[House Report 104-665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                            Rept. 104-665
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                      Part 2
_______________________________________________________________________


 
             INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT

                                _______
                                

 July 23, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Archer, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2823]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2823) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
1972 to support the International Dolphin Conservation Program 
in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the bill, as amended by the 
Committee on Resources, do pass.

                            I. INTRODUCTION

                         A. Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2823, as amended, would implement into U.S. law the 
Declaration of Panama concerning tuna fishing in the Eastern 
Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The bill would recognize that 
significant reduction in dolphin mortality has been achieved by 
nations fishing for tuna in the ETP. In addition, the bill 
would replace the current use of U.S. unilateral standards as a 
trigger for an import ban of tuna caught with purse seine nets 
with multilateral standards agreed to as part of the Panama 
Declaration. Finally, the bill would amend the definition of 
``dolphin safe.''

                             B. Background

    Because large yellowfin tuna associate with schools of 
dolphin in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), fishermen 
have in the past deployed large purse seine nets around 
dolphins to harvest the tuna swimming below, resulting in 
significant dolphin mortality. Since then, fishermen have 
improved their techniques, greatly reducing the incidence of 
dolphin mortality. Scientific experts report that the current 
level of dolphin mortality is less than 4,000 animals per year, 
a level considered to be below commercial significance.
    In an effort to protect marine mammals from the adverse 
effects of fishing, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was 
enacted in 1972. In 1984, in response to concerns of the 
increased incidence of dolphin mortality by the foreign tuna 
fleet, the MMPA was amended to require each nation wishing to 
export tuna to the United States to document that its dolphin 
protection program was ``comparable'' to that of the United 
States and that the incidental mortality rate was 
``comparable'' to that of the U.S. fleet. Failure to meet these 
standards would result in the embargo on the importation of 
yellowfin tuna from that country.
    Legislation enacted as part of the Fishery Conservation 
Amendments of 1990 codified criteria for the labelling of tuna 
and tuna products as ``dolphin safe.'' To qualify as dolphin 
safe, tuna caught in the ETP must have been caught either by a 
vessel too small to deploy nets around dolphins or, for larger 
vessels, the catch must be certified by a qualified observer 
that no ``dolphin sets'' were made for the entire fishing trip.
    In 1990, Mexico was embargoed for not achieving 
comparability with the U.S. fleet. In response, Mexico 
requested a GATT panel to consider whether the United States 
was inconsistent with its GATT obligations by imposing 
embargoes on tuna imports under the authority of the MMPA. In 
August 1991, the GATT panel found that the United States had 
acted inconsistently because it imposed import restrictions 
based on certain extraterritorial environmental concerns and 
dictated how other nations produce their goods for export. 
However, the panel suggested that sanctions could be 
permissible if they were designed to encourage compliance with 
a multilateral agreement. Adoption of the panel report has been 
blocked by the United States under the pre-WTO dispute 
settlement procedures of the GATT.
    The EU subsequently challenged embargo provisions 
applicable to tuna trade through intermediary nations. That 
GATT panel also found that the United States had acted 
inconsistently with GATT obligations. Adoption of the panel 
report has been blocked by the United States under the pre-WTO 
dispute settlement procedures of the GATT.
    In 1992, Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) nations concluded a 
non-binding international agreement establishing an 
International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) under the 
auspices of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 
(IATTC). The agreement established annual limits on incidental 
dolphin mortality, required observers on tuna vessels, 
established a review panel to monitor fleet compliance, and 
created a scientific research and education program and 
advisory board. The agreement established a dolphin mortality 
limit for each vessel, and when that limit was reached, that 
vessel would be required to discontinue ``setting on dolphins'' 
for the remainder of the year.
    In October 1995, 12 nations signed the Declaration of 
Panama, including the United States, Belize, Colombia, Costa 
Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, 
Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The Panama Declaration endorses the 
success of the La Jolla Agreement and adjusts the marketing 
policy of dolphin safe tuna in recognition of this success. In 
exchange for modifications to U.S. law, foreign signatories 
agreed to modify and formalize the La Jolla Agreement as a 
binding agreement. Signatories agreed to adopt conservation and 
management measures to ensure long-term sustainability of tuna 
and living marine resources, assess the catch and bycatch of 
tuna and take steps to reduce or eliminate the bycatch, 
implement the binding agreement through enactment of domestic 
legislation, enhance mechanisms for reviewing compliance with 
the IDCP, and establish annual quotas for dolphin mortality 
limiting total annual dolphin mortality to fewer than 5000 
animals.
    Changes to U.S. law envisaged by the other signatories, in 
return, included lifting the primary and secondary embargoes on 
tuna caught in compliance with the La Jolla Agreement, 
permitting access to the U.S. market for all tuna (dolphin safe 
and non-dolphin safe) caught in compliance with the La Jolla 
Agreement by IATTC members or nations initiating steps to 
become IATTC members, and redefining ``dolphin safe'' to 
include ETP tuna caught in purse seine nets in which no dolphin 
mortalities were observed.
    H.R. 2823, as amended, would implement the Panama 
Declaration into U.S. law, building on the international 
consensus concerning multilateral management of the ETP tuna 
fishery, instead of maintaining the use of unilateral standards 
which operate as a barrier to trade.

