« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
tions, again compatible with our law, to see that those quotas and the moratorium are fully adhered to.
Mr. Chairman, I would move adoption of House Concurrent Resoution 54.
Mr. YATRON. Thank you, Mr. Bonker.
I want to commend you for your excellent statement and want to associate myself with your remarks.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be approved.
Mr. BONKER. There will be no objection from me.
Mr. YATRON. No objections. OK. The resolution is adopted. Since there is no objection, the resolution is adopted and reported to the full Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Since there is no other business to conduct, the subcommittee stands adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
U.S. POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF WHALES
The committee met in open markup session at 11:19 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman) presiding.
Chairman FASCELL. The committee will come to order.
The Clerk will report the resolution.
Mr. INGRAM [reading]:
H. Con. Res. 54. Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to implementation of the International Whaling Commission moratorium on commercial
Chairman FASCELL. Without objection, further reading of the resolution will be dispensed with, printed in the record, and open for amendment. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. YATRON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On June 19, 1985, the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations approved House Concurrent Resolution 54, by unanimous consent.
This resolution was one of the major issues addressed at a subcommittee hearing on May 8, regarding international protection of whales. Expert witnesses representing several organizations_involved in marine mammal protection strongly endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 54 as necessary to maintain the integrity of the International Whaling Commission [IWC] and of U.S. law regarding whales.
The United States has been a leader in whale protection for many years and House Concurrent Resolution 54 reaffirms this commitment.
The resolution declares that noncompliance with the IWC's moratorium on commercial whaling undermines international whale conservation efforts. It also correctly declares that the 1984 United States-Japan agreement is a violation of U.S. law and the IWC's moratorium.
This agreement was negotiated outside of the auspices of the IWC and allows the Japanese to continue its whaling operations for 2 more years in violation of the Commission's decision.
House Concurrent Resolution 54 urges the President to take all necessary actions to insure U.S. compliance with IWC decisions
and calls for the implementation of U.S. law, specifically the Packwood-Magnuson amendment, which mandates sanctions on countries defying the decisions of this organization.
Environmental groups went to court to compel the administration to execute U.S. law and apply sanctions against the Japanese. In early August, a Federal appeals court panel agreed with an earlier district court decision and ruled that the United States is required to reduce Japanese fishing allocations in U.S. waters because Japan refuses to abide by the IWC's moratorium.
House Concurrent Resolution 54 is an important and timely measure. Acting on it now will send a strong message to the administration to renew its commitment to whale preservation. It will also signal America's steadfast adherence to the international whaling regime.
I want to commend Congressman Don Bonker for his outstanding leadership and initiative in marine mammal protection. I also want to commend my colleague, Mr. Gejdenson, for all of his work in this area. As an original sponsor of this measure, I strongly urge its adoption.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Solomon is on his way but he won't be here in time for this.
My understanding is that he is lukewarm to the resolution, but intends not to oppose it. As a member of the subcommittee and having participated in the hearing referred to by the Chairman, I'm in very strong support of the resolution and yield back the bal
Mr. BONKER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman FASCELL. Mr. Bonker.
Mr. BONKER. As sponsor of the resolution I just want to make a few observations.
No. 1, Congress has every year reaffirmed its commitment to the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, and has so directed our delegations to the IWC sessions who meet annually.
Indeed, President Reagan in 1981 sent a message to the IWC and I'll quote it briefly:
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.
Indeed, the Reagan administration has been much better than the Carter administration in terms of representing the U.S. position on this issue at the IWC sessions.
The second part of the resolution deals with another statute that calls upon the administration, any administration that's in power, to certify whenever another country is not in compliance with the IWC policy or quotas on commercial whaling.
Japan presently stands in noncompliance on two counts. One involves the commercial whaling of sperm whales and the second on its decision to file an objection concerning the moratorium.
This is a matter that is presently in litigation, and the district court and appeal courts have ruled in favor of the environmentalists that the certification procedure is mandatory and ought to be upheld.
So, actually, the second part of the resolution reaffirms existing law with respect to our commitment to ending commercial whal
Chairman FASCELL. Any further discussion of the resolution?
If not, the question is on the adoption of the resolution. All those in favor signify by saying "aye."
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman FASCELL. All those opposed, "no."
Chairman FASCELL. The "ayes" have it. The resolution is agreed
All right. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dymally follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MERVYN Dymally, a RepRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE State of CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, after my return from attending the 37th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission as part of our delegation to this meeting, I felt that a breakthrough had occurred in bringing about improved relations between the whaling and nonwhaling nations. The United States bilateral agreement with Japan has been upheld by all members of the IWC, which calls for the phasing out of the Japanese whaling industry by 1988, and cessation of commercial whaling by Japan by that date! In return, the United States agreed that such a phase-out by Japan would result in whale conservation and not constitute a certifiable action which would require the economic sanctions called forth by the Packwood-Magnuson amendment. Such a certification would require the reduction of Japan's fisheries allocation by 50 percent.
I believe that the current agreement will be decided finally by our Judiciary since this matter is on appeal before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In the meantime, may I again state emphatically that this resolution is both precipitious and inappropriate for this committee to approve! The State and Commerce Departments have worked hard over the last year to negotiate a sensitive agreement with Japan; the IWC has taken action to uphold the agreement, and recognizes that the small take of nonendangered whales by Japan will not hurt the stocks.
Clearly, we should not undertake any legislation which would precipitate another crisis and confrontation, pending final determination by the Federal courts as to whether the current agreement is lawful and viable! I urge this committee to carefully consider my statement issued to this committee in August in which I have advocated a cautious and objective review of this country's commitment in support of our economic and political objectives with Japan and Norway, the two whaling countries who are our steadfast friends and allies!
Mr. Chairman, may I insert my statement to this committee in August as well as my statement to the IWC in Bournemouth, England, for the committee records today.2
Thank you kindly!
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
1 House Concurrent Resolution was also referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Thus far, no action has been taken by that Committee.
2 Representative Dymally's earlier speech in the subcommittee's hearing record. See app. 21 for statement before the LWC in England.