[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9132-9133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON SUSTAINABLE USE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. RICHARD W. POMBO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 22, 2001

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, through professional and scientific 
management, this nation currently enjoys stable and healthy wildlife 
and marine resource populations. Sadly, there were excessive harvests 
of wildlife in the 17th and 18th centuries, but that circumstance is 
history never to be repeated. Today, through appropriate laws and 
reasoned regulations, the future of these resources is assured for 
generations to come.
  Given this background of successful management and wise use of these 
renewable resources, I am dismayed when government representatives of 
this nation participate in international conventions, treaties and 
bilateral and multi-lateral conservation agreements concerning the 
sustainable use of wildlife and marine resources, a different agenda 
seems to be in place; specifically, that agenda rejects science and 
favors anti consumptive use of those renewable resources.
  For example, policy positions taken by the United States Delegations 
at the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the 
Annual Meetings of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) of the 
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) reflect a 
political agenda rather than a science-based policy. Through the past 
leadership of the United States at CITES and IWC, several nations have 
followed this flawed and imprudent policy to the detriment of various 
wildlife and marine species.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note President Bush's recent remarks to 
the Environmental Youth Award winners regarding this Administrations 
foundation for environmental policy. He affirmed that it will be 
``based on sound science, not some environmental fad of what may sound 
good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence before we decide 
[on policy].'' Currently, the United States is developing its position 
for the upcoming 53rd Annual Meeting of the IWC.
  Due to the significance of the event, I recently sent a letter to the 
Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
Commerce concerning the background of United States policy at the IWC 
meetings. Mr. Speaker, at this time I hereby submit to the Record for 
my colleagues consideration the letters (referenced above) to the Bush 
administration.
  I believe the time has come for the United States to truly reflect an 
international commitment to the sustainable use of renewable wildlife 
and marine resources based on science. As I stated in my letters, this 
conservation policy should be followed whether the subject species are 
elephants, turtles, whales, or trees. Such leadership by the United 
States is the responsible and ethical policy that must be pursued for 
the benefit of renewable wildlife, marine resources and humankind 
itself.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.
     Hon. Gale Norton,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Norton: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the need for science to be the fundamental guide 
     in United States participation in international conservation 
     commitments as legally recognized under the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade 
     (GATT).
       Unfortunately, the United States policy under the former-
     Clinton administration acted contrary to this legal concept 
     under the tenets of the International Convention for the 
     Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Specifically, it did so by 
     continued opposition and obstructionist positions on the 
     resumption of limited and managed whaling by island and 
     coastal nations.
       Although it is true that there was over exploitation of 
     certain whale stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries for 
     commercial oil products, this is not the case today. In fact, 
     no whale stocks were ever threatened by whale harvests for 
     human food consumption. The Scientific Committee of the 
     governing body of the ICRW and the International Whaling 
     Commission (IWC) has found that limited harvests would have 
     no adverse impact on population stocks.
       However, in the past, the United States and other nations 
     have consistently opposed the resumptions of limited whaling 
     on what amounts to purely a political agenda. For instance, 
     the United States supported the adoption of the Southern 
     Ocean Sanctuary

[[Page 9133]]

     for whales without any scientific basis for such a position. 
     Further, the United States is supporting the adoption of a 
     Pacific Ocean Sanctuary where there is no scientific basis 
     for the establishment of such a sanctuary. Even after the 
     Bush administration took office, the Department of State has 
     opposed legal trade in whale products between Norway and 
     Japan. I would sincerely urge the Bush administration to 
     carefully review the United States policy in terms of science 
     and law.
       I must say, I was extremely pleased to note President 
     Bush's recent remarks to the Environmental Youth Award 
     winners about environmental policy. As you know, the 
     President stated that decisions regarding environmental 
     matters in his Administration would be, and I quote, ``based 
     upon sound science, not some environmental fad or what may 
     sound good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence 
     before we decide [on policy].''
       After representing the Congress at two Conferences of the 
     Parties (COP) to Convention on International Trade in 
     Endangered Specie of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as 
     having chaired several hearings in the Congress about the 
     sustainable use or renewable resources on the international 
     level, I know the United States is certainly a nation that 
     supports the consumptive use of renewable wildlife and marine 
     resources under scientific management.
       As such, I respectfully request that any future policy 
     regarding various species--whether the subject species are 
     elephants, whales, turtles, or trees--be based on sound 
     science and the legal ramifications of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements of GATT.
       I appreciate your attention to this request, and I look 
     forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact 
     me should you have questions or comments.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard W. Pombo,
                                               Member of Congress.

