U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–336PDF 2010

U.S. LEADERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL

WHALING COMMISSION AND H.R. 2455, THE

INTERNATIONAL WHALE CONSERVATION AND

PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND 

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 6, 2010

Serial No. 111–95

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

VACANT 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

JERRY HALDEMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

PAUL BERKOWITZ, Republican Professional Staff Member 

MARIANA MAGUIRE, Staff Associate

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

LISA WILLIAMS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

DANIEL BOB, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

NIEN SU, Republican Professional Staff Member 

VILI LEI, Staff Associate 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Monica Medina, Esq., Principal Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ........................................................................................................................ 12

The Honorable David A. Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................................................................. 20

Mr. Patrick Ramage, Director, Global Whale Program, International Fund 

for Animal Welfare ............................................................................................... 37

Mr. Earl Comstock, Counsel to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, 

Comstock Consulting, LLC .................................................................................. 43

Justin Cooke, Ph.D., Scientific Consultant, Representative to IWC Scientific 

Committee, International Union for the Conservation of Nature .................... 53

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 5

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights and Oversight: Prepared statement .......................................... 9

Monica Medina, Esq.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 16

The Honorable David A. Balton: Prepared statement .......................................... 22

Mr. Patrick Ramage: Prepared statement ............................................................. 40

Mr. Earl Comstock: Prepared statement ............................................................... 46

Justin Cooke, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................. 56

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 68

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 70

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: 

Material submitted for the record ...................................................................... 71

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 76

The Honorable Bill Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Prepared statement ........................................... 78

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri: Material submitted for the record ................................................. 80

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 82

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Material submitted for the record ...... 84

(1)

U.S. LEADERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL 

WHALING COMMISSION AND H.R. 2455, THE 

INTERNATIONAL WHALE CONSERVATION 

AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND

OVERSIGHT AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC

AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ Carnahan (chairman of the subcommittee on International Organizations, Human 

Rights and Oversight) presiding. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Good morning. I want to call this joint subcommittee hearing of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, and the Subcommittee on 

Asia, the Pacific and Global Environment to order. And welcome, 

all of you. 

And the first thing I want to do is recognize my co-chairman here 

this morning, Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the distinguished chairman for 

working together on this bill that we have been working on for 

months to develop, and for conducting hearings. And I do want to 

thank also our distinguished witnesses who will be testifying this 

morning, after we make 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 attempted to find cooperative ways to conserve whales, 

including International Whaling Commission measures such as a 

commercial whaling moratorium, and the creation of the Southern 

Ocean Whales Sanctuary. 

Yet, the IWC’s actions have proved ineffective in its paramount 

task of protecting whales. And the Commission’s influence has 

waned substantially in recent years, due to disputes among the 88 

member nations that make up the IWC. 

2

Last year, for example, with support and assistance from my 

good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt—

and I am sure that he will be joining us here later—we worked together, and we introduced H.R. 2455, the International Whale Conservation and Protection Act of 2009, aimed at eliminating whaling, 

which is the most visible threat to whales. 

The bill also targets other key impacts on whale populations, 

such as ozone depletion, chemical and noise pollution, marine debris, vessel strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, prey 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 that regard. 

Though H.R. 2455 is not a perfect bill, it has provided a start for 

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. 

And the Obama team has, in effect, played an assertive role in 

attempting to restore the IWC’s credibility to and protect whale 

populations. As part of a core group of some 12 countries within 

the IWC, the United States contributed to seeking a resolution to 

a number of longstanding issues confronting the Commission. 

The administration began its work premised on the principle 

that all nations, whether they engage in or oppose whaling, share 

a common goal in conserving whales. As part of a core group of 12 

countries within the IWC, the United States contributed to the 

work of the IWC chair and vice chair in seeking a resolution to a 

number of longstanding issues confronting the Commission. 

On April 22 of last month, the chair and the vice chair released 

their draft proposal, which will be debated at the IWC’s annual 

meeting in Morocco this coming June. That 10-year proposal currently under review by the United States and other countries begins with the following vision statement, and I quote:

‘‘International Whaling Commission will work cooperatively 

to improve the conservation and management of whale populations and 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 environment.’’

The IWC notes that under the terms of the draft proposal, the 

three countries that currently set their own catch limits—Japan, 

Norway, and Iceland—would immediately suspend the whaling 

they do based on special permits, objections and reservations to 

IWC rules, and agree instead to sustainable catch limits set by the 

IWC at levels below present ones. They would also agree to IWC 

monitoring, surveillance and control measures on their whaling operations, including the placement of observers on their whaling vessels. 

3

According to the IWC, if adopted—and I say this, if—over the 10-

year period of the proposal, several thousand fewer whales will be 

caught than if the current situation remains. 

Japan’s Antarctic whale hunt would fall in stages to 200, about 

a quarter of its size, within 5 years. Iceland would be permitted an 

annual quota of 80 fin whales, less than last year’s hunt of 125, 

along with 80 minke whales, while Norway’s quota would be set at 

600 minkes. No other country would be permitted to start hunting, 

and indigenous groups would not be affected. 

As an aside, I think it is important to recognize what 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 with Norway’s 4.8 million citizens and Iceland’s 

317,000 population constituting a tiny fraction of Japan’s population of well over 120 million. 

I also want to note that the new leadership of Japan has shown 

greater willingness to compromise on the issue of whaling, and the 

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries recently expressed 

a desire, and I quote, ‘‘to continue negotiating with patience,’’ according to media sources. 

Even so, the IWC draft proposal remains subject to a good deal 

of debate and change, and it is quite possible that no agreement 

will be achieved at all. Thus far, the response to the proposal has 

been mixed, with most of the pro-conservation NGOs voicing opposition. In fact, some of these groups have been particularly forceful 

in their disavowal of the proposal, as demonstrated by the prominent advertisement about President Obama recently placed in the 

papers by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. 

I wanted to show my colleagues and the public the full-page ad 

in the New York Times taken out by our friends at the International Fund for Animal Welfare. It says, ‘‘President Obama, you 

promised to end this slaughter. Why is U.S. now leading the fight 

to legalize it?’’ I want to submit this to be made part of the record, 

if that is okay with you, Mr. Chairman. 

That said, in its current form, the IWC draft proposal would appear to share a central goal in the provisions of the bill that Congressman Delahunt and I have worked on and has been introduced 

in ensuring the health and the resilience of whale populations for 

generations to come. 

In light of that common goal, the Subcommittee on Asia, Pacific 

and Global Environment, and the Subcommittee on International 

Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight feel it appropriate to 

convene this hearing to assess recent developments and discuss 

them in relation to the International Whale Conservation and Protection Act of 2009. 

From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, the whaling issue will require a cooperative solution. The 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. 

What 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 

4

Morocco next month, assuming anything is agreed to at all, is both 

binding and enforceable; and that any whaling that does take place 

is strictly limited to that sanctioned by the IWC. 

We are fortunate to have with us today the key administration 

officials to testify. And we certainly look forward to their testimonies, as I am sure my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, will appropriately introduce our administration witnesses 

at a later time in the hearing. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you. Again, in 

my opening statement I say that the issue of whales definitely is 

an international issue. As I also shared earlier with Congressman 

Delahunt, even in my own island cultures in the Pacific, I don’t 

know if some of the friends here in the audience have ever seen 

the Whale Rider; this is our Polynesian cousins among the Maoris 

in New Zealand, have a very, very fond affection for these animals. 

And so it is true with our Hawaiians, our Samoans—every Polynesian values whales almost like fellow human beings. In fact, we 

consider them just as much as we consider our own lives. But I will 

discuss that at a later point. 

But Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for allowing me 

to give this opening statement. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavega follows:]

5


56336p-1.eps
6


56336p-2.eps
7


56336p-3.eps
8

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And I want to yield myself 5 minutes 

for a brief opening statement, and then I am going to yield to the 

gentleman from Massachusetts. 

I thank Mr. Delahunt for his leadership on this issue. When he 

chaired the International Organizations Subcommittee he was a 

champion on this issue. Since he has moved over to be chair of the 

Europe Subcommittee, he continues as vice chair of this committee. 

And so I am going to turn this over to him shortly. 

But I also want to thank Mr. Faleomavaega for his leadership on 

this issue, as well. 

Earlier this year I launched the bipartisan American Engagement Caucus with Representative Joseph Cao from Louisiana. Mr. 

Delahunt is also a member of that caucus. And we believe it is essential to have international cooperation, but also international institutions that work; that work in the economic, security, and environmental fields. 

The International Whaling Commission is an example of an environmental institution that has struggled recently to achieve its core 

mission of research and 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 IWC and protect the environment. This 

is an issue that is really an international issue. 

I represent a district in Missouri, in our heartland. And this is 

an issue where I live, as well. In fact, I have a letter from our 

world-renowned St. Louis Zoo 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 of whale conservation and protection, and renew America’s commitment to whale conservation, especially within the 

international arena, such as the IWC.’’

I am pleased to make note that the St. Louis Zoo is celebrating 

its 100-year anniversary this year. Our local zoo has 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 

Faleomavaega, and again welcome our witnesses. I do have a conflict today, so I am going to have to excuse myself, but I am going 

to leave you in very good and capable hands. 

And I can’t leave this hearing today without reminding Mr. 

Delahunt that my mother, according to her genealogy I had an ancestor that was a whaler from Massachusetts. So I guess I have 

this in my blood. Yes. So I am going to turn it over to you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

9


56336f.eps
10

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Russ. You know, as Chairman 

Faleomavaega indicated, H.R. 2455 was introduced by him, Representative Bordallo, Representative Harano and myself. And I 

think it is there to really demonstrate our collective commitment 

to whale 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 is S. 3116. 

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 have consistently opposed commercial whaling, and supported whale protection. 

In 1990, the House approved a resolution, again originating in 

this committee, calling for sanctions against nations conducting unjustified lethal whaling research. And virtually every year since 

then, the committee has approved resolutions seeking to strengthen 

and enhance internationally the protection of whales. 

