[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.

                          ____________________