TITLE II-FISHERIES CONSERVATION PROGRAMS SEC 201. IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967. Section 8 of the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1978) is amended(1) in subsection (a)(4) by striking “fish products" and all that follows through "such duration", and inserting "any products from the offending country for any duration"; (2) in subsection (c) by striking "fish products or wildlife products" and inserting "products"; (3) in subsection (e)(2) by striking "fish products and wildlife products" and inserting "products"; (4) in subsection (f) (A) in paragraph (1) by striking “fish products and wildlife products” and inserting "products"; and (B) in paragraph (5)—— (i) in the first sentence by striking "fish products and wildlife products" and inserting "products"; and (ii) in the second sentence by striking "Fish products and wildlife products" and inserting "Products"; and (5) in subsection (h)— (A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows: "(2) The term 'United States' means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States." (B) in paragraph (3) by inserting including marine mammals" after (D) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); (F) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: "(5) The term 'International fishery conservation program' means any ban, restriction, regulation, or other measure in effect pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement which is in force with respect to the United States, the purpose of which is to conserve or protect the living resources of the sea, including marine mammals. "(6) The term 'taking' as used with respect to animals to which an international program for endangered or threatened species applies, means to "(A) harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or col'lect; or "(B) attempt to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.". SEC. 202. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. (a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement under section 311(a) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861) in order to increase the effectiveness of enforcement of domestic laws and international agreements that conserve and manage the living marine resources of the United States. (b) TERMS OF AGREEMENT.—The agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall include (1) procedures for identifying and providing potential locations of vessels that are in violation of domestic laws and international agreements designed to conserve and manage the living marine resources of the United States; (2) requirements for the use of surveillance capabilities of the Department of Defense; and (3) procedures for communicating vessel locations to the Secretary of Commerce and the Coast Guard. SEC. 203. ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS. (a) POLICY.-It is declared to be the policy of the Congress that the United States shall address environmental issues during multilateral, bilateral, and regional trade negotiations. (b) NEGOTIATIONS.-In implementing the policy declared in subsection (a), the President shall direct the United States Trade Representative to actively seek to― (1) reform articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (referred to in this subsection as "GATT") to take into consideration the national environmental laws of contracting parties and international environmental treaties; (2) secure a working party on trade and the environment within GATT as soon as possible; (3) take an active role in developing trade policies that make GATT more responsive to national and international environmental concerns; (4) include other Federal agencies with environmental expertise during multilateral, bilateral, and regional trade negotiations to determine the impact of the proposed trade agreements on national environmental law; and (5) periodically consult with interested parties concerning the progress of the negotiations. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of H.R. 2152 is to enhance the effectiveness of United Nations Resolution No. 44-225 and bring an end to the practice of large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas. BACKGROUND AND Need for Legislation INTRODUCTION Large-scale driftnet fishing is a method of fishing in which a gillnet composed of a panel or panels of webbing, with a total length of one and one half miles or more, is placed in the water and allowed to drift with the currents and winds. These nets, which are usually made of nearly invisible monofilament line, entangle virtually everything that comes in contact with them. Often fished in lengths exceeding 30 miles, large-scale driftnets are distinguished by their method of harvest, indiscriminately killing not only nontargeted fish, but dolphins, whales, turtles and seabirds. The fishery of greatest concern today is the large-scale driftnet fishery in the North Pacific Ocean which became commercially important in the mid 1970's and continued to grow until the late 1980's. Fishermen from Japan, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea used large-scale driftnets to target various species of salmon, squid, and tuna. This buildup of the foreign driftnet fleets on the high seas led to a commensurate increase in the mortality of seabirds, marine mammals, and U.S. origin salmon. At the height of the high seas large-scale driftnet fishery in the late 1980's over 800 foreign vessels were fishing in the North Pacific Ocean. In addition to the devastating effects this fishery was having on the returns of U.S. salmon and steelhead to native streams, National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] scientists estimated that tens of thousands of marine mammals were taken in the 50,000 net retrievals each year. Since the mid 1980's several important domestic and international actions have shaped U.S. policy towards eliminating these driftnet fishing operations. A discussion of those major events follows. 1987 DRIFTNET ACT In response to concern over the dramatic effects the large-scale, high seas driftnet fishery was having on U.S. marine resources, Congress passed the Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and Control Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-220). The Act was intended to monitor, assess, and reduce the adverse impacts of large-scale driftnets. This goal was especially difficult because the fishery of concern was being conducted in the international waters of the North Pacific, outside U.S. jurisdiction. The major provisions of the Act included requirements that: the Secretary of Commerce immediately negotiate monitoring agreements with nations conducting large-scale driftnet fishing in the North Pacific. Under the agreements, U.S. scientists were required to be stationed onboard foreign vessels driftnet fishing on the high seas. Acting as observers, the scientists would be able to collect statistically reliable information on the number of U.S.marine resources that were killed or discarded by these vessels. the Secretary of Commerce immediately negotiate effective enforcement agreements with those same nations for the purpose of monitoring compliance with U.S. and foreign laws related to driftnet fishing. the Secretary of Commerce determine whether an appropriate foreign government has failed to enter into and implement an enforcement agreement. A negative determination mandates that the Secretary certify that fact to the President for purposes of certification under section 8(a) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967. As a result of the 1987 Act, agreements were