40–288

105TH CONGRESS REPT. 105–74 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 2

INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT

MAY 1, 1997.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the

Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. ARCHER, from the Committee on Ways and Means,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 408]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the

bill (H.R. 408) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of

1972 to support the International Dolphin Conservation Program

in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill, as amended by the Committee

on Resources, do pass.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 408, as amended by the Committee on Resources and reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, would implement

into U.S. law the Declaration of Panama concerning tuna fishing

in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The bill would recognize that a significant reduction in dolphin mortality has been

achieved by nations fishing for tuna in the ETP. In addition, the

bill would replace the current use of U.S. unilateral standards as

a trigger for an import ban of tuna caught with purse seine nets

with multilateral standards agreed to as part of the Panama Declaration. Finally, the bill would amend the definition of ‘‘dolphin

safe.’’

B. BACKGROUND

Because large yellowfin tuna associate with schools of dolphin in

the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), fishermen have in the
2

past deployed large seine nets around dolphins to harvest the tuna

swimming below, resulting in significant dolphin mortality. Since

then, fishermen have improved their techniques, greatly reducing

the incidence of dolphin mortality. Scientific experts report that the

current level of dolphin mortality is less than 4,000 animals per

year, a level considered to be below commercial significance.

In an effort to protect marine mammals from the adverse effects

of fishing, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972. In 1984, in response to concerns of the increased incidence of dolphin mortality by the foreign tuna fleet, the MMPA

was amended to require each nation wishing to export tuna to the

United States to document that its dolphin protection program was

‘‘comparable’’ to that of the United States and that the incidental

mortality rate was ‘‘comparable’’ to that of the U.S. fleet. Failure

to meet these standards would result in the embargo on the importation of yellowfin tuna from that country.

Legislation enacted as part of the Fishery Conservation Amendments of 1990 codified criteria for the labeling of tuna and tuna

products as ‘‘dolphin safe.’’ To qualify as dolphin safe, tuna caught

in the ETP must have been caught either by a vessel too small to

deploy nets around dolphins or, for larger vessels, the catch must

be certified by a qualified observer that no ‘‘dolphin sets’’ were

made for the entire fishing trip.

In 1990, Mexico was embargoed for not achieving comparability

with the U.S. fleet. In response, Mexico requested a GATT panel

to consider whether the United States was inconsistent with its

GATT obligations by imposing embargoes on tuna imports under

the authority of the MMPA. In August 1991, the GATT panel found

that the United States had acted inconsistently because it imposed

import restrictions based on certain extraterritorial environmental

concerns and dictated how other nations produce their goods for export. However, the panel suggested that import sanctions could be

permissible if they were designed to encourage compliance with a

multilateral agreement. Adoption of the panel report has been

blocked by the United States under the pre-WTO dispute settlement procedures of the GATT.

The EU subsequently challenged U.S. embargo provisions applicable to tuna trade through intermediary nations. That GATT

panel also found that the United States had acted inconsistently

with GATT obligations. Adoption of the panel report has been

blocked by the United States under the pre-WTO dispute settlement procedures of the GATT.

In 1992, Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) nations concluded the La

Jolla Agreement, a non-binding international agreement establishing an International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) under

the auspices of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

(IATTC). The agreement established annual limits on incidental

dolphin mortality, required observers on tuna vessels, established

a review panel to monitor fleet compliance, and created a scientific

research and education program and advisory board. The agreement established a dolphin mortality limit for each vessel, and

when that limit was reached, such vessel would be required to discontinue ‘‘setting on dolphins’’ for the remainder of the year.
3

In October 1995, 12 nations signed the Declaration of Panama,

including the United States, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,

France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The Panama Declaration endorses the success of the La

Jolla Agreement and adjusts the marketing policy of dolphin safe

tuna in recognition of this success. In exchange for modifications to

U.S. law, foreign signatories agreed to modify and formalize the La

Jolla Agreement as a binding agreement. Signatories agreed to

adopt conservation and management measures to ensure long-term

sustainability of tuna and living marine resources, assess the catch

and bycatch of tuna and take steps to reduce or eliminate the

bycatch, implement the binding agreement through enactment of

domestic legislation, enhance mechanisms for reviewing compliance

with the IDCP, and establish annual quotas for dolphin mortality

limiting total annual dolphin mortality to fewer than 5000 animals.

