[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4404-S4405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS--MAY 14, 2002

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 267--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 
     POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE 54TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE 
                    INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION

  Mr. Kerry (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Hollings, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
Lieberman, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Reed, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
FitzGerald, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Kennedy) 
submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations:
  (The resolution can be found in the Record of May 14, 2002, on page 
S4333.)
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the resolution that Senator Kerry and I are 
submitting is very timely and important. As we work here in the Senate 
today, representatives of nations from around the globe are preparing 
for the 54th annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission to 
be held in Japan, May 20-24, 2002. At this meeting, the IWC will 
determine the fate of the world's whales through consideration of 
proposals to end the current global moratorium on commercial whaling. 
The adoption of any such proposals by the IWC would mark a major 
setback in whale conservation. It is imperative that the United States 
remain firm in its opposition to any proposals to resume commercial 
whaling and that we, as a Nation, continue to speak out passionately 
against this practice.
  It is also time to close one of the loopholes used by nations to 
continue to whale without regard to the moratorium or established whale 
sanctuaries. The practice of unnecessary lethal scientific whaling is 
outdated and the value of the data of such research has been called 
into question by an international array of scientists who study the 
same population dynamics questions as those who harvest whales in the 
name of science. This same whale meat is then processed and sold in the 
marketplace. These sentiments have been echoed by the Scientific 
Committee of the IWC which has repeatedly passed resolutions calling 
for the cessation of lethal scientific whaling, particularly that 
occurring in designated whale sanctuaries. They have offered to work 
with all interested parties to design research protocols that will not 
require scientists to harm or kill whales.
  Last year, Japan expanded their scientific whaling program over the 
IWC's objections. The resolution that we are offering expresses the 
Sense of the Senate that the United States should continue to remain 
firmly opposed to any resumption of commercial whaling and oppose, at 
the upcoming IWC meeting, the non-necessary lethal taking of whales for 
scientific purposes.
  Commercial whaling has been prohibited for many species for more than 
sixty years. In 1982, the continued decline of commercially targeted 
stocks led the IWC to declare a global moratorium on all commercial 
whaling which went into effect in 1986. The United States was a leader 
in the effort to establish the moratorium, and since then we have 
consistently provided a strong voice against commercial whaling and 
have worked to uphold the moratorium. This resolution reaffirms the 
United States' strong support for a ban on commercial whaling at a time 
when our negotiations at the IWC most need that support. Norway, Japan, 
and other countries have made it clear that they intend to push for the 
elimination of the moratorium, and for a return to the days when whales 
were retreated as commodities.
  The resolution would reiterate the U.S. objection to activities being 
conducted under reservations to the IWC's moratorium. The resolution 
would also oppose the proposal to allow a non-member country to join 
the Convention with a reservation that would allow it to commercially 
whale. The

[[Page S4405]]

