Date: 1999-08-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. this amendment that I am offering this evening does nothing more than ensure that the current law regarding the funding of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission is being followed. It does so by limiting the U.S. contribution to no more than 50 percent of the Tropical Tuna7 Commission. thereby ending the longstanding .taxpayer subsidy of foreign nations who are members and benefit from the work of this commission. There are two principal benefits from this amendment. It ensures countries pay their fair share for the Tropical Tuna Commission of its expenses which they committed to when they signed on to the commission in 1997. The law requires that it frees up money for other international fishing commissions that are already funded below the Presidents request. Mr. Chairman. in 1949 the United States signed onto a convention establishing the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission. This commission was designed to coordinate international efforts to maintain a healthy population of tuna and other marine species taken from the eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Currently 11 nations are members of this commission: Costa Rica. Panama. Japan. France. Vanuatu. Nicaragua. Venezuela. El Salvador. Equador. Mexico. and the United States. The Tropical Tuna Commission is involved in many activities that affect all member nations. and there are costs associated with these activities and the convention specifies how the commission should be funded. It says that those countries that harvest more fish pay more. Specifically the commission states: "The proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each of the highcontracting parties shall be related to the proportion of total catch of the fisheries covered by the Convention and utilized by the highcontracting party." This made sense in 1949. and it makes sense today. We paid our share then and we still do now. In fact. we pay a good deal more than our share. Circumstances have changed and changes must be made in our payments. The United States is no longer the largest beneficiary of tuna from the eastern Tropical Pacific. In fact. we only catch about 5 percent of the tuna from this area. And our average utilization over the last 10 years has been around 40 percent. Despite this. the United States continues to pay the lions share of funding for the Tropical Tuna Commission. as much as 90 percent in recent years. -The taxpayers subsidy of foreign fishing nations must stop. and it is time for these other countries to carry their own weight. In fact. in 1997. the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act requires that member countries pay their fair share of the Tropical Tuna Commission. And in fact that same agreement has incentives for them to do so. and it is written into law that clearly states the countries that fail to pay their fair share cannot export their tuna. into the United States. Mr. Chairman. all my amendment does is uphold these requirements of the current law. It does not change the 1997 Dolphin Protection Act or the international agreements in any way. It simply assumes a critical provision of law will be enforced. In addition. it has no effect on the International Dolphin Conservation Program. funding for observers. or other activities. The funding for those programs come from fees on the tuna vessels. not from the country contributions. So this in no way impacts the International Dolphin Conservation Program. Regardless of how we feel about modifying the dolphinsafe label. surely we can all agree that our taxpayers should not be underwriting the fishing interest of these other countries. This is a fair position. That is the position that the Senate just over a week ago on a bipartisan vote agreed to 6135. The money saved will still be available to the State Department to spend on 12 other international fisheries commissions which we belong to and which are funded at. $2 million below the Presidents request in this legislation. So let us not undercut a dozen other important commissions so that our constituents can continue to subsidize countries that refuse to pay their fair share contrary to U.S. law. contrary to the agreement that they entered into on the International Dolphin Conservation. If they get the benefits of the act. they are supposed to pay their fair share. These countries have refused to do so. This amendment would still have the United States picking up 50 percent of the cost of this commission. That will leave the other 10 countries the need to pick up the other 50 percent even though they utilize it far in excess of that amount. I think this is simply about equity for the taxpayers. It is about upholding the agreements that people have entered into. And I think it is an amendment that we should adopt as did the Senate by the bipartisan vote of 6135. This amendment does nothing more than ensure that current law regarding the funding of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission is being followed. It does so by limiting the U.S. contribution to no more than 50 percent of the IA TTC budget. thereby ending the longstanding taxpayer subsidy of foreign nations who are members of. and benefit from the work of the Commission. There are 2 principal benefits from this amendment: (1) it ensures countries pay their fair share of IATTC expenses. which they committed to when they signed onto the Commission and as the 1997 law requires. (2) it frees up money for other international fisheries commissions that are already funded below the Presidenrs request. Mr. Speaker. in 1949. the United States signed a convention establishing the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). This Commission was designed to coordinate international efforts to maintain health populations of tuna and other marine species taken in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Currently 11 nations are members of the commissionCosta Rica. Panama. Japan. France. Nicaragua. Vanuatu. Venezuela. El Salvador. Ecuador. Mexico and the United States. The IATTC is involved in many activities that affect all member nations. And there are costs associate with these activities. The convention specifies how the Commission should be founded. It says that those countries that harvest more fish should pay more. Specially the Convention states: "The proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each high Contracting Party shall be related to the proportion of the total catch from the fisheries covered by this Convention utilized by the High Contracting Party." This made sense in 1949. and it makes sense now. We paid our share then. and we still do now. In fact. we now pay a good deal more than our share. Circumstances have changed and changes must be made to our payments. The United States is no longer the largest beneficiary of tuna from the ETP. In fact. we only catch only five percent of the tuna from the ETP. And our average utilization over the last 10 years is around 40 percent. Despite this. the United States continues to pay the lions share of funding for the IATTCas much as 90 percent in recent years. This.taxpayer subsidy of foreign fishing nations must stop. It is time for those other countries to carry their own weight. In fact. the 1997 International Dolphin Conservation Program Act requires that member counties must pay their fair share of the IATTC expenses. And there is no incentive for them to do that written into the law which clearly states that countries that fail to pay their fair share cannot export their tuna to the United States. Mr. Speaker. all my amendment does is uphold the requirements of current law. It does not change the 1997 dolphin protection law or the international agreement in any way. It simply assumes a critical provision of that law will be enforced. In addition. it has no effect on the International Dolphin Conservation program funding for observers and other activities. The funding for that program comes from fees on tuna vessels. not from country contributions. Regardless of how we felt about modifying the "Dolphin Safe" label. surely we can all agree that our taxpayers should not be underwriting the fishing interests of other countries. That is a fair position the Senate agreed to by a bipartisan vote of 6135. The money saved will still be available to the State Department to spend on more than 12 other international fisheries commissions to which we belong which are funded at $2 million below the Presidents request in this bill. So lets not undercut a dozen other important commissions so that our constituents can continue to subsidize countries that refuse to pay their fair share. contrary to U.S. law.