Changes to U.S. law envisaged by the other signatories, in return, included lifting the primary and secondary embargoes on

tuna caught in compliance with the La Jolla Agreement, permitting

access to the U.S. market for all tuna (dolphin safe and non-dolphin safe) caught in compliance with the La Jolla Agreement by

IATTC members or nations initiating steps to become IATTC members, and redefining ‘‘dolphin safe’’ to include ETP tuna caught in

purse seine nets in which no dolphin mortalities were observed.

H.R. 408, as amended, would implement the Panama Declaration

into U.S. law, building on the international consensus concerning

multilateral management of the ETP tuna fishery, instead of maintaining the use of unilateral standards which operate as a barrier

to trade.

C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 408 was introduced on January 9, 1997, by Representative

Gilchrest and was referred to the Committee on Resources. On

April 24, 1997, the Committee on Resources reported H.R. 408 favorably, with amendments, by voice vote. See H. Rep. 105–74 (Part

1) for a detailed description of action by the Committee on Resources.

On April 24, 1997, H.R. 408, as amended by the Committee on

Resources, was sequentially referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means, for a period ending not later than May 5, 1997.

On April 30, 1997, the Committee on Ways and Means met to

consider H.R. 408. The Committee ordered H.R. 408, as amended

by the Committee on Resources, favorably reported, without additional amendment, by a recorded vote of 28 ayes and 9 nays.

During the 104th Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means

considered similar legislation implementing the Panama Declaration, H.R. 2823. The Committee reported the legislation favorably,

without amendment, by voice vote on July 23, 1996. The House

passed the legislation on July 31, 1996, by a recorded vote of 316–

108. The legislation was not considered by the full Senate.
4

II. EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

A. SEC. 2(a)(3): PURPOSE

Present law

Not applicable.

Explanation of provision

States that the purpose of the Act is to eliminate the ban on imports of tuna from nations that are in compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Program.

Reasons for change

The Committee believes that if countries are in compliance with

the multilateral standard for the fishing of yellowfin tuna as memorialized in the International Dolphin Conservation Program,

then the import ban should not apply. Accordingly, the Committee

believes that the use of U.S. comparability standards for the imposition of any embargo on yellowfin tuna should be replaced with

the IDCP standards.

B. SEC. 2(b)(2): FINDINGS

Present law

Not applicable.

Explanation of provision

States that the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 provisions that impose a ban on imports from nations that fish for tuna

in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have served as an incentive

to reduce dolphin mortalities.

Reasons for change

The Committee believes that these provisions have served as a

positive incentive to reduce dolphin mortality. Replacement of the

unilateral U.S. standard with the international IDCP standard

should serve as an equal incentive while, at the same time, putting

the United States in compliance with its international agreements.

C. SEC. 3: DEFINITION OF ‘‘INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN

CONSERVATION PROGRAM’’

Present law

Not applicable.

Explanation of provision

Adds a definition of the International Dolphin Conservation Program, which refers to the international program established by the

agreement signed in La Jolla, California in June 1992, as formalized, modified, and enhanced in accordance with the Declaration of

Panama. The Declaration caps dolphin mortality at 5,000, establishes declining levels of per-stock per-year mortality levels, provides for the ceasing of sets on dolphins if the mortality level is exceeded, provides for scientific review and assessment, establishes
5

per-vessel mortality limits, and establishes incentives to continue

to reduce dolphin mortality, with the goal of eliminating dolphin

mortality.

Reasons for change

The definition in section 3 reflects the international agreement

reached by the ETP nations through the La Jolla Agreement and

the Panama Declaration.

D. SEC. 4(b) and (c): AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF THE

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

Present law

Current law establishes a moratorium on (i.e., prohibits) the importation of commercial fish (including tuna) which results in the

incidental kill or serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of U.S.

standards unless the following conditions are met:

The government of the harvesting nation has adopted a regulatory program governing the incidental taking of marine

mammals which is ‘‘comparable’’ to that of the United States;

and

The average rate of incidental taking by the vessels of the

harvesting nation is ‘‘comparable’’ to the average rate of incidental taking of marine mammals by the United States (sec.

