The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON SUSTAINABLE USE” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E892-E893 on May 22, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON SUSTAINABLE USE
______
HON. RICHARD W. POMBO
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 22, 2001
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, through professional and scientific management, this nation currently enjoys stable and healthy wildlife and marine resource populations. Sadly, there were excessive harvests of wildlife in the 17th and 18th centuries, but that circumstance is history never to be repeated. Today, through appropriate laws and reasoned regulations, the future of these resources is assured for generations to come.
Given this background of successful management and wise use of these renewable resources, I am dismayed when government representatives of this nation participate in international conventions, treaties and bilateral and multi-lateral conservation agreements concerning the sustainable use of wildlife and marine resources, a different agenda seems to be in place; specifically, that agenda rejects science and favors anti consumptive use of those renewable resources.
For example, policy positions taken by the United States Delegations at the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Annual Meetings of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) reflect a political agenda rather than a science-based policy. Through the past leadership of the United States at CITES and IWC, several nations have followed this flawed and imprudent policy to the detriment of various wildlife and marine species.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note President Bush's recent remarks to the Environmental Youth Award winners regarding this Administrations foundation for environmental policy. He affirmed that it will be
``based on sound science, not some environmental fad of what may sound good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence before we decide
[on policy].'' Currently, the United States is developing its position for the upcoming 53rd Annual Meeting of the IWC.
Due to the significance of the event, I recently sent a letter to the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce concerning the background of United States policy at the IWC meetings. Mr. Speaker, at this time I hereby submit to the Record for my colleagues consideration the letters (referenced above) to the Bush administration.
I believe the time has come for the United States to truly reflect an international commitment to the sustainable use of renewable wildlife and marine resources based on science. As I stated in my letters, this conservation policy should be followed whether the subject species are elephants, turtles, whales, or trees. Such leadership by the United States is the responsible and ethical policy that must be pursued for the benefit of renewable wildlife, marine resources and humankind itself.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.Hon. Gale Norton,Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Norton: I am writing to express my strong support for the need for science to be the fundamental guide in United States participation in international conservation commitments as legally recognized under the Uruguay Round Agreements of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT).
Unfortunately, the United States policy under the former-Clinton administration acted contrary to this legal concept under the tenets of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Specifically, it did so by continued opposition and obstructionist positions on the resumption of limited and managed whaling by island and coastal nations.
Although it is true that there was over exploitation of certain whale stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries for commercial oil products, this is not the case today. In fact, no whale stocks were ever threatened by whale harvests for human food consumption. The Scientific Committee of the governing body of the ICRW and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has found that limited harvests would have no adverse impact on population stocks.
However, in the past, the United States and other nations have consistently opposed the resumptions of limited whaling on what amounts to purely a political agenda. For instance, the United States supported the adoption of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales without any scientific basis for such a position. Further, the United States is supporting the adoption of a Pacific Ocean Sanctuary where there is no scientific basis for the establishment of such a sanctuary. Even after the Bush administration took office, the Department of State has opposed legal trade in whale products between Norway and Japan. I would sincerely urge the Bush administration to carefully review the United States policy in terms of science and law.
I must say, I was extremely pleased to note President Bush's recent remarks to the Environmental Youth Award winners about environmental policy. As you know, the President stated that decisions regarding environmental matters in his Administration would be, and I quote, ``based upon sound science, not some environmental fad or what may sound good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence before we decide [on policy].''
After representing the Congress at two Conferences of the Parties (COP) to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Specie of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as having chaired several hearings in the Congress about the sustainable use or renewable resources on the international level, I know the United States is certainly a nation that supports the consumptive use of renewable wildlife and marine resources under scientific management.
As such, I respectfully request that any future policy regarding various species--whether the subject species are elephants, whales, turtles, or trees--be based on sound science and the legal ramifications of the Uruguay Round Agreements of GATT.
