good morning i want to call this joint subcommittee hearing of the subcommittee on international organizations human rights and oversight and the subcommittee on asian pacific and global environment order and i welcome have thank you do you distinguish chairman for our working together on this bill that we have been working on for months to develop in to conduct hearings and i do want to thank also our distinguished witnesses that will be testifying this morning after making our opening statements i do want to thank all the interested parties who are here with us and let me just share with my colleagues and with the public my statement for this hearing industrial whaling has led to the severe depletion and near extinction of many whale species for decades the international community has these actions have proven effective to its paramount task of protecting whales and the commission's influence has waned substantially in recent years due to disputes among the some eighty eight member nations that make up the i w c last year for example with support in assistance from my good friend the gentleman from massachusetts mr della hundred i'm sure that you'll be joining us year later we work together and we introduce h r two four five five the international whales conservation the protection act of two thousand and nine aimed at eliminating whaling which is the most visible threat to whales the bill also targets other key impacts and well populations such as ozone depletion chemical annoys pollution marine debris that's all strikes entanglement in fishing gear pretty depletion offshore industrial development and escalating threats from climate change and ocean acidification all these issues require international cooperation obviously and american leadership in my humble opinion is critical in regard though h r two four five five is not a perfect bill it has provided a start to discussions about whaling and its structure gives the new administration a better chance at providing leadership by potentially increasing u s leverage in international negotiations the obama team has in effect played an assertive role in attempting to restore the ideal b c s credibility and protect oil populations as part of a core group of some twelve countries within the i w c the united states contributed to seeking a resolution to a number of longstanding issues confronting the commission administration began its work premised on the principles that all nations whether they engage in or oppose whaling share a common goal in conserving whales as part of a core group of twelve countries within the i w c the united states contributed to the work of the i w c chair and vice chair in seeking a resolution to a number of longstanding issues confronting the commission on april twenty second of last month the chair in the vice cha her draft proposal which will be debated at the i w c annual meeting in morocco this coming june next month for that ten year proposal currently under review by the united states  other countries begins with the following the june statement and i quote international whaling commission will work cooperatively to improve the conservation and management of whale populations in stocks on a scientific basis and through agreed policy measures by improving our knowledge of whales their environment and the multiple threats that can affect their welfare the commission will strive to ensure that whale populations are healthy and resilient components of the marine waiting they do based on special permits objections and reservations to i w c rules and agree instead to sustainable catch limits set by the i w c at levels below present ones they would also agree to ideal b c monitoring surveillance and control measures on their whaling operations including the placement of observers on their whaling vessels according to the idea of you see if adopted and i say this if over the ten year period the proposal several thousand fuel whales would be caught then if the current situation remains japan's antarctic whale hunt would fall in stages to two hundred six hundred banks no other country would be permitted to start hunting and indigenous groups would not be affected as an aside i think it's important to recognize that these numbers make clear whaling is not an issue simply for japan indeed norway and iceland together account for roughly the same yearly take as japan despite the wide discrepancy in population among the three countries norway's four point eight million citizens and iceland's three hundred seventeen thousand population a tiny fraction of japan's population to well over one hundred twenty million i also want to note that the new leadership of japan has shown greater willingness to compromise than the on the issue of whaling and the minister of agriculture of forestry and fisheries recently expressed a desire and i quote to continue negotiating with patients according to media source even so the i w c draft proposed remains subject to a good deal of debate and change and it is quite possible that no agreement will be achieved at all and this father response to the propose the proposal has been mixed with most of the proconsul conservation n g o s voicing opposition in fact some of these groups have been particularly forceful in their disavow disavowal of the proposal as also the subcommittee an international organization human rights and oversight felt it appropriate to convene this hearing to assess recent developments and discuss them in relation to the international well conservation protection act of two thousand  from my perspective as chairman the whaling issue will require a cooperative solution united states can and must lead but as with any international problem we cannot impose our views on the rest of the world unilaterally and expect positive results well we can do is negotiate and persuade and when we talk about numbers we should insist that they be based on science and not on politics we should also insist that whatever is agreed to in morocco next month assuming anything is to testify and we certainly look forward to their testimonies as i'm sure my good friend gentleman from massachusetts will appropriately introduce administration witnesses at a later time at the hearing and with them as chairman i do want to thank you pacific i don't know if some of the our friends in the artes ever saw the whale rider this is our polynesian cousins among the margin new zealand very very fine affection for these animals and so it is true  for allowing me to to give this opening statement and your back thank you and i want to yield myself five minutes for a brief opening statement and i want to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts i think mr delahunt for his leadership on this issue and he chaired the international organization subcommittee he was a champion of this issue since he's moved over to you know earlier this year i launched the bipartisan american engagement caucus with representative dose of cow from louisiana mr delahunt also a member of that caucus and we believe it's essential that international cooperation but also international institutions that work that work in the economic security environmental fields the international whaling commission is example of an environmentalist susan that has struggled recently to achieve its core mission of research in addressing emerging threats to whales and their habitats the u s needs to use all elements of smart power to engage their partners to improve i w c and protect the environment this is an issue is really is an international issue i represent a district in missouri in our heartland and you this is an issue where i live as well in fact i have a letter from our world were announcing it was due supporting this hearing and i want to have that placed in the record they say in their letter i want to briefly quote it we hope the hearing will result in strong u s global leadership a whale conservation and protection in renew america's commitment to will conservation especially within the international arena such as the i w c i'm pleased to make note that the s celebrating its one hundred year anniversary this year our local was it was done so much to promote the awareness of conservation in so many animal species and their habitats so i want to thank again chairman delahunt chairman  vega and again welcome our witnesses i do have a conflict today so i'm going to have to excuse myself but i'm going to leave you in very good and capable hands and i can't leave this hearing today with that reminding mr del hunt that mother courting your genealogy i had an ancestor that was a whaler from massachusetts so i guess i have i have this in my blood yes so i'm going to i'm going to turn it over to you  represented a boy dale representative hirano one myself and i think it is there to really demonstrate our collective committee to w conservation but i also want to note that on the senate side the senior senator from massachusetts who has a residence by the way on nantucket senator kerry introduced a similar bill  in the united states senate and for those who are taking notes that's ass thirty one sixteen i think i would take this time to remind  my colleagues that this committee the house foreign affairs committee has had a long and distinguished history on the protection of whales we've consistently nations conducting unjustified lethal whaling research in virtually every year since then the committee has approved resolutions seeking to strengthen and enhance in internationally the protection of whales today's hearing will continue this committee's launch standing engagement in this issue will explore ways for the united states to reassert its global leadership in international whale con conservation and protection in addition to receiving testimony on the legislation we will hear about the so called deal i say that in quotes that was released on earth day and will be voted upon presumably by the international whaling commission in june it's important to emphasize that today whales face more threats then they did more than two decades ago last year more whales were killed then in any other year since he established month of the one thousand nine hundred six moratorium on commercial whaling a measure again that was strongly supported by the united states we are aware that member nations of the i w c have been meeting in secret behind closed doors over the past three years to negotiate a new whaling