                                  ____
                                  

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.
     Hon. Colin Powell,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of State, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Powell: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the need for science to be the fundamental guide 
     in United States participation in international conservation 
     commitments as legally recognized under the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     (GATT).
       Unfortunately, the United States policy under the former-
     Clinton administration acted contrary to this legal concept 
     under the tenets of the International Convention for the 
     Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Specifically, it did so by 
     continued opposition and obstructionist positions on the 
     resumption of limited and managed whaling by island and 
     coastal nations.
       Although it is true that there was over exploitation of 
     certain whale stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries for 
     commercial oil products, this is not the case today. In fact, 
     no whale stocks were ever threatened by whale harvests for 
     human food consumption. The Scientific Committee of the 
     governing body of the ICRW and the International Whaling 
     Commission (IWC) has found that limited harvests would have 
     no adverse impact on population stocks.
       However, in the past, the United States and other nations 
     have consistently opposed the resumption of limited whaling 
     on what amounts to purely a political agenda. For instance, 
     the United States supported the adoption of the Southern 
     Ocean Sanctuary for whales without any scientific basis for 
     such a position. Further, the United States is supporting the 
     adoption of a pacific Ocean Sanctuary where there is no 
     scientific basis for the establishment of such a sanctuary. 
     Even after the Bush administration took office, the 
     Department of State has oppose legal trade in whale products 
     between Norway and Japan. I would sincerely urge the Bush 
     administration to carefully review the United States policy 
     in terms of science and law.
       I must say, I was extremely pleased to note President 
     Bush's recent remarks to the Environmental Youth Award 
     winners about environmental policy. As you know, the 
     President stated that decisions regarding environmental 
     matters in his Administration would be, and I quote, ``based 
     upon sound science, not some environmental fad or what may 
     sound good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence 
     before we decide [on policy].''
       After representing the Congress at two Conferences of the 
     Parties (COP) to Convention on International Trade in 
     Endangered Specie of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as 
     having chaired several hearings in the Congress about the 
     sustainable use or renewable resources on the international 
     level, I know the United States is certainly a nation that 
     supports the consumptive use of renewable wildlife and marine 
     resources under scientific management.
       As such, I respectfully request that any future policy 
     regarding various species--whether the subject species are 
     elephants, whales, turtles, or trees--be based on sound 
     science and the legal ramifications of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements of GATT.
       I appreciate your attention to this request, and I look 
     forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact 
     me should you have questions or comments.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard W. Pombo,
                                               Member of Congress.

                                  ____
                                  

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.
     Hon. Don Evans,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Evans: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the need for science to be the fundamental guide 
     in United States participation in international conservation 
     commitments as legally recognized under the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     (GATT).
       Unfortunately, the United States policy under the former-
     Clinton administration acted contrary to this legal concept 
     under the tenets of the International Convention for the 
     Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Specifically, it did so by 
     continued opposition and obstructionist positions on the 
     resumption of limited and managed whaling by island and 
     coastal nations.
       Although it is true that there was over exploitation of 
     certain whale stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries for 
     commercial oil products, this is not the case today. In fact, 
     no whale stocks were ever threatened by whale harvests for 
     human food consumption. The Scientific Committee of the 
     governing body of the ICRW and the International Whaling 
     Commission (IWC) has found that limited harvests would have 
     no adverse impact on population stocks.
       However, in the past, the United States and other nations 
     have consistently opposed the resumption of limited whaling 
     on what amounts to purely a political agenda. For instance, 
     the United States supported the adoption of the Southern 
     Ocean Sanctuary for whales without any scientific basis for 
     such a position. Further, the United States is supporting the 
     adoption of a Pacific Ocean Sanctuary where there is no 
     scientific basis for the establishment of such a sanctuary. 
     Even after the Bush administration took office, the 
     Department of State has opposed legal trade in whale products 
     between Norway and Japan. I would sincerely urge the Bush 
     administration to carefully review the United States policy 
     in terms of science and law.
       I must say, I was extremely pleased to note President 
     Bush's recent remarks to the Environmental Youth Award 
     winners about environmental policy. As you know, the 
     President stated that decisions regarding environmental 
     matters in his Administration would be, and I quote, ``based 
     upon sound science, not some environmental fad or what may 
     sound good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence 
     before we decide [on policy].''
       After representing the Congress at two Conferences of the 
     Parties (COP) to Convention on International Trade in 
     Endangered Specie of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as 
     having chaired several hearings in the Congress about the 
     sustainable use or renewable resources on the international 
     level, I know the United States is certainly a nation that 
     supports the consumptive use of renewable wildlife and marine 
     resources under scientific management.
       As such, I respectfully request that any future policy 
     regarding various species--whether the subject species are 
     elephants, whales, turtles, or trees--be based on sound 
     science and the legal ramifications of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements of GATT.
       I appreciate your attention to this request, and I look 
     forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact 
     me should you have questions or comments.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard W. Pombo,
                                               Member of Congress.

     

                          ____________________