Today’s hearing will continue this committee’s longstanding engagement in this issue. We will explore ways for the United States 

to reassert its global leadership in international whale 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 is important to emphasize that today whales face more threats 

than they did more than two decades ago. Last year more whales 

were killed than in any other year since the establishment of the 

1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, a measure again that 

was strongly supported by the United States. 

We are aware that member nations of the IWC have been meeting in secret, behind closed doors, over the past 3 years, to negotiate a new whaling arrangement. Pro-whaling nations are advocating a 10-year plan that would legitimize whaling, even in the 

southern ocean whale sanctuary, an internationally designated safe 

haven established in 1994 to protect more than 80 percent of the 

world’s whales. 

Our 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 whales. I am particularly 

interested in how this deal maintains the moratorium, as stated in 

the so-called consensus decision. 

The term moratorium is defined in Webster’s as suspension of an 

activity, and it would not appear that whaling is being suspended. 

So based on what I am aware of at this point in time, I would 

strenuously object to this deal and its provisions. While I recognize 

that Japan, Iceland, and Norway have never ceased their whaling 

activities, and continued limited whaling during the international 

moratorium, this was done in spite of international objections, and 

pursuant to certain loopholes in the IWC. 

Instead of fixing these loopholes, I am concerned that the administration may have set a course to reward the very nations that 

11

flouted international agreements by engaging in commercial whaling. This course is contrary to every position embraced by the 

United States since the early 1980s. 

In conclusion, let me read a message sent to the IWC that states 

the following: 

‘‘I want to take this opportunity to affirm the United States 

Government’s continuing commitment to whale protection, and 

to urge you to support our proposal for an indefinite moratorium on commercial whaling. 

‘‘Throughout human history, whales have evoked awe and 

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 and increase the importance of effective management that could assure whale populations for the future.’’

That message was sent on July 17, 1981, by President Ronald 

Reagan. As President Reagan demonstrated, whale protection has 

never been a partisan issue, and it is important to continue our bipartisan commitments. 

I look forward to hearing testimony from all of our witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And before I yield back, let me just 

say you have truly been the champion on this cause. And I am honored to co-sponsor the legislation with you. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [presiding]. And I just want to say to the 

gentleman, it has been my personal honor, too, and privilege in 

working closely with you for all these months. And our friends also, 

who are very concerned about the conservation of whales and 

bringing about this hearing that we are having today. 

Before I turn the time back to Mr. Delahunt to introduce our distinguished witnesses from the administration, I would like to recognize one of the members of our subcommittees. I know there are 

a lot of whales in the State of Arizona, and that is why he made 

sure that he would be here to express some strong, strong views 

on why we need to make every effort to do what we can do to save 

our whales. 

So the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. FLAKE. I have no statement. Just glad to be here. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right, thank you. Mr. Delahunt, would 

you like to introduce our——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I would, I would be honored to. First we 

have Ambassador David Balton. He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries in the Bureau of International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State. 

In March 2005, President Bush, with the consent of the Senate, 

accorded to Mr. Balton the rank of Ambassador during his tenure. 

He previously served for 6 years as director of the Office of Marine 

Conservation at State. In that capacity he was responsible for coordinating the development of the U.S. foreign policy concerning 

living marine resources, and overseeing U.S. participation in international organizations, such as the IWC, dealing with the conservation and management of these resources. 

12

He has negotiated numerous treaties and other international 

agreements on fisheries, marine mammals, and other matters pertaining to the marine environment. Welcome, Ambassador. 

Next, Monica Medina is currently the Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the National Association 

and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Commissioner 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 oversight of 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 U.S. delegation to the meetings of the IWC, and leads negotiation on issues 

related to the commission. As such, she will provide invaluable insight into the processes that led to this draft consensus decision. 

And I look forward to her testimony. Welcome to both of you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If I may, I thank the gentleman for introducing our witnesses. And I would like to, in terms of the order of 

the witnesses, if Ms. Medina could proceed, and then followed by 

our Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr. Balton. 

STATEMENT OF MONICA MEDINA, ESQ., PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. MEDINA. I would be glad to. Good morning. Thank you very 

much. I believe it is on; maybe I am just speaking too 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 62nd annual meeting of 

the International Whaling Commission, or IWC. 

I am Monica Medina, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for 

Oceans and Atmosphere with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and I am testifying today in my capacity as 

the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC. 

The goal of the Obama administration is to conserve whales and 

preserve the IWC as the premiere international body for the conservation and management of whales. 

The administration reaffirms its unwavering support for the commercial whaling moratorium, and 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 IWC, including the future of the organization. For any future arrangement to be acceptable, it must, one, result in significant improvement in the conservation status of 

whales for the long term; and two, be based on sound science. 

My written testimony includes background information on the 

IWC, and a discussion of the main issues currently confronting the 

organization, a long description of the future process, and includes 

13

some description of the current proposal by the chair and vice chair 

of the commission. 

The United States’s biggest concern at the IWC is that more and 

more whales are being killed. Twenty-four years ago, the international community agreed on a 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 brought a chart; it could be displayed at some point. 

I am not going to speak to it directly, but it does show this trend 

of increased whaling. 

In 1990, three countries killed a total of 300 whales. In 1995, 

they killed 750 a year. By 2000, the annual number topped 1,000 

whales per year. By 2005, it was up to 1,700 whales a year. And 

this year, three countries issued themselves quotas—and that is 

quotas—to kill more than 3,100 whales annually. 

Right now, unfortunately, there is little that the IWC can do 

about it. Unless something happens, more and more whales will be 

killed, and there is currently no limit to how many whales will be 

killed in the future. 

Since the ban on commercial whaling in 1986, more than 35,000 

whales have been hunted, and the numbers continue to grow. At 

the same time, the resulting polarization of the IWC 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 means years, of protracted and unresolved debate 

over the proper means to conserve, utilize, and study whales have 

made many IWC members, including the United States, concerned 

about the body’s future relevance in controlling unilateral whaling 

and conserving whale stocks. 

I believe a ceasefire is needed. In fact, it is overdue. 

However, and I do want to say however, 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 U.S. will vote against it. 

In 2008 the commission agreed by consensus to form a small 

working group. The task of the small working group had been to 

develop a package or packages for consensus resolutions regarding 

the future of the IWC 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 2009, a 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 IWC member countries, as 

well as a range of views on whaling issues. It was comprised of 12 

countries, including the United States. 

14

After three meetings of 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 contained a set 

of ideas about how the IWC could improve its function in the future. That document was thoroughly discussed at the March meeting, and the chair and vice chair of the IWC have since 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 IWC control by 

closing the loopholes that permit unlimited whaling today; to transform the IWC to focus squarely on conservation, and address the 

new and emerging threats to cetaceans; to recover severely depleted and endangered populations of whales; to increase the participation of civil society at IWC proceedings; to prevent our subsistence hunts 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 

chair’s proposal represents a step forward, and is a foundation for 

achieving a functioning IWC and improving the conservation of 

whales. 

We have encouraged other countries to approach the discussions 

with open minds, flexibility, and constructive attitudes, in the hope 

that diplomatic and scientific solutions can be reached. 

While the administration has not taken a position on H.R. 2455, 

I believe the U.S. objectives, along with our unwavering support for 

improved conservation of whales and the moratorium on whaling 

at the IWC, that we are very much in sync with the intent of H.R. 

2455. 

As the bill appropriately states, today whales face an uncertain 

future due to a variety of threats. These threats include climate 

change, pollution, ocean noise, ship strikes, bycatch, and entanglement. The U.S. would like to see the IWC 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 

IWC may be slightly inhibited by some of the current provisions of 

H.R. 2455. But we would very much like to work with you on that. 

In closing, Mr. Chairmen, while the administration recognizes 

conservation benefits outlined in the proposal put forward by the 

IWC 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 in Agadir, Morocco. The United States will consult with all 

15

relevant stakeholders to fully consider the elements of the chair 

and vice chair’s proposal. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the United States’s position on whale conservation and management has not changed. And 

I agree with you, Congressman Delahunt, that whales do evoke 

awe 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 am sorry, all the recent U.S. 

Commissioners to the IWC, both from Republican and Democratic 

administrations, and one from a group of scientific chairs, or chairs 

of the Scientific Committee of the IWC. Both of those are relevant 

to the proposal. And also this chart. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Medina follows:]

16


56336b-1.eps
17


56336b-2.eps
18


56336b-3.eps
19


56336b-4.eps
20

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection, those documents will be 

made part of the record. And could you please make sure that the 

staff receives those documents you cited, Madam Secretary. 

Ms. MEDINA. We will. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. I would also like to note for the 

record that we are joined by another distinguished member of our 

subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Ingliss. If 

he has any opening statement that he would like to make at this 

time. 

All right, then we will proceed on, Secretary Balton, for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID A. BALTON, DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador BALTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the two subcommittees, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you today. I have a written statement, and ask that it be included in the record. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection, both of your statements 

will be made part of the record, as well. Okay. 

Ambassador BALTON. This morning I will try to highlight the 

main points. 

I would like to commend the members of the two subcommittees 

for their interest in strengthening our efforts to promote whale conservation, and to improve the functioning of the IWC. The United 

States is a leader in whale conservation at the international level, 

and we can be proud of our record. 

This morning I will try to present the views of the Department 

of State on the issues relating to whaling and whale conservation, 

and particularly how these issues fit into the larger framework of 

U.S. foreign policy. 

For the better part of two decades, divergent views within the 

IWC have led to a prolonged stalemate on these issues And as 

someone who has spent about 20 years negotiating international 

agreements to conserve and manage living marine resources, I regard the stalemate as both unfortunate and anomalous. 

The stalemate has steadily eroded the stature and effectiveness 

of the IWC as an international organization. At this point, the IWC 

does not meaningfully control the whaling activities of Iceland, 

Norway, or Japan. Indeed, the only whaling activities that the IWC 

oversees closely are the taking of whales for indigenous subsistence 

use, including whaling activities undertaken by Alaskan Eskimos. 

Please allow me to quote from a letter Ms. Medina just mentioned that President Obama recently received from six past U.S. 

