8

troduced by Mr. Studds, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mrs. Unsoeld, and 28 other original cosponsors, on April 30, 1991. The bill was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and on May 3, 1991 the Committee referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment.

AUGUST 6, 1991 HEARING

On August 6, 1991, the Subcommittee conducted a hearing in Seattle, Washington on H.R. 2152 and two other related bills: H.R. 2920, a bill to direct the Coast Guard and the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorizing the Coast Guard to utilize the resources of the Department of Defense to enforce large scale driftnet fishing regulations; and H.R. 2921, a bill to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to expand the President's embargo authority under the Pelly Amendment.

The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels of witnesses. On the first panel were: Mr. David Colson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Oceans and Fisheries Affairs in the U.S. Department of State; Captain Bernie Miller, Chief of Operations for the 17th District of the United States Coast Guard; and Rear Admiral Larry Marsh, Commander of the United States Naval Base in Seattle.

During his testimony, Mr. Colson explained that the Administration and the Congress were united in their goal of seeking to end the destructive and wasteful practice of large scale, driftnet fishing on the high seas. He stated that the Administration supports the U.N. ban and has seen no data that support the continuation of this fishing practice after June 30, 1992.

Captain Miller testified that the Coast Guard takes its job of monitoring and enforcement of high seas driftnet fleets, particularly in the North Pacific, very seriously. He explained that the Agency's enforcement of bilateral agreements with Japan, Taiwan, and Korea has minimized the probability of driftnet vessels intercepting salmon of North American origin. He also pointed out that because the area of the ocean that must be monitored is over one million square miles, the reconnaissance information received from the Navy facilitated their efforts.

Finally, Admiral Marsh testified that current force levels and projected reductions in the Department of Defense make it unlikely that U.S. military assets would be specifically available for enforcing driftnet agreements. However, Navy ships and DOD aircraft could monitor driftnet vessels on a non-to-interfere basis while pursuing their primary mission and could report identity and location of potential violators to the correct enforcement authorities. DOD recommended that the Navy work with the Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop streamlined reporting procedures to facilitate enforcement.

The second panel consisted of: Mr. Donald Stuart, Executive Director of Salmon for Washington; Mr. John Iani, President of pacific Seafood Processors Association; Mr. Alan Reichman, Greenpeace U.S.A.; Mr. David Benton, Director of External and International Fisheries Affairs for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; and Mr. Bill Robinson, Trout Unlimited.

!

1, and

as re

, and

mmit

ment.

n Se. H.R.

ense erva

ilize

icale

the

em

ses.

cre

of

Dis

rry

ra

nd

ng

ne

of

of

All the members of the second panel expressed their unqualified opposition to the continued use of large-scale driftnets on the high seas and their support of the legislation before the Subcommittee. Both Mr. Iani and Mr. Benton testified specifically in support of mandatory sanctions being placed on fish and other products from countries that continue to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing, while Mr. Reichman suggested a denial of U.S. port privileges for driftnet vessels and their supply ships. Mr. Robinson suggested revocation of the "most favored nation" trade status for countries that do not comply with the U.N. moratorium.

SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

On September 26, 1991, the Subcommittee held a markup on H.R. 2152. Mr. Studds and Mr. Young offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which differed significantly from the bill as introduced. The amendment was a compilation of several bills introduced in the 102nd Congress aimed at ending large-scale driftnet fishing, including H.R. 2152, H.R. 2920, H.R. 2921, and S. 884, passed by the Senate on August 1, 1991.

Specifically, the substitute amendment proposed to immediately deny foreign driftnet vessels access to U.S. ports, mandate sanctions on fish and fish products from countries that continue to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing after the U.N. deadline, and expand the Pelly Amendment to give the President new embargo authorities for other goods. Mrs. Unsoeld offered an amendment to the substitute, expanding the mandatory sanctions to include sport fishing equipment. Both Mrs. Unsoeld's amendment and the substitute were adopted by voice vote, and the Subcommittee ordered H.R. 2152, as amended, reported to the Full Committee.

FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

The Full Committee met on Thursday, October 3, 1991, to consider H.R. 2152 as reported by the Subcommittee. Mr. Studds offered a series of en bloc amendments, on behalf of himself and Mr. Young, that made several changes to the bill. First, it deleted a provision that allowed for the detention of driftnet vessels, but maintained the denial of U.S. port privileges for such vessels. Second, it added a requirement that countries be notified if their vessels are going to be denied port privileges or their products are to face import embargoes. Finally, it changed the effective date of mandatory sanctions for fish products and sport fishing equipment from September 1, 1992, to July 1, 1992, linking the embargo directly to the U.N. driftnet moratorium deadline of June 30, 1992.

After a discussion in which several Members suggested that the bill should take even more restrictive measures against driftnet fishing nations, the amendment was adopted, as introduced, by voice vote.

Mr. Studds then offered another amendment on behalf of himself, Mr. Young, Mrs. Unsoeld, and Mrs. Lowey. Recognizing that U.S. trade negotiations should take environmental concerns into account, the amendment directs the President to take an active role in modifying the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

[GATT] to recognize and account for the domestic environmental laws and treaties of the Contracting Parties.

During discussion of the amendment many Members expressed concern that domestic fishermen and other industries are at a disadvantage because the U.S. imports products from countries that do not have environmental laws that are as restrictive as domestic laws. A few members suggested that the language should be strengthened to require nations wishing to sell imports in the U.S. to comply with U.S. environmental laws. After further discussion, the amendment was adopted, as introduced, by voice vote.