arrangement pro whaling nations are advocating a ten year plan that would legitimize whaling even in the southern ocean will sanctuary internationally designated safe haven established in  four to protect more than eighty percent cent of the world's whales i witnesses today include administration officials that have been engaged in these negotiations and i am anxious to hear from them exactly how this deal is good for the wells i'm particularly interested in how this deal maintains the moratorium as stated in the so called consensus decision the term moratorium is defying in websters a suspension of an activity and it would not appear that whaling is being suspended so based on what i'm aware of at this point in time i would strenuously object to this deal in its provisions while i recognize that japan iceland and norway have never ceased their whaling activities and continue continue limited whaling during the international moratorium this was done in spite of international objections and pursuant to certain loopholes in the i w c instead of fixing these loopholes i am concerned that the administration may have set a course to re were odd the very nations that floated international conclusion let me read a message sent to the i w c that states the following i want to take this opportunity to affirm the united states government's continuing commitment to weigh up protection in to urge you to support our proposal for an indefinite moratorium on commercial whaling throughout human history where else has evoke in wonder they are the largest creatures ever to have lived on this earth yet they also are among the most mysterious it is this mysterious quality that gives whales their appeal  increase the importance of the sect of management decorative sure will protect populations for the future that message was sent on july seventeenth one nine hundred eighty one by president ronald reagan as president reagan demonstrated well protection has never been a partisan issue and it's important to continue i'll a bipartisan commitments i look forward sponsor the legislation with you with that i yield back i just want to say to the gentleman that is in by then my personal honor to the privilege of working closely with you for all these months and our friends also very concerned about the conservation of whales of the members of our subcommittees i know there are a lot of whales in the state of arizona and that's why he's made sure that he would be here to express some strong strong views of why we need to make every effort to  and scientific affairs at the department of state in march two thousand and five president bush with the consent of the senate accorded to mr bolton the rank of ambassador during his tenure he previously served as six years as director of the office of marine conservation at state in that capacity he was responsible for coordinating the development of u s foreign policy concerning living marine resources and overseeing u s participation in international organizations such as the i w c dealing with the conservation and management of these resources he's negotiated numerous treaties and other international agreements on fisheries marine mammals and other matters pertaining to the marine environment welcome ambassador and next to monica medina is currently the principal deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere of the national association and that atmospheric administration and the u s commission it to the international whaling commission she has a lengthy career in marine law and policy dating back to her time as senior counsel on the senate committee on the environment and public works she was deputy associate attorney general at the department of justice with  the environment division and also had a previous stint at noaa as general counsel as u s commissioner she serves as the head of the delegation to the meetings of the i w c in leeds negotiation on issues related to the commission as such she will provide invaluable insight into the process sees that led to the strath consensus decision and i look forward to her testimony welcome to both i believe it is on maybe i'm just speaking to quietly good morning mr chairman and members of the committee thank you for your interest and your close attention to this issue and the details of the proposals that are on the table thank you for your invitation to speak today on behalf of the obama administration about the upcoming sixty second annual meeting of the international whaling commission or i w c i am monica medina principal deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere with the oceanic and atmospheric administration and i am testifying today in my capacity as the u s commissioner to the i w c the goal of the obama administration is to conserve whales and preserve the i w c as the premier international body for the conservation and management of whales the administration reaffirms its unwavering support for the commercial believes strongly that lethal scientific whaling is unnecessary in modern whale conservation and management the administration is also committed to furthering discussions of critical issues within the i w c including the future of the organization for any future or a nj meant to be acceptable it must one result in significant improvement in the conservation status of wales for the long term and to be based on sound science by written testimony includes background information on the i w c and a discussion of the main issues currently confronting the organization a long description of the future process and include some description of the current proposal by the chair and vice chair of the commission the united states's biggest concern at the i w c is that more and more whales are being killed twenty four years ago the international community moratorium that was supposed to stop industrialized commercial whaling but in reality whaling never ended look at the situation today just three countries japan norway and iceland persist in non indigenous hunting of whales they justify this by exploiting loopholes in the moratorium the unfortunate outcome is clear and growing more dire each year and i i brought a chart if it could be displayed at some point  i'm not going to speak to it directly but it does show this trend of increased whaling in one nine hundred ninety three countries killed a total of three hundred whales in one thousand nine hundred five they killed seven hundred fifty a year by two thousand the annual number topped one thousand whales per year by two thousand and five it was up to seven hundred whales a year and this year three countries issue themselves quotas and that's quotas to kill more than thirty one hundred whales annually right now unfortunately there's little that the i w c can do about it unless something happens more and more whales will be killed and there's currently no limit to how many whales will be killed in the future since the ban on commercial whaling in one thousand eight hundred six more than thirty five thousand whales have been hunted and the numbers continue to grow the same time the resulting polarization of the i threatens the viability of the organization as the international forum for resolving these issues for coordinating critical research on other issues and developing international agreements to further whale conservation years and i do mean years a protracted and unresolved debate over the proper means to conserve utilize and study whales have made many i w c members including the united states concerned about the body's future relevance in controlling unilateral whaling and conserving whale stocks i believe a cease fire is needed in fact it is overdue however and i do want to say however that the administration has concerns with the current proposal put forward by the chair and vice chair and i want to make abundantly clear that if the proposal remains unchanged the us will vote against it in two thousand and eight the commission agreed by consensus to form a small working group the task of the small working group had been to develop a package of packages for consensus resolutions regarding the future of the i w c for review by the commission the commission is looking for an agreement acceptable to all its members including all of those opposed to commercial and scientific whaling in two thousand and nine smaller support group was established to assist the chair in providing direction to the process and in preparing material for submission to the small working group the support group was designed to include a diverse geographic and socioeconomic representation of the i w c member countries as well as a range of views on whaling issues it was comprised of twelve countries including the united states after three meetings with the support group the chair of the commission submitted a report in march of this year to a meeting of the small working group in florida and that report contains a set of ideas about how the i w c could improve its function in the future that document was thoroughly discussed at the march meeting and the chair and vice chair of the i w c have since read released a revised version of this document as a joint proposal to all the commission's members for their consideration at the annual meeting in june the united states has indeed participated in the future process in good faith to try and achieve a number of u s objectives these u s objectives are to retain and strengthen the moratorium on commercial whaling to bring all whaling under i w c control by closing the loopholes that permit unlimited whaling today to transform the i w c to focus squarely on conservation and address the new and emerging threats to cetaceans to recover severely depleted and endangered populations of wealth to increase the participation of civil society at i w c proceedings to prevent our subsistence hans from being held hostage by the commission for political reasons and to address the growing international trade and black market of whale meat and whale products as you may have recently noted in the los angeles times there was a sushi bar in los angeles actually selling whale meat while the united states recognizes that some significant achievements have occurred we are disappointed that the future process has not yet been able to achieve a resolution of some of the key issues facing the commission despite this we believe that the chairs proposal represent forward and is a foundation for achieving a