IWC Commissioners. They say,

‘‘We have seen the steady decline of the IWC from a worldclass international organization for the conservation and management of the great whales, to a nearly dysfunctional body. In 

short, the IWC is not now the sort of international organization we would wish it to be.’’

21

Perhaps more importantly, the stalemate within the IWC also affects the broader foreign policy of the United States with the nations 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 is a source of ongoing friction in these otherwise healthy relationships. The Department of State therefore sees 

value in seeking a resolution of this stalemate, provided that the 

resolution otherwise serves U.S. interests. In our view, moving forward would allow advancement of our foreign policy agenda with 

these and other partners. 

The 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 

democracies 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 IWC 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. Medina. The administration 

does not accept the proposal of the chair and vice chairs as it is 

currently configured. 

I expect that the proposal of the chair and vice chair is also unacceptable to most other IWC 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 IWC. 

Our best hope is for the chair’s proposal to serve as a springboard on which to jump forward to an arrangement that is acceptable. In our view, such an opportunity to improve whale conservation and to make the IWC an effective organization once again may 

not present itself again soon. 

This will not be easy. Indeed, some IWC members are under increasing political pressure and criticism from constituents who believe that the chair’s proposal would effectively capitulate to those 

members who want to engage in commercial whaling. 

On the other side, some IWC members are under increasing political pressure and criticism from their constituents, who believe 

that the chair’s proposal would unduly restrict their right to harvest whales. My hope is that some acceptable solution is nevertheless within reach. 

In conclusion, the status quo is bad for whales and bad for the 

IWC. It hampers our ability to advance our foreign policy interests 

with certain key governments. 

We believe that the effort to negotiate a resolution within the 

IWC represents the best opportunity to resolve this longstanding 

22

difficult issue, to enhance and strengthen our bilateral and multilateral relationships, to restore the functionality of the IWC, and 

to conserve whales more effectively. 

Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Balton follows:]


56336a-1.eps
23


56336a-2.eps
24


56336a-3.eps
25

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Secretary Balton. Before proceeding on with questions from the members of the subcommittee, 

we are very, indeed, honored to have with us the presence of our 

full committee chairman of the 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 would like 

to turn the time over to Chairman Berman at this time for his 

statement. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Faleomavaega. I appreciate this, and I apologize for jumping in the 

middle of this hearing with this statement. I couldn’t be here at the 

opening of the hearing. 

I would 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. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection, the statement will be 

made part of the record, as well as your statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this hearing comes at a crucial time, as members of the International Whaling Commission 

prepare 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 IWC is broken, when for almost a quarter of a century, countries have continued to kill 

whales without limit. Since the ban was implemented in 1986, over 

12,000 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 moratorium. 

Regrettably, a recently released proposal that reflects the work 

of the United States and other members of the IWC fails to close 

this loophole or stop Norway’s hunts. Instead, it places a cap on the 

number of whales killed per year. Clearly, there are no limits. 

I have several concerns about this proposal. First, I am very reluctant to legitimize the actions of whaling countries in any situation. Furthermore, 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 achievements made in conservation 

since the moratorium’s enactment, and once and for all put an end 

to commercial whaling. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the chairman for his statement. And 

at this time, I know that he is really under pressure with time, but 

if the chairman wishes to raise any questions with our administration witnesses, I would be more than happy to give him the time. 

Chairman BERMAN. No. You have been more than generous; I am 

not going to take advantage of that very generous offer. Thank you. 

26

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. At this time I would like to ask my friend, 

Mr. Delahunt, for his questions. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. Ambassador, let me pose this question to both of you. 

The market. Where is the bulk of the market for these whales 

that are killed? 

Ambassador BALTON. The bulk of the market is in Japan, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is in Japan. You know, I think your observation about the IWC and its credibility and legitimacy being eroded 

is a very valid one. And it is really unfortunate, and there should 

be a stronger word than unfortunate, to see its legitimacy waning. 

I wonder if we are unable to achieve our goals in Morocco. What 

are the alternatives that we could consider, in terms of maintaining our own integrity and position, vis-a`-vis the protection of 

whales? 

Ambassador BALTON. Well, I can offer one answer. Ms. Medina 

may have something to add, as well. 

If this negotiation fails, and it may, the options we will be looking at are not very good. The trend lines are all bad. Regulation 

without control by the IWC may well continue to increase, as the 

chart that was previously up on the screen showed. The political 

will of the countries who have invested a lot of time and energy 

into trying to find the 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 IWC any time soon. 

As for us, we would really need to reconsider our approach here. 

We have been spending a lot of time and effort within the IWC 

process, mostly lately through Ms. Medina and a large team we 

have. If it fails, we will need to reconsider this time and energy 

and money that we have been putting into the process. 

Japan, Norway, and Iceland will also need to reconsider what 

they have been doing. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I guess what I am looking for, Ambassador, is, 

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. Are there sanctions available to deter 

those three nations from continuing the practice of commercial 

whaling, albeit under a ruse, if you will? 

Ambassador BALTON. I guess my best answer is this. You are not 

the first to ask that question; the question has 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 book, the Pelly Amendment, and I am 

sure you are familiar with it. Countries have been certified under 

the Pelly Amendment for whaling activities. But if what you are 

talking about are serious economic sanctions, or——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Targeted, obviously. 

Ambassador BALTON. At least, if the past is prologue, there has 

never been a willingness on any administration’s part to use those 

sanctions. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That doesn’t leave us with a viable option. I 

mean, obstinacy on the part of those three, as you indicate, friendly 

and allied governments, the options are disastrous. 

27

But I think there is sentiment here in Congress that we should 

be pursuing targeted, a targeted, let us call it a remedy, for lack 

of a better term. Because we don’t seem to be making any progress. 

That trend line is disturbing. 

And have we ever taken the position, Ms. Medina, that a compromise must include a commitment by all countries to end whaling? Commercial whaling? 

Ms. MEDINA. We consistently take the position——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Hit that button. 

Ms. MEDINA. Oh. Is it on now? I am sorry. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. 

Ms. MEDINA. Maybe I am just, again, speaking too softly. We 

consistently take the position that we would like to see all whaling 

ended, all commercial and scientific whaling. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what is the response? 

Ms. MEDINA. And I do want to be clear, not indigenous subsistence whaling. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, we understand that. 

Ms. MEDINA. But we do, we do want to see that all commercial 

and scientific, lethal scientific whaling end. And the other members 

of the IWC believe that they are whaling and using legitimate 

grounds for conducting their whaling activities. 

We hope, although, as I said, and I want to be clear, that we are 

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 65-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 1 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 whales to face in the future. 

So this agreement would be an interim step toward what we 

would hope would be the end to all commercial and scientific whaling. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But do we, in terms of the discussions regarding 

compromise? Is there an end game here? In other words, is there 

the willingness on the part, particularly of these three nations, to 

commit to end commercial whaling? 

Ms. MEDINA. 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 1 year ago, we have seen much more flexibility and interest 

in some sort of interim agreement that could lead to a new convention. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. My concern about a convention, a new convention, is the time to achieve a new treaty is considerable. The processes are considerable. And the trend line, we have seen what is 

happening. 

Ms. MEDINA. That is why the interim step would be to reduce 

whaling, and to put real hard limits, and enforceable limits. So we 

would have an option if somebody were to go beyond those limits, 

one of those nations, we would have enforceability within the IWC, 

which we have not got right now. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And they resist that. 

28

Ms. MEDINA. No, they are willing to do that in this proposal. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield back. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona for 

his questions. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I ask, if you totaled 

up all the indigenous whaling around the world, what would that 

figure be annually? 

Ms. MEDINA. It is roughly 300 whales a year. 

Mr. FLAKE. Three hundred? 

Ms. MEDINA. It dwarfs the amount of commercial and scientific 

whaling, and it is relatively—well. I am sorry. 

Mr. FLAKE. Sorry. The commercial and scientific whaling dwarfs 

the indigenous whaling. 

Ms. MEDINA. Yes, indigenous whaling. 

Mr. FLAKE. No, I understand that. I just wondered what percentage it made up of the total. So indigenous is 300, tops, annually, 

everywhere. 

Ms. MEDINA. Always. 

Mr. FLAKE. Whether it is in Alaska or wherever else. Russia, 

Greenland, okay. 

Ms. MEDINA. There is a little bit by Canada that is also done outside the IWC. They left the IWC at the time of the moratorium, 

but it is one or two whales. So, minimal. 

Mr. FLAKE. With the commercial and scientific, which types of 

whales are being taken, for the most part? What is the range, and 

what is the type? 

Ms. MEDINA. The greatest number of whales are being taken in 

the stock that is probably the most abundant. That is not to say 

that it is in good shape. We don’t know. But it is minky whales. 

The largest number in the southern ocean, then in the North Atlantic. But it is minky whales, for the most part. 

Mr. FLAKE. Is there a sensitivity that you sense among these 

three countries to take only from the stocks of the most abundant 

whales? Or, I mean, are they sensitive to that? Can you speak to 

that a little? 

Ms. MEDINA. One of the first things that we discussed in the support group was the fact that we all, especially given that we are 

allies on so many other environmental issues, we all believed that 

science had to be the foundation for whatever agreement was 

forged. 

And so the issue here is which stocks are most able to withstand 

the hunts. And we have a system in the IWC 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 abundance estimates on some. 

And we would be working underneath the sustainability numbers. 

So the IWC calculates what is a sustainable amount that could 

be harvested for each of these stocks. And what we are looking to 

do is cap the number of whales taken underneath that sustainable 

number. 

Mr. FLAKE. Where would you put that right now, that sustainable number? If you say there are, how many annually, under the 

commercial, the scientific exemption, or loophole, are taken? And 

where, how does that relate to where you would put sustainability? 

29

Ms. MEDINA. The numbers in the southern ocean that we are 

talking about in the chair’s proposal, which again we haven’t 

agreed to yet, we don’t think it is acceptable, are below sustainable. 

Well below. 

Mr. FLAKE. How much? Can you give me some idea? 

Ms. MEDINA. I think by a lot. I mean, there could be thousands 

harvested sustainably in the southern ocean. The problem with the 

southern ocean, and I want to emphasize it, is that the IWC also 

created a whale sanctuary there. And there is a concern, and it is 

a valid one, that whaling in a sanctuary, in this pristine area of 

the world, isn’t appropriate. And that is the issue in the southern 

ocean. 

It is not so much is it the science, are those stocks hurt; it is that 

this was supposed to be an area that was preserved for all wildlife, 

was supposed to be a sanctuary for whales. And it is very sensitive. 

And yet, the Japanese are conducting there large-scale industrialtype whaling activities there. 

Mr. FLAKE. Of the total, Ambassador, of the three countries, 

Japan is the bulk of it. What percentage of the whales that are 

taken are taken by Japanese fleets? 

Ambassador BALTON. I am going to say more than two thirds. 

Mr. FLAKE. And if asked, what do they say, in terms of the scientific justification for taking so many whales? What is the stock 

answer there? 

Ambassador BALTON. 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 have 

been sold on the open market. 

Mr. FLAKE. Right. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank the gentleman from Arizona. A couple questions I would like to ask. 

You have indicated from your testimony that since 1986, 35,000 

whales have been killed, presumably by these three countries: Iceland, Norway, and Japan. What is the total world population of 

whales? We have several types. 

Ms. MEDINA. Mr. Chairman, that is a hard one to answer. We 

are studying that, and that is one of the reasons why I would hope 

that we can find common ground in the IWC. 

Because as the premiere scientific, international scientific organization, we could do a better job of understanding global populations 

and movements than we do now. So——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But Madam Secretary, we have been at this 

for 54 years, since 1946. We should have some estimate as to the 

world population of whales, shouldn’t we? 

Ambassador BALTON. They don’t answer the census very well. 

Ms. MEDINA. I can get you a number. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you submit that? 

Ms. MEDINA. Very well. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, just yes, I mean——

Ms. MEDINA. Absolutely. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It doesn’t have to be every whale, I just was 

curious. If we have killed 35,000 whales since 1986 out of the total 

population of whales, I am not a mathematician, but I would think 

that conservation does come into play in a real sense. 

30

Ms. MEDINA. 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 

moratorium——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That thing is not very clear because it is so 

small. Are you referring to this chart that I have here? 

Ms. MEDINA. The chart, the graph. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. You can state for the record what the 

numbers say. 

Ms. MEDINA. The number here isn’t even——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, eventually the number here, just say 

what the number is. 

Ms. MEDINA. Well, prior to the moratorium, the number of 

whales being hunted and killed was in the thousands, tens of thousands——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Before 1986. 

Ms. MEDINA [continuing]. Before 1986. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Then we started making excuses about scientific studies to justify the continuation of the killings, right? 

Ms. MEDINA. Yes. But putting it into context——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So there is an absolution. But then on the 

other hand, there is probably no country in the world other than 

Japan that has more information on the science of whales than 

probably any other country, even more than even our own country. 

Would that be a safe statement to make? 

Ms. MEDINA. Our scientists would say that we are doing an 

awful lot of whale research. But——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How do we do the research, compared to 

how the Japanese do it? 

Ms. MEDINA. We don’t do lethal research. We do not conduct lethal research. And nor would we. It is possible to take DNA samples very——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So we have already done that, as compared 

to what the Japanese have done. 

Ms. MEDINA. Not any more. We did before, but not any longer. 

My point about the moratorium is that the moratorium actually 

did have a beneficial, a tremendous beneficial effect. It is, in fact, 

one of the greatest achievements of the environmental movement 

in the seventies and eighties. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Actually, how many whales were killed before the 1986 moratorium? 

Ms. MEDINA. It was in the tens of thousands each year. And it 

came down as whale populations dwindled. So, 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 rebound. 

The problem is this trend of increased whaling in the face of that 

is not a very good one. That is what we are concerned about. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. And your statement, Madam Secretary, again, I am just kind of putting it generally, it sounds like 

the administration does not support the proposal. 

Ms. MEDINA. We do not support the proposal in its current form. 

But we hope that it will provide, as Ambassador Balton said, a 

springboard, a framework, or a foundation on which we can conclude negotiations, and improve it enough that the U.S. could support it. 

31

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And if you strive for improvements, what 

are specific areas for improvement on the proposals that I would 

like for the administration to submit for the record. I mean, you 

say that you have very serious concerns, but can you be any more 

specific about two or three areas that you say absolutely you are 

against this aspect of the proposal? Are we in that level right now 

of where you are very firm in your, in the administration’s position 

on this? 

Ms. MEDINA. We are engaged in almost daily diplomatic discussions, in an effort to move our colleagues in the other governments. 

We have been working very hard 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 occur. Those are the most important 

issues to us right now. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The concern I have, Madam Secretary, just 

as it was mentioned earlier by Chairman Delahunt, is that it seems 

like we are going right back to square one. New Zealand and Australia, several other strong countries in areas of whaling are absolutely against any aspect of this proposal. And it just kind of sinks 

the whole thing to say well, we are going to try and negotiate. Negotiate where? If already it seems, it sounds from both of your testimonies, that the administration does not support the current, especially the major aspects of what the proposal calls for. 

Here is the question. We want no killings at all; that is the ultimate. But at the same time, how do you deal with our friendly 

countries, the free countries that say hey, it is none of your business; it is part of our culture, it is part of our economic needs. The 

Norwegians and Icelanders love to eat whale meat. So how do you 

measure that in terms of saying well, who are you to tell us that 

we cannot eat whale meat? Just in the same way that our indigenous populations say we can eat it, too. 

So where do we draw the line in saying that you cannot do this? 

Ambassador BALTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say you have put 

your finger on why this is a difficult negotiation. But this is a negotiation. The positions articulated by Australia, New Zealand, 

Japan, about the chairman’s proposal, are all part of a larger negotiation. 

I don’t know. If this were a Venn diagram, I am not sure all the 

circles are going to touch. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, we had a little problem years 

ago, when our tuna fishing fleet made this claim that because tuna 

was a highly migratory fish, they could conduct fishing for tuna 

anywhere in the world. The heck with the EEZ zones of these countries. 

Well, guess what? They had their vessels confiscated. And it got 

to the point where even one of our sailors got caught in the Solomon Islands, and it created a furor, a worldwide furor, in saying 

who is this little dinky country there in the South Pacific telling 

my fishing boat, America, that they cannot fish for tuna. 

And we all agree, tuna is a highly migratory fish. But it goes 

again to the same question of the EEZ zones of these countries, 

saying hey, when that fish comes through our 200-mile EEZ zones, 

you cannot take the tuna out. 

32

And so what do we do? Well, they got chased out. They ended 

up in the Russian Pacific, and we’re still having problems fishing 

for tuna. 

So I go back to the same questions. How is the world community 

going to tell Iceland and Norway and Japan that they cannot kill 

any more whales because of the consumption demand by their people? 

And I think Mr. Delahunt says sanctions. That is one option. 

What, commit a war against these countries for killing whales? No, 

I just wanted to know what other options are available. Because we 

have been at a stalemate for how many years now? A good number 

of years now, I believe. 

Ambassador BALTON. We have been at a stalemate for the better 

part of two decades. But we have a negotiating process that has a 

chance to succeed. I don’t know if it will succeed, but we may. We 

may get there. 

It may require all sides to accept something less than what they 

optimally want. It would, in any event, only be an interim deal. 

And it may be, Mr. Chairman, that time is ultimately on our side. 

It may be that the markets for whale meat and other whale products will eventually dry up entirely, and the problem will be solved 

in that way. 

Until such time, though, we have three countries who very much 

want to continue whaling. We have an interest in significant reduction of whaling activities from what we have today, and we want 

to bring such whaling as does exist under control. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, there seems to be general consensus 

that the IWC is like a toothless tiger. It has no teeth. It has no 

real enforcement process of saying you can’t do this, you can’t do 

that. 

And I don’t know how we ended up with 88 member countries. 

Every country had whales in their districts? I am curious. It became a political football. 

And by way of, I wouldn’t call it extortion or bribery, but how 

do you persuade these countries to support you. I think you require, what, a three-quarters vote among the 88 member countries? 

And I am curious, 88 members. I didn’t realize that many countries 

had whales in their districts. I am just curious about that. 

I am also curious that the administration has no comment on the 

bill that Mr. Delahunt and I had introduced for the last 100 years 

now. You have no comment? We have had this bill for almost 1 

year. I guess it is not important? Any provisions in there that do 

not make any sense? Or can you say that maybe we can make improvements? 

I would like to ask you for your suggestions. How can we improve the bill? 

Ms. MEDINA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I said, we would be delighted to work with you to work on various provisions of the bill. 

What is unusual about it is that it tells the U.S. Government 

what to negotiate, which is——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, we tried to throw even the kitchen 

sink in there, to make sure that something gets moving here, to the 

extent now that we have got the Ways and Means Committee, the 

33

Resources Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee all taking a bite at it. 

And I want to know, maybe we need to separate it so that we 

can get this thing moving in some way. Can you help us with that? 

Ms. MEDINA. Yes, we would be delighted to work with you on 

that. And I do think that the one thing, if you are searching for 

why would the other nations, since they have the right, at least 

they claim, 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 and find an answer. 

They also are frustrated, as we are, when they attend IWC meetings, and all we do is exchange our verbal accusations and spend 

many weeks every summer—it is 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. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would also note for the record that I think 

the media has been very unfair toward Japan. We see national TV, 

and looking at the Japanese as the evildoers in the killings of 

whales. But I haven’t seen one media shot of our environmental 

friends to go against the Norwegians and the Icelanders, and they 

are killing the whales too. I feel there is a real sense of unfairness 

in how the media has portrayed Japan as the evildoer, and I think 

it is very unfair in that respect. 

And I don’t know if any of our Americans, fellow Americans, 

know that Japan has had a 400-year cultural history in their relationship with the whales. So this is just an appetite, indeed, there 

is also a lot of cultural history behind it in that country. Just as 

it is true with our indigenous friends, whether it be in Alaska, 

Canada, Russia, or other countries. 

