DISSENTING VIEWS from House Report 105-74 Part 1 H.R. 408 is a deeply flawed bill that undercuts a broadly popular mammal protection law because of foreign government trade pressure on the United States to weaken our environmental standards. Good faith efforts to develop a reasonable compromise that would open U.S. markets to tuna caught by foreign fleets while protecting the integrity of U.S. environmental and consumer protection laws have been spurned. The Congress is being told, in effect, take this bill or leave it. We believe the sound pro-environment, pro-consumer vote is to leave it if reasonable compromise continues to be rejected. In October 1995, five environmental organizations announced their support for a document which became known as the `Panama Declaration': the result of their negotiations with the government of Mexico on changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and U.S. tuna labeling law. Until their announcement, the Congress, general public, and other interested parties had been unaware that these negotiations were underway. Since that time, numerous efforts have been made by those not included in the negotiations--including more than 80 environmental, labor, and consumer protection organizations--to find a compromise on this highly controversial and emotional issue. However, the supporters of H.R. 408 have consistently argued that the Panama Declaration is an unamendable agreement, presented to the Congress under much the same terms as a Fast Track agreement. They have rejected any compromise not supported by the Mexican government and the Mexican tuna industry. We find the substance of this legislation unacceptable, and object to the dangerous precedent set by the process under which it was brought before the Congress. The `fast track' analogy is appropriate, since there is little doubt that the international trade dispute between Mexico and the United States over dolphin protection is the driving force behind the legislation. The U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act contains provisions which prohibit imports of tuna from nations whose tuna fishing fleets kill more dolphins than the U.S. fleet. Public outrage at the high level of dolphin slaughter by the eastern Pacific tuna fishery prompted the original passage of this provision, and it is clear that the American public continues to hold broad support for this law. In fact, public outcry against this well-documented slaughter has historically been so strong that in 1990 the U.S. tuna canning industry announced a voluntary policy of refusing to purchase tuna caught by harming or killing dolphins: the now well-known `Dolphin Safe' label found on cans of tuna sold in the United States. In response to the U.S. embargo of their canned tuna, in 1990, Mexico and Venezuela filed a formal complaint with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The GATT panel of judges hearing the Mexican complaint ruled against the United States, declaring, among other things, that no nation could impose trade restrictions against another (a) based on the way a product is harvested or made; or (b) to conserve natural resources outside of its territorial jurisdiction. Since that time, Mexico has been pressuring the U.S. to change its laws and lift the embargoes. It should be noted, however, that the GATT panel made no ruling on the dolphin-safe label itself. Mexico is aware that American consumers will not choose to purchase tuna caught by harming dolphins; therefore, in order to gain a large share of the U.S. tuna market, they are urging that we dupe American consumers into purchasing tuna labeled with a redefined `Dolphin Safe' label that has a much weaker standard. This label change is contained in H.R. 408. The fact that this issue continues to be of major importance to international relations between Mexico and the U.S- as evidenced by the strong lobbying of the State Department in support of H.R. 408--is an indication that it concerns far more than dolphins and a single tuna fishery.

BACK TO MAIN PAGE