functioning i w c and improving the conservation of wales we have encouraged other countries to approach the discussions with open minds flexibility and constructive attitudes  diplomatic and scientific solutions can be reached while the administration has not taken a position on h r twenty four fifty five i believe the us objectives along with our unwavering support for improved conservation of whales and an uncertain future due to a variety of threats these threats include climate change pollution ocean noise ship strikes by tango bycatch and entanglement the us would like to see the i w c prioritize its work to address these very important issues however we agree with concerns expressed by the state department that the need for flexibility to strengthen the work of the i w c may be slightly inhibited by some of the current provisions of h r twenty four fifty five but we would very much like to work with you on on that in closing mr chairman while the administration recognizes conservation benefits outlined in the proposal put forward by the i w c and chair and vice chair we continue to have concerns and would not agree to it in its present form at this time we reserve judgment on any revised proposal pending further discussions both before and at the annual meeting in june or morocco the united states will consult with all relevant stakeholders to fully consider the elements of the chair and vice chair as proposals in closing i would like to reiterate that the united states is position on will conservation and management has not changed and i agree with you congressman delahunt that will do evoke saw and wonder our goal is to conserve many more whales than the status quo is conserving i would like to ask that two letters be placed in the record one from all the recent chairs of the i'm sorry all the recent u s commissioners to the i w c both from republican and democratic administrations and one from a group of scientific chairs chairs of the scientific committee of the ida b c both of those are relevant to the proposal and also this chart without objection then there's documents will be made part of the record could you please make sure that the  staff receives those documents you cited madam sector legal ok i would also like to know for the record that we're joined with another distinguished member of our subcommittee said gentleman from south carolina mr inglis if he has any opening statement t dysfunctional body in short the i w c is not now the sort of international organization we would wish it to be perhaps more importantly the stalemate within the i w c also affects the broader foreign policy of the united states with the nation's most involved i wish to emphasize that these nations are allies on a wide range of international issues with each other and with the united states australia new zealand member states of the european union iceland japan norway and the united states generally work closely together within the international system including on many environmental and ocean related issues many of these nations are military allies as well the whaling issue as a source of ongoing restrict friction in these otherwise healthy relationships the department of state therefore sees value in seeking a resolution of this stalemate it provided that the resolution otherwise serves the u s interests in our view moving forward would allow advancement of our foreign policy agenda with these and other partners united states certainly has different views about whaling and whale conservation from those who are engaged in commercial whaling and lethal scientific whaling but these governments are not our enemies all of the governments involved are participatory democracy s who are now engaged with us in an honest if difficult effort to find a way forward i do not know whether this effort will succeed if it fails it will be because the i w c members involved simply could not find a mutually acceptable formula for resolving differences this process still has a chance to succeed however i wish to underscore what you heard from ms menino the administration does not accept the proposal of the chair and vice chair as as it is currently configured i expect that the proposal of the chair and vice chair is also an acceptable to most other i w c members as well indeed it has drawn criticism from all sides of the debate that said the administration also finds the status quo to be unacceptable we oppose the increasing levels of unregulated whaling and we are quite frustrated by the paralysis within the i w c our best hope is for the chairs proposals to serve as a springboard on which to jump forward to an arrangement that is acceptable in our view such an opportunity to improve well conservation and to make the i w c an effective station once again may not present itself again soon this will not be easy indeed some i w c members are under increasing political pressure and criticism from constituents who believe that the chairs proposal would effectively actively capitulate to those members who want to engage in commercial whaling on the other side some ideas you see members are under increasing political pressure and criticism from their constituents who believe that the chairs proposal would underlay restrict their right to harvest whales my hope is that some acceptable solution is nevertheless within reach and conclusion the status quo is bad for whales and bad for the i w c that hampers our ability to advance our foreign policy interests with certain key governments we believe that the effort to negotiate a resolution within the i w c represents the best opportunity to resolve this long standing difficult issue to enhance and strengthen our bilateral and multilateral relationships to restore the functionality of the i w c and to conserve whales more effectively thank you very foreign affairs committee my good friend the distinguished gentleman from california chairman berman i think he does have an opening statement that he wants to share with the committee and with the public and i'd like to turn the time over to the chairman berman at this time for his statement d like if i could to get unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from the california coastal commission to president obama on the u s position at the international whaling commission her objection your statement will be made part of the record as well as your statement is just mr chairman this hearing comes at a crucial time as members of the international whaling commission pair to meet next month in morocco despite a ban on commercial whaling that has been in place for almost a quarter of a century japan norway and iceland continue to kill significant numbers of whales every year japan and iceland conduct their whaling through a loophole in the moratorium for scientific research while norway objected to the ban and therefore does not recognize it i agree with those who say that the i w c is broken when for almost a quarter of a century countries have permitted to kill whales without limit since the ban was implemented in one thousand nine hundred six over twelve thousand whales have been killed under the scientific exemption i believe very much that the scientific loophole should be closed and that u s should encourage norway as much as it can to respect the more dairy regrettably a recent release proposal that reflects the work of the united states and other members of the i w c fails to close this loophole or stop norway's hunts instead it places a cap on the number of whales killed per year currently there are no limits i have several concerns about this proposal first i'm very reluctant to legitimize the actions of whaling countries in any situation further more questions have been raised on whether this proposal would significantly decrease the number of killings as nations prepare for meetings in morocco the united states should build upon the positive  i know that he's really under pressure with time but if the german wishes to raise any questions with our administration witnesses more than happy to know you've been more than generous i'm not going to take advantage of that very generous offer thank you one and it is really unfortunate and this should be a stronger word than unfortunate to see its legitimacy the legitimacy waning  i wonder if we're able to achieve our goals in morocco what are the alternatives that we could consider in terms of  c may well continue to increase as the chart that was previously up on the screen showed the political will of the countries who've invested a lot of time and energy into trying to find a solution may well dissipate and i don't expect that the countries would come together again for another serious effort to improve the function of the i w c anytime soon as for us we would really need to reconsider will need to reconsider this time and energy and money that we've been putting into the process japan norway and iceland will also need to reconsider what they have been doing i guess what i'm looking for ambassador is what what are the options what are the specific options are there sanctions and that is a word that the chairman of the full committee is very familiar with the sanctions a bailable to deter those three nations from continuing the practice of commercial whaling  albeit under a roof if you will and i guess my best answer is this you're not the first to ask that question the questions come up many times before and the united states at least has never been willing to impose any meaningful sanctions for whaling activities there is a statute on the books the pallium and i'm sure you're familiar with it countries have been certified under the palate and for whaling activities  but if what you're talking about are serious economic sanctions or targeted obviously at least the past is prologue if the past is prologue and there has never been a willingness on any administration's part to use those sanctions but doesn't leave us with a doesn't leave us with a viable option i mean option c on the part of those three as you indicate friendly an ally governments as the options are disastrous and i think there is a sentiment here in congress that we should be pursuing targeted a target a let's call it a remedy for lack of a better term because we don't seem to be making any progress that trend line just disturbing consistently take the bit that button did on now i'm sorry i should maybe and again speaking to softly we consistently take the