                         C. Legislative History

    H.R. 2823 was introduced on December 21, 1995, by 
Representative Gilchrest and was referred to the Committee on 
Resources. On May 8, 1996, the Committee on Resources reported 
H.R. 2823 favorably, with amendments. See H. Rep. 104-665 (Part 
1) for a detailed description of action by the Committee on 
Resources.
    On July 10, 1996, H.R. 2823, as amended by the Committee on 
Resources, was sequentially referred to the Committee on Ways 
and Means, for a period ending not later than July 23, 1996.
    On July 17, 1996, the Committee on Ways and Means met to 
consider H.R. 2823. The Committee ordered H.R. 2823 favorably 
reported by voice vote, as amended by the Committee on 
Resources.

II. EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE 
                           ON WAYS AND MEANS

                        A. Sec. 2(a)(3): Purpose

Present law

    Not applicable.

Explanation of provision

    States that the purpose of the Act is to eliminate the ban 
on imports of tuna from nations that are in compliance with the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program.

Reasons for change

     The Committee believes that if countries are in compliance 
with the multilateral standard for the fishing of yellowfin 
tuna as memorialized in the International Dolphin Conservation 
Program, then the import ban should not apply. Accordingly, the 
Committee believes that the use of U.S. comparability standards 
for the imposition of any embargo on yellowfin tuna should be 
replaced with the IDCP standards.

                        B. Sec. (b)(2): Findings

Present law

     Not applicable.

Explanation of provision

     States that the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 
provisions that impose a ban on imports from nations that fish 
for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have served as 
an incentive to reduce dolphin mortalities.

Reasons for change

     The Committee believes that these provisions have served 
as a positive incentive to reduce dolphin mortality. 
Replacement of the unilateral U.S. standard with the 
international IDCP standard should serve as an equal incentive 
while, at the same time, putting the United States in 
compliance with its international agreements.

C. Sec. 3: Definition of ``International Dolphin Conservation Program''

Present law

     Not applicable.

Explanation of provision

     Adds a definition of the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program, which refers to the international program 
established by the agreement signed in La Jolla, California in 
June 1992, as formalized, modified, and enhanced in accordance 
with the Declaration of Panama. The Declaration caps dolphin 
mortality at 5000, establishes declining levels of per-stock 
per-year mortality levels, provides for the ceasing of sets on 
dolphins if the mortality level is exceeded, provides for 
scientific review and assessment, establishes per-vessel 
morality limits, and establishes incentives to continue to 
reduce dolphin mortality, with the goal of eliminating dolphin 
mortality.

Reasons for change

     The definition in section 3 reflects the international 
agreement reached by the ETP nations through the La Jolla 
Agreement and the Panama Declaration.

