[House Report 104-665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Rept. 104-665
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 2
_______________________________________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL DOLPHIN CONSERVATION PROGRAM ACT
_______
July 23, 1996.--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. 2823]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2823) 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. 2823, as amended, 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
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 purse 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 labelling 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 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 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 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, that
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. 2823, 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. 2823 was introduced on December 21, 1995, by
Representative Gilchrest and was referred to the Committee on
Resources. On May 8, 1996, the Committee on Resources reported
H.R. 2823 favorably, with amendments. See H. Rep. 104-665 (Part
1) for a detailed description of action by the Committee on
Resources.
On July 10, 1996, H.R. 2823, as amended by the Committee on
Resources, was sequentially referred to the Committee on Ways
and Means, for a period ending not later than July 23, 1996.
On July 17, 1996, the Committee on Ways and Means met to
consider H.R. 2823. The Committee ordered H.R. 2823 favorably
reported by voice vote, as amended by the Committee on
Resources.
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. (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 5000, 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
morality 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. 2823 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 5000 in 1996, 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. 2823 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. 2823 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. 2823 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. 2823 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. 2823) would govern the imposition
of the import ban.
Reasons for change
Section 5(f) of H.R. 2823 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.
2823), 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 statement
is made relative to the vote of the Committee in its
consideration of the bill:
Motion to report H.R. 2823
On July 17, 1996, H.R. 2823, as amended by the Committee
on Resources, was ordered favorably reported, as amended by the
Committee on Resources, by voice vote, with a quorum present.
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. 2823, 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. 2823 do not
contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit
authority, or a decrease or increase in tax expenditures.
Enactment of H.R. 2823 would lead to a decrease in appropriated
spending of approximately $1 million in fiscal year 1998 and $2
million in fiscal years 1999-2002. The bill also decreases
direct spending beginning in fiscal year 1997 by increasing
offsetting receipts of less than $100,000 a year from 1997-2002
from permit fees. In addition, H.R. 2823 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, July 19, 1996.
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. 2823, the
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
Enacting H.R. 2823 could affect both direct spending and
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to
the bill.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum
(For June E. O'Neill, Director).
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
1. Bill number: H.R. 2823.
2. Bill title: International Dolphin Conservation Program
Act.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
on Ways and Means on July 17, 1996.
4. Bill purpose: H.R. 2823 would modify the protection of
marine mammals, including dolphins, in connection with tuna
harvesting. 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);
state that is the sense of the Congress that U.S.
contributions to the IATTC shall be proportionate to
the number of U.S. purse seine vessels fishing for tuna
in the ETP;
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,
as opposed to certificates of inclusion in one umbrella
permit as under current law, and authorize the
Secretary to charge a fee to cover the administrative
costs of that permit;
authorize to be appropriated to the DOC $1 million
for scientific research on dolphin conservation; and
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.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates
that enacting H.R. 2823 would lead to a decrease in
appropriated spending of about $1 million in fiscal year 1998
and $2 million for fiscal years 1999-2002, assuming
appropriations consistent with the bill's provisions. In
addition, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2823 could decrease
direct spending beginning in fiscal year 1997 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 1997-2002 period. Finally, based on
information from the International Trade Commission (ITC), CBO
estimates that H.R. 2823 would increase governmental receipts
by less than $500,000 annually. The following table summarizes
the estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2823.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated authorization level............................. ....... -1 -2 -2 -2 -2
Estimated outlays......................................... ....... -1 -2 -2 -2 -2
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
Direct spending:
Estimated budget authority............................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Estimated outlays..................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Revenues:
Estimated revenues.................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
The budgetary impact on federal spending of this bill falls
within budget function 300.
6. Basis of estimate:
Discretionary spending
Assuming appropriations consistent with the bill, enacting
H.R. 2823 would result in net reductions of about $1 million in
appropriated spending in fiscal year 1998 and about $2 million
per year for fiscal years 1999-2002. This estimated change
represents an increase of about $1 million for the Department
of Commerce in fiscal year 1998, and a decrease of about $2
million per year for the Department of State over the 1998-2002
period.
