
is required to make a finding between March 1 and March 30, 1999, as to 
whether the intentional chasing and netting is having a significant 
adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stocks. If the Secretary does 
not make a finding of significant adverse impact, then the label will 
be redefined to allow its use on tuna harvested with the encirclement 
method. At the conclusion of the 3-year study, section (5) requires the 
Secretary to make a similar finding and if significant adverse impact 
is found, then the definition would revert back to its current meaning 
as defined in the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill does not include a definition of the term 
``significant adverse impact,'' but it is my understanding that it 
would include any impact that retards or impedes the recovery of the 
depleted dolphin stocks. For example, in the recovery of the grey 
whale, scientists observed population growth rates of between 4 and 6 
percent. Similar growth rates are expected in the depleted dolphin 
stocks. Therefore, if the study shows that the depleted stocks of 
dolphins are not growing at the expected rates of 4 to 6 percent, I 
presume the Secretary will be required to make a finding that chase and 
encirclement is having a significant adverse impact on the dolphins and 
the label will not change.
  The bill is an imperfect attempt to help make certain, above all, 
that dolphins are not put at unnecessary risk--and that marine mammal 
policy derives from sound science.

                          ____________________