Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 101 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 101 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5526-H5530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD END
COMMERCIAL WHALING

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 350) expressing the sense of
the Congress that the United States, through the International Whaling
Commission, should use all appropriate measures to end commercial
whaling in all of its forms, including scientific and other special
permit whaling, coastal whaling, and community-based whaling, and seek
to strengthen the conservation and management measures to facilitate
the conservation of whale species, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 350

Whereas 79 nations have adopted the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (the Convention),
which established the International Whaling Commission (the
Commission) to provide for the conservation of whale stocks;
Whereas the Commission has adopted a moratorium on
commercial whaling in order to conserve and promote the
recovery of whale stocks, many of which had been hunted to
near extinction by the whaling industry;
Whereas the United States was instrumental in the adoption
of the moratorium, and has led international efforts to
address the threat of commercial whaling for more than 3
decades;
Whereas despite the moratorium, 3 Commission member nations
continue to kill whales for financial gain, disregarding the
protests of other Commission members, and since the
moratorium entered into force have killed more than 25,000
whales including over 11,000 whales killed under the guise of
scientific research;
Whereas whaling conducted for scientific purposes has been
found to be unnecessary by the majority of the world's
cetacean scientists because nonlethal research alternatives
exist;
Whereas the member nations of the Commission have adopted
numerous resolutions opposing and calling for an end to
scientific whaling, most recently in 2007 at the annual
Commission meeting in Anchorage, Alaska;
Whereas commercial whaling in any form, including
scientific and other special permit whaling, coastal whaling,
and community-based whaling, undermines the conservation
mandate of the Convention and impairs the Commission's
ability to function effectively;
Whereas proposed coastal whaling is commercial, unless
conducted under the aboriginal exemption to the moratorium;
and
Whereas the majority of Americans oppose the killing of
whales for commercial purposes and expect the United States
to use all available means to end such killing: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the United
States, through the International Whaling Commission,
should--
(1) should use all appropriate measures to end commercial
whaling in all of its forms, including scientific and other
special permit whaling, coastal whaling, and community-based
whaling;
(2) oppose any initiative that would result in any new,
Commission-sanctioned coastal or community-based whale
hunting, even if it is portrayed as noncommercial, including
any commercial whaling by any coastal communities that does
not qualify as aboriginal subsistence whaling; and
(3) seek to strengthen conservation and management measures
to facilitate the conservation of whale species.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.

General Leave

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate my colleague, the Chair of the
Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, for putting forward this
very important resolution.
The resolution sends a very clear message to all International
Whaling Commission members as they prepare for their annual meeting in
Santiago, Chile, later this month: Protect our whales. Keep the ban on
commercial whaling. The resolution also makes it clear that the
American people care deeply and passionately about the protection of
these magnificent creatures, and that the United States must continue
to lead this international effort to protect and save them.
Mr. Speaker, the International Whaling Commission was created in 1946
by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling to
address the devastating impact that commercial whaling was having on
the entire whale population. For years, the commission failed to manage
the commercial hunting of whales, leaving many species facing imminent
extinction. However, this changed in 1982 when the commission finally
agreed to a moratorium on commercial whaling.
However, since then, a number of countries have worked feverishly to
undermine it. Norway resumed commercial whaling in 1993. Japan and
Iceland have exploited provisions in the convention that allow permits
for ``scientific whaling,'' a provision that enables them to slaughter
whales under the guise of science and then sell the meat for commercial
profits.
According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare located on
Cape Cod, Massachusetts, more than 30,000 whales have been slaughtered
for commercial purposes, with 11,000 whales killed allegedly in the
name of science. And here is how they do it. They use harpoons with
explosive grenades. Now, if the first explosion is insufficient to kill
the whale, then they hoist it by the tail, keeping the blowhole
underwater, leaving it helpless and thrashing against the side of the
ship until eventually the whale drowns.
This is not science. The commission's own Scientific Committee has
repeatedly found that these scientific permits are completely
unnecessary, yet this horrific practice still continues.
Japan and other pro-whaling states want to unravel the global
consensus against commercial whaling even further.