position that we would like to see all whaling and all commercial and  the other members of the i w c believe that they are whaling in using legitimate grounds for conducting their whaling activities we hope although as i said and i want to be clear we're not there yet with this agreement but this could be a step forward when we began this exercise we realized we couldn't rewrite the convention which is a sixty five year old convention that really doesn't fit today's  problems it doesn't even really make sense if you will in today's world but we couldn't do it in a year it will take a number of years to rewrite the convention in a meaningful way and have it fit the problems that we expect wales to face in the future so this agreement would be an interim step towards what we would hope would be the end to all commercial and scientific but  terms of the discussions and discussion regarding compromise is there a endgame here in other words is there a willingness on the part particularly of these three nations to commit end commercial whaling i can't say that there is now on the other hand they have negotiated with us in good faith for the last year and what i can tell you is that compared to where these governments were a year ago we have seen much more flexibility and interest in some sort of interim agreement that could lead to a new convention and the my concern about a convention a new convention is interim step would be to reduce whaling and to put real hard limits and in forcible limits so we would have an option if somebody were to go beyond those limits one of those nations we would have been for stability within the  chairman may i ask if you total up all the indigenous whaling around the world what would that figure be annually it's roughly three hundred whales a year three hundred warheads the amount of commercial and scientific with the commercials scientific which which types of whales are being taken for the most part what what's the range the time the greatest number of whales are being taken in the stock that's probably the most abundant that's not to take only from the stocks of the most abundant whales or i mean are they sensitive to to that can you expect that a little one of the first things that we discussed in the support group was the fact that we all  especially given that were allies on so many other environmental issues we all believe that science had to be the foundation for whatever agreement was forged and so the the issue here  is which is which stocks are most able to withstand the hans and we have a system in the i w c for determining that we haven't been able to apply that system to every type or every stock of whale but we do have good bond estimates on some and we would be working underneath the sustainability numbers so the i w c calculates what's the sustainable amount that could be harvest for each of these stocks and what we're looking to do is cap the number of whales taken underneath that sustainable number where would you put that right now the simple number there are how many annually under commercial are scientific exemption or loophole or are taken and where how does that relate to where you would put sustainability the numbers in the southern ocean that we're talking about in the chairs proposal which again we haven't emphasize it is that the i w c also created a whale sanctuary there and there is a concern and it's and it's a valid one that whaling in a sanctuary in this pristine area of the world isn't appropriate and that's the issue in the southern ocean it's not so much is that the sciences are those stocks hurt it's that this was supposed to be an area that was reserved for for all wildlife was supposed to be a sanctuary for whales and it's very sensitive and yet the japanese are conducting their large scale industrial type whaling activities there the  it or the three countries japan is that the bulk of that what percentage of the whales that are taken are or taken by japanese fleets i'm going to say more than two thirds asked what what do they say in terms of the scientific scientific justification for taking so many wells what's the stock answer there japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take and probably have the best whale science as a result but it is also true that the products of the research are then sold on the open market and it's all right thank you mr chairman thank the gentleman from arizona a couple of questions so i would like to ask you to indicate it from your testimony it is since nineteen eighty six thirty five thousand wells have been killed and presumably by these three countries iceland norway  japan what is the total world population of whales of several types mr chairman that's a hard one to answer we're studying that and that's one of the reasons why i would hope that we can find  common ground in the i w c because as the premier scientific international scientific organization we could do a better job of understanding global populations and movements than we do now  not a mathematician but i would think that conservation is coming into play in a real sense let me let me say this if you could put the chart back up on the screen it might help to put this into context before the more  about scientific studies to justify the continuation of the killings right yes but put it ok to context it was an absolute sham but then on the other hand there are probably no other country the world in japan that has more scientific information on the science of whales and probably than any other country even more than even our own country what would that be a say first statement to make our scientists would say that we're doing an awful lot of we'll research but how do we do the research compare to it was in the tens of thousands each year and it came down as well populations dwindling but what i can say is that as a result of the moratorium whale populations have started but only just begun we believe some of them to reb the problem is this trend of increased whaling in the face of that is is not a very good one that's what we're concerned about from your statement madam secretary again i'm just kind of putting it framework or a foundation on which we can conclude negotiations and improve it enough that the u s could support it and if you would strive for improvement what are some of those specific areas for improvement on the proposals that i'd like for you administration to submit for the record i mean you say that you have very serious concerns but could you be more specific maybe in about two three areas that that you say absolutely are your against this aspect of the proposal  discussions in an effort to move our colleagues in the other governments we have been working very hard to explain to have them understand that the numbers of whales hunted in the southern ocean are very important to us the number or the amount of whales traded we would like to see no whale trade are those are are the most important issues to us right now the concern i have madam secretary just as it was mentioned earlier tele hunters that it seems like we're going right back to square one new zealand in australia several other strong countries in areas of whaling absolutely against any aspect of this proposal just kind of sinks the whole thing to say well we're going to try and negotiate negotiate where if already it seems it sounds from your test both of your testimonies the test the administration does not support the current especially the major aspects of what the proposal calls for here's the question we want no killings at all that's the ultimate but at the same time how do you deal with the friendly countries the three countries and say hey it's none of your business it's part of our culture it's part of our economic needs the norwegians and icelanders love to eat whale meat so how do you how do you  measure that in terms of saying well who are you to tell us that we cannot eat well meat just in the same way that our indigenous populations say we can eat it too so what was that where's the where do we draw the line in saying that you cannot do this chairman i would say you have put your finger on why this is a difficult negotiation but this is a negotiation that positions articulated by australia new zealand japan about the chairman's supposal are all part of  larger negotiation i don't know if that's where then diagram i'm not sure all the circles are going to talk you know we had a little problem years ago when i tuna fishing fleet fisherman made this claim that because to him it was a highly migratory fish they can conduct fishing for tuna anywhere in the world the heck with the easy zones of these countries well guess what they had their vessels confiscated and it got that we cannot fish for tuna and then we all agree to and it is a highly marketo a fish but it goes again to the same question of the easy zones of these countries say hey with that fish comes to our two hundred mile easy zones you cannot take the tuna out and so what do we do what they got chased out they ended up in the western pacific we're still having problems fishing for tuna so i go back to the same questions how is the world community are going to tell iceland  commit a war against these countries for killing whales now i just wanted to know what are other options available because we've been at a stalemate now for many years now a good number of years  all sides to accept something less than what they optimally want it would in any event only be an interim deal and it maybe mr chairman that time is ultimately on our side and maybe that the markets for whale meat the well product well eventually dry up entirely and the problem will be solved solved in that way until such time that we have three countries who very much and to continue whaling we have an interest in significant reduction of whaling activities from what we have today and we want to bring that was such whaling as does exist under control but there seems to be a general consensus that the i w c is like a toothless tiger it has no teeth it has no real in forstmann process of saying you can't do this you can't do that and i don't know how we ended up with the eighty eight member countries that every country had whales in their districts i'm curious and it became a political football  and by way of i wouldn't call it extortion or bribery but to say how do you persuade these countries to support you and i think you require one three quarters vote