101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of

1972; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2))

Explanation of provision

Section 4(b) of H.R. 408 would maintain the moratorium under

current law but would repeal the unilateral comparability standard. Instead, importation would be permitted if the harvesting nation complies with international standards, as follows:

The tuna was harvested by vessels of a nation which participates in the International Dolphin Conservation Program, the

harvesting nation is either a member or has initiated steps to

become a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and the nation has implemented its obligations under

the Program and the Commission; and

Total dolphin mortality permitted under the Program not to

exceed 5,000 in 1997, or any year thereafter.

Section 4(c) would provide standards for the acceptance of documentary evidence and establish an exemption for U.S. citizens incidentally taking marine mammals during fishing operations outside

the United States exclusive economic zone under certain circumstances.

Reasons for change

H.R. 408 would implement the multilateral standards for the imposition of trade sanctions agreed to as part of the Panama Declaration, repealing the unilateral comparability standards of current U.S. law. The Committee believes that enforcement actions

are often the most effective when they are based on international

consensus, and that such consensus would be more constructive to

effective management of the ETP tuna fishery by all countries con-
6

cerned. The Committee thus expects the Secretary to use this authority, wherever possible in accordance with multilaterally agreed

decisions taken by ICCAT and to work within ICCAT and other institutions to achieve multilateral consensus on appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

In light of the above, it is the view of the Committee that the

preferred course of action with respect to the use of import measures to enforce standards relating to dolphin mortalities is to base

those standards on those developed through the Panama Declaration. The change made by section 4(b) of H.R. 408 to section

101(a)(2) of the MMPA is a conforming change concerning this

international standard.

E. SEC. 5(f) CHAPEAU AND (f)(1)(c): AMENDMENTS

TO TITLE III

Present law

Section 307 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1415) provides that yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna product may not be imported in violation

of import ban established under section 305. Section 305 imposes

the import ban unless the tuna is imported from a country that

agrees to implement a 5-year moratorium on setting on dolphins,

requires vessel observers, and reduces dolphin mortality.

Explanation of provision

Section 5(f)(1)(c) of H.R. 408 would maintain the section 307 prohibition on importation of tuna in violation of an import ban (renumbering it to become section 305). However, the chapeau to section 5(f) of H.R. 408 would repeal section 305 under present law,

which conditions importation on the requirement that importing

countries adopt a moratorium, require vessel observers, and reduce

dolphin mortality, as no longer necessary because new moratorium

would be triggered by international standards. Instead, the requirements of section 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (as amended by section 4(b) and (c) of H.R. 408) would govern

the imposition of the import ban.

Reasons for change

Section 5(f) of H.R. 408 would prohibit the importation of yellowfin tuna based on the new international standards of section

101(a)(2) (as set forth in section 4(b) and (c) of H.R. 408), thereby

replacing the U.S. comparability standard, as discussed above. Because of this new language, section 305 of the current statute

would no longer be necessary and would therefore be repealed.

III. VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the following statements are made concerning the votes of the Committee on Ways and Means in its consideration of the bill H.R. 408.
7

MOTION TO REPORT THE BILL

The bill, H.R. 408, as reported by the Committee on Resources,

was ordered favorably reported by a roll call vote of 28 yeas to 9

nays (with a quorum being present). The vote was as follows:

Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present

Mr. Archer ........................................ X ........ ............ Mr. Rangel ...................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Crane ......................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Stark ......................................... ........ X ............

Mr. Thomas ...................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Matsui ...................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Shaw ......................................... X ........ ............ Mrs. Kennelly .................................. ........ X ............

Mrs. Johnson .................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Coyne ........................................ ........ X ............

Mr. Bunning ..................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Levin ......................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Houghton ................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Cardin ....................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Herger ........................................ ........ ........ ............ Mr. McDermott ................................ ........ X ............

Mr. McCrery ..................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Kleczka ..................................... ........ X ............

Mr. Camp ......................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Lewis ........................................ ........ X ............

Mr. Ramstad .................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Neal .......................................... ........ X ............

Mr. Nussle ....................................... X ........ ............ Mr. McNulty ..................................... ........ X ............

Mr. Johnson ..................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Jefferson ................................... X ........ ............

Ms. Dunn ......................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Tanner ...................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Collins ....................................... X ........ ............ Mr. Becerra ..................................... ........ ........ ............