{time} 1415

Their latest proposal is to allow coastal whaling or community
whaling. They have worked hard to recruit allies to their side.
The 75-plus member commission is now almost evenly split. This
resolution, H. Con. Res. 350, calls on the United States delegation to
the commission to fight these efforts and aggressively oppose
commercial whaling in all of its forms. It's critical that the State
Department take the pro-whaling threat seriously and undertake an
aggressive diplomacy to line up the requisite votes to preserve the
moratorium.
Mr. Rahall's resolution sets an important marker. Whales constitute a
vital component of the world's maritime and marine ecology. They are
the largest and one of the most intelligent mammals on earth.
Conserving them requires strong U.S. diplomacy to uphold international
agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 350,
which raises congressional concerns about the continued practice of
whale hunting.
With the 60th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission
set to begin in Santiago, Chile, it is fitting and proper to consider
this resolution. Over two decades after this Commission adopted a
moratorium on commercial whaling, the hunt continues.
The humpback whale, a species designated as endangered under the
provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, was included among those
whales pursued in the most recent hunting season. The marine life in
our oceans, as we all know, including the whale, forms a precious part
of these natural resources which we should strive to preserve.
Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution and reserve the balance of our
time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me now recognize the chairwoman of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, the gentlelady from
Guam

[[Page H5527]]

