Gerry Studds: “let me begin by stating most emphatically that I would very much prefer not to be standing here debating this issue or…”

“let me begin by stating most emphatically that I would very much prefer not to be standing here debating this issue or offering this amendment. I have very little doubt that by now every Member in this Chamber, and there must be at least six of them, and those who are watching, are thoroughly confused about how best to save dolphins. Apparently, so are the environmental groups, and, quite frankly, so am I. Nonetheless, I offer this amendment because the one portion of this debate that should not be confusing is the definition of the word ``safe,'' notwithstanding the fact that people in this city have been always able to take short English words and euphemize the meaning out of them. When I grew up, safe meant secure from danger, harm or evil. That is what the dictionary says it means. Under this bill, safe would permit doing all kinds of things to dolphins, including seriously injuring them, and as long as no one actually noticed it happening, they might even be able to kill them. This legislation would define as safe a process that stops dolphins from feeding, separates mothers from their calves, injures animals, and allows them to be chased for hours until they are unable to swim any longer. We can only hope that the Committee on the Judiciary does not get a hold of this reasoning the next time it takes up reform of the criminal code.”