Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

sanctions to Japan. The district court ruled against the administration, which subsequently appealed, and the appellate decision is imminent.

Regardless of how the case is decided, however, House Concurrent Resolution 54 reaffirms congressional policy in this area, and the bill's enactment should discourage the negotiation of arrangements outside of the auspices of the IWC.

At this time, I would like to call on my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bonker, for an opening statement.

Mr. Bonker.

Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer my statement for the record.

Mr. YATRON. Without objection.

[Representative Bonker's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DON BONKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling action today on H. Con. Res. 54, which enjoys the bipartisan support of more than 60 Members of the House. This mark-up is timely in view of the upcoming 37th annual IWC meeting in Bournemouth, England, July 15-19. At the Subcommittee's hearing on May 8 on this measure, all of the private witnesses strongly supported the measure. While the

Administration objects to this sense of the Congress resolution, its concerns focus on certain legal interpretations. I am sure the Administration would

concur with the resolution's overall thrust of supporting greater whale protection.

I would like to quote from a message President Reagan sent to the 1981 IWC meeting:

I want to take this opportunity to affirm the U.S. Government's
continuing commitment to whale protection and to urge you to
support our proposal for an indefinite moratorium on commercial
whaling. Available information is inadequate to protect the whales
while commercial whaling continues, and it is for this reason as
well as others that the U.S. has proposed an indefinite moratorium
on commercial whaling.

H.Con.Res. 54 reaffirms long-standing Congressional intent and the policy which
President Reagan and four previous Presidents endorsed: that the U.S. strongly
supports the IWC's efforts to conserve and protect the world's threatened whales.
H. Con.Res. 54 has four essential purposes:

1) to reaffirm that noncompliance with the IWC's historic 1982 decision to suspend all commercial whaling in 1986 undermines international whale conservation efforts;

2) to express the sense of Congress that the November 1984 agreement reached between the U.S. and Japanese Governments, which would permit continued

Japanese commercial whaling 2 years beyond the date set by the IWC, would violate both U.S. law and the IWC's decision on this matter;

3) to urge the President to ensure that the U.S. upholds this historic IWC

decision; and

4) to reaffirm numerous commitments made over the course of the last several years

by the Secretaries of State and Commerce to Congress that U.S. fishery allocations would be used to secure compliance with the IWC's commercial moratorium decision.

Indeed, I would like to point out that only three weeks ago, the President reported to Congress that the Commerce Secretary had certified the Soviet Union for whaling activities that diminished the effectiveness of the IWC, and had reduced by 50% the Soviets' fishery allocation in our 200-mile zone.

Many of us were deeply disappointed by the November 1984 agreement, which offers the Japanese two additional years of commercial whaling in violation of IWC regulations without any reassurance whatsoever that Japan will actually cease its whaling activities at that time. Secretary Baldrige wrote me in January of this year: "If Japan withdraws its objection to the moratorium by April 1, 1985, I will not certify Japanese commercial whaling for 2 years after the moratorium takes effect, assuming Japan abides by the other terms of the exchange of letters." Japan did not withdraw its objection by April 1, and thereby reneged on the terms of the November 1984 agreement.

I want to remind the Subcommittee that in 1982, when the IWC voted overwhelmingly to adopt the commercial whaling moratorium, it postponed the effective date for 4 years to accommodate countries like Japan. Four years was

more than enough time to allow the whaling nations to phase-out their whaling operations and find alternate employment for their whalers.

Japan's whaling today

is worth only one-tenth of its annual fishery harvest in the U.S. 200-mile zone. Japan today has only one remaining factory ship, which employs 181 workers in processing whales. Certainly Japan can find alternate employment for this small number of workers, and certainly the value of Japan's fishery catch in our 200-mile zone if worth far more than its whale catch.

In closing, it is in my view a strange turn of events that our Government now finds itself in court defending Japan's right to continue the commercial slaughter of endangered whales. This is a sad commentary on the bipartisan effort of the last decade to end commercial whaling, and stands in stark contrast to the Administration's earlier outstanding record in the fight to save the whales.