(Ms. Bordallo) for as much time as she may consume.
Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt)
for yielding me the time and for his leadership in working toward
permanent protection of whale populations around the world. I join him
in these efforts.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House Concurrent
Resolution 350, authored by our committee chair, Mr. Rahall, which
calls for an end to commercial whaling in all its forms and for renewed
United States leadership for conservation of whale species.
Consideration of this resolution today could not be more timely or
needed in advance of next week's meeting of the International Whaling
Commission, or the IWC, in Chile.
House Concurrent Resolution 350 calls the United States delegation to
the IWC to maintain the commercial moratorium, close existing loopholes
that have allowed more than 11,000 whales to be killed under the guise
of scientific whaling, and oppose any effort that would undermine the
moratorium or resume commercial whaling. The United States has an
opportunity and a responsibility to help refocus the IWC toward its
important conservation aims.
Established under the 1946 International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling as an international body to conserve whales for
future generations and to regulate the whaling industry, the
International Whaling Commission initially focused on the allocation of
whaling quotas to member countries. When these quotas were routinely
exceeded and whale populations plummeted, the United States
successfully proposed a whaling ban, which, in turn, led to the
international moratorium on commercial whaling.
The moratorium has saved thousands and thousands of whales and has
prevented some species from extinction. Under the convention, however,
members lodging a formal objection are not bound by the moratorium.
Both Norway and Iceland used this process to escape the moratorium.
Similarly, the convention allows for the killing of whales for research
purposes under self-awarded special permit quotas, and there are no
limitations on the commercial sale of the meat.
Both Japan and Iceland kill whales under the guise of scientific
whaling. The IWC scientific committee has consistently challenged the
science behind Japan's special permit whaling programs, questioning the
need to kill, while also reinforcing the value of nonlethal methods to
study whales.
Despite this, Japan continues to increase the quotas and the species
of whale it targets. The continued development of the IWC as a whale
conservation body is at risk. Today pro-whaling countries are
increasingly working to convince IWC members that the body is
unworkable. They do so through vigorous country recruitment and a
gradual erosion of the will of conservation-minded IWC members.
The IWC, now divided almost equally in favor for and against
commercial whaling, declared itself at a deadlock in 2007. The meeting
next week is therefore pivotal and consequential to the success and the
future effectiveness of the International Whaling Commission.
Pro-whaling countries will repeatedly ask for a resumption of
commercial whaling. Such countries are also pushing for the approval of
coastal or community-based whaling, which should not be confused with
subsistence whaling for our native peoples and which have been
determined to be another label for commercial whaling. The world's
whale population cannot afford a compromise on the commercial whaling
moratorium, nor should the United States be intimidated by countries
who threaten to leave the IWC if their requests are not met.
The world's remaining whale populations, many of which have yet to
fully recover from historic overexploitation, face modern threats from
ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, pollution, overfishing or
prey species, and the emerging impacts of climate change. This warrants
greater, not lesser, leadership from the United States in whale
conservation.
It is for these reasons that I have cosponsored House Concurrent
Resolution 350. I commend Chairman Rahall for introducing this
resolution and his invaluable leadership in working to strengthen the
IWC.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Together, we call on
the United States delegation to work with its International Whaling
Commission partners to end all forms of commercial whaling and to
conserve and protect whale species.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), ranking member of the Committee on
Natural Resources.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution and deeply respect the previous speakers.
I understand why they are trying to do this. It's unfortunate that
some people don't remember the whaling industry started in
Massachusetts, and maybe they're trying to forgive their sins.
Having said that, this resolution is being brought up under a
procedure that does not allow amendments, and frankly this resolution
does nothing to save the whales. More than 37,000 whales have been
taken since the International Whaling Commission, IWC, implemented a
moratorium on commercial whaling.
Under the existing International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling, member nations of the IWC could continue to take whales under
a number of procedures. While I do not necessarily support commercial
whaling, the current convention allows it for those nations that took a
reservation against a commercial whaling moratorium.
This resolution naively suggests the United States can somehow end
commercial whaling by itself at the next meeting of the International
Whaling Commission, which starts next week. Very frankly, this
resolution is nothing more than a fund-raising gimmick for those
environmental groups that oppose whaling.
This resolution does nothing to save the whales. In fact, it might do
the opposite. If the IWC cannot come to some agreement on how to move
forward, Norway, Iceland and Japan have all signaled in recent years
that they want to take either more whales or more species of whales.
Under the current rules they can do so. This resolution may do nothing
more than encourage those countries that dig in their heels to increase
their take of whales.
In addition, the resolution says nothing about the need for the
United States delegation to the IWC to protect the Native rights to
harvest whales. To the Native people on the North Slope of Alaska,
whales mean food. Alaska Natives have harvested whales for centuries,
and they continue to do so today.
Although they have taken whales for centuries and depend on the
bowhead whale to survive, they must constantly defend their need and
their cultural heritage. I want to compliment my Alaskan Natives on our
North Slope. They were told there were only 500 whales left when they
were put on the endangered species list.
They did not believe that. They hired the best professors, the best
scientists in the world, and, in fact, found out there are over 15,000
bowhead whales, just to prove the point that the science was wrong.
To the Native people on the North Slope of Alaska, whales mean food.
This is not an issue of politics to them.
They have done everything the IWC has ever asked them, and they still
get their quota taken away from them because people think using the
whaling issue is good for fund-raising. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission has done more scientific research on bowhead whales than any
government has ever done on any whale species. Every time the quota is
up for renewal in the IWC, someone comes up with a new theory on why
Alaskans should not be allowed to take the number of whales they need.
And again I will say ``need.''
Their quota is based on their need for whales as food. I can't say
that enough, for food. To them, the whale is a necessary part of their
culture and a necessary part of their dietary needs. Every time their
quota is up, someone comes along and puts another hurdle in front of
them that they must meet to get their quota.

[[Page H5528]]

The International Whaling Commission is broken. There are two groups
of countries that show up each meeting and fight about which one of
them has the moral high ground. There are those countries that are
anti-whaling and those countries that are pro-whaling.
The two sides have been in an arms race for years to see which side
can get more countries to join the IWC so they can have a simple
majority and pass a meaningless resolution before the other side gets a
majority and passes meaningless resolutions to support their point of
view. Neither side is ever likely to get enough countries on their side
to make any change in the convention because it takes a three-fourths
vote. While they are having this fight about which side has the moral
high ground, they use the Native people, who rely on whales for food,
as political hostages.
At the 2002 meeting in Japan, the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission's
quota was denied because of those policies. It took a special meeting
of the IWC to restore the quota to my constituents. This is not a
matter to be taken lightly and cannot continue. Alaska's quota cannot
be held hostage every 5 years for other countries' political whims. It
cannot be held to a higher standard and required to do more and more to
satisfy someone's new theory about the bowhead whale that might mean a
change for the Alaskan quota.
Members need to be very careful about how they talk about whaling,
because the United States is a whaling Nation. Alaska Natives have
harvested whales for centuries, and they continue to do so today. This
resolution does nothing to highlight the importance of Native peoples'
need to harvest whales and may only further inflame the hostilities at
the IWC and quite possibly result in an increase in the number of
whales killed in the future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I hope that the member nations of the IWC will
come up with something new to resolve the impasse we are at today, but
I am afraid the resolutions like the one today will do nothing to
resolve the problem and may actually make things worse. The only people
who continue to be hurt are the Native people of Alaska, and I don't
think that's right.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

{time} 1430

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, last November a fleet of Japanese whalers set
sail to kill more than a thousand whales, including endangered humpback
whales for the first time in the last 40 years.
After international outcry, Japan agreed not to hunt the humpback
whales this year, but that has not stopped them from continuing to hunt
and kill more than a thousand minke and fin whales.
You see, although an international moratorium against commercial
whaling has been in effect since 1986, Japan and a handful of other
countries have used a loophole in the international treaty, and in the
name of pseudoscientific research, they have gone ahead and killed more
than 11,000 whales.
After killing them for ``scientific research,'' as they say, they
sold the whale meat and blubber on the commercial market.
Anyway, scientists in the field say that these hunts, conducted in
the name of science, are really unnecessary because nonlethal research
alternatives do exist.
Mr. Speaker, Moby Dick is in trouble, and it is time to close the
loophole and make sure that endangered whales in our oceans are
protected once and for all. In Herman Melville's book ``Moby Dick,''
Captain Ahab, who I think was from Massachusetts, died trying to kill
off the whale population. Hopefully Japan's desire to eliminate the
whale population, like in Moby Dick, will fail as well, and Japan and a
handful of other countries will cease the whale hunts that are taking
place.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is correct, it
was from the island of Nantucket that Captain Ahab sailed. I happen to
have the honor of representing Nantucket, as well as Martha's Vineyard
and Cape Cod. So we have a tradition when it comes to whaling, and we
appreciate the magnificence of those whales. In fact, anyone wishing to
come and visit my district, I will be happy to escort them, and I refer
obviously to my colleagues, on an experience that will clearly leave an
indelible mark, and that is a whale-watching trip off of Cape Cod.
In response to the gentleman from Alaska, my good friend and someone
for whom I have great respect, I would simply point out that the
resolution itself specifically distinguishes between commercial whaling
and aboriginal sustentative whaling. I appreciate his point and I
understand his concerns.
But interestingly, just this past week there was a hearing in front
of the Natural Resources Subcommittee where all the witnesses,
including individuals from all of the groups that he alluded to,
testified in support of a sustentative quota. So I would suggest that
if what Japan wants is not sustentative whaling, they could secure that
approval now at the IWC. But that is not their purpose.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and we do
have a great deal of admiration for one another, but you have to
understand, in 2002 our quota for my Alaska Native people, their
heritage and their culture was held up by one of the IWC members,
Japan. And we had to have a special session to get the quota
reinstated, and they should not be used as a political ping-pong ball.
I want to stress that.
If I thought for a moment, and I am not for commercial whaling, but I
am saying that if I thought for a moment this would stop it, I would be
supportive of the resolution. But until we recognize the fact, because
I do have Alaskan Natives, heritage-wise and cultural-wise, that do
take whales today for needed food, they are being held hostage because
we belong to the IWC.
I will tell you, my friends, what's going to happen, there is nothing
that says Iceland, Japan or Greenland, wherever it may be, has to
belong to the IWC. They can pull out and kill all of the whales they
want to kill, and you and I can't stop that, whether it is on our
endangered list or not.
I do think there ought to be a cease-fire between these groups. Quit
using my people as hostages, and see if there isn't a solution of some
type that will appease both sides. In the meantime, they kill 37,000
whales under the loophole, and IWC doesn't have the arbitrary right to
close that loophole unless there is some agreement.
Now this resolution makes everybody feel good and look good and they
can go back and say I saved the whales, but it doesn't do anything. I
just think that is the wrong thing to do when, very frankly, you are
hurting other people, and this is their right. And they have
established the fact that there aren't 500 bullhead whales, there are
15,000 bullhead whales, and they take 19 a year of 15,000. I want you
to think about that a moment.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. And as I said, I appreciate his
concerns. But what Japan wants, as I suggested, is commercial whaling
and it clearly is not the intent of this resolution to hurt the
gentleman's constituents in Alaska. Clearly we have great respect and
understand their culture and their tradition. That is not the intent of
this resolution. But I'm sure that the gentleman's remarks and
observations should be listened to and heeded when the Department of
State goes to the IWC in Santiago, Chile.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as cochair of the Congressional Friends of
Animals Caucus, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 350, which states
that the United States, through the International Whaling Commission,
IWC, should use all appropriate measures to end commercial whaling in
all its forms, and seek to strengthen whale conservation.
In 1986, the IWC instituted a moratorium on the commercial killing of
whales. In spite of this, some countries continue to hunt whales under
the guise of scientific research.
For example, in November 2007, the Japanese whaling fleet set out for
the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary with plans to kill over

