11 



Unfortunately, that moratorium may end in the very near future, 

 and once again we will not have protection in our aquatic preserves 

 for the stocks that we are trying to protect. 



The tragic story has been that the lack of coordination between 

 what the State is doing now and what the Federal Government is 

 doing under its present regulations has caused honorable people 

 going about their business in a reasonable way, and I cite the Bal- 

 timore Aquarium as a case of trying to properly get display dol- 

 phins for the aquarium. To run afoul of Florida laws and get into 

 a series of bad situations that totally could have been avoided if we 

 had removed the inconsistencies in these laws. They would have 

 been able to get their dolphins, there wouldn't have been bad press 

 and probably the dolphins would have survived because we have a 

 process of doing a better job of screening and understanding what 

 we are about and how they are moved about and handled, rather 

 than the way it did come about where, in fact, one of the dolphins 

 did die. 



So, this legislation that I am proposing for your consideration is 

 presently a free-standing bill and we are going to pursue it, but I 

 think this is the appropriate place for it. If you don't, we will pur- 

 sue it anyway, we hope with your blessing. Because I know of no 

 negative consequences from proceeding with it. 



I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am of course very available to an- 

 swer any questions. 



[Statement of Mr. Goss follows:] 



Statement of Hon. Porter Goss, a U.S. Representative from Florida 



Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue of marine mam- 

 mal protection with your Subcommittee today. Specifically, I would like to discuss 

 "The Marine Mammal Public Display Reform Act," H.R. 585 — a bill that has bi-par- 

 tisan support, including support from several members of the Merchant Marine and 

 Fisheries Committee. 



Simply put, my bill would allow States to provide additional protection for marine 

 mammals in specifically designated State waters, and veto permits for marine mam- 

 mal captures in those waters. By so amending the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

 (MMPA), we could close a loophole that actually prevents protection for marine 

 mammals. I believe that it is an unfortunate irony that under the current rules of 

 the MMPA, States are denied the ability to safeguard specific populations of mam- 

 mals in their own waters. 



In my State of Florida, there are laws on the books which would prohibit the cap- 

 ture of marine mammals areas known as "aquatic preserves," which are specifically 

 defined by statute, and have clearly defined borders. These areas have been set 

 aside because the duly-elected government of Florida has decided that the preserva- 

 tion of the natural resources within these boundaries is vital to the State's interests. 



The Marine Mammal Protection Act, unfortunately, and I believe, inadvertently, 

 preempts Florida's effort to responsibly protect this element of its natural resources. 

 Several other States have gone the extra mile to provide protection for their coastal 

 waters and marine resources — like Florida, these States are also prevented from en- 

 forcing these measures. 



As you are aware, H.R. 585 has come under heavy attack by the public display 

 industry. I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the industry's concerns, 

 and allay any fears that this amendment would somehow damage public display in- 

 stitutions. 



The argument most commonly used against State veto power is that it would 

 upset the MMPA's regulatory regime. Under the MMPA, the National Marine Fish- 

 eries Service (NMFS) is charged with determining marine mammal populations in 

 the Nation's coastal waters, and then setting quotas for animal removals in specific 

 areas. Allowing States to close off certain waters to marine mammal captures would 

 not prevent NMFS's from carrying out these responsibilities. 