   D. Sec. 4 (b) and (c): Amendments to Title I of the Marine Mammal 
                             Protection Act

Present law

     Current law establishes a moratorium on (i.e., prohibits) 
the importation of commercial fish (including tuna) which 
results in the incidental kill or serious injury of ocean 
mammals in excess of U.S. standards unless the following 
conditions are met:
          The government of the harvesting nation has adopted a 
        regulatory program governing the incidental taking of 
        marine mammals which is ``comparable'' to that of the 
        United States; and
          The average rate of incidental taking by the vessels 
        of the harvesting nation is ``comparable'' to the 
        average rate of incidental taking of marine mammals by 
        the United States (sec. 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal 
        Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)).

Explanation of provision

    Section 4(b) of H.R. 2823 would maintain the moratorium 
under current law but would repeal the unilateral comparability 
standard. Instead, importation would be permitted if the 
harvesting nation complies with international standards, as 
follows:
          The tuna was harvested by vessels of a nation which 
        participates in the International Dolphin Conservation 
        Program, the harvesting nation is either a member or 
        has initiated steps to become a member of the Inter-
        American Tropical Tuna Commission, and the nation has 
        implemented its obligations under the Program and the 
        Commission; and
          Total dolphin mortality permitted under the Program 
        not to exceed 5000 in 1996, or any year thereafter.
     Section 4(c) would provide standards for the acceptance of 
documentary evidence and establish an exemption for U.S. 
citizens incidentally taking marine mammals during fishing 
operations outside the United States exclusive economic zone 
under certain circumstances.

Reasons for change

     H.R. 2823 would implement the multilateral standards for 
the imposition of trade sanctions agreed to as part of the 
Panama Declaration, repealing the unilateral comparability 
standards of current U.S. law. The Committee believes that 
enforcement actions are often the most effective when they are 
based on international consensus, and that such consensus would 
be more constructive to effective management of the ETP tuna 
fishery by all countries concerned. The Committee thus expects 
the Secretary to use this authority, wherever possible in 
accordance with multilaterally agreed decisions taken by ICCAT 
and to work within ICCAT and other institutions to achieve 
multilateral consensus on appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
     In light of the above, it is the view of the Committee 
that the preferred course of action with respect to the use of 
import measures to enforce standards relating to dolphin 
mortalities is to base those standards on those developed 
through the Panama Declaration. The change made by section 4(b) 
of H.R. 2823 to section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA is a conforming 
change concerning this international standard.

      E. Sec. 5(f) Chapeau and (f)(1)(c): Amendments to Title III

Present law

     Section 307 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1415) provides that 
yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna product may not be imported in 
violation of import ban established under section 305. Section 
305 imposes the import ban unless the tuna is imported from a 
country that agrees to implement a 5-year moratorium on setting 
on dolphins, requires vessel observers, and reduces dolphin 
mortality.

 Explanation of provision

     Section 5(f)(1)(c) of H.R. 2823 would maintain the section 
307 prohibition on importation of tuna in violation of an 
import ban (renumbering it to become section 305). However, the 
chapeau to section 5(f) of H.R. 2823 would repeal section 305 
under present law, which conditions importation on the 
requirement that importing countries adopt a moratorium, 
require vessel observers, and reduce dolphin mortality, as no 
longer necessary because new moratorium would be triggered by 
international standards. Instead, the requirements of section 
101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (as amended by 
section 4(b) and (c) of H.R. 2823) would govern the imposition 
of the import ban.

Reasons for change

     Section 5(f) of H.R. 2823 would prohibit the importation 
of yellowfin tuna based on the new international standards of 
section 101(a)(2) (as set forth in section 4(b) and (c) of H.R. 
2823), thereby replacing the U.S. comparability standard, as 
discussed above. Because of this new language, section 305 of 
the current statute would no longer be necessary and would 
therefore be repealed.

                       III. VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

     In compliance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement 
is made relative to the vote of the Committee in its 
consideration of the bill:

Motion to report H.R. 2823

     On July 17, 1996, H.R. 2823, as amended by the Committee 
on Resources, was ordered favorably reported, as amended by the 
Committee on Resources, by voice vote, with a quorum present.