Mr. Portman ..................................... X ........ ............ Mrs. Thurman ................................. ........ X ............

Mr. English ...................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Ensign ....................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Christensen ............................... X ........ ............

Mr. Watkins ..................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Hayworth ................................... X ........ ............

Mr. Weller ........................................ X ........ ............

Mr. Hulshof ...................................... X

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL

A. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

In compliance with clause 7(a) of the rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the effects on the budget of H.R. 408, as reported: The Committee agrees with the estimate prepared by CBO which is included

below.

B. STATEMENT REGARDING NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with subdivision (B) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee states

that the provisions of H.R. 408 do not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or a decrease or increase in tax expenditures. Enactment of H.R. 408 would lead to

an increase in appropriated spending of approximately $1 million

in fiscal year 1998. Enacting H.R. 408 could decrease direct spending beginning in fiscal year 1998 by generating additional offsetting receipts from fees on fishing permits, and new permit fees are

estimated to total less than $100,000 per year over the 1998–2002

period. In addition, H.R. 408 would increase governmental receipts

by less than $500,000 annually from tariffs on imported tuna.
8

C. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

OFFICE

In compliance with subdivision (C) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of

the Rules of the House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, the following

report prepared by CBO is provided:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, April 30, 1997.

Hon. BILL ARCHER,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 408, the International

Dolphin Conservation Program Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Victoria V. Heid (for federal costs) and Lesley Frymier (for the private-sector impact).

Sincerely,

JUNE E. O’NEILL, Director.

Enclosure.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

H.R. 408—International Dolphin Conservation Program Act

Summary: H.R. 408 would modify the protection of marine mammals, including dolphins, in connection with tuna harvesting. CBO

estimates that enacting H.R. 408 would lead to an increase in appropriated spending of about $1 million in fiscal year 1998, assuming appropriations consistent with the bill’s provisions. In addition,

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 408 could decrease direct spending beginning in fiscal year 1998 by generating additional offsetting receipts from fees on fishing permits. We estimate that any

new permit fees would total less than $100,000 a year over the

1998–2002 period. Finally, based on information for the International Trade Commission (ITC), COB estimates that H.R. 408

would increase governmental receipts by less than $500,000 annually. Because H.R. 408 could affect both direct spending and receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.

H.R. 408 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and would

have no impact on state, local, or tribal governments. The bill

would impose new private-sector mandates on tuna vessels while

removing an existing mandate on tuna vessels and providing other

benefits to tuna importers. CBO estimates that the direct costs of

the new private-sector mandates would most likely be less than the

costs of the existing mandate.

Description of the bill’s major provisions: The bill would recognize and incorporate into law many of the provisions of the Declaration of Panama, signed October 4, 1995, by the United States

and the governments of Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,

France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The Declaration of Panama addresses the protection of dol-
9

phins and other species, and the conservation and management of

tuna, in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Several provisions of the bill would address the use of purse seines in tuna fishing. Purse seines are large nets that encircle tuna and are then

drawn shut like a purse.

Specifically, the bill would:

Declare that it is U.S. policy to support the International

Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) operated under the auspices of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

(IATTC);

Eliminate the current ban by the Secretary of the Treasury

on imports of yellowfin tuna from countries whose vessels

catch tuna in the ETP using a procedure known as ‘‘setting on

dolphins’’ by allowing tuna imports from those nations complying with the IDCP;

Amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow

the Department of Commerce (DOC) to issue permits to U.S.

fishermen authorizing the incidental taking of dolphins during

commercial yellowfin tuna harvesting;

Limit the number of dolphins that can be killed by tuna fishing in the ETP to 5,000 annually, with the mortality limit apportioned among various dolphin types—but the limit for each

type could not exceed 0.2 percent of the minimum estimated

abundance of that type through 2000, and 0.1 percent of that

minimum in 2001 and thereafter;

Require U.S. vessels fishing for tuna in the ETP to obtain individual, annual permits from the Secretary of Commerce to

authorize their participation in the IDCP, and authorize the

Secretary to charge fees to cover the administrative costs of the

permits. (Under current law, vessels must pay an annual fee

for a certificate of inclusion in one umbrella permit.);

Authorize to be appropriated to the DOC $1 million for scientific research on dolphin conservation;

