[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1538-E1539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND PERFORMANCE OF THE U.S. 
  DELEGATION TO THE 53RD ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING 
                               COMMISSION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2001

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, an often overlooked hallmark of our 
democracy is the smooth transition of power from administration to 
administration. This seamless transfer is made possible only through 
the dedication and hard work of countless numbers of career Federal 
employees. Often underappreciated and maligned by the public, these 
career bureaucrats effectively carry out the day to day functions of 
the Federal Government for the benefit of the American public both at 
home and abroad.
  In this respect, the recent performance of the U.S. delegation to the 
53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 
London exemplifies the type of excellence in public service for which 
we can all be proud. Considering that several highly contentious issues 
came before the plenary, the Bush administration is to be commended for 
sending nothing less than a topnotch team to London. And I applaud the 
decision of this administration to maintain longstanding U.S. policies 
that uphold the responsible protection and conservation of the world's 
cetaceans, especially large whales. Strong U.S. leadership will be 
vital to thwart future attempts to reverse global whale conservation 
measures put forward by pro-whaling nations as part of their determined 
strategy to undermine the IWC. This administration must remain 
vigilant, and a very brief summation of the issues that arose at this 
year's meeting will help explain why.
  Perhaps the most contentious issue which emerged in London was the 
proposal by Iceland to rejoin the IWC. In 1992 Iceland, a whaling 
nation, withdrew from the IWC in part due to the adoption by the IWC of 
a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. Iceland intended to 
rejoin the IWC this year but with a reservation against the moratorium. 
While supportive of Iceland rejoining the IWC, the U.S. delegation 
strongly, and rightly, opposed the reservation arguing that it would 
have established, if accepted, a harmful precedent with significant 
repercussions affecting the adherence of treaty obligations by nations 
under virtually any international agreement. Such a precedent could 
severely disrupt the framework of U.S. foreign policy.
  Iceland was re-admitted but denied voting rights in the plenary, a 
decision which sparked significant controversy. Undoubtedly, hard 
feelings generated in the plenary will linger. Yet the administration 
was correct in its position. And while it is important for the 
administration to attempt to restore amicable relations with the 
Government of Iceland, it should remain clear in communicating its 
opposition to Iceland's reservation against the global moratorium.
  Another item of controversy was the maintenance of lethal scientific 
research whaling conducted by the Government of Japan in the Southern 
and North Pacific Oceans. Since 1987, Japan has exploited a loophole in 
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) to 
maintain whaling under the auspices of self-administered scientific 
lethal whale research permits in the Southern and North Pacific Oceans. 
Over 700 minke whales have been taken annually. In 2000, Japan expanded 
this program to include sperm and Bryde's whales; both species are 
listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