It is up to the Congress now to assure that our work on behalf of the commercial moratorium is reinforced, and that our country's leadership in this important endeavor is maintained. I urge my colleagues on the Subcommittee to support House Concurrent Resolution 54.

Mr. BONKER. I want to commend you for your cooperation and support of the resolution and in conducting hearings relative to the IWC meeting and the policy which now calls for a full moratorium on commercial whaling as of January 1986.

Mr. Chairman, we expect the resolution will be supported by more than 60 Members of the House and covers really all shades of the political spectrum.

The resolution has essentially four purposes.

No. 1: To reaffirm that noncompliance with the IWC's historic 1982 decision to suspend all commercial whaling in 1986 undermines international whaling and conservation efforts.

No. 2: It is the sense of Congress that the November 1982 agreement reached between the United States and the Japanese Governments which would permit continued Japanese commercial whaling beyond the date set by the IWC, 2 years, would violate both United States law and the IWC's decision on this matter.

No. 3: To urge the President to ensure that the United States upholds this historic decision.

No. 4: To reaffirm numerous commitments made over the course of the last several years by both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce that U.S. fishery allocations would be used to secure compliance with the IWC's commercial moratorium decision.

Mr. Chairman, what is so disconcerting and why this resolution is necessary is that in my 10 years' involvement in this issue, 4 of which were as chairman of this subcommittee, we observed broad support in the Congress for the IWC policies. Our position has been

consistently in favor of a full moratorium. That has always been the U.S. position at these meetings, usually in Brighton, England. The Reagan administration was even more forceful and, I might add, more effective in representing the U.S. Government in behalf of the moratorium that was finally adopted in 1982.

I have always maintained that when the chips were down and the Packwood/Magnuson provisions and the Pell amendment would come into effect and push would come to shove this administration would back down and so would many Members of Congress. And that is precisely what has happened.

Despite all of these glorious statements and this full commitment to a total moratorium, now the due date has arrived and we find convenient loopholes in the law and ways to extend the date to accommodate the Japanese just one more time.

I think what is notably disconcerting is that while Japan, in November last year, clearly violated the moratorium on sperm whaling, and subsequently that has been a matter of litigation and the lower court has ruled in favor of the environmentalists and against the U.S. Government for not putting into effect Packwood/Magnuson when Japan was clearly in violation. Then when Russia in March 1985 violated the take on or the quota on Minke whales, the administration was right up here with its message on certification. A clear double standard. I mean, here the Japanese violate the law and we overlook it, do not even make a mention to anyone while we go past that period in which they have clearly violated both IWC and the U.S. law. And when the Russians violate it we are quick to act.

And we have got to be consistent if we expect our laws to be upheld.

Second, and really the purpose for this resolution as we are approaching now this July meeting in England, the I.W.C. has imposed a moratorium to be effective as of January 1986. That is unequivocal. It is conclusive action. And as far as everyone knows it will go into effect.

But the administration chose to negotiate with the Japanese and come up with an arrangement that would postpone our sanctions, that is, the Packwood/Magnuson amendment, for 2 years beyond the moratorium date in clear violation of our own laws. And all this time there is no consultation with Congress, no effort to communicate with us the extraordinary reasons for extending, in violation of our laws, in violation of the IWC policy, that date. Possibly it would be extended again once we get to 1988.

I think it should also be noted that it has been four years now from the time the IWC acted on the moratorium until its effective date. The Japanese have had ample time to make the necessary adjustments to the moratorium. Anybody who fully understands the Japanese Government and its policies can appreciate the fact that they can make economic adjustments very easily to maintain their competitive position in the world. However, when it comes to whales they have a very difficult time doing them.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking much longer than I intended, but my resolution is really a sense of Congress. What it does, as I mentioned, recognize that our laws and the IWC policies ought to be adhered to and calls upon the President to take necessary ac

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »