[Senate Hearing 116-623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 116-623

                     BUILDING A STRONGER AND MORE 
                        RESILIENT SEAFOOD SECTOR

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 29, 2020

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation




                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                 Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

52-822 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023












       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada

                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel







                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on July 29, 2020....................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     2
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................     4
Statement of Senator Scott.......................................    28
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    32
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    34

                               Witnesses

Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, 
  National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
  Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Leann Bosarge, Council Member, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
  Council........................................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Cora Campbell, Member, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; 
  and President and CEO, Silver Bay Seafoods.....................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
Philip Anderson, Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council.......    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    23

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
  Paul Doremus...................................................    43








 
         BUILDING A STRONGER AND MORE RESILIENT SEAFOOD SECTOR

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Sullivan, 
Scott, Cantwell, and Blumenthal.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    The Chairman. This hearing will come to order. Good 
morning. Today the Committee meets for a hearing on ``Building 
a Stronger and More Resilient Seafood Sector.'' I thank my 
friend and Ranking Member Senator Cantwell for convening this 
hearing with me and I extend a welcome to our panel of 
witnesses and thank them for appearing. Today we will hear from 
Dr. Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
Operations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
Ms. Leann Bosarge, Council Member, Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council; Ms. Cora Campbell, Council Member, North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council; and Mr. Phil Anderson, 
Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council.
    The Committee has conducted several hearings related to 
COVID-19 oversight, and today we will examine the impact of the 
pandemic on the American seafood industry and ways to build a 
stronger and more resilient seafood supply chain. Fisheries 
across the Nation have reported as much as a 90 percent sales 
decline during the COVID-19 pandemic. All sectors of the 
seafood industry, including fishermen, aquaculture producers, 
seafood processors, distributors, and restaurants, have been 
impacted. In the Gulf of Mexico, commercial fishermen have seen 
an 80 percent decrease in the price of fish.
    Products such as Gulf shrimp and oysters, which are 
primarily purchased at restaurants, have been especially hard-
hit by the pandemic. These losses have crippled our Nation's 
fisheries, and will have negative impacts on coastal 
communities around the country. Witnesses will have the 
opportunity to discuss both the immediate job loss and long-
term impacts of this crisis on the seafood industry. In March, 
Congress included $300 million in support of the fishing 
industry in the CARES Act, because we recognized the immediate 
financial crisis our fisheries faced. This support is still in 
the process of being distributed to states four months later. 
This delay is frustrating. Our economy needs relief now.
    Chronic delays in the distribution of fishery disaster 
relief have led me to introduce legislation to streamline the 
fisheries disaster declaration process and hold the Federal 
Government accountable. The CARES Act included more than $9 
billion to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide 
support for farmers and ranchers and to buy agricultural 
commodities. I am pleased that this will support our ranchers 
and farmers, but the benefit to our fishermen and seafood 
farmers is limited. I have personally requested that USDA 
expand food purchases to include additional seafood. The 
Committee is interested in hearing the witnesses' views on the 
CARES Act and its implementation.
    We would also welcome perspectives on priorities for future 
legislative or administrative action, including the proposals 
being negotiated on a bipartisan basis as we speak. Commercial 
fishermen have been hurt by this pandemic because many 
Americans eat seafood in restaurants only. In order to provide 
direct relief to the restaurant industry, I have introduced S. 
4012, the Restaurants Act of 2020. We need to support our 
restaurants and seafood sector during this crisis, but we also 
need to focus on creating a more resilient seafood industry. I 
am pleased to observe that we continue to gain cosponsors for 
S. 4012. In May, President Trump issued an Executive Order on 
promoting American seafood competitiveness and economic growth. 
As the Executive Order outlines, there is a great opportunity 
for the United States to promote sustainable American seafood. 
America needs to invest in the expansion of domestic 
aquaculture.
    The United States has the largest exclusive economic zone 
in the world and yet we have only a single aquaculture facility 
in Federal waters. I applaud the Administration's efforts to 
develop a plan to expand sustainable aquaculture. When done in 
a safe and well-monitored manner, domestic farming of fish and 
seafood can complement traditional fishing and ensure healthy, 