                     IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL

               A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

     In compliance with clause 7(a) of the rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement 
is made concerning the effects on the budget of H.R. 2823, as 
reported: The Committee agrees with the estimate prepared by 
CBO which is included below.

    B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with subdivision (B) of clause 2(l)(3) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee states that the provisions of H.R. 2823 do not 
contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit 
authority, or a decrease or increase in tax expenditures. 
Enactment of H.R. 2823 would lead to a decrease in appropriated 
spending of approximately $1 million in fiscal year 1998 and $2 
million in fiscal years 1999-2002. The bill also decreases 
direct spending beginning in fiscal year 1997 by increasing 
offsetting receipts of less than $100,000 a year from 1997-2002 
from permit fees. In addition, H.R. 2823 would increase 
governmental receipts by less than $500,000 annually from 
tariffs on imported tuna.

      C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office

    In compliance with subdivision (C) of clause 2(l)(3) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, requiring 
a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, 
the following report prepared by CBO is provided:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 19, 1996.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2823, the 
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
    Enacting H.R. 2823 could affect both direct spending and 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 2823.
    2. Bill title: International Dolphin Conservation Program 
Act.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Ways and Means on July 17, 1996.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 2823 would modify the protection of 
marine mammals, including dolphins, in connection with tuna 
harvesting. The bill would recognize and incorporate into law 
many of the provisions of the Declaration of Panama, signed 
October 4, 1995, by the United States and the governments of 
Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, 
Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The Declaration 
of Panama addresses the protection of dolphins and other 
species, and the conservation and management of tuna, in the 
eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Several provisions of the 
bill would address the use of purse seines in tuna fishing. 
Purse seines are large nets that encircle tuna and are then 
drawn shut like a purse. Specifically, the bill would:
          declare that it is U.S. policy to support the 
        International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) 
        operated under the auspices of the Inter-American 
        Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC);
          state that is the sense of the Congress that U.S. 
        contributions to the IATTC shall be proportionate to 
        the number of U.S. purse seine vessels fishing for tuna 
        in the ETP;
          eliminate the current ban by the Secretary of the 
        Treasury on imports of yellowfin tuna from countries 
        whose vessels catch tuna in the ETP using a procedure 
        known as ``setting on dolphins'' by allowing tuna 
        imports from those nations complying with the IDCP;
          amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 
        allow the Department of Commerce (DOC) to issue permits 
        to U.S. fishermen authorizing the incidental taking of 
        dolphins during commercial yellowfin tuna harvesting;
          limit the number of dolphins that can be killed by 
        tuna fishing in the ETP to 5,000 annually, with the 
        mortality limit apportioned among various dolphin 
        types--but the limit for each type could not exceed 0.2 
        percent of the minimum estimated abundance of that type 
        through 2000, and 0.1 percent of that minimum in 2001 
        and thereafter;
          require U.S. vessels fishing for tuna in the ETP to 
        obtain individual, annual permits from the Secretary of 
        Commerce to authorize their participation in the IDCP, 
        as opposed to certificates of inclusion in one umbrella 
        permit as under current law, and authorize the 
        Secretary to charge a fee to cover the administrative 
        costs of that permit;
          authorize to be appropriated to the DOC $1 million 
        for scientific research on dolphin conservation; and
          amend the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act 
        by redefining tuna that may be labeled ``Dolphin Safe'' 
        as that caught in any set of a purse seine net in which 
        no dolphins were killed, regardless of whether any 
        dolphins were encircled as part of the tuna harvest. 
        Under the bill, tuna would be determined to be 
        ``dolphin safe'' on a set by set basis, rather than by 
        vessel-trip as under current law.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
that enacting H.R. 2823 would lead to a decrease in 
appropriated spending of about $1 million in fiscal year 1998 
and $2 million for fiscal years 1999-2002, assuming 
appropriations consistent with the bill's provisions. In 
addition, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2823 could decrease 
direct spending beginning in fiscal year 1997 by generating 
additional offsetting receipts from fees on fishing permits. We 
estimate that any new permit fees would total less than 
$100,000 a year over the 1997-2002 period. Finally, based on 
information from the International Trade Commission (ITC), CBO 
estimates that H.R. 2823 would increase governmental receipts 
by less than $500,000 annually. The following table summarizes 
the estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2823.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                  
                                                                                                                
