July 31, 1996

Mr. Speaker:

American Samoa is in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean, and fishing has been the life blood of Samoans for thousands of years. While today's commercial canning operations bear little resemblance to my father's subsistence fishing, we continue to use the same resource, the Pacific Ocean.

The Samoans are also known as the voyagers, and countless generations ago, my forefathers, using Samoa and Tonga as a base, expanded the known world to include the island groups now known as French Polynesia, which includes the island of Tahiti, the Cook islands, the Hawaiian islands, and many of the smaller islands in between. We learned well the ways of the ocean, including who our friends are.

In my lifetime, I have had the opportunity over the years to share the experiences of my ancestors. As a youth I traveled extensively on the waters of the Pacific in vessels voyaging between Tokelau and the Manu'a islands. I have even traveled on a purse seiner for 400 miles from Samoa to the southern Tongan islands. I was also invited to sail on the famous Hokule'a, a historical Polynesian sailing canoe built by native Hawaiians and constructed so as to be the same in size and configuration as the ancient sailing canoes. With Nainoa Thompson as our first Polynesian navigator in 200 years, we voyaged on the Hokule'a from the Island of Rangiroa in French Polynesia to Hawaii, utilizing non-instrument navigational methods -- sailing by the movement of the stars, the ocean waves, and the flight of birds.

During this voyage, I had the opportunity to experience firsthand the interaction among those who live in the sea and those who live on and above it. I developed a greater appreciation for all living things, and confirmed the gentle, helpful nature of dolphins.

In fact, the experience I got from being at sea for weeks at a time is that the dolphins were always there, and I can share with my colleagues that the dolphins are just like humans. Dolphins have been sacred to the Polynesians as far as our legends recount our history. Ancient Polynesians would rather starve than kill a dolphin.

When people are at sea under sail for weeks, dolphins are of tremendous psychological benefit. I have experienced lack of movement in the doldrums and the intense heat of the tropics, and I can understand how the dolphins would have given early Polynesian travelers a sense of hope. My voyage on the Hokule'a gave me an opportunity to contemplate that perhaps the reason God created dolphins was to provide psychological support for sailors at sea.

Samoan legend and modern news reporting all confirm today's common knowledge about dolphins: they are of no threat to mankind, and on occasion have saved the lives of their fellow mammals. In return, mankind has hunted them down, killing over 100,000 per year, not for sustenance, but because tuna swim under them.

When this was brought to the attention of the U.S. public, we rose in outrage and put enough economic pressure on the tuna industry to change its methods of fishing. As you have already heard, dolphin deaths have dropped from over 100,000 per year to 3,300 in 1995. This is a significant achievement, and we consumers are to be commended.

Congress did its part as well, placing an embargo on tuna that is caught by methods which harm dolphins, and by enacting legislation which permits the use of the all-familiar "dolphin safe" label.

Part of the underlying problem is that tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean swim under schools of dolphins, and one easy, quick way to catch tuna in the Eastern Pacific is to chase dolphins until they are too exhausted to swim any further. Then the dolphins, and the tuna under them, are encircled in a net. It is this chasing that causes the harm to the dolphins.

In the Western Pacific Ocean, the tuna do not always swim under schools of dolphin, and tuna are found through the use of modern techniques, including helicopters and sonar. By netting schools of tuna which are not swimming under dolphins, the problem is solved: consumers get their canned tuna, and no dolphins are killed in the process.

Now under pressure from foreign governments, it is being proposed that the current statutory and regulatory system be changed. My colleagues will recall that when we debated the implementing legislation for GATT and the proposed World Trade Organization, many of us pointed out the economic and policy difficulties which passage of the legislation would create. This is an example of the kind of problems we knew we would encounter under regulations of the World Trade Organization, or the WTO.

Today we are being told that our "dolphin safe" embargo is in violation of the WTO rules, and that if we do not remove our embargo, the United States will be forced to pay significant fines. Today we are being asked to forget the sound policy of using the attraction of the consumer market in the United States to alter the behavior of nations less concerned with the preservation of life; and instead we are being asked to give in to the foreign interests.

H.R. 2823 is a bad idea because it rewards those who have the worst record of killing dolphins. This bill is nothing more than giving in to blackmail. What the foreign governments are saying is that unless we lift the embargo on canned tuna, they will allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of dolphins to resume. If this isn't blackmail--I don't know what is!

Lifting the embargo constitutes only part of the bill. This will also perpetrate a fraud on the American consumer. H.R. 2823 changes the definition of "dolphin safe" to allow chasing, injury, harassment, encirclement, and capture of dolphins as long as no dolphins are observed dead in the nets. This definition allows tuna which have been caught by encirclement to be sold as "dolphin safe" in the U.S. market. This, Mr.Speaker, constitutes consumer fraud.

The canneries in American Samoa were the first to announce they would no longer purchase tuna caught in association with dolphin. In large measure, this decision resulted in a marked decrease in the killings of dolphins worldwide -- from a high of 115,000 in 1986 to less than 4,000 in 1995. Lifting the tuna embargo on foreign countries and changing the definition of "dolphin safe" will confuse American consumers and undermine the integrity of an American industry which is currently struggling to survive.

Lifting the embargo will also encourage what is left of the U.S. tuna industry to move to foreign countries in which businesses do not have to comply with any of the regulations that apply to U.S. companies located in our states and territories. U.S.-flagged purse seiners and tuna canning facilities in the Unites States must comply with the higher U.S. standards placed on U.S. companies by Federal law. Most foreign countries do not require the same high environmental and labor standards as the United States, and this works to the disadvantage of the U.S. citizens and businesses because it puts pressure on U.S. companies to move overseas to be more competitive. There is proof that this movement to overseas locations is occurring. As a matter of policy, we should be encouraging businesses to locate and expand in the United States, not to move foreign soil.

In 1983, 28.3 million pounds of foreign canned tuna entered the U.S. market above the quota. By 1991, this amount had increased to 237.2 million pounds -- a more than eight-fold increase. In 1991, canned tuna from U.S. plants accounted for approximately 50 percent of the U.S. market. By 1993, our market share had been reduced to approximately 39 percent.

Mr. Speaker, lifting the embargo on tuna caught by foreign nations will drive the last nail into the coffin of what remains of the U.S. tuna industry. Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, and other countries are already able to export their canned tuna to the United States without having to comply with any of the safety, health, or environmental regulations that apply to U.S. companies. Adding additional countries to this list will have a devastating effect on the largest industry in American Samoa. It is believed that approximately 80 percent of our private-sector employment is associated with the catching, cleaning, canning, and shipping of tuna. Needless to say, closure of these plants would devastate the economy of American Samoa.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to turn back the clock. Dolphin deaths worldwide have been reduced by 96 percent because of tough "dolphin safe" laws in the United States and Europe. The foreign businesses which are behind this harmful bill insist the U.S. change its law so they can unload their hard-to-market "dolphin unsafe" tuna in the lucrative U.S. "dolphin safe" market. This makes a mockery of the term "dolphin safe".

Unfortunately, the dolphins cannot be here to make a case for themselves. There are a few of us here in the Chamber today to speak on behalf of the millions of dolphins that are at risk, but the day will come when mankind will be held accountable for its actions.

This should be an easy vote. By voting against this bill, you will be voting for the dolphins, for U.S. fisherman, for U.S. boat owners, for the U.S. tuna canners, and against foreign interests. I urge my colleagues to save the dolphins and kill this legislation!