[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 4 (Friday, January 10, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S203]]
                 THE TRUTH IN TUNA LABELING ACT OF 2003

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Truth in 
Tuna Labeling Act of 2003. This act would amend the Dolphin Protection 
Consumer Information Act by reinstating an important consumer provision 
that had been a part of U.S. law since 1990. The provision in this bill 
would ensure our consumers that tuna fish sold in the United States 
that is labeled ``dolphin safe'' in fact was caught in a way that will 
not harm dolphins.
  My colleague Senator Boxer and I believe that restoring the original 
``dolphin-safe'' standard is necessary after a recent--and surprising--
decision by the Secretary of Commerce that would now allow tuna caught 
by chasing and encircling dolphins to be deemed ``safe'' for dolphins.
  The ``dolphin safe'' label came about as an entirely voluntary 
consumer label. It was created in reaction to public outrage about 
fishing methods specific to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, ETP, 
where dolphins that swim with schools of yellowfin tuna were 
intentionally encircled by purse seine tuna vessels and killed in 
fishing operations. Hundreds of thousands of dolphins died as a result 
of this practice over the years. A massive consumer boycott of tuna was 
launched. The U.S. tuna industry stepped up to the plate and 
voluntarily committed to abandon this ``encirclement'' practice. This 
commitment is what the 1990 ``dolphin safe'' labeling provision 
recognized. Since that time, the U.S. fishing fleet has not used the 
encirclement method, and has stopped fishing in the ETP entirely.
  In 1997, the act was amended after conclusion of an international 
dolphin protection agreement among many ETP tuna fishing nations. The 
change would allow the Secretary of Commerce to consider whether a 
modified encirclement method could qualify for the dolphin safe label. 
But, there were those who strongly questioned that any encirclement 
method could be safe, and a condition of agreeing to this charge was 
that there would be a scientific study to ensure there would be no 
adverse impact on the dolphin populations. The amended law directed the 
Secretary of Commerce to make his decision based on the scientific 
study.
  The deadline for making this decision came at the end of last year. 
The Secretary had to find that encirclement had no significant impact 
on dolphins in order to change the standard to allow tuna caught by 
this method to call itself ``dolphin safe.'' Well, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service study found that:

     concerns remains that the practice of chasing and encircling 
     dolphins somehow is adversely affecting the ability of 
     depleted stocks [of dolphins in the eastern Tropical Pacific] 
     to recover.

  Yet, on December 31, 2002, the Secretary of Commerce made a 
remarkable finding, saying that despite these stated scientific 
concerns about chasing and encircling dolphins, there would be ``no 
significant adverse impact'' on dolphin populations. As a result, they 
weakened the labeling standard, allowing tuna caught by encircling and 
chasing dolphins to be sold as ``dolphin safe.'' Mr. President, this 
decision did not follow the intent of Congress, which was to base this 
decision on the science alone. I was particularly concerned about a 
report in the New York Times this week that scientific studies on 
dolphin stress were discontinued by NMFS due to political pressure on 
this very issue. I hope and trust that is not the case, and I am sure 
we will get to the bottom of this in Committee hearings. But until 
these scientific questions are sorted out, we need to restore the 
standard that was in place prior to the decision.

  My own interest in this issue has always been threefold: to ensure 
sound conservation of marine mammals, to provide consumers with the 
information they need when purchasing tuna, and ensure U.S. tuna 
fishermen a level playing field on which to compete. This bill is 
consistent with this philosophy. It sets forth an even-handed measure 
that gives consumers the straight story. In addition, any country can 
export tuna to the United States. But to get a specially authorized 
``dolphin safe'' label on the can, they must fish in a dolphin safe 
way. Quite simply, anyone who wants to use the specific ``dolphin 
safe'' label needs to follow the same standards. That's as fair as you 
can get.
  I understand that there may be additional ways we can help restore 
the dolphin populations of the ETP, including through international 
action, and I look forward to discussing those ideas. But this is a 
simple provision that we can surely all agree upon. It says if you want 
to label your tuna ``dolphin safe,'' you can't harm dolphins. The 
American consumer wants and deserves clarity when they purchase tuna. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure we get to that 
result.

                          ____________________