Amend the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act by

redefining tuna that may be labeled ‘‘dolphin safe’’ as that

caught in any set of a purse seine net in which no dolphins

were killed, regardless of whether any dolphins were encircled

as part of the tuna harvest. (Under the bill, tuna would be determined to be ‘‘dolphin safe’’ on a set-by-set basis, rather than

by vessel-trip as under current law.); and

State that is the sense of the Congress that each nation participating in the International Dolphin Conservation Program

should contribute an equitable amount to the expenses of the

IATTC.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 408 is shown in the table below. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase discretionary

spending by about $1 million in 1998, and by less than $100,000

annually thereafter. The bill also could affect direct spending and

revenues, but in each case CBO estimates that any such changes

would be less than $500,000 a year.
10

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated authorization level ............................................ 0 1 (1) (1) (1) (1)

Estimated outlays .............................................................. 0 1 (1) (1) (1) (1)

1 Less than $100,000.

The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

Basis of estimate: Spending subject to appropriation.—Assuming

appropriations consistent with the bill, enacting H.R. 408 would result in about $1 million in additional appropriated spending in fiscal year 1998. H.R. 408 would authorize the appropriation of $1

million to be used by the DOC’s National Marine Fisheries Service

to support scientific research on dolphin conservation. We estimate

outlays of about $1 million in fiscal year 1998, assuming appropriation of the authorized amount.

The bill also states that it is the sense of the Congress that each

nation participating in the International Dolphin Conservation Program should contribute an equitable amount to the expenses of the

IATTC, which administers the International Dolphin Conservation

Program and employs the international observers currently required on all tuna boats operating in the ETP. Currently, the Department of State contributes about $3 million annually to the

IATTC. That amount represents about 90 percent of the contributions from all nations to the IATTC, and about 65 percent of the

IATTC’s $4.5 million budget. H.R. 408 would not, by itself, change

the U.S. contribution to the IATTC, and it is unclear whether the

factors identified in the bill would lead to a change in the U.S. contribution. Hence, CBO estimates that this provision would not

change discretionary spending.

H.R. 408 would require U.S. vessels operating in the ETP to obtain individual permits from the Secretary of Commerce. Such permits would authorize vessels’ participation in the IDCP and allow

some incidental deaths of marine mammals from using purse

seines in commercial fishing for yellowfin tuna. H.R. 408 would authorize the Secretary to charge a permit fee, but such fees could

not exceed the administrative costs of issuing permits. Income from

fees could be spent, subject to appropriation, by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere for the expenses

incurred in issuing permits. As explained below, CBO estimates

that any such increase in fees would be less than $100,000 a year.

Hence, the potential effect of this provision on discretionary spending also would be less than $100,000 a year.

Direct spending (including offsetting receipts).—Under current

law, all U.S. vessels fishing for tuna in the ETP may operate under

one permit issued to the American Tunaboat Association in 1980

by the Secretary of Commerce. Individual vessels pay an annual

fee to the DOC to renew certificates of inclusion under that permit.

The current permit expires December 31, 1999. Over the last year,

about five U.S. vessels have been harvesting tuna in the ETP

under the permit.

H.R. 408 would not affect the fees paid by U.S. vessels currently

fishing for tuna. The bill could result in additional U.S. vessels
11

seeking permit authority to operate in the ETP. Under current law,

to meet the ‘‘dolphin safe’’ definition for tuna, U.S. vessels in the

ETP cannot set purse seine nets on dolphins in the course of fishing for tuna. The bill would permit this practice and allow for limited dolphin mortality in accordance with the international program as long as certain safeguards are adopted. This increase in

flexibility could encourage additional U.S. vessels to operate in the

ETP, where they would be subject to permit fees. We estimate,

however, that any change in receipts from permit fees would be

less than $100,000 a year.

Revenues.—The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 bans imports of yellowfin tuna from nations that fish for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. H.R. 408 allows tuna imports from nations that comply with the IDCP. Currently, fresh tuna imported

to the U.S. is not subject to duty. However, the U.S. Customs Service collects about $30 million annually from tariffs on canned tuna.