among the eighty eight member countries and i'm curious eighty eight members i didn't realise that many countries and wales in their districts i'm just curious about then i'm also curious said dad ministration is no comment on the bill that mr della one and i had introduced for the last hundred years now government what to negotiate which is what we're trying to throw in even the kitchen sink and then they should test something gets moving here to the extent now that we've got the ways and means committee the resources committee in the foreign affairs committee all taking maybe we need to separate it so that we can get this thing moving in some way can you help us with that yes we'd be delighted to work with you on that and i do think that the one thing if you if you are searching for why would the other nations since they have the right at least they claim to do to whale under the convention now why would they want to have an agreement with us and i think it is because they see legislation like this and they see advertisements like that and it does have an impact on them and they would like to try to find an answer they also are frustrated as we are when they attend i w c meetings and all we do is exchange our verbal accusations and spend many weeks every summer that's an annual meeting it goes on for several weeks and we don't accomplish anything and i believe they are as frustrated with that as we are i might also note for the record that i think the media has been very unfair to killing the whales too i feel there's a real sense of unfairness and how the media has portrayed japan as the evil doer and i think it's very unfair in that respect and i don't know many of our american fellow americans know that japan is at a four hundred year cultural history and their relationship with the whales so it's just an appetite did indeed there's also a lot of the cultural history behind it  get this bill moving in such a way so that hopefully get it to to the extent that it will be helpful to the whole idea now here's a question ultimately no more killing yes option b there's got to be some kind of a conservation here because i don't think we're going to be able to convince these three countries who are actually believe that whaling is just is just like taking other marine resources for consumption that's why we put  we done with them so it seems to me that there's got to be some kind of a conservation measures and i think this is perhaps the key factor on how we can get our three friends to do this if it's for i think it is only possible if we take the next step in this work towards an end to lethal scientific and commercial whaling i don't think it's possible without  continued diplomacy i think your points about the perspective of the japanese on their hunts are well taken and of course that's why the u s government has been engaged in a diplomatic process in order to try and reach an agreement among partners but it would be only in a step towards what we would hope would be an end to commercial and scientific whaling and at the very least getting it under control making the i w c a relevant organization again and being able to turn to those other conservation issues that are probably manufactured i hope to interrupt but i mean i see that you're coming with the idea but the reality that's not where we're at and we haven't been there for all these negotiations well implicit in the concept of negotiations is leverage i fail to see adequate leverage unless there is a clearly defined penalty that and maybe it's unilateral in nature all other signatories you know other similar minded  nations that would agree with us that there has to be some economic sanctions i just don't see these three countries moving in a direction that gentleman to you of course you know this is like the nonproliferation thing that we've been how many years it's ok for the five permanent members of the security council to continue having after tommy bombs but tell the rest of the world they cannot have them and  at the same thing like wally it's ok for certain countries to have it but the rest of the world cannot and here's the problem that we have where do we find the sanctions is being discussed as has been done but again a total failure can we positively persuade our friends to say that maybe we can work in some other way i that's just a question i wanted to arrange the gentleman to know and and i agree with you in your i mean there has to be a but if you're ever going to achieve in negotiations some progress people have to have something to lose and right now there's nothing that they can talk it to death and they can negotiate what you're really having a calm can't conversations i don't see it as negotiations and there has to be some sought of creative option that the administration designs and goes to morocco with and yeah i echo the the request  creative we're looking we're trying to help you in terms of you know negotiating posture i mean this is not this is not to be you know this is not to castigate your efforts i'm that you're making heroic efforts herculean efforts but you don't have any you don't have any bullets in your gun everybody knows it's a water pistol you have to have a very low ball a punitive economic response very targeted and again i don't know enough about the marketplace but there has to be again some creative effort to design a punitive measure so that those stakeholders in those three countries are willing to say ok you know it and it doesn't have to just simply be restricted to the wells i mean the fishing fleets in these countries in addition to wales what exports to other countries in terms of their fleets are available for the imposition of sanctions ambassador certainly norway and iceland are major exporters of fishery products that is true that might get their intention ambassador and said i would ask you to consider one thing though yeah  so you might describe japan norway and iceland as outliers and this and hence your desire to consider sanctions but sometimes yes it is i'll try to speak one more loudly that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot united states and at different times in our history has been considered an outlier and certain other things were well aware of that we serve on the foreign affairs we so you know better than i we do and so that has to be part of the calculus now right and there are times that you know that members of congress have been very critical in terms of administrations and that's plural in terms of our own behavior and that's why we have a committee on oversight in a democracy we know congress will conduct oversight in a way that might be interpreted as a sanction on on the executive and what we're asking for is that kind of analysis to be conducted in terms of you negotiations i would respectfully suggest we've got to move from conversation into real negotiations thank you mr i have another juicy issue to share with both of you what about shark finn i can say thanks to congress which passed the shark finning prohibition act in two thousand we have actually made some progress we have gotten a different regional fishery management organizations to prohibit the practice and it still continues nevertheless we are trying to find ways to better and force the probations you're right to point out that it is still a problem that is not yet fully solved in fairness to our friends from iceland and norway and japan and i don't know if there are any representatives from the and the seas of iceland norway and japan to be more than happy to open the record we will be questioned as submissions and statements from their respective governments and their point of view at least in fairness to them so that they can have their say and what we're discussing this morning but the madame secretary and embassador really want to thank both of you for spending the time and having to get grilled by but it's important questions about this issue but we sincerely thank you we look forward to working with you and please help us move this bill if you really think it's helping will be helpful and seeing how we can and better shape horse and for some twenty six days it's almost like i was living about a thousand years ago of my ancestors and every morning every evening on the most beautiful sunsets and sunrises the dolphins chasing us and also whales i want to go on the next trip but anyway get away from this madness isn't that the truth but anyway thank you both very much and we look for in working with you on this bill what are the dates of doctor justin cook i think you just arrived coming all the way from the other side of the world here to join us for the hearing here this morning dr justin cook is a member of the international union for conservation of nature  specialist group with the i w c scientific committee and specializes in the quantification of risks to marine populations due to exploitations and other factors his work includes a modeling estimation of oil demography he developed a quantitative component of the i w c has revised management procedure so we've got a good expert here that works directly with the i w c a scientific  a w s efforts worldwide to protect whales from threats this includes promoting practical solutions to end commercial whaling as well as reduce habitat destruction ocean pollution such as high intensity ocean noise ship strikes entanglement in fishing gear and the emerging threat of global climate change mr ramage is a graduate of defense language institute and is european foreign and language training well versed in german and russian as a u s military intelligence officer there's a massachusetts and probably a member of your said two years now in that capacity advises the waning captains of matters for the congress executive branch an international whaling commission he also worked with the b c to negotiate conflict  transportation and from eighty seven to ninety one dems to comstock was a professional staff member of the subcommittee on oceans and fisheries so these gentlemen the very familiar with the marine sciences  morning i'm patrick romaji global whale program director at the international fund for animal welfare or i for one of the world's leading non governmental organizations working to conserve and protect whales i've attended twelve of the past fourteen annual meetings of the international whaling commission or i'd have you see informed by this experience i would like to offer