H.R. 2823 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 meeting the comparability requirements of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act should contribute to the expenses
of the IATTC in amounts proportionate to the number of purse
seine vessels from that nation harvesting tuna in the ETP. The
IATTC 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. Since U.S. vessels
represent less than 10 percent of those fishing for tuna in the
ETP, the U.S. contribution to IATTC could decrease by more than
$2 million annually beginning in fiscal year 1998, if
appropriations drop to a level consistent with the bill's goal
of proportionate funding to the IATTC. If this drop in U.S.
funding occurred, the IATTC treaty might have to be amended
since it currently requires nations to contribute to the IATTC
based on a different formula. H.R. 2823, however, would not by
itself change the U.S. contribution to the IATTC.
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.
Enacting H.R. 2823 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. 2823 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 appropriations, by the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere for the expenses incurred in issuing
permits.
Although enacting H.R. 2823 may not affect the fees paid
per vessel, the bill could result in additional U.S. vessels
seeking permit authority to operate in the ETP. Under current
law, 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 total less
than $100,000 per year.
Revenues
Under current law, 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. 2823 would
eliminate the ban by allowing tuna imports from nations in
compliance 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 current ban less than 2 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.
7. 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. 2823 could affect both direct spending and governmental
receipts, but that any change would be less than $500,000 a
year in both cases. The estimated pay-as-you-go impact is
summarized in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays............................ 0 0 0
Change in receipts........................... 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal
governments: The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as
defined by Public Law 104-4, and would not have a direct impact
on the budgets of State, local, or tribal governments.
9. Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 2823 would
impose private-sector mandates, but the costs would not exceed
the $100 million annual threshold specified in Public Law 104-
4. Private-sector mandates in this bill include changes in
labeling of dolphin-safe tuna because of the requirement that
for tuna to be labeled ``dolphin safe,'' no dolphin deaths may
occur. In addition, each tuna vessel in the ETP would be
required to register for a dolphin mortality limit with the
IATTC. U.S. tuna vessels fishing in the ETP also would be
required to comply with tracking and verification procedures to
separate dolphin-safe and dolphin-unsafe tuna.
Section 4 would amend the Dolphin Protection Consumer
Information Act, and give the Secretary of Commerce authority
to require certain vessels to provide observer certification in
certain fisheries. Those fisheries are ones where tuna is
harvested and the Secretary has identified a regular and
significant incidental mortality or serious injury rate of
marine mammals. In those fisheries, the observers would have to
certify that no marine mammals were killed, in order for that
tuna to be labeled as dolphin-safe. Based on information
obtained from industry and government sources, CBO does not
expect the Secretary would use this authority for U.S.-
registered vessels.
Other provisions of the bill, such as requiring permits to
be obtained from the Secretary of Commerce for the incidental
taking of marine mammals and for gear requirements, would
codify existing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
regulations.
H.R. 2823 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.
10. Previous CBO estimate: On May 22, 1996, CBO prepared a
cost estimate for H.R. 2823, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Resources on May 8, 1996. The version of the bill
ordered reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on
July 17, 1996, is identical to the version ordered reported by
the House Committee on Resources. Therefore, this cost estimate
is identical to our previous estimate.
11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Victoria
Heid and Gary Brown; Stephanie Weiner for revenues. State and
Local Government Impact: Pepper Santalucia. Private Sector
Impact: Amy Downs.
12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for 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 2(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. 2823.
C. Inflationary Impact Statement
In compliance with clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R.
2823 would not have an inflationary impact on prices and costs
in the operation of the national economy.
VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The bill was referred to this committee for consideration
of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of this committee pursuant to clause 1(s) 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
(Rept. 104-665, Part 1).