Based on historical information provided by the ITC, prior to the

embargo about 1 percent of the duties collected on canned tuna imports were from IDCP signatory nations. Therefore, CBO estimates

that eliminating the ban on imports of tuna from these nations

would not significantly increase governmental receipts.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go

procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts

through 1998. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 408 could affect

both direct spending and governmental receipts, but that any

change would be less than $500,000 a year in both cases.

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: H.R.

408 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the

UMRA and would have no impact on the budgets of state, local, or

tribal governments.

Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would impose

new private-sector mandates on tuna vessels while removing an existing mandate on tuna vessels and providing other benefits to

tuna importers. CBO estimates that the direct costs of the new

mandates would most likely be less than the costs of the existing

mandate.

Section 4 of H.R. 408 would change the labeling of dolphin-safe

tuna. In order to be labeled dolphin-safe, tuna harvested in the

ETP would have to be accompanied by a certification that no dolphins were killed (instead of the current requirement that no dolphin sets are made). Tuna harvested outside of the ETP could be

labeled dolphin-safe if it is accompanied by a statement certifying

that no sets were intentionally set on dolphins, or, in some fisheries, marine mammals. Based on information obtained from industry and government sources, these mandates would impose minimal, if any, costs on U.S. vessels.

Section 4 of the bill also would give the Secretary of Commerce

the authority to require certain vessels to provide observer certification in fisheries where the Secretary has identified a regular and

significant incidental mortality or serious injury rate of marine

mammals. In those fisheries, in order for tuna to be labeled as dolphin-safe, observers would have to certify that no marine mammals

were killed. Based on information obtained from industry and gov-
12

ernment sources, CBO does not expect the Secretary would use this

authority for U.S.-registered vessels.

H.R. 408 would require U.S. tuna vessels fishing in the ETP to

comply with tracking and verification procedures to separate dolphin-safe and dolphin-unsafe tuna. In addition, each tuna vessel in

the ETP would be required to register for a dolphin mortality limit

with the IATTC. Based on information provided by industry experts, CBO does not expect these requirements to entail significant

costs to the U.S. tuna industry.

Section 5 of the bill includes provisions that would codify existing

regulations of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These include provisions that would require the use of certain

gear and procedures and would require vessels to obtain permits

from the Secretary of Commerce for the incidental taking of marine

mammals.

Section 6 of the bill would encourage the Secretary of State to

establish a bycatch reduction program that would include the live

release of threatened and endangered species, and measures to reduce the harvest and mortality of nontarget species and the mortality of juvenile tuna. Based on information provided by the U.S. Department of State, CBO does not expect that such a program, if established, would result in measurable costs to the private sector.

H.R. 408 would lift the existing prohibition on U.S. vessels setting nets on dolphins in the ETP as long as vessels comply with

all appropriate regulations. The bill also would lift the ban on the

importation and sale of dolphin-unsafe tuna from countries participating in the International Dolphin Conservation Program. Overall, CBO estimates that enacting this bill would result in decreased

costs to the private sector.

Previous CBO estimate: On April 23, 1997, CBO prepared a cost

estimate for H.R. 408, as ordered reported by the House Committee

on Resources on April 16, 1997. The two versions are identical as

are the estimates.

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs—Victoria V. Heid and Gary

Brown; revenues—Stephanie Weiner; impact on the private sector—Lesley Frymier.

Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director

for Budget Analysis.

V. OTHER MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE DISCUSSED

UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

A. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to subdivision (A) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), the Committee advises that it was as a result of the Committee’s oversight activities concerning customs and tariff matters, import trade matters, and specific trade-related issues that the Committee concluded that it was appropriate to enact the provisions

contained in the bill.
13

B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

With respect to subdivision (D) of clause 21(l)(3) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives, no oversight findings or recommendations have been submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with respect to the

subject matter contained in H.R. 408.

C. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

With respect to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, relating to Constitutional Authority, the Committee states that the Committee’s action in reporting the bill is

derived from Article I of the Constitution, Section 8 (‘‘The Congress

shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and to provide for * * * the general Welfare

of the United States * * *’’).

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means for

consideration of such provisions of the bill, and amendment thereto, as fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee, pursuant to

clause 1(a) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

The changes made to existing law by the amendment reported by

the Committee on Resources are shown in the report filed by that

committee (H. Rept. 105–74, Part 1).

Æ