several points that may provide additional context for our discussion this morning but before i do so let me admit bias if there is a full time whale conservation advocate who worked harder to elect president obama i have yet to meet them i worked hard for then candidate obama in three primary contests and the general election and i am proud to have done so imus also confessed almost two decades of admiration for monica medina a longtime friend and sometime colleague for whom i have no small amount of affection i appreciate ambassador david balts committed public service and both illegal act human and the clients represented on this panel by year ago now that you know my slants let me give it to you straight while i believe our commissioner's motivation is very genuine i believe the proposal she and others have negotiated is a fake that its adoption by c would weaken not strengthen protections for whales worldwide and further that united states support for this proposal represents an irresponsible and perhaps irreversible u turn after decades of united states leadership and slow but steady conservation progress at the i w c a few contextual points first as has already been mentioned our planet's whales are not saved they face more threats today than ever before in history second engaged united states leadership is a prerequisite for effective international whale conservation the i w c was created here in washington its most important conservation achievements including the moratorium on commercial whaling adopted in one thousand nine hundred two and the declaration of the southern ocean whale sanctuary in one thousand nine hundred four were only achieved with creative high level support and consistent engagement from the united states presidents reagan and clinton did not take a wait and see approach to this important issue they lead third americans from sea to shining sea are you not added in their support for whale conservation and their opposition to commercial to whaling for commercial purposes by japan norway and iceland whether that whaling is conducted in open defiance of the moratorium or under the guise of science the reaction to the i w c chairman's draft proposal is similarly striking not a single environmental animal protection or wildlife conservation group supports adoption of this proposal how then did we get to the point where a plan to legitimize the cruel and outmoded commercial whaling industry is introduced on the fortieth anniversary of earth day and is actually being seriously considered to be fair the obama administration did not initiate the misguided negotiating process that led to this proposal they inherited it in the weeks following the inauguration newly appointed officials faced a choice withdraw from the ongoing process or continue it and see what concessions if any japan iceland and norway the last three countries still killing whales for commercial purposes might be willing to make the no drama administration chose the latter course but in keeping with president obama's welcome commitment to sound science and transparency the white house also publicly articulated criteria by which it would evaluate any proposal among these that the commercial whaling moratorium must be maintained that any compromise proposal should be based on sound science and that to be acceptable any proposal must also offer a significant conservation benefit to the whales measured against these criteria the chairman's proposal fails miserably and the obama administration must reject to suggest after all these negotiations that we need to wait until the i w c meeting next month in august here to learn the details of this proposal and the position of our government suggests either in comp while intellectual dishonesty or inadequate reflection on the serious questions it raises this is a bad deal for wales and the consul in the convention established to conserve them it ignores the moratorium it makes a mockery of the southern sanctuary it grants new rights to japan iceland and norway to openly kill thousands of whales it and run scientific procedures adopted by consensus to reward the three countries who refuse to play by the rules the promised benefits to whales are either nowhere in sight or the result of sleight of hand a whale sanctuary is finally established in the south atlantic where no whaling exists a conservation program committee has established needlessly recreating a conservation committee in place since two thousand and three elaborate observer and monitoring schemes which will be funded by u s taxpayers and an inadequate d n a tracking scheme are also established having outlined what i and the overwhelming majority of longtime observers are against what this change we can believe in look like for whales in the i w c it has six specific elements which are elaborated in my written testimony but i'll give you just the headlines now ensuring japan's whaling in the southern ocean whale sanctuary is brought to an end ending international trade in whale products at hearing two agreed i w c scientific procedures ensuring no commercial takes of threatened species and populations specific actions to end so called scientific whaling and meaningful guarantees regarding objections and enforcement i returned three weeks ago for my thirtieth trip to japan from my many many meetings with japanese government officials i can tell you there is no serious support in japan for continuing whaling in the international waters of the southern ocean sanctuary the same general attitude is playing out in iceland and norway as well the domestic the market for whale meat is in freefall in all three countries whatever the pardon me whatever the fate of the chairs proposal  legislation the united states has a rare window of opportunity and a profound obligation to significantly improve the situation at the whaling commission and in the water for our planet's great whales and to lead the world toward the ultimate end of commercial whaling this will be achieved not through a rushed effort to negotiate peace for our time in the i w c but rather through a more consistent persistent creative and long term approach both inside and well beyond the i w c a more japanese approach if you will to convey to the governments of japan iceland and norway that the united states and other conservation minded countries at the i w c are as serious about conserving whales as their fisheries bureaucrats are about resuscitating commercial whaling in the twenty first century on behalf of the unified conservation community i urge you to advance the positive vision called for in the thoughtful legislation delahunt thank you for both of you for having alaska west eskimo whaling commission here to testify our chairman harry brower would have been here but he landed a whale a couple of days ago and whaling is actively going on in the communities up on on the north slope there slope of alaska ranging from saint lawrence island in the bering sea to kaktovik in the beaufort that still has the bow and whale to provide a critical source of nutrition for the people in these communities all of these villages as you gentlemen may know are accessible only by air or in the short summer months by boat so the meat that is provided by this subsistence hunting is critical to the diet of these villages in addition in these communities turn out to harvest these whales and so it's the to set a zero quota on bowhead whales as you can imagine this caused quite a crisis in the community and now thirty years later we have been working through this process for quite some time in the course of doing that the a b c was formed and its mission is to protect the bowhead whale in the subsistence hunt over those thirty years the a to b c working with the united states government the environmental community and the i v c has now established what is widely known as sort of the gold standard for subsistence whaling at the idea you see and in fact a model worldwide for the use of basically indigenous subsistence resource management to handle stock it's been a long and difficult and expensive process for the eight of you see and the whaling communities up there and we have basically met every hurdle that has been placed on our in our way we've met everything that the commission has said including over the course of that time establishments scientific process for documenting subsistence need for modernizing the one hundred centuries whaling tools that are used in marrying them with twentieth century technology so that we can improve the humaneness of the hunt and we've also establish some of the leading edge scientific research on the status of the headstock including a program that's ongoing today where they actually use the hunters with their skills to tag the whales with a satellite tag so we can now actually follow these these whales throughout the year and see where they actually go it's a it's an exciting program and they're very proud of it our role in the i w c frankly has been the political football we we know that as you heard in earlier testimony that alaskans and that precipitated yet another crisis and in the ensuing six months where the quote was reinstated what happened was iceland was able to then slip back into the i w c with a reservation under which they now conduct their whaling so we we're pushed and pulled back and forth i mean frankly we're caught in the middle and what everybody's figured out over this time is that if you want to get the united states attention what you do is you hold our quota  hostage we were up in two thousand and seven and that process happened almost again thankfully the meeting was held in anchorage and so with the tremendous efforts of senator stevens and the u s delegation we were able to keep the quota from being held hostage that year but we're up again in two thousand and twelve and so we see this coming again and in fact we were told by some of the countries that we will not see our quota reauthorized so i'm here today to say that we do support the process that is going forward  this future negotiation it's not the document that has been introduced is not a perfect document we recognize that we'd like to see some improvements ourselves and we know our colleagues here and we've worked with patrick and many of the other environmental groups for many years would like to see changes that document we're all for that but our key concern and when i'm here to testify to you