But I would deeply appreciate it if the administration could get 

back to us as soon as possible, so we can get this bill moving in 

such a way so that hopefully get it to the extent that it will be 

helpful to the whole idea. 

Now, here is the question. Ultimately, no more killings. Option 

B, there has got to be some kind of a conservation here, because 

I don’t think we are going to be able to convince these three countries that absolutely believe that whaling is just like taking other 

marine resources for consumption. That is why we put on moratoriums. And look what happened to the swordfish in New England. 

We ended up now with 150 long-line boats in Hawaii, because the 

swordfish population is no longer there. So what have we done for 

that? 

So it seems to me that there has got to be some kind of conservation measures. And I think this is perhaps the key factor in how 

we can get our three friends to do this. If it is for consumption, and 

it may be in some reduced form, but to say that absolutely, that 

they cannot kill any more whales, I don’t see how this is ever possible. Maybe I am wrong. Could you comment on that? 

Ms. MEDINA. I think it is only possible if we take the next step 

in this work toward an end to lethal scientific and commercial 

whaling. I don’t think it is possible without continued diplomacy. 

I think your points about the perspective of the Japanese on their 

34

hunts are well taken. And of course, that is 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 a step toward what we would hope would 

be an end to commercial and scientific whaling. And at the very 

least, getting it under control; making the IWC a relevant organization again, and being able to turn to those other conservation 

issues that are probably——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, Madam Secretary, I hate to interrupt, 

but I see that you are speaking about the ideal. But the reality is 

that is not where we are at, and we haven’t been there for all these 

years. So we have to really be serious as, well, we are making pretensions that we can do it, we can negotiate. We negotiate it to 

death, and the poor whales are still being killed left and right. 

So I know I have taken too much of my time. I want to turn the 

time——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, would you yield to me for just a 

moment? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Absolutely. My time is over. This is the second round, Bill, for you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. I will be very brief. I mean, you know, you 

are talking about negotiations. Well, implicit in the concept of negotiations is leverage. 

I fail to see adequate leverage unless there is a clearly defined 

penalty. And maybe it is unilateral in nature. Or other signatories, 

you know, other similarly 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. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This is like the non-proliferation treaty that 

we have been at for so many years. It is okay for the five permanent members of the Security Council to continue having atomic 

bombs, but we tell the rest of the world they cannot have them. 

And I sense it is the same thing with whaling. It is okay for certain countries to do it, but the rest of the world cannot. And here 

is the problem that we have. Where do we find—sanctions is being 

discussed, as has been done. But again, a total failure. 

How can we positively persuade our friends to say that maybe 

we can work in some other way? That is just a question I wanted 

to raise to the gentleman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, and I agree with you, Eni. I mean, there has 

to be a punitive aspect. Not that we want to see, to have that punitive aspect infect our relationships with allied and friendly nations. 

But if you are ever going to achieve, in negotiations, some progress, 

people have to have something to lose. And right now, there is 

nothing. They can talk you to death, and they can negotiate. 

What you are really having are conversations. I don’t see it as 

negotiations. And there has to be some sort of creative option that 

the administration designs and goes to Morocco with. 

And I echo the request by the chairman in terms of reviewing 

H.R. 2455 that has been filed by himself, me, and several others. 

Be creative. We are looking, we are trying to help you in terms of 

your negotiating posture. 

35

Ambassador BALTON. We understand that. 

Ms. MEDINA. We appreciate it. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, this is not to be, you know, this is not 

to castigate your efforts. I am sure that you are making heroic efforts, Herculean efforts. But you don’t have any, you don’t have any 

bullets in your gun. Everybody knows it is a water pistol, you 

know? And you have got to load up. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Maybe not even a water pistol. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. I mean, if the administration is sincere—

and I think this is how you will be measured, particularly by the 

NGO community—you have to have available 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 okay. 

And it doesn’t have to just strictly be restricted to whales. I 

mean, the fishing fleets in these countries, in addition to whales, 

what exports to other countries, in terms of their fleets, are available for the imposition of sanctions? Ambassador? 

Ambassador BALTON. Certainly both Norway and Iceland are 

major exporters of fishery products, that is true. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That might get their attention, Ambassador. 

Ambassador BALTON. I would ask you to consider one thing, 

though. So you might describe Japan, Norway, and Iceland as 

outliers in this; and hence, your desire to consider sanctions. But 

sometimes the—yes, it is, and I will try to speak a little more loudly. 

But sometimes the shoe is on the other foot. The United States, 

at different times in our history, has been considered an outlier in 

certain other things. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Oh, we are well aware of that. We serve on the 

Foreign Affairs Committee, so we——

Ambassador BALTON. So you know better than I. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We do. 

Ambassador BALTON. And so that has to be part of the calculus, 

no? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. And there are times that, you know, that 

Members of Congress have been very critical, in terms of administrations—and that is plural—in terms of our own behavior. And 

that is why we have a Committee on Oversight. 

In a democracy, we hopefully can indulge in not just self-criticism, but self-analysis to see how our behavior can be improved. 

Oftentimes, you know, Congress will conduct oversight in a way 

that might be interpreted as a sanction on the Executive. 

And what we are asking for is that kind of analysis to be conducted in terms of your negotiation. I would respectfully suggest 

we have got to move from conversation into real negotiation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I have another juicy issue to share 

with both of you. What about shark-finning? What about the poor 

sharks out there? Merciless killing, I mean, of just taking the fins, 

and destroying the carcass and not of any use. And that is another 

36

serious, serious issue. What is the world community doing about 

that? 

You know, a little bowl of shark fin soup in Asia is about $100. 

There is a tremendous economic consumption demand for shark fin 

soup. What about the bycatch? Tremendous amount of fish that is 

wasted, that we just don’t seem to pay any attention to any more 

than we are paying attention to the whales. 

Ambassador BALTON. On shark-finning, sir, I can thank the Congress, which passed the Shark-Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, we 

have actually made some progress. We have gotten the different regional fishery management organizations to prohibit the practice. 

It still continues, nevertheless. We are trying to find ways to better enforce the prohibitions. You are right to point out that it is 

still a problem that is not yet fully solved. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In fairness to our friends from Iceland and 

Norway and Japan, I don’t know if there are any representatives 

from the embassies of Iceland, Norway, and Japan. I would be 

more than happy to open the record. We will request 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 in what we are discussing this morning. 

But Madam Secretary and Ambassador, I really want to thank 

both of you for spending the time and having to get grilled by Mr. 

Delahunt on these important questions about this issue. 

Thank you. We look forward to working with you. And please 

help us move this bill. If you really think it is helping, we will be 

helpful in seeing how we can better shape this issue, so that we 

can really help those whales. 

Like I said, it was my privilege to sail on the Polynesian 

voyaging canoe called the Hokulea, from Tahiti to Hawaii. And for 

some 26 days, it was almost like I was living about 1,000 years ago 

with my ancestors. And every morning and every evening are the 

most beautiful sunsets and sunrises, the dolphins chasing us, and 

also whales. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to go on the next trip. Get away from this 

madness. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Isn’t that the truth. But anyway, thank you 

both very much, and we look forward to working with you on this 

bill. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. What are the dates of the Morocco conference? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It is June something, next month. 

Ambassador BALTON. The plenary week is June 22 or 23 to the 

26th. But there are 3 weeks in advance of that; 2 weeks of the Scientific Committee, a week of subcommittees, and then the plenary. 

So it is 4 weeks. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. We have on our next 

panel with us this morning, Dr. Justin Cooke who, I think he just 

arrived, coming all the way from the other side of the world here 

to join us for the hearing this morning. 

Dr. Justin Cooke is a member of the International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature in the Specialist Group with the IWC Scientific Committee, and specializes in the quantification of risks to 

marine populations due to exploitation and other factors. His work 

37

includes a modeling of an estimation of whale demography. He developed a quantitative component for the IWC’s revised management procedures. So we have got a good expert here who works directly with the IWC’s Scientific Committee. 

Also with us this morning, we have Mr. Patrick Ramage. Mr. 

Ramage was named the Global Whale Program manager 3 years 

ago. In his role, Mr. Ramage leads IFAW’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, high-intensity ocean noise, ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, and the emerging threat of global climate change. 

Mr. Ramage is a graduate of the Defense Language Institute and 

has European foreign language training; well-versed in German 

and Russian; is a U.S. military intelligence officer; lives in Massachusetts, and probably a member of your constituency there, Mr. 

Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I suspect he is, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Also we have with us Mr. Earl Comstock. 

He is the CEO of the Comstock Consulting Firm. Has served as 

counsel for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission for 2 years 

now. In that capacity, he advises the Whaling Commission on Congress, the executive branch, and the International Whaling Commission. 

He also works with the AEWC to negotiate conflict avoidance 

agreements. Mr. Comstock served from 1987 to 1997 in various capacities as a senior staff member to the former Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, and also on the staff of the Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. And from 1987 to 1991, 

Mr. Comstock was the professional staff member of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. 

So these gentlemen are very familiar with the marine sciences, 

and the committee is very appreciative of their efforts to come all 

the way here to testify. And let us start with Mr. Ramage for his 

testimony. We will proceed on this. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PATRICK RAMAGE, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL 

WHALE PROGRAM, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL 

WELFARE 

Mr. RAMAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I am 

Patrick Ramage, Global Whale Program Director at the International Fund for Animal Welfare, or IFAW, one of the world’s 

leading non-governmental organizations working to conserve and 

protect whales. 

I have attended 12 of the past 14 annual meetings of the International Whaling Commission, or IWC. 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. 

38

I must also confess almost two decades of admiration for Monica 

Medina, a long-time friend and sometime colleague, for whom I 

have no small amount of affection. I appreciate Ambassador David 

Balton’s committed public service, and both the legal acumen and 

the clients represented on this panel by Earl Comstock. 

My family, my wife and three children, are in fact lucky to call 

Bill Delahunt our Congressman. And I am also a fan of yours, Congressman Faleomavaega, both for your early work on shark-finning, and more particularly since your introduction of H.R. 2455 almost 1 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 the IWC would weaken, not strengthen, protection 

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 IWC. 