[[Page H5529]]

1,000 whales. Whale meat and blubber are sold commercially, yet Japan
continues to insist that this is permissible under the scientific
research provision of the IWC.
Not only has Japan increased the number of whales it plans to kill
this year, it has also declared it will kill 50 endangered humpback
whales. Since 1960, humpbacks have been fully protected from commercial
whaling by the IWC.
The Japanese whaling fleet's continued circumvention of the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is truly an
outrage. The IWC has repeatedly condemned this hunt, urging an end to
this needless and brutal slaughter. The U.S. delegation to the IWC must
stand firmly opposed to this shameful practice, and reaffirm its
commitment to protecting whales from commercial hunting. I urge support
of H. Con. Res. 350.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H. Con. Res. 350, Expressing the sense of the Congress that the
United States, through the International Whaling Commission, should use
all appropriate measures to end commercial whaling in all of its forms,
including scientific and other special permit whaling, coastal whaling,
and community-based whaling, and seek to strengthen the conservation
and management measures to facilitate the conservation of whale
species, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished
colleague from West Virginia, Representative Nick Rahall, and of which
I am a proud cosponsor. This legislation is an important step in the
conservation of the precious whale species.
As of today, 79 nations have adopted the International Convention for
the Regulation of Whaling, which established the International Whaling
Commission to provide for the conservation of whale stocks. The United
States was instrumental in influencing the Commission to adopt a
moratorium on commercial whaling, which is important in order to
conserve and promote the recovery of whale stocks, many of which had
been hunted to near extinction by the whaling industry.
However, three International Whaling Commission member nations
continue to kill whales for financial gain, killing more than 25,000
whales since the moratorium, over 11,000 of which were killed under the
guise of scientific research. Because nonlethal research alternatives
exist, the majority of the world's cetacean scientists have found
whaling conducted for scientific purposes unnecessary. Numerous
resolutions have been adopted by the member nations of the
International Whaling Commission opposing and calling for an end to
scientific whaling, most recently in 2007 at the annual Commission
meeting in Anchorage, Alaska.
Whaling undermines the conservation mandate of the International
Whaling Commission and impairs the Commission's ability to function
effectively. Allowing whaling for commercial purposes, or under the
false guise of scientific research, is reprehensible. This whaling must
end now. Additionally, the majority of Americans oppose killing whales
for commercial purposes. They expect the Members of Congress to do all
in their means to end this killing. We must listen to the American
people on this issue.
By passing this legislation, we affirm to the American people our
commitment to ending whaling in any form, including scientific and
other special permit whaling, coastal whaling, and community-based
whaling. It is an important step towards saving the whale species.
Surely, this legislation should not be ignored.
H. Con. Res. 350 would encourage Congress to use all appropriate
measures to end commercial whaling in all of its forms, oppose any
initiative that would result in new whale hunting, and seek to
strengthen conservation and management measures to facilitate the
conservation of the whale species. I urge my fellow members of Congress
to support this legislation.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House
Concurrent Resolution 350.
Next week the International Whaling Commission will host its annual
meeting in Santiago, Chile, and representatives from 80 nations will
come together to discuss the future of international whale conservation
efforts. This presents a rare opportunity for our country to exercise
real leadership in the fight to strengthen whale protection measures,
preserving these rare creatures for future generations.
The meeting comes at a historic time in the debate over commercial
whaling. International outrage is at an all time high while support for
ending scientific whaling permits is also at its peak. In certain
countries such as Japan, whaling is no longer even profitable and must
be subsidized by the government.
For these reasons and many more, the IWC should seize this
opportunity to close the loophole in the 1985 ban on commercial whaling
that has allowed far too many countries to continue their commercial
whaling programs which have been disguised as ``scientific'' whaling
efforts. It's time for the world to abolish whaling practices
