[House Report 105-74]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
R E P O R T
[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 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 toencourage 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.
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.
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 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 concerned. 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.
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.
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 dolphins 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.
[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 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 government 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.
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).