day about is we we really need to find a way to get subsistence whaling out of the middle of this mix because what's happening is these communities that depend on whaling for a critical source of their nutrition are being precisely taken hostage by both sides as a means of getting the various governments attention and trying to negotiate something and if you can imagine this there was discussion earlier about why do we have eighty eight countries at this eighty eight countries are now getting together for almost two weeks a year and the sole thing they seem to be able to focus their discussions on is subsistence whaling all the other stuff all the other important issues ship strikes climate change commercial whaling those aren't discussed at all they're talked about on the edges in the shadows of the meetings but when you get to the floor debate what happens subsistence whaling gets to be front and center because it's the only thing they can agree on so the status quo is a continuing stalemate and we'd like to see the process move forward as your bill mr chairman points out there are many things the u s needs to do they've exercised a leadership role throughout this process but an exercise in that role it's also made our quota target so the good thing we see in this in this proposal is that it would grant a ten years of assistance quota that takes us out of the picture and that frankly frees the united states then to engage in exactly the kind of leadership that you're hearing the other parties testify needs to be done if we're not there to be held hostage you've got a lot more room and let me just say include including my testimony as someone who participated in several international fishery negotiations and have been at the i w c for various well ten different times now over the past twenty years you can't achieve all of this  wants in any of these negotiations if you say we just have everything at the start you won't get there so the key is setting up a framework that allows you to continue to push your objectives over the period of time that is what this document does and so we would ur you to support the u s delegation give them the flexibility to negotiate the best possible agreement they can one that protects subsistence and accomplishes as many of the u s objectives as possible and then as long as that framework allows for the continued pressing of those objectives that you weren't successful in achieving entirely we think you've got something that's worth moving forward on so we encourage you to do that thank you for taking my testimony today and i'll be happy to answer any questions in the com is thank you mr chair i'm just in cook a mathematician and biologist based in germany specializing in the quantitative assessment of biological populations since the 's i've been representative of the international union for the conservation of nature on the scientific committee of the i w c i've been invited here specifically to comment on the proposed deal between the priority waiting members of the international whaling commission but first i want to say what an honor to me to be invited to testify deo subcommitte and that i'm thrilled to be here on the hill talking to you today on the i w c scientific committee i've been particularly active in the development of this so called revised mannion procedure our m p and because the proposed deal make committee which has in recent years become recognised as a world authority on the state of the world's whale stocks and the science of sustainable whale management its members include representatives of both whaling and on waiting countries as well as a number of independent it reaches its conclusions and recommendations mainly by consensus such consensus being reached usually after a very thorough examination of the evidence shortly after the moratorium on commercial whaling came into force in the the committee needed to develop a revised management procedure that were provide a repressed scientific basis for ensuring that any future waiting would be managed to stain ability the procedure that emerged as a database through for determining sustainable catch limits w margin of safety sufficient to cover almost all conceivable circumstances it was unanimously recommended by the scientific committee and was also endorsed by an independent scientific review panel appointed here in the us by the national you look at it closely it does not provide for it to be used for the determination of sustainable catch limits the numbers are instead to be agreed to political negotiation behind closed doors the proposal contains a provision that catch limits would be reduced if our m p catch limits are found to be lower but this provision doesn't mean what it appears to mean the proposal does not reference the official published version of the r p g but refers to one specified latest versions of the procedure a number of alternative procedures have been developed in various quarters that claim to be later versions of the r and p none of them have been subject to serious scientific scrutiny they would allow higher catches but only by modifying the notion of sustainability so drastically that it no longer bears any relation to what people commonly understand by the term the proposal contains a program of our m p related work for the scientific committee but close inspection reveals this to decoys more like a program of occupational therapy for the scientists there is no provision for the results of this work to feed back into the management decisions the committee is instructed to continue work on propelling our m p implementations for areas in question the proposal as written is therefore somewhat disingenuous and i suspect that it will fool a number of people it fooled me on first reading the true nature of the scam only dawned on me after reading the text several times and even then only with the benefit of many years of experience with either b c procedures that enables me to relate such a text would actually be implemented in practice those without the benefit of such experience will find it even harder to discern what as to divide the cake before we know how big the cake is it would make more sense for us to have the scientific committee calculate maximum sustainable catches for each whale stock in a transparent verifiable manner using the agreed in the stablish procedures negotiate over that approach would ensure a transparent separation of science and politics instead of the rather opaque mixture of quasi science and politically negotiated numbers that characterizes the current proposal finally i should emphasize that none of what i've said should be construed as criticism of the very sincere efforts of the u s delegation to these negotiations that by the us are w c commission i'm on a committee now i know that monica has been highly motivated to achieve the best possible deal for the world wales however we need to appreciate that one is dealing here with very experienced negotiators from the waiting countries who know the waiting issue inside out who are on top of the science and who have plenty of skill and practice in carving out deals that on what they seem to be such negotiations require a good grasp of all aspects of the subject matter to sum up i warn against indorsement of this proposal an advocate instead a two stage approach as i've just outlined that would keep the political and scientific aspects separate and ensure that all measures taken are based on a strong and transparent scientific consensus i missed any of our sense of concerns in the questions that we raised with the administration's position i know that mr margit you were very specific in terms of your familiar the position public position of the administration is that they find the chairman's proposal unacceptable but as articulated this morning they they they hold out the hope that it's a good basis for negotiation and they're going to decide on the spot in hold hands some of them will have to hold their noses given the flaws in the document that we reviewed this morning close their eyes and jump into this new arrangement loudly saying that it's a significant conservation benefit  but the package fails in some important respects that have that have already been highlighted both in your questioning and and by other testimony this morning i hasten to add though that this isn't a  question of effort certainly not on the part of our our u s commissioner who has been about this twenty four seven since being appointed by the president and even before in a kind of functional capacity but i don't think that the peoples and their interest in doing subsistence whaling and i'm glad that dr cook is here that maybe you can give us a little better in lightman in terms of the proceedings that we've had in the past  why is it that it seems that the focus on the i w c now is on the concerns about indigenous whaling and forgetting about all the other aspects of the seriousness of the harm that there will be operations that have been done by japan  norway and iceland for all these years and i wanted to ask our darker cook cook for his comment there for mr comstock's observations have been very good about the agenda and the subject matter that is being discussed complaints from from many quarters about the functioning of it and the intention under the proposal is that the arrangements for aboriginal waiting will remain effectively the same as they have i believe the only reason why it was felt necessary to include them in the proposal a tall is what mr comstock just explained was a way of kind of fixing them in place so that they wouldn't become  the scientific committee was given a kind of muscle that was told that it should not calculate any actual numbers for that and this both the pro and anti whaling sides were in favor of suppressing any calculation of numbers at the probating side because they were afraid if numbers started appearing on the table they would be under some obligation to abide by them and the anti waiting side worried that if the numbers start appearing that would be seen as or every few years for each of the the indigenous weighting operations and probably for that reason they've attracted more discussion than the commercial whaling where the numbers up and up to now been suppressed and i would strongly advocate that this suppression of the right to calculate numbers by the scientific committee should be lifted and i think that should be