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 IWC was created 

here in Washington. Its most important conservation achievements, 

including the moratorium on commercial whaling adopted in 1982, 

and the declaration of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 

1994, 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 led. 

Third, Americans from sea to shining sea are united in their support for whale conservation, and their opposition 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 IWC 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 40th 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 articuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jul 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\050610\56336 HFA PsN: SHIRL
39

lated 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 it. 

To suggest, after all these negotiations, that we need to wait 

until the IWC meeting next month in Agadir to learn the details 

of this proposal and the position of our Government suggests either 

incompetence, intellectual dishonesty, or inadequate reflection on 

the serious questions it raises. 

This is a bad deal for whales and the convention established to 

conserve them. It ignores the moratorium. It makes a mockery of 

the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. It grants new rights to 

Japan, Iceland, and Norway to openly kill thousands of whales. It 

end-runs scientific procedures adopted by consensus to reward the 

three countries who have refused 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 is established, needlessly recreating a conservation committee in place since 2003. Elaborate observer and 

monitoring schemes, which will be funded by U.S. taxpayers, and 

an inadequate DNA tracking scheme are also established. 

Having outlined what I and the overwhelming majority of longtime observers are against, what does change we can believe in 

look like for whales in the IWC? It has six specific elements, which 

are elaborated in my written testimony, but I will 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. Adhering to agreed IWC 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 3 weeks ago from 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 market for whale meat is in freefall in all 

three countries. 

Whatever the fate of the chair’s proposal and your 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 IWC; but rather, through a more consistent, 

persistent, creative, and long-term approach, both inside and well 

beyond the IWC. 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 IWC are as 

40

serious about conserving whales as their fisheries’ bureaucrats are 

about resuscitating commercial whaling in the 21st century. 

On behalf of a unified conservation community, I urge you to advance the positive vision called for in the thoughtful legislation you 

introduced in H.R. 2455, and the companion legislation advanced 

by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts in the form of Senate 3116. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramage follows:]


56336c-1.eps
41


56336c-2.eps
42


56336c-3.eps
43

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. And without objection, all of 

your statements will be made part of the record. And if you have 

any additional materials to be added onto it, you are welcome, too. 

Mr. Comstock for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EARL COMSTOCK, COUNSEL TO THE 

ALASKA ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION, COMSTOCK CONSULTING, LLC 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here. And Mr. Delahunt, thank you, both of you, for having Alaska 

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 up in the communities 

on the North Slope there. So he was unable to leave. 

The Inupiat Eskimos of the coastal villages of the Northern Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Beaufort Sea have hunted the 

bowhead whale for over 1,000 years. Today there are 11 communities on the North Slope of Alaska, ranging from St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea to Kaktovic in the Beaufort, that still hunt 

the bowhead 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, these communities turn out to harvest these whales. 

And so it is, the communal function of the activity of whaling is 

also very important to the culture of the Inupiat Eskimo. 

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was formed in 1980 by 

the whaling captains in response to a decision by the International 

Whaling Commission to set a zero quota on bowhead whales. As 

you can imagine, this caused quite a crisis in the community; and 


56336c-4.eps
44

now, 30 years later, we have been working through this process for 

quite some time. 

In the course of doing that, the AWC was formed. And its mission is to protect the bowhead whale and the subsistence hunt. 

Over those 30 years, the AWC, working with the United States 

Government, the environmental community, and the IWC, has now 

established what is widely known as sort of the gold standard for 

subsistence whaling at the IWC, and in fact, the model worldwide 

for the use of basically indigenous subsistence resource management to handle stock. 

It has been a long and difficult and expensive process for the 

AWC and the whaling communities up there. And we have basically met every hurdle that has been placed in our way. We have 

met everything that the commission has said, including, over the 

course of that time, documenting and establishing a scientific process for documenting subsistence need, for modernizing the 19th 

century whaling tools that are used and marrying them with 20th 

century technology so that we can improve the humaneness of the 

hunt, and we have also established some of the leading-edge scientific research on the status of the bowhead stock. Including a 

program that is 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 whales throughout the year and see 

where they actually go. It is an exciting program, and they are very 

proud of it. 

Our role in the IWC frankly has been the political football. We 

know, as you heard in earlier testimony, that the IWC is at crisis 

point. It has become exceedingly dysfunctional. And in fact, I was 

at the 2002 meeting in Shimonoseki, where the Japanese successfully blocked the approval of a subsistence quota for the Alaskans. 

And that precipitated yet another crisis. And in the ensuing 6 

months, where the quota was reinstated, what happened was Iceland was able to then slip back into the IWC, with the reservation 

under which they now conduct their whaling. 

So we are pushed and pulled back and forth. I mean, frankly, we 

are caught in the middle. And what everybody has figured out over 

this time is that if you want to get the United States’s attention, 

what you do is you hold our quota hostage. We were up in 2007, 

and that process happened, almost, again. Thankfully, the meeting 

was held at 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 are up again in 

2012. And so we see this coming again. And in fact, we have been 

told by some of the countries that we will not see our quota reauthorized. 

So I am here today to say that we do support the process that 

is going forward on this future negotiation. It is not, the document 

that has been introduced is not a perfect document; we recognize 

that. We would like to see some improvements ourselves. And we 

know our colleagues here, and we have worked with Patrick and 

many of the other environmental groups for many years, would like 

to see changes to that document. We are all for that. 

But our key concern, and what I am here to testify to you today 

about, is we really need to find a way to get subsistence whaling 

45

out of the middle of this mix. Because what is happening is these 

communities that depend on whaling for a critical source of their 

nutrition are being increasingly taken hostage by both sides as a 

means for 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 88 countries at this; 88 countries are now getting 

together for almost 2 weeks a year. And the sole thing they seem 

to be able to focus their discussions on is subsistence whaling. 

All of the other stuff, all of the other important issues—ship 

strikes, climate change, commercial whaling—those aren’t discussed at all. They are talked about on the edges and 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 is the only thing they can agree on. 

So the status quo is a continuing stalemate. And we would 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 have exercised the leadership role throughout this process. But in exercising 

that role, it has also made our quota a target. 

So the good thing we see in this proposal is that it would grant 

a 10-year subsistence 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 are hearing the other parties testify 

needs to be done. 

If we are not there to be held hostage, you have got a lot more 

room. 

And let me just say in concluding my testimony, as someone who 

participated in several international fishery negotiations, and has 

been at the IWC for various, well, 10 different times now over the 

past 20 years, you can’t achieve all of this at once. In any of these 

negotiations, if you say we must 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 urge 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 on achieving entirely, we think you have got something 

that is worth moving forward on. So we would encourage you to do 

that. 

Thank you for taking my testimony today, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Comstock follows:]

46


56336d-1.eps
47


56336d-2.eps
48


56336d-3.eps
49


56336d-4.eps
50


56336d-5.eps
51


56336d-6.eps
52


56336d-7.eps
53

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Comstock. Dr. Cooke, for 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JUSTIN COOKE, PH.D., SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT, REPRESENTATIVE TO IWC SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE 

Mr. COOKE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am Justin Cooke, a 

mathematician and biologist based in Germany, specializing in the 

quantitative assessment of biological populations. 

Since the 1980s I have been a representative of the International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature on the Scientific Committee 

of the IWC. 

I have been invited here specifically to comment on the proposed 

deal between the pro- and anti-whaling members of the International Whaling Commission. But first I want to say what an 

honor it is for me to be invited to testify for your subcommittee, 

and that I am thrilled to be here on the Hill talking to you today. 

On the IWC Scientific Committee I have been particularly active 

in the development of the so-called revised management procedure, 

RMP. And because the proposed deal makes several references, 

both to the Scientific Committee and to the RMP, I will start by 

explaining briefly what these are. 

The IWC is required by its charter to base its decisions on scientific findings. And for this purpose, it has a Scientific Committee, 

which has, in recent years, become recognized 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 nonwhaling countries, as well as a number of independents. It reaches 

its conclusions and recommendations mainly by consensus, such 

consensus being reached usually after very thorough examination 

of the evidence. 

Shortly after the moratorium on commercial whaling came into 

force in the 1980s, the Scientific Committee started to analyze 

what it calls the failure of previous attempts to put the management of whaling onto a sustainable basis. The committee soon recognized that, for the event that the IWC might decide to lift the 

whaling moratorium at some future date——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is your mic on, Dr. Cooke? 

Mr. COOKE. I am sorry. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. Could you get a little closer? 

Mr. COOKE. Is that better? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes. 

Mr. COOKE. Okay. The committee soon recognized that for the 

event that the IWC would decide to lift the moratorium at some future date, the committee needed to develop a revised management 

procedure that would provide a robust scientific basis for ensuring 

that any future whaling would be managed sustainably. 

The procedure that emerged is a data-based rule for determining 

sustainable catch limits, with a 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 

54

appointed here in the U.S. by the National Marine Fishery Service. 

The IWC itself has endorsed the RMP in principle, in a number of 

consensus resolutions. 

The proposed deal before us contains as yet no agreed numbers 

for how many whales of each species would be killed. As explained 

in the covering note by the IWC chairman, the numbers in the current draft proposal are merely examples inserted by him as 

spaceholders for final numbers yet to be negotiated. 

The proposed deal mentions the RMP several times, but when 

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 through political negotiation behind closed doors. 

The proposal contains a provision that catch limits would be reduced it RMP 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 RMP, but refers to unspecified latest versions of the procedure. 

A number of alternative procedures have been developed in various quarters that claim to be later versions of the RMP. 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 RMP-related work for the 

Scientific Committee, but closer inspection reveals this to be a 

mere decoy; 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 preparing RMP 

implementations for different whale species and areas, but has 

been told not to calculate any actual numbers. The calculation of 

catch limits is to be left to unspecified players free to use versions 

of the RMP, whose safety has not been tested by the committee for 

the species in 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 the IWC procedures that enables 

me to relate such a text to how it would actually be implemented 

in practice. Those without the benefit of such experience will find 

it even harder to discern what the text really implies than to spot 

the scam. 