negotiated with Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea. Those agreements are scheduled to be terminated on June 30, 1992 when the U.N. moratorium enters into force. In July 1991, Taiwan and Korea were both found to be in violation of these agreements and were certified as such by the Secretary under section 8(a) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967. THE WELLINGTON CONVENTION The Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific, also known as the Wellington Convention [Convention], was agreed to in November 1989 by more than 20 South Pacific nations, the U.S., and France. The Convention was developed in response to concern by many of the island nations that marine resources in the South Pacific were being eradicated by large-scale driftnet vessels from Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. The Convention prohibits fishermen of member nations from engaging in large-scale driftnet fishing in the South Pacific and encourages those member nations to take additional measures to discourage this practice by non-member nations. These measures include prohibiting nations from drift net fishing within Convention nation's Seclusive Economic Zones [EEZ]; prohibiting the transshipment, landing, or processing of drift net caught fish within areas under the jurisdiction of the signatory nations; and encouraging non-signatory nations comply with or become party to the Convention. The Convention set July 1, 1991, as the date for the cessation of large-scale drift net fishing operations in the South Pacific. As a result of the Convention, virtually all large-scale drift net fishing has ceased in the South Pacific Ocean. UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 44-225 Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 22, 1989, the Resolution is the single most important statement by the international community concerning the elimination of large-scale drift net fishing on the high seas. The Resolution recognizes international efforts to curb largescale drift net fishing and calls on all countries to respect these efforts. It recommends that large-scale drift net fishing in the South Pacific cease by July 1, 1991 reinforcing the Wellington Convention. The Resolution encourages coastal countries to cooperate in collection and submission of scientific information on drift net fishing in their own EZZ's. Most important, however, is the recommendation that all members of the international community agree to cease large-scale, pelagic driftnet fishing on the high seas by June 30, 1992. Specifically the Resolution recommends that all nations agree to a: Moratorium on all large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing on the high seas by June 30, 1992 with the understanding that such a measure will not be imposed in a region, or if implemented can be lifted, should effective conservation and management measures be taken based upon statistically sound analysis to be jointly made by concerned parties of the international community with an interest in the fishery resources of the region, to prevent unacceptable impacts of such fishing practices in that region and to ensure the conservation of the living marine resources of that region. The language of the Resolution is critical because those nations able to demonstrate that large-scale driftnet fishing can be conducted in a harmless manner would be allowed to continue this practice. The U.S. and other concerned nations have already submitted interpretations of the Resolution to the U.N. While the U.S. has made it clear that it is unaware of any effective conservation measures relating to the use of large-scale driftnets, other countries such as Japan have indicated they do not believe that the scientific data supports a moratorium. FISHERY CONSERVATION AMENDMENTS OF 1991 The 1991 amendments to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act contained several provisions pertaining to driftnets. In particular, the amendments direct the Secretary of Commerce, through the Secretary of State, to secure an international ban on the use of large-scale driftnets as called for in U.N. Resolution No. 44-225, prohibit the use of large-scale driftnets by any vessel within the U.S. EEZ, and prohibit the use of these nets by U.S. fishermen anywhere in the oceans. As a means of discouraging driftnet fishing by other nations and to allow our fishermen to compete fairly in our markets, the amendments also prohibit the importation of fish or fish products caught with large-scale driftnets in the South Pacific and tuna caught with driftnets on the high seas after July 1, 1991, and pro hibit the importation of any fish or fish products caught with largescale driftnets anywhere on the high seas after July 1, 1992. LETTERS TO AMBASSADORS On September 20, 1991, the members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment sent letters to the ambassadors of each of seven nations whose fishermen are known or suspected to be using large-scale driftnets on the high seas (Japan, Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, Germany, Ireland, Great Britain and France). The letter expressed the Subcommittee's opposition to the continued use of driftnets longer than 2.5 kilometers in length and its support of the moratorium called for by the U.N. Resolution. Explaining that the Subcommittee believes strict adherence to the U.N. Resolution by all nations is essential to the conservation of marine life, the letter urges each country to fully implement the moratorium and prohibit its fishermen from using large-scale driftnets on the high seas after June 30, 1992. As of October 17, 1991, Ireland, Taiwan, and Great Britain had responded to the letter, indicating their intent to prohibit their nationals from high seas driftnet fishing after June 30, 1992. CURRENT SITUATION Despite the letters from Ireland, Taiwan, and Great Britain, large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas is expected to continue until the U.N. deadline of June 30, 1992. Furthermore, recent violations of existing agreements by Taiwan and the Republic of Korea and the re-emergence of Chinese driftnet vessels in the North Pacific fishery, after an announcement by their government that large-scale driftnet fishing would be halted, has lead many to question whether the U.N. moratorium will really be fully implemented. In fact, Japan, has confirmed those doubts, indicating that it intends to continue this practice after the U.N. deadline. On September 27, 1991, the government of Japan filed a position paper with the U.N. challenging the moratorium called for in Resolution No. 44-225. It claims that the scientific data does not support the driftnet ban and, therefore, according to the language in the Resolution, the moratorium should not be imposed. In an effort to close this "loophole" in the language of Resolution No. 44-225, the U.S. introduced a new Resolution at the U.N. on October 9, 1991. Noting that evidence has not demonstrated that the unacceptable impacts of large-scale, pelagic driftnet fishing can be prevented, the New Resolution calls upon all nations to implement the moratorium on June 30, 1992, without exception. Anticipating, and in response to, continued resistance to the moratorium, several members have introduced legislation in the 102nd Congress aimed at reinforcing Resolution No. 44-225 and halting large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas. H.R. 2152 was one of those bills. COMMITTEE ACTION H.R. 2152, a bill to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations international driftnet fishery conservation program, was in |