done before a proposal such as i don't see how this issue have indigenous could be considered as a political football given the fact that i think three hundred whales a year that the indigenous populations killed and for subsistence purposes it's not for commercial purposes but it seems to me that what i'm hearing is that there seems to be a lot of leverage by our pro with faction within the i w c to talk more about the problems   on the very point and i should hasten to validate at least from my own attendance at the political meetings as an n g l observer fourteen of those meetings in recent years it is a sad commentary and i've discussed this with commissioner medina as well that we've gotten to the point in the commission that the only whaling that the commission seems prepared to argue over and regulate is the whaling conducted by indigenous communities particularly that conducted  and it's done in a world class way as earl has earlier said by the alaska natives but it is not an accident because japan perceives rightly that that is the issue that the united states cares about more than any other at the i w c and this relates to your earlier very good point and question about how in the world we've gone to eighty eight countries some of them landlocked countries who are members of the i w c and a large part of the answer lies in the fact that japan by its own open admission has used what they call a vote consolidation strategy to creatively and aggressively recruit countries from around the world who have no interest in whaling who don't whale in their waters who have no tradition of whaling to comment support japan's claim at the i c in japan the good people of japan know nothing about this and their senior government officials don't care as much responsibility as their fisheries agency bureaucrats but the subsistence whaling quota of the alaskan natives is held hostage as earl has sat by japan to try and achieve other outcomes in the form that they can achieve through the power of their persuasion or their votes or or even what some referred to as vote buying now perversely those outcomes so long labored for by japan are being delivered on a platter by this group the ignoring of the moratorium the legitimization of commercial whaling in two thousand and ten unprecedented rights to conduct commercial whaling in a sanctuary setting science to the side all those things are being served up it's a time for more engaged senior united states leadership and leverage to change the situation both in the commission and in the water for the well and in fairness also to the to the japanese government and its policies as you know the first time in fifty years japan now is is now governed by a newly elected political party that was in total opposites of all the policies that we've that has been taken by the previous for the previous fifty years by the liberal democratic party so we may be seeing some changes in that in terms of maybe i'm not saying that you have represented the japanese government but let's see what happens or there may be a different change or shift in policy about how this issue zealand who have longstanding reservations about any kind of whaling some some to the extent of saying they don't even want to see subsistence whaling and so if they feel the united states is drifting too close to the whaling countries are quote also becomes the lever by which they move them back so it really is a situation on both sides and i think that the dilemma and you and mr delahunt referred to this earlier question is one of the alternatives and one of the leverages that you have and that's why while the a to b c would like to see this document approved we do have to agree with the statements by mr bolton and miss medina that this is probably the best opportunity certainly that's come along in the last decade or more and it would be a shame to waste that opportunity whether you at the end of the day get a deal that the united states is comfortable with is yet to be decided but we do think that you need to give it the best shot because otherwise we will find ourselves in a situation next year and in two thousand and twelve where this intractable dispute between the whaling and anti whaling forces probably ends up hurting only one party which is the alaskan natives who are seeking a subsistence quota because we do follow the law and we have it we have a difficult time so if i just want to flag this all falls apart there's legislation that was introduced in the last congress having to do with domestic authority to set a quota and certainly we can tell you the a to b c would be back here talking to you about that as well so this does have ramifications down the road from where things go when a note also with interest said dr cook's statement earlier about  the fact that whatever numbers that were submitted for this part of the proposal it's not really the numbers because this has not been finalized until the next month's meeting is that correct  cook or was this just being thrown out just as a testing the waters and trying to see what the reactions are quite obviously we're already lined up are pros and those who are against the proposal but my correct for the record that you said  month and the other issue is the fact that the scientific committee have not been authorised to input into the process in terms of giving their own estimates of what would strongly as that this should be done the scientific committee should be given the authority to calculate estimated sustainable catch levels using established scientific procedures in the usual way so that these will be f negotiate get a comment mr comstock again i think he just illustrating that this is in terms of the process this has been a political process and the numbers obviously have been a key component the aboriginal numbers have been in there for quite some time and they're the quota for the alaska natives would not change into this proposal so we're pleased with that but it is a political process there's no doubt about it and what you have right now in front of you is an amendment that's been proposed that had to be filed you know submitted sixty days in advance the meeting so that becomes the basis on which everyone speaks it's presumed by i think almost everyone that there will be attempts to change that amendment in one way shape or form in fact i know and i think we're going to be joining patrick and others and suggesting amendments we from the alaska perspective have some emmett's we'd like to see to it as well so earlier and said ministration really is not that serious about the issue that we're talking about this this morning in fairness to to you dr cook i don't know if you had the chance to review the provisions of the proposed record what are some of the most recent scientific results of the studies or whatever analysis that the committee of the i w c has conducted that could be helpful even to educate the american public about record well gentlemen i try to see if there's any other point that we wanted to do as you know i we've gotten a firm commitment from our friends that the ministration a definite going to review the bells and they will get back to us and hopefully we can start running with this thing and see what we can we can do and i want to commend senator kerry for also introducing a similar type of legislation and hopefully hopefully in the coming months that we can we can work something out on this thing  i have some alondra list and for the sake of time and i don't want to have you gentlemen and listen in on this but i have to do this because of the record i have several documents show that i do want to  admit into the record so that when we put the hearing proceedings it will be a good basis kind of like a little library that you can take with you when you talk about this i've got a letter dated april twenty eighth two thousand and ten addressed to president o the senate committee in commerce science and transportation also expressing concerns about the i w c also for the record i want to put this in the briefing concerning the international whaling that's submitted to hear from our friends is dated from staff that i want to make this to be made part of the record also an article by june it alperin dated april twenty fourth of this year record entitle international whaling commission proposes a compromise on the ban also for the record article by mary yamaguchi of the associated press to be made part of the record dated april twenty three of this year commission proposes limited commercial whaling hunts also for the record in the new york times dated twenty three april record by me the article by andrew revkin  entitled whaling peace plan just less of the same question also the for the record printed materials from the in the b b c news concerning the waning issues  also for the record dated twenty eight april an article by joel reynolds call it it's no way to save the whales article also another record from the economist  may first and is called a giant compromise also to be made part of the record another article new york times on mr john broder u s lege new bid to phase out whale hunting good luck for the record  also for the record this is not an official submission but it is from the embassy of japan background given basic positions of the japanese government submitted by mich be submitted part of the record also requests that we made to the congressional research service submission of a memorandum dated twenty eight april two thousand and ten i think that's important background information press release submitted by no other dated april x x is not been released yet made for the record on wailing concerning the bell but with that gentleman i think mr delahunt probably will not have an opportunity to come back but it does definitely the intention of the chair to proceed is as hard as we can to see what we can do with the other committees said have claim jurisdiction on this b and see how we can work this through the committee process mr comstock mischance want to say on on h r twenty four fifty five we are looking at that bill and i can tell you that we will have a few suggestions for you just to make sure that it also for the record copy of the bill as well as a companion bill similar bill introduced by senator kerry that will be part of the record anything else that i forget also include the bible whatever else we got gentlemen thank you so much for your patience and