Estimated authorization level.............................  .......       -1       -2       -2       -2       -2
Estimated outlays.........................................  .......       -1       -2       -2       -2       -2
                                                                                                                
                                     CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES                                    
                                                                                                                
Direct spending:                                                                                                
    Estimated budget authority............................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
    Estimated outlays.....................................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
Revenues:                                                                                                       
    Estimated revenues....................................    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    The budgetary impact on federal spending of this bill falls 
within budget function 300.
    6. Basis of estimate:

Discretionary spending

    Assuming appropriations consistent with the bill, enacting 
H.R. 2823 would result in net reductions of about $1 million in 
appropriated spending in fiscal year 1998 and about $2 million 
per year for fiscal years 1999-2002. This estimated change 
represents an increase of about $1 million for the Department 
of Commerce in fiscal year 1998, and a decrease of about $2 
million per year for the Department of State over the 1998-2002 
period.
    H.R. 2823 would authorize the appropriation of $1 million 
to be used by the DOC's National Marine Fisheries Service to 
support scientific research on dolphin conservation. We 
estimate outlays of about $1 million in fiscal year 1998, 
assuming appropriation of the authorized amount.
    The bill also states that it is the sense of the Congress 
that each nation meeting the comparability requirements of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act should contribute to the expenses 
of the IATTC in amounts proportionate to the number of purse 
seine vessels from that nation harvesting tuna in the ETP. The 
IATTC administers the International Dolphin Conservation 
Program and employs the international observers currently 
required on all tuna boats operating in the ETP. Currently, the 
Department of State contributes about $3 million annually to 
the IATTC. That amount represents about 90 percent of the 
contributions from all nations to the IATTC, and about 65 
percent of the IATTC's $4.5 million budget. Since U.S. vessels 
represent less than 10 percent of those fishing for tuna in the 
ETP, the U.S. contribution to IATTC could decrease by more than 
$2 million annually beginning in fiscal year 1998, if 
appropriations drop to a level consistent with the bill's goal 
of proportionate funding to the IATTC. If this drop in U.S. 
funding occurred, the IATTC treaty might have to be amended 
since it currently requires nations to contribute to the IATTC 
based on a different formula. H.R. 2823, however, would not by 
itself change the U.S. contribution to the IATTC.

Direct spending (including offsetting receipts)

    Under current law, all U.S. vessels fishing for tuna in the 
ETP may operate under one permit issued to the American 
Tunaboat Association in 1980 by the Secretary of Commerce. 
Individual vessels pay an annual fee to the DOC to renew 
certificates of inclusion under that permit. The current permit 
expires December 31, 1999. Over the last year, about five U.S. 
vessels have been harvesting tuna in the ETP under the permit.
    Enacting H.R. 2823 would require U.S. vessels operating in 
the ETP to obtain individual permits from the Secretary of 
Commerce. Such permits would authorize vessels' participation 
in the IDCP and allow some incidental deaths of marine mammals 
from using purse seines in commercial fishing for yellowfin 
tuna. H.R. 2823 would authorize the Secretary to charge a 
permit fee, but such fees could not exceed the administrative 
costs of issuing permits. Income from fees could be spent, 
subject to appropriations, by the Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Oceans and Atmosphere for the expenses incurred in issuing 
permits.
    Although enacting H.R. 2823 may not affect the fees paid 
per vessel, the bill could result in additional U.S. vessels 
seeking permit authority to operate in the ETP. Under current 
law, U.S. vessels in the ETP cannot set purse seine nets on 
dolphins in the course of fishing for tuna. The bill would 
permit this practice and allow for limited dolphin mortality in 
accordance with the international program as long as certain 
safeguards are adopted. This increase in flexibility could 
encourage additional U.S. vessels to operate in the ETP, where 
they would be subject to permit fees. We estimate, however, 
that any change in receipts from permit fees would total less 
than $100,000 per year.