altogether, and I'm hopeful that the IWC does not squander this
opportunity to put an end to this brutal practice.
Phasing out all forms of commercial whaling is the only way to deal
with this crisis. Those who suggest that fewer whales may be killed if
a compromise is reached with pro-whaling nations to allow costal or
community-based whaling could not be more ill-advised; this type of
compromise would squander this historic opportunity we have to finally
put an end to this brutal practice.
The fact remains that whaling is simply not sustainable in our world.
Though some would have us believe that whale populations have recovered
sufficiently to renew hunting, recent studies have shown increases in
global populations over the last 20 years are only marginal. These
small increases in no way signal that the populations have fully
recovered, for in reality, past population estimates indicate that some
species were once 6 to 20 times more populous than they are today. For
example, scientists believe there were once 240,000 humpback whales in
the North Atlantic; today only 10,000 remain.
Even if whales have recovered to their pre-industrial numbers,
sustainable whaling would still be nearly impossible. Most people do
not know that whale populations are local, and groups rarely mingle or
interbreed. For instance, scientists believe that a distinct population
of Minke whales off the coast of Japan is already on the verge of
collapse. Allowing unfettered ``community'' whaling or any form of
commercial shore-based whaling would quickly lead to the Minke's
extinction in the Sea of Japan.
The United States must firmly oppose any form of commercial whaling;
to allow even limited commercial whaling puts the entire species at
risk. Multiple whales would be fraudulently sold under the same permit
because short of genetic testing, there is no way to distinguish the
meat of two different whales. This is already a problem in Korea and
Japan, where it is common to market poached whales under the guise of
an accidental kill, which is eligible for sale.
Some have also falsely claimed that this bill will harm the ability
of Native Alaskans to continue subsistence whaling, when in reality no
one is disputing the right of Alaskan natives to continue their way of
life. In fact, the bill protects Native Alaskans' way of life by
defending their food source from overexploitation and extirpation.
Additionally, if coastal whaling is allowed, Natives would be forced to
compete for permits with commercial operations, and the resulting
difficulties would do more to endanger their culture and way of life
than this bill ever could.
Ending whaling does not merely promote humane treatment of animals,
nor is it solely about conserving natural resources. It is also an
issue of global health. With high concentrations of mercury and other
toxins in their blubber, whales make an unhealthy meal with vast public
health risks. Mercury has been found in concentrations that are
hundreds of times higher than the acceptable levels. Japan has already
ceased including whale meat in school lunches and warns pregnant women
about the hazards of eating whale.
Congress's positions must reflect the views and values of our
country. We do not see whales as a source of food or a resource to be
managed; we view them with respect and awe rather than with hunger.
Their strength, intelligence, and beauty are far more valuable than
their blubber. In an age where warming seas and pollution already
threaten their existence, we should not contribute to their decline by
hunting them with exploding harpoons.
The world looks to the United States for leadership and we must rise
to this occasion and meet our responsibilities. By opposing any new
forms of whaling and working to end so called ``scientific whaling,''
we can protect an integral part of the ocean's ecosystem. I urge my
colleagues to live up to this responsibility by supporting H. Con. Res.
350.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res.
350, a resolution I introduced with the gentlelady from Guam, Ms.
Bordallo, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, urging
the U.S. delegation attending the International Whaling Commission
meeting in Santiago, Chile, to take a leadership role in ensuring the
protection of the world's great whales. I wish to thank Chairman Berman
and Subcommittee Chairman Delahunt for their support of my resolution
and for ensuring its timely consideration today.
The American people care deeply about protecting whales, and the U.S.
played a leading role in the adoption of the 1986 moratorium on
commercial whaling by the IWC.
Before the moratorium, whalers from many countries routinely exceeded
quotas established by the IWC, and whale populations plummeted.
Adoption of the moratorium and the end of the slaughter represented an
historic milestone in the history of whale conservation, and many
stocks have recovered.