resolution would also oppose all efforts made at the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, to reopen 
international trade in whale meat or to downlist any whale population. 
In addition, the IWC, as well as individual nations including the 
United States, has established whale sanctuaries that would prevent 
whaling in specified areas even if the moratorium were to be lifted. 
Despite these efforts to give whale stocks a chance to rebuild, the 
number of whales harvested has increased in recent years, tripling 
since the implementation of the global moratorium in 1986. This is a 
dangerous trend that does not show signs of stopping.
  Domestically, we work very hard to protect whales in U.S. waters, 
particularly those considered threatened or endangered. One own laws 
and regulations are designed to give whales one of the highest 
standards of protection in the world, and as a result, our own citizens 
are subject to rules designed to protect against even the accidental 
taking of whales. Commercial whaling is, of course, strictly 
prohibited. Given what is asked of our citizens to protect against even 
accidental injury to whales here in the United States, it would be 
grossly unfair if we retreated in any way from our position opposing 
commercial, intentional whaling by other countries. Whales migrate 
throughout the world's oceans, and as we protect whales in our own 
waters, so should we act to protect them internationally.
  Whales are among the most intelligent animals on Earth, and they play 
an important role in the marine ecosystem. Yet, there is still much 
about them that we do not know. Resuming the intentional harvest of 
whales is irresponsible, and it could have ecological consequences that 
we cannot predict. Therefore, it is premature to even consider easing 
conservation measures.
  The right policy is to protect whales across the globe, and to oppose 
the resumption of commercial whaling. I urge my colleagues to support 
swift passage of this resolution.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support 
for the resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the 
policy of the United states at the 54th Annual Meeting of the 
International Whaling Commission. This resolution affirms and renews 
our long-standing commitment to end the practice of commercial whale-
hunting, as well as the killing of whales for profit under the false 
rubric of ``scientific whaling.'' It constitutes a powerful statement 
to the rest of the world that we have not, and will not, grow 
complacent in fighting to preserve the existence of these remarkable 
beings.
  Our present action draws urgency from the fact that the single most 
important safety net for ensuring the survival of whale species is 
under threat of unraveling. When the International Whaling Commission, 
IWC, voted to establish a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 
1982, the decision represented a profound acknowledgement on the part 
of the international community of its abysmal and repeated failure to 
manage whale stocks in a responsible manner. Such was the egregiousness 
of our collective whaling legacy that nothing short of a complete ban 
on commercial whaling was determined to stave these creatures away from 
the path to extinction.
  Sadly, the thirty years since the enactment of the moratorium have 
only served to vindicate the wisdom of the IWC's landmark decision. One 
needs only look to the history of duplicitous efforts undertaken to 
skirt the strictures of the moratorium to see this. Most blatant among 
these efforts has been the practice by certain countries to exploit the 
exemption for scientific whaling in order to hunt whales for ostensibly 
scientific, but essentially commercial, purposes. This disingenuous 
behavior directly contradicts the purpose and spirit, if not the 
letter, of the moratorium. Regrettably, the lack of regard shown by 
these nations for obligations that were assumed freely and voluntarily 
does not inspire one with faith that they would act any more 
responsibly should the door to commercial whaling ever be opened.
  Less apparent, but no less discouraging, is the unwillingness by some 
nations to vigorously monitor and prosecute the illegal trading of 
whale meat. Whether the absence of rigorous policing measures is the 
result of conscious intent or uninformed negligence, the outcome is the 
same. Unscrupulous operators are provided with incentives to disregard 
the law and afforded with the knowledge that they may do so with 
impunity. The lax enforcement of existing laws calls into further doubt 
the international community's prospective will and capacity to enforce 
quotas on catches if commercial whaling were resumed.
  In light of the evidence refuting the notion that a uniform 
commitment to act responsibly and in accordance with international 
mandates currently exits or would crystallize in the foreseeable 
future, it would be a grave and reckless mistake for the moratorium to 
be lifted now. This is why we must endeavor to shore up support for the 
moratorium prior to the IWC's 54th Annual Meeting, and to prevent the 
entry of any nation that seeks to have a voting voice in the IWC 
without agreeing to abide by the decisions of that same body.
  I note with particular concern Iceland's pending application to 
rejoin the IWC with a reservation that would leave it with complete 
discretion in choosing whether or not to engage in commercial whaling. 
It is well-established that Iceland's motivation in rejoining is to 
expand the voting block for revoking the moratorium. In applying with 
the reservation, however, Iceland aims to have all the privileges of 
membership free and clear of any concomitant burdens and 
responsibilities. But no nation should be allowed to have its cake and 
eat it too. It would be fundamentally unfair to the other IWC members 
to give Iceland a role in defining the limits of their behavior when 
Iceland itself would not have to play by the same rules. More 
importantly, Iceland's admission would establish a dangerous precedent 
whereby other nations would be encouraged to circumvent international 
treaties by withdrawing from them and then re-joining with specific 
reservations against onerous obligations.
  In view of our concerns over the deleterious consequences of 
Iceland's re-entry, nineteen of my Senate colleagues and I previously 
sent a bipartisan letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell urging him 
to assume a leadership role in opposing Iceland's application. The time 
is ripe, however, for us to make a more public and formal declaration 
of our position, and to provide our Administration with the 
encouragement and support it needs to take bold action at the next IWC 
meeting and the next conference of the Parties to the Convention on 
International Trade in endangered Species. I ask you to joint in 
registering our strong opinion on this important and worthwhile cause.

                          ____________________