Mr. Taylor then offered an amendment to include shellfish under the mandatory sanctions provisions of the bill. This motion was also adopted by voice vote.

Mr. Studds obtained unanimous consent to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of the bill as amended to that point.

There being no further amendments, the Committee ordered H.R. 2152, as amended, reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

TITLE I

Section 101. Denial of port privileges and sanctions for high seas large-scale driftnet fishing

Subsection (a) directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to publish a list of those countries whose nationals are known to be using large-scale driftnets on the high seas. The Secretary must publish that list within ten days after the date of enactment of this Act, and update that list periodically. This subsection directs the Secretary of the Treasury to deny the entry of a driftnet vessel into any U.S. port or U.S. navigable waters, if that vessel is registered in a country that is included on the published list.

Paragraph (a)(3) directs the Secretary of State to notify each country that is included on the published list that their driftnet. vessels will be denied port privileges and of any further sanctions that may be levied against that country if their vessels continue to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing after the July 1, 1992 deadline.

Subsection (b) directs the Secretary of Commerce to identify each nation that continues to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas after July 1, 1992. The Secretary is also to notify the President and each country of this identification. The President shall direct the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately prohibit imports of certain goods from each of those countries identified. Those goods shall include shellfish, fish and fish products, and sport fishing equipment. Within fifteen days, the President shall report to the Secretary of Commerce and the Congress the actions taken.

Paragraph (b)(3) requires the Secretary of Commerce to certify to the President, any country (after six months from the identification) that has not terminated large-scale driftnet fishing on the

high seas, or has retaliated against the U.S. This certification is deemed to be a certification under section 8(a) of the Fisherman's Protective Act as amended by this Act.

Section 102. Duration of denial of port privileges and sanctions

This section mandates that any sanctions levied against a country will remain in effect until the Secretary certifies to the President and the Congress that the country affected has terminated the use of large-scale driftnets on the high seas.

Section 103. Definitions

This section defines the terms used in the first title of this Act. These include the definitions for "fish and fish products", "largescale driftnet fishing", and "large-scale driftnet fishing vessel".

TITLE II

Section 201. Import restrictions under the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967

This section amends the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1978) to expand the current discretionary powers of the President under this Act. These powers include the ability to levy import sanctions on any product against a country which is conducting fishery practices or engages in trade which diminishes the effectiveness of international programs for fishery conservation or programs for endangered or threatened species. The Fisherman's Protective Act currently identifies only fish and wildlife products as products which may be embargoed under this Act. Additionally, this section amends the definition of "United States", "International fishery conservation program", and "taking" to conform with current definitions.

Section 202. Memorandum of Understanding

This section directs the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, and the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to enter into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of this MOU is to use the resources available in these departments for enforcement of domestic laws and international agreements pertaining to the conservation and management of living marine resources. This agreement shall include procedures for the identification and location of vessels violating these laws and agreements. Additionally, this agreement shall include procedures for the use by enforcement agents of information gathered by surveillance resources of the Department of Defense.

Section 203. Environmental Trade Negotiations

This section establishes Congressional policy as it relates to the role of environmental issues in international trade negotiations. Subsection (a) declares it to be the policy of Congress that environmental issues should be addressed during all international trade negotiations. The Committee notes that international trade has a major influence on patterns of resource use and related environmental impacts, yet these issues are not always addressed during trade negotiations.

Subsection (b)(1) directs the President, acting through the office of the United States Trade Representative, to pursue changes to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that would result in consideration of, and conformation to, the domestic environmental laws of the Contracting Parties to the GATT. Multilateral, bilateral, and regional environmental treaties between or among Contracting Parties should also be taken into consideration. As the GATT currently contains no reference to the environment, the Committee notes that these changes would require reforming or adding to the Articles of the GATT. It is the intent of the Committee that "consideration" of domestic environmental laws does not mean ignoring those laws. The Committee is concerned that statutes which use trade sanctions to support sound environmental policies have been interpreted by the Executive branch in such a way as to undermine the intent of Congress. The Committee expects the United States Trade Representative to make every effort to amend the GATT to allow trade sanctions to be used in support of sound and rational environmental policies.

Subsection (b)(2) directs the President to seek to secure a working party on trade and the environment within the GATT as soon as possible. This working party should be convened with a broad mandate to consider the environmental ramifications of existing GATT policy. The working party should also establish procedures to include environmental issues in ongoing and future GATT negotiations.

Subsection (b)(3) directs the President to take an active role in developing national and global trade policies which make the GATT more responsive to environmental concerns. The Committee notes that costs associated with the production of goods under strict national environmental protection laws have the potential to impose a competitive disadvantage on domestic products from that nation in comparison to imports from nations that have less strict environmental laws. Contracting Parties should be able to take actions domestically to preserve natural resources without fear of GATT retaliation. The President should therefore pursue a GATT solution to trade disadvantages associated with the costs of national environmental protection that is consistent with U.S. environmental laws.

Subsection (b)(4) directs the President to involve federal agencies with environmental expertise in all trade negotiations. These agencies should determine whether and to what extent trade negotiations will affect domestic environmental law, and advise the U.S. Trade Representative accordingly. Agencies should include, but not be limited to, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Subsection (b)(5) reflects the Committee's concern over the general lack of access to the trade negotiation process. It therefore directs the President to consult with the Congress and other interested parties on a regular basis during negotiations. Such interested parties should include industry groups affected by the negotiations, States, and non-governmental organizations.