I consider the move to sideline the Scientific Committee and to 

sidestep accepted scientific procedures to be a retrograde step, and 

to be very unwise. The proposal before us is back to front; it tries 

to divide the cake before we know how big the cake is. 

It would make more sense first to have the Scientific Committee 

calculate maximum sustainable catches for each whale stock in a 

transparent, verifiable manner, using the agreed and established 

procedures. For at least half of the whale stocks in question, this 

could be done straightaway, because the implementation work has 

been completed. All that we require is a green light. 

55

These maximum limits would then define the outer bounds for 

what the diplomats have left to negotiate over. That approach 

would ensure a transparent separation of science and politics, instead of the rather oblique mixture of quasi-science and politically 

negotiated numbers that characterizes the current proposal. 

Finally, I should emphasize that none of what I have said should 

be construed as criticism of the very sincere efforts of the U.S. delegation to these negotiations, led by the U.S. IWC Commissioner 

Monica Medina. I know that Monica has been highly motivated to 

achieve the best possible deal for the world’s whales. 

However, we need to appreciate that one is dealing here with 

very experienced negotiators from the whaling countries who know 

the whaling issue inside-out, who are on top of the science, and 

who have plenty of skill and practice in carving out deals that 

aren’t what they seem to be. Such negotiations require a good 

grasp of all aspects of the subject matter. 

To sum up, I warn against endorsement of this proposal, and advocate instead a two-stage approach, as I have 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. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke follows:]

56


56336e-1.eps
57


56336e-2.eps
58

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much, Dr. Cooke, for your 

statement. My apologies if I do not pronounce your name right, is 

it Mr. Ramage, or Mr. Ramage? 

Mr. RAMAGE. I have been called a lot worse. It is Ramage. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. Thank you. I have some questions I 

wanted to share with you gentlemen. 

All three of you I assume were here when Secretary Medina and 

Secretary Balton were testifying. And I don’t know if Mr. Delahunt 

and I have missed any of our sense of concerns in the questions 

that were raised with the administration’s position. 

I know that Mr. Ramage, you were very specific in terms of your 

stated opinions on the Obama administration and their lack of initiative and leadership on this issue of whaling. 

I wanted just to ask you if there is any sense of comfort from 

what Secretary Medina and Secretary Balton are both saying. It 

seems like they are not supporting the proposal. Is this—maybe I 

misread what their statements were earlier when they testified. 

But what is your take on this? 

Mr. RAMAGE. Well, I think their reassurances were familiar only 

in this—I am sorry—were comforting, only in the sense that they 

are very familiar. 

The position, public position of the administration is that they 

find the chairman’s proposal unacceptable. But, as articulated this 

morning, they hold out the hope that it is a good basis for negotiation. And they are going to decide on the spot in Agadir what the 

position of the United States might be. 

The fervent hope of the participants in the drafting group—and 

this has been palpable in the meetings, the lone, open meeting held 

2 months ago in Florida, where accredited NGOs were allowed to 

attend, and the many closed meetings, as well, which some of us 

have sat outside. 

But the fervent hope of those participants, and in fact the 

chair—and he refers to this in the proposal—is that cover-up consensus can be used in Agadir to put through——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you elaborate on what you mean by 

cover-up consensus? 

Mr. RAMAGE. Well, what is hoped for is that all countries will 

come together, hold hands—some of them will have to hold their 

noses, given the flaws in the document that we have reviewed this 

morning—close their eyes, and jump into this new arrangement. 

Loudly saying that it is a significant conservation benefit for 

whales. 

But the package fails in some important respects that have already been highlighted, both in your questioning 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 the U.S. Commissioner, who has been 

about this 24/7 since being appointed by the President, and even 

before in a kind of functional capacity. 

But I don’t think that the higher-level engagement and creativity 

that both you and Congressman Delahunt have referred to has 

been there from others in the administration. And that leverage 

that Congressman Delahunt highlighted is so crucial to a negotiation has been utterly absent. 

59

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Comstock, you raised some very, very 

interesting points about the fact that your testimony, especially the 

interests of our indigenous peoples and their interest in doing subsistence whaling. And I am glad that Dr. Cooke is here, that maybe 

you can give us a little bit of enlightenment in terms of the proceedings that we had in the past. 

Why is it that it seems that the focus of the IWC now is on the 

concerns about indigenous whaling, and forgetting about all other 

aspects of the seriousness of the conduct of whaling operations that 

have been done by Japan and Norway and Iceland for all these 

years? 

And I wanted to ask Dr. Cooke for his comment, if Mr. Comstock’s observations have been very accurate about the agenda and 

the subject matter that has been discussed at the IWC meetings. 

And the fact that they talk more about indigenous needs than they 

are about the commercial aspects of the problems that we are faced 

with. 

Mr. COOKE. Mr. Comstock can give a better answer to that question regarding the political negotiations in the IWC. I am a member of the Scientific Committee. 

With regard to the scientific aspects, we have had for a number 

of years what we call the Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure, which is the basis we use to estimate sustainable catch limits 

for aboriginal whaling. And that has functioned, I believe, very 

well. There have been virtually no complaints from any quarters 

about the functioning of it. 

And the intention under the chair’s proposal is that the arrangements for aboriginal whaling will remain effectively the same as 

they have been. I believe the only reason why it was found necessary to include them in the proposal at all is what Mr. Comstock 

just explained was a way of kind of fixing them in place, so that 

they wouldn’t become political, it wouldn’t become a kind of political football again, as it has in the past. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But it seems to me, then, and please correct 

me if I am wrong, if I heard right what Mr. Comstock was sharing 

with us, that while exposing the development of the agenda and 

the issues to be discussed by the IWC, by the time you get through 

with it you talk more about the indigenous problems posed and 

stuff. And yet no one pitching on the commercial problems that we 

are dealing with with the three friendly countries that continue to 

conduct commercial operations in the killing of the whales. Is this 

an accurate description of how the IWC seems to be conducting its 

meetings? 

Mr. COOKE. Well, one of the reasons for that is that some years 

ago, when the management procedure for commercial whaling was 

finalized, the Scientific Committee was given a kind of muzzle. It 

was told that it should not calculate any actual numbers for that. 

And both the pro- and anti-whaling sides were in favor of suppressing any calculation of numbers, on the pro-whaling 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-whaling side worried that if numbers start appearing, that 

would be seen as a legitimization of some level of whaling. So both 

60

sides of the divide were united in not wanting to see any numbers 

for commercial whaling. 

On the other hand, for aboriginal whaling we have had numbers 

produced and updated annually or every few years, for each of the 

indigenous whaling operations. And probably for that reason, they 

have attracted more discussion than the commercial whaling, 

where the numbers up to now have 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 the one 

we have before us, should be discussed, so that we know what are 

the sustainable limits for each whale population. When we know 

that, then the diplomats and politicians then know what they have 

to negotiate over. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I don’t see how this issue of indigenous 

whaling could be ever considered as a political football, given the 

fact that I think 300 whales a year that the indigenous populations 

kill, and for subsistence purposes, it is not for commercial purposes. 

But it seems to me that what I am hearing is that there seems 

to be a lot of leverage by our pro-whaling faction within the IWC 

to talk more about the problems of these indigenous peoples, and 

say hey, you don’t need to find a count, it is only 300. Why are we 

suppressing the number? We are only talking about 300 versus the 

thousands of whales that have been killed by our three friends 

from Iceland and Norway and Japan. I am not getting this correctly, and I want to make sure the record is accurate and I get 

this correctly. Mr. Ramage. 

Mr. RAMAGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think you have put your finger on the very point. And I should hasten to validate, at least 

from my own attendance at the political meetings as an NGO observer, 14 of those meetings in recent years. 

It is a sad commentary—and I have discussed this with Commissioner Medina, as well—that we have 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 is 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 IWC. 

And this relates to your earlier very good point and question 

about how in the world have we gotten to 88 countries, some of 

them landlocked countries, who are members of the IWC. 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 come and support Japan’s 

claim at the IWC. 

In Japan, the good people of Japan know nothing about this. And 

their senior government officials don’t bear as much responsibility 

as their fisheries agency bureaucrats. 

61

But the subsistence whaling quota of the Alaska natives is held 

hostage, as Earl has said, by Japan to try and achieve other outcomes in the forum that they can’t achieve through the power of 

their persuasion, or their votes, or even what some refer to as votebuying. 

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 2010, unprecedented rights to conduct commercial whaling in a sanctuary, setting science to the side. All those things are being served up. 

It is 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 whales. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, in fairness also to the Japanese Government and its policies, as you know, the first time in 50 years, 

Japan now, is now governed by a newly elected political party that 

are almost in total opposites of all the policies that we have, that 

has been taken by the previous, for the previous 50 years by the 

Liberal Democratic Party. 

So we may be seeing some change in that in terms of maybe, I 

am not saying that, I am not here representing the Japanese Government. But let us see what happens, that there may be a different change or shift in policy about how this issue of the whaling 

issue may be done. 

Mr. Comstock. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I might just add, to make 

sure it is clear it is not a one-sided game here, we get held hostage 

by both sides. 

What happens is if there are other countries, like Australia and 

New Zealand, who have longstanding reservations about any kind 

of whaling, 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, our quota also becomes the lever by which they 

move them back. So it really is a situation on both sides. And I 

think the dilemma—and you and Mr. Delahunt referred to this earlier—the question is, what are the alternatives. And what are the 

levers that you have. 

And that is why, while the AWC would like to see this document 

improved, we do have to agree with the statements by Mr. Balton 

and Ms. Medina that this is probably the best opportunity certainly 

that has 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 

2012, where this intractable dispute between the whaling and antiwhaling forces probably ends up hurting only one party, which is 

the Alaska natives who are seeking a subsistence quota. Because 

we do follow the law, and we have a difficult time. 

So I just wanted to flag, if this all falls apart, there is legislation 

that was introduced in the last Congress having to do with domesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Jul 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\050610\56336 HFA PsN: SHIRL
62

tic authority to set a quota. And certainly we can tell you the AWC 

would be back here talking to you about that, as well. 