  Japan's recalcitrance in the face of world opinion to continue this 
lethal research whaling--a practice which the IWC's own Scientific 
Committee has ruled consistently to be unnecessary for the management 
an conservation of whale stocks--led to the Clinton administration's 
decision last year to certify Japan as in violation of the Pelly 
Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act, and to consider 
retaliatory economic sanctions on Japanese fishery products. The 68 
members of Congress who have agreed to cosponsor my resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 180, strongly oppose such ``scientific whaling,'' and we very much 
appreciate the decision of the Bush administration to join us in robust 
opposition to this illegitimate scheme.
  Newer and much lower abundance estimates for Southern Hemisphere 
minke whale populations helped persuade the IWC plenary, led by the 
U.S. delegation, to again pass this year a resolution condemning 
Japan's controversial research and calling on Japan to refrain from 
continuing these programs. But regrettably, Japan appears unwilling to 
discontinue or even scale back this illegal whaling contrivance. Should 
the Japanese decide to again move forward, the administration should 
re-certify Japan as in violation to the Pelly amendment and this time 
impose real sanctions. The administration should also continue to 
engage with Japan in the development of new and better non-lethal 
scientific methods to obtain data to study whale populations.
  Another issue adroitly handled by the U.S. delegation was the 
emerging question of whether the decline in some global commercial 
fisheries is linked to a corresponding increase in the consumption of 
fish by recovering whale populations. In its efforts to justify the 
resumption of commercial whaling, Japan has postulated a simplistic 
theory: world fisheries are depleted due to increased foraging by 
increasing numbers of whales. Moreover, this theory is used 
conveniently by the Japanese to justify the necessity of its lethal 
scientific whaling programs. Recently, Japan and other nation's have 
promoted this concept in other international fisheries organizations, 
such as the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization's 
Committee on Fisheries (COFI). This tactic has raised concerns within 
and outside of the IWC that the organization is being undercut in an 
area within its competence.
  The U.S. delegation rightly maintained that the competition claim is 
grossly oversimplified and biologically unsound. Nevertheless, the U.S. 
delegation considered it necessary for the issue to be held within the 
IWC--the one international organization recognized for the management 
of whale stocks. As a result, while remaining emphatically opposed to 
lethal scientific whaling and skeptical of the competition theory, the 
U.S. delegation prudently reached agreement with Japan on a resolution, 
subsequently adopted by the plenary, that lays out how the IWC will 
address the question of competition between whales and fisheries in the 
immediate future. In essence, this resolution acknowledged the 
competence of the IWC in this area and urged the IWC to engage with FAO 
and other regional fisheries management organizations to initiate 
relevant ecosystem-based, holistic and balanced research to investigate 
this theory.
  Representatives of the environmental community objected to this 
strategy arguing that it legitimized ``junk science'' and that it was 
an ill-advised concession to Japan. And time might very well verify 
those concerns. But at the moment, I agree with the decision of the 
U.S. delegation that accurate, balanced and non-lethal scientific 
research offers perhaps the best opportunity to expose the scientific 
flaws and gaps of this questionable theory once and for all. The U.S. 
must maintain a strong presence on the IWC Scientific Committee and in 
the activities of other regional fisheries management organizations to 
ensure that objectivity is maintained.

  I commend the U.S. delegation for its continued efforts to develop a 
consensus for a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) to govern the future 
governance of whaling. The U.S. delegation rightly maintained that the 
RMS must be addressed comprehensively, and not through a piecemeal 
approach. Despite the fact that little progress was made to resolve 
difficult issues concerning transparency, supervision and control, the 
U.S. delegation remained engaged with all nations in an attempt to 
bridge differences. What has become clear is that the lack of progress 
on the RMS rests squarely on the shoulders of the pro-whaling bloc led 
by Japan and Norway, and not on the U.S. and its like-minded allies.

[[Page E1539]]

This is surprising considering that many of the features being proposed 
for the RMS mirror elements that are common to other fisheries 
management regimes of which the pro-whaling nations are signatories.
  I also appreciate the actions of the U.S. delegation in strong 
support of other important conservation proposals raised during the 
plenary. While I was disappointed to learn that proposals to create 
whale sanctuaries in the South Pacific and South Atlantic Oceans failed 
to pass, I was proud to hear that the U.S. delegation strongly 
supported both proposals. I was also pleased that the U.S. delegation 
joined a substantial majority of other nations to pass a resolution 
condemning Norway's desire to export minke whale blubber to Japan, and 
another resolution that reaffirmed the competence of the IWC in regards 
to the management of small cetaceans, such as Dall's porpoises. The 
administration was right to hold the line and support these efforts.
  In closing, I would like to commend the leadership of the U.S. 
delegation to the 53rd meeting, the Commissioner, Mr. Rolland 
Schmitten, and the Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Michael Tillman, both from 
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. Their dedicated and tireless 
service on behalf of the American public in support of sensible, long-
term protection of the world's great whales is remarkable. I would also 
like to extend my appreciation to the other members of the delegation 
who so ably supported Mr. Schmitten and Dr. Tillman so that they might 
excel under trying circumstances. Their preparations for this meeting 
in the midst of the political transition between elected 
administrations was nothing short of outstanding. They are all a credit 
to public service in the very best sense, and their efforts are noted 
and appreciated by the Congress.

                          ____________________