Revenues

    Under current law, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 
bans imports of yellowfin tuna from nations that fish for tuna 
in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. H.R. 2823 would 
eliminate the ban by allowing tuna imports from nations in 
compliance with the IDCP. Currently, fresh tuna imported to the 
U.S. is not subject to duty. However, the U.S. Customs Service 
collects about $30 million annually from tariffs on canned 
tuna. Based on historical information provided by the ITC, 
prior to the current ban less than 2 percent of the duties 
collected on canned tuna imports were from IDCP signatory 
nations. Therefore, CBO estimates that eliminating the ban on 
imports of tuna from these nations would not significantly 
increase governmental receipts.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enacting 
H.R. 2823 could affect both direct spending and governmental 
receipts, but that any change would be less than $500,000 a 
year in both cases. The estimated pay-as-you-go impact is 
summarized in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1996     1997     1998 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays............................        0        0        0
Change in receipts...........................        0        0        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
governments: The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as 
defined by Public Law 104-4, and would not have a direct impact 
on the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments.
    9. Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 2823 would 
impose private-sector mandates, but the costs would not exceed 
the $100 million annual threshold specified in Public Law 104-
4. Private-sector mandates in this bill include changes in 
labeling of dolphin-safe tuna because of the requirement that 
for tuna to be labeled ``dolphin safe,'' no dolphin deaths may 
occur. In addition, each tuna vessel in the ETP would be 
required to register for a dolphin mortality limit with the 
IATTC. U.S. tuna vessels fishing in the ETP also would be 
required to comply with tracking and verification procedures to 
separate dolphin-safe and dolphin-unsafe tuna.
    Section 4 would amend the Dolphin Protection Consumer 
Information Act, and give the Secretary of Commerce authority 
to require certain vessels to provide observer certification in 
certain fisheries. Those fisheries are ones where tuna is 
harvested and the Secretary has identified a regular and 
significant incidental mortality or serious injury rate of 
marine mammals. In those fisheries, the observers would have to 
certify that no marine mammals were killed, in order for that 
tuna to be labeled as dolphin-safe. Based on information 
obtained from industry and government sources, CBO does not 
expect the Secretary would use this authority for U.S.-
registered vessels.
    Other provisions of the bill, such as requiring permits to 
be obtained from the Secretary of Commerce for the incidental 
taking of marine mammals and for gear requirements, would 
codify existing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
regulations.
    H.R. 2823 would lift the existing prohibition on U.S. 
vessels setting nets on dolphins in the ETP as long as vessels 
comply with all appropriate regulations. The bill also would 
lift the ban on the importation and sale of dolphin-unsafe tuna 
from countries participating in the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program. Overall, CBO estimates that enacting this 
bill would result in decreased costs to the private sector.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: On May 22, 1996, CBO prepared a 
cost estimate for H.R. 2823, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Resources on May 8, 1996. The version of the bill 
ordered reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on 
July 17, 1996, is identical to the version ordered reported by 
the House Committee on Resources. Therefore, this cost estimate 
is identical to our previous estimate.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Victoria 
Heid and Gary Brown; Stephanie Weiner for revenues. State and 
Local Government Impact: Pepper Santalucia. Private Sector 
Impact: Amy Downs.
    12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

 V. OTHER MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

          A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to subdivision (A) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to 
oversight findings), the Committee advises that it was as a 
result of the Committee's oversight activities concerning 
customs and tariff matters, import trade matters, and specific 
trade-related issues that the Committee concluded that it was 
appropriate to enact the provisions contained in the bill.

    B. Summary of Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

    With respect to subdivision (D) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, no oversight 
findings or recommendations have been submitted to the 
Committee by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
with respect to the subject matter contained in H.R. 2823.

                    C. Inflationary Impact Statement

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 
2823 would not have an inflationary impact on prices and costs 
in the operation of the national economy.

       VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    The bill was referred to this committee for consideration 
of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of this committee pursuant to clause 1(s) of Rule 
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The changes 
made to existing law by the amendment reported by the Committee 
on Resources are shown in the report filed by that committee 
(Rept. 104-665, Part 1).