So this does have ramifications down the road for where things 

go. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to note also of interest Dr. Cooke’s 

statement earlier about the fact that whatever numbers that were 

submitted for part of the proposal, it is not really the numbers because this has not been finalized until next month’s meeting. Is 

that correct, Dr. Cooke? Or was this just being thrown out just as 

testing the waters and trying to see what the reactions are? Quite 

obviously, they are already lined up, the pros and those who are 

against the proposal. 

But am I correct for the record that you said that they don’t take 

the proposed numbers seriously because they are not really final, 

at least in view of the Scientific Committee’s positions on this, as 

well? 

Mr. COOKE. Well, you have asked two separate questions. Yes, it 

is correct, the numbers are not final. But the proposal was distributed with a covering letter from the chairman, where he explains 

in his covering letter that there was no agreement on the numbers. 

Therefore, the numbers in the proposal are simply examples, example numbers he inserted himself. And those have not been agreed. 

And negotiations over numbers will be continued up until the 

meeting of the Whaling Commission next month. 

The other issue is the fact that the Scientific Committee has not 

been asked or authorized to input into the process in terms of giving their own estimates of what would be sustainable catch levels. 

And that is what I see as one of the weakest aspects of the proposal, that this is not being done. 

And therefore, I would strongly urge 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 ways, so that these will be fully documented 

and verified. When that has been done, then we can see what the 

sort of range of possibilities lies, what the maximum limits are 

within which the diplomats could then negotiate. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you care to comment, Mr. Comstock? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Again, I think he is 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 the quota for 

the Alaska natives would not change under this proposal, so we are 

pleased with that. 

But it is a political process, there is no doubt about it. And what 

you have right now in front of you is an amendment that has been 

proposed, that had to be, you know, submitted 60 days in advance 

of the meeting. So that becomes the basis on which everyone 

speaks. 

It is 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 are going to be joining Patrick and 

others in suggesting amendments. We, from the Alaska perspective, have some amendments we would like to see to it, as well. 

63

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I was a little surprised by the fact that the 

bill that Congressman Delahunt and I have introduced has been in 

there for public, as well as the administration’s, opportunity to review and analyze for the last 10 months. And then to learn from 

both Secretary Medina and Secretary Balton that they have no 

comment, it sounds like they never even bothered reading the bill. 

And that a little concerns me. It kind of reflects what Mr. Ramage 

has said earlier about this administration really is not that serious 

about the issue that we are talking about this morning. 

I furnished to you, Dr. Cooke, I don’t know if you had the chance 

to review the provisions in the proposed bill, H.R. 2455. Do you 

think that maybe we are encroaching on the mighty power and will 

of the IWC’s authority to operate, to control and administer the 

problems dealing with whales? 

Mr. COOKE. I am afraid I have to pass on that one, because I 

don’t really understand the ins and outs of the U.S. legislative 

process. So maybe one of my co-panelists could answer. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I am happy to hear, Dr. Cooke, that 

you say that the Scientific Committee of the IWC is the most renowned authority on whales. I would very much appreciate if you 

could submit for the record some of the most recent scientific results of the studies, whatever analysis that the IWC has conducted. 

That could be helpful in educating the American public about what 

you have discovered about whales. 

Mr. COOKE. The long answer to that would be extremely long. I 

could submit an extremely short summary of——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, just——

Mr. COOKE [continuing]. Just a few points, yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just give us the real meat of it, if you can. 

I would appreciate it if you could help us with that. 

Mr. COOKE. You mean now, or for the record? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, no, no, for the record. For the record. 

Mr. COOKE. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. Well, gentlemen, I tried to see if 

there is any other point we wanted to do. As you know, we have 

gotten a firm commitment from our friends at the administration, 

they definitely are going to review the bill, and they will get back 

to us. And hopefully we can start running with this thing and see 

what 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, we can work something out on this thing. 

I have a laundry list. And for the sake of time, and I don’t want 

to have you gentlemen listen in on this, but I have to do this because of the record. I have several documents here that I do want 

to submit for the record, so that when we print 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 have got a letter dated April 28, 2010, addressed to President 

Obama from the U.S. Senate, expressing similar concerns about 

whaling, from our good Senators. Senator Murkowski, Senator 

Inoue, Senator Akaka, and Senator Begich concerning whaling, 

that will be made part of the record, without objection. 

64

Another letter also addressed to President Obama, dated 27 April 

of this year, from Senator John Rockefeller, the chairman of the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, also 

expressing concerns about the IWC. 

Also for the record, I want to put in the briefing concerning international whaling submitted here from our friends. It is dated, from 

staff, and I want to make this part of the record. 

Also an article by Juliet Elperin dated April 24 of this year, entitled ‘‘International Whaling Commission Proposes Compromise on 

the Ban.’’

Also for the record, an article by Mary Yamaguchi of the Associated Press, to be made part of the record, dated April 23 of this 

year, ‘‘Commission Proposes Limited Commercial Whaling Hunts.’’

Also for the record, from the New York Times dated 23 April, an 

article by Andrew Revkin, entitled ‘‘Whaling Peace Plan Just Less 

of the Same?’’

Also for the record, printed materials from the BBC News concerning the whaling issue. 

Also for the record, dated 28 April, an article by Joel Reynolds 

called ‘‘It Is No Way to Save the Whales.’’

Also another record from the Economist, dated May 1, and it is 

called ‘‘A Giant Compromise,’’ also to be made part of the record. 

Another article, from the New York Times by Mr. John Broder, 

‘‘U.S. Leads 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 giving basic positions of 

the Japanese Government, submitted by Mr. Shironakasuka, First 

Secretary of the Embassy of Japan. 

And as I said, I will open the record for our friends from Iceland 

as well as from Norway, for their embassies to submit whatever 

statements they want as part of the record. 

Also a request that we make the Congressional Research Service 

submission of a memorandum dated 28 April, 2010. I think that is 

important background information. 

For the record, August 12, 2009, a letter concerning the bill, the 

International Whale Conservation Protection Act of 2009, signed by 

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven—100 NGOs. For the record, 

I want to make sure it is in there. 

And also for the record, the press release issued by the chairman 

and the vice chairman of the IWC concerning this proposal. 

For the record, dated February 26 of this year, a letter to President Obama from Members of the House of Representatives, Congressman Delahunt, myself, Congresswoman Bordallo, and Congresswoman Mazie Herono. 

For the record, the chair’s proposal comparing the various baselines, the chart, and all of these things will be made part of record. 

Thank you for your patience. And also a press release submitted 

by NOAA, dated April XX—it has not been released yet—made for 

the record on whaling, concerning the bill. 

With that, gentlemen, I think Mr. Delahunt probably will not 

have an opportunity to come back. But it is definitely the intention 

of the chair to proceed as hard as we can to see what we can do 

65

with the other committees that have claimed jurisdiction on this 

bill, and see how we can work this through the committee process. 

Mr. Comstock. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say on H.R. 2455, 

we are looking at that bill. And I can tell you we will have a few 

suggestions for you just to make sure that it doesn’t adversely impact subsistence. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will keep the record open for further comments from you, Mr. Comstock, and your organization. The same 

also, Mr. Ramage. And as I said, any other additional materials 

you want to submit definitely will be made part of the record. 

Also for the record, a copy of the bill, as well as a companion bill 

introduced by Senator Kerry, that will be made part of the record. 

Anything else that I forgot? Also include the Bible and whatever 

else we have got. 

Gentlemen, thank you so much for your patience. I appreciate 

Mr. Comstock and Mr. Ramage being patient. Let us see how our 

friend, Secretary Medina, is going to come out on these negotiations next month. Maybe we will come out with something a lot 

more positive, and then hopefully this proposal is going to come out 

with more substantive stuff. And hopefully the Government of 

Japan will also be cooperative in what we are hoping for. 

And Dr. Cooke, thank you so much for traveling all the way here 

to testify before this subcommittee. 

And with that, gentlemen, the subcommittee hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

68


56336n-1.eps
69


56336n-2.eps
70


56336m.eps
71


56336g-1.eps
72


56336g-2.eps
73


56336g-3.eps
74


56336g-4.eps
75


56336g-5.eps
76


56336h-1.eps
77


56336h-2.eps
78


56336i-1.eps
79


56336i-2.eps
80


56336j.eps
81


56336k.eps
82


56336l-1.eps
83


56336l-2.eps
84


56336q.eps
85


56336r.eps
86


56336s-1.eps
87


56336s-2.eps
88


56336s-3.eps
89


56336t-1.eps
90


56336t-2.eps
91


56336u-1.eps
92


56336u-2.eps
93


56336v-1.eps
94


56336v-2.eps
95


56336w-1.eps
96


56336w-2.eps
97


56336x-1.eps
98


56336x-2.eps
99


56336x-3.eps
100


56336y-1.eps
101


56336y-2.eps
102


56336y-3.eps
103


56336z-1.eps
104


56336z-2.eps
105


56336z-3.eps
106


56336aa-1.eps
107


56336aa-2.eps
108


56336aa-3.eps
109


56336ab-1.eps
110


56336ab-2.eps
111


56336ac-1.eps
112


56336ac-2.eps
113


56336ac-3.eps
114


56336ac-4.eps
115


56336ac-5.eps
116


56336ad-1.eps
117


56336ad-2.eps
118


56336ae-1.eps
119


56336ae-2.eps
120


56336af-1.eps
121


56336af-2.eps
122


56336ag-1.eps
123


56336ag-2.eps
124


56336ah.eps
125


56336aj-1.eps
126


56336aj-2.eps
127


56336ak-1.eps
128


56336ak-2.eps
129


56336ak-3.eps
130


56336ak-4.eps
131

[NOTE: H.R. 2455 and S. 3116, submitted for the record, are not reprinted here. 

They are available in committee records or may be accessed via the Internet at:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/∼bdsPSZ:@@@L&summ2=m&|/

home/LegislativeData.php and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:

SN03116:|/home/LegislativeData.php (respectively).]


56336ak-5.eps
132


56336o-1.eps
133

Æ


56336o-2.eps