I appreciate your attention to this request, and I look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Pombo,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.Hon. Colin Powell,Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Powell: I am writing to express my strong support for the need for science to be the fundamental guide in United States participation in international conservation commitments as legally recognized under the Uruguay Round Agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT).
Unfortunately, the United States policy under the former-Clinton administration acted contrary to this legal concept under the tenets of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Specifically, it did so by continued opposition and obstructionist positions on the resumption of limited and managed whaling by island and coastal nations.
Although it is true that there was over exploitation of certain whale stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries for commercial oil products, this is not the case today. In fact, no whale stocks were ever threatened by whale harvests for human food consumption. The Scientific Committee of the governing body of the ICRW and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has found that limited harvests would have no adverse impact on population stocks.
However, in the past, the United States and other nations have consistently opposed the resumption of limited whaling on what amounts to purely a political agenda. For instance, the United States supported the adoption of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales without any scientific basis for such a position. Further, the United States is supporting the adoption of a pacific Ocean Sanctuary where there is no scientific basis for the establishment of such a sanctuary. Even after the Bush administration took office, the Department of State has oppose legal trade in whale products between Norway and Japan. I would sincerely urge the Bush administration to carefully review the United States policy in terms of science and law.
I must say, I was extremely pleased to note President Bush's recent remarks to the Environmental Youth Award winners about environmental policy. As you know, the President stated that decisions regarding environmental matters in his Administration would be, and I quote, ``based upon sound science, not some environmental fad or what may sound good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence before we decide [on policy].''
After representing the Congress at two Conferences of the Parties (COP) to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Specie of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as having chaired several hearings in the Congress about the sustainable use or renewable resources on the international level, I know the Unites States is certainly a nation that supports the consumptive use of renewable wildlife and marine resources under scientific management.
As such, I respectfully request that any future policy regarding various species--whether the subject species are elephants, whales, turtles, or trees--be based on sound science and the legal ramifications of the Uruguay Round Agreements of GATT.
I appreciate your attention to this request, and I look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Pombo,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2001.Hon. Don Evans,Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Evans: I am writing to express my strong support for the need for science to be the fundamental guide in United States participation in international conservation commitments as legally recognized under the Uruguay Round Agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT).
Unfortunately, the United States policy under the former-Clinton administration acted contrary to this legal concept under the tenets of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Specifically, it did so by continued opposition and obstructionist positions on the resumption of limited and managed whaling by island and coastal nations.
Although it is true that there was over exploitation of certain whale stocks in the 18th and 19th centuries for commercial oil products, this is not the case today. In fact, no whale stocks were ever threatened by whale harvests for human food consumption. The Scientific Committee of the governing body of the ICRW and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has found that limited harvests would have no adverse impact on population stocks.
However, in the past, the United States and other nations have consistently opposed the resumption of limited whaling on what amounts to purely a political agenda. For instance, the United States supported the adoption of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales without any scientific basis for such a position. Further, the United States is supporting the adoption of a Pacific Ocean Sanctuary where there is no scientific basis for the establishment of such a sanctuary. Even after the Bush administration took office, the Department of State has opposed legal trade in whale products between Norway and Japan. I would sincerely urge the Bush administration to carefully review the United States policy in terms of science and law.
I must say, I was extremely pleased to note President Bush's recent remarks to the Environmental Youth Award winners about environmental policy. As you know, the President stated that decisions regarding environmental matters in his Administration would be, and I quote, ``based upon sound science, not some environmental fad or what may sound good--that we're going to rely on the best evidence before we decide [on policy].''
After representing the Congress at two Conferences of the Parties (COP) to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Specie of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as having chaired several hearings in the Congress about the sustainable use or renewable resources on the international level, I know the United States is certainly a nation that supports the consumptive use of renewable wildlife and marine resources under scientific management.
As such, I respectfully request that any future policy regarding various species--whether the subject species are elephants, whales, turtles, or trees--be based on sound science and the legal ramifications of the Uruguay Round Agreements of GATT.
I appreciate your attention to this request, and I look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Pombo,
Member of Congress.
____________________