[[Page H5530]]

Despite this, whales still face many threats--from pollution, climate
change, and even continued hunting. Norway officially objected to the
moratorium when it was adopted and resumed commercial whaling in 1993.
Japan and Iceland exploit loopholes in the Convention and continue to
hunt whales under the guise of ``scientific whaling,'' despite the fact
that the scientific committee of the IWC has decried the need for and
condemned the quality of this science.
At the same time, Japan is calling for the IWC to once again sanction
commercial whaling in the form of ``coastal'' whaling, ``community''
whaling, or some other iteration of small-scale commercial whaling that
will effectively eviscerate the moratorium, threatening to leave the
IWC and resume larger-scale whaling operations unless their request is
met.
The issues of commercial whaling under the guise of scientific or
community whaling will likely be debated at this year's IWC meeting,
and many will claim that the future of the organization is in jeopardy.
We must be very careful, however, that our efforts to fix what some
people perceive as a broken institution, do not come at the expense of
the very species that institution is intended to protect.
H. Con. Res. 350 calls on the U.S. delegation to remain firmly
opposed to commercial whaling in all its forms at the upcoming meeting
of the IWC. The resolution urges the U.S. not only to oppose the
unnecessary lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes, but also
to reject proposals that would weaken or lift the moratorium by
creating the new category of coastal or community whaling that is
nothing more than commercial whaling in disguise.
Now, it is more critical than ever that the U.S. maintain its
leadership role in shaping global whale conservation policies through
the IWC. The American people strongly oppose commercial whaling of any
kind, and the Administration must not undo more than 20 years of whale
conservation by yielding to a few nations who threaten to leave the
IWC.
In supporting this resolution, Congress recognizes the intrinsic
value of these majestic animals, as well as the vital role whales play
in the world's marine ecosystems. Conserving them for future
generations requires us to uphold strong international agreements and
maintain an unwavering commitment to protect these magnificent species
from killing for commercial gain.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Having no additional speakers, Mr. Speaker, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res 350.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________