safe, and affordable protein in American diets. Soon, I intend 
to introduce the Advancing the Quality and Understanding of 
American Aquaculture Act, or AQUAA Act. This will be done on a 
bipartisan basis. This bill would create a set of National 
standards for sustainable aquaculture, similar to the standards 
set by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    The United States has the best managed fisheries in the 
world. We should lead the world in aquaculture management also. 
Today's hearing provides an opportunity to begin the discussion 
on how Congress can assist in promoting a strong, competitive 
seafood sector. So, I thank the witnesses for participating 
today either in person or remotely. And I now turn to my dear 
friend and Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
holding this important hearing. I am reminded as I was 
listening to your comments of the late Commerce Secretary Ron 
Brown, maybe even testifying in this room, I can't remember but 
he said ``I am the Secretary of Commerce and all the issues 
that Commerce oversees. But I guarantee you, if a Member of 
Congress is calling me, it is about fish.'' And I think that 
that says the important nature to the State of Mississippi, to 
the State of Washington, I am sure to the State of Alaska, I 
saw the Senator from Alaska here, and to many of our other 
colleagues, these are important economic and sustainability 
questions.
    So thank you for holding this important hearing and 
particularly with the severe impact of COVID-19 on the seafood 
industry because it has had serious economic consequences, and 
I want to thank the witnesses for participating, especially 
Phil Anderson, who is taking a day off from running his charter 
boat out of Westport, Washington to be with us. Phil, I am sure 
you would rather be reeling in coho, or spotting albatross or 
many other things but I really appreciate you being here and 
really appreciate you being here so early. The seafood sector 
is the cornerstone of our $30 billion maritime economy in our 
State of Washington.
    Fisheries and fishery related businesses, such as 
commercial fishing, seafood processing, shipbuilding, gear 
manufacturing, make up 60 percent of our state's maritime 
economy, which as a whole supports over 146,000 jobs. In 
addition to commercial fisheries, the Tribal fisheries support 
subsistence, and immeasurable cultural and ceremonial value and 
recreational fisheries too, support our economy adding $340 
million to our state's GDP. So yes, these are big economic 
issues for the State of Washington. The COVID pandemic has 
resulted in hardship on these communities and industries, and 
as of July of this year, I heard from Tribes, shellfish 
growers, fishing businesses, all who suffered from the severe 
impacts and declines in exports.
    The COVID pandemic unfolded in many devastating ways. To 
the restaurant industry, it gutted the market for fresh seafood 
virtually overnight, and the seafood and restaurant industries 
are inextricably linked to the nearly three quarters of all 
U.S. seafood that is consumed in restaurants. So, the West 
Coast fisheries have already seen a decrease of $21 million in 
revenue, a 40 percent decline compared to the previous 5-year 
average. In January alone, Washington Dungeness crab fishery 
saw a 37 percent decline in revenue from the previous year. 
Overall, it is estimated U.S. seafood sales have dropped 95 
percent this year. So despite this staggering economic data, 
many fishermen have not been able to access the COVID relief 
funding from the Paycheck Protection Program, the Main Street 
Lending Program, or even qualified for unemployment based on 
the nature of their businesses and tax structures.
    The USDA food purchase programs have not been able to 
provide the support for most seafood products, and some USDA 
programs, including the Farmers to Families Box Program, 
specifically blocked wild caught seafood from eligibility to 
the program, another blow to the industry. So that is why I 
fought so hard to secure $300 million for the seafood sector in 
the form of grants and other assistance in the CARES Act to 
address the loophole. Unfortunately, the industry has yet to 
see a single dollar of relief due to the slow and inefficient 
and cumbersome implementation through NOAA's National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    The Chairman and I, and I applaud the Chairman on this, 
have held several hearings and offered legislation to 
streamline the fishery disaster process, and our bill is 
currently pending before the Senate. While this bill was 
written before COVID, it is clear even now, Mr. Chairman, that 
this is an important aspect of what we need to be doing. In 
addition to direct financial impacts of the industry, COVID-19 
has also affected the fisheries research and management system 
that we rely upon to maintain our status as a world leader in 
sustainable fisheries. NOAA has issued waivers for observers 
and monitors of commercial fisheries, and canceled stock 
assessment surveys that supply crucial data. I am going to talk 
about this later, but stock assessments are the bedrock for our 
fisheries management system. We need stock assessments to 
continue. Today, I want to hear from our witnesses about how 
disruptions to stock assessments will impact fisheries 
management in the future.
    In closing Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not 
mention my opposition and disappointment in the 
Administration's actions in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Instead of 
focusing on getting recovery dollars out the door to protect 
the seafood sector, the Administration is paving the way toward 
permitting the Pebble Mine. Salmon habitat and mining do not 
mix. The mine will kill salmon, and thousands of American jobs 
which depend on them, if any accident were to occur.
    When the late Ted Stevens was quoted, he said ``this is the 
wrong mine, in the wrong place.'' I doubt that he could imagine 
this becoming an even more pressing issue than it is today. It 
is beyond unconscionable that the Administration continues to 
threaten the largest salmon fishery in the world instead of 
focusing on the catastrophic failure that we are seeing because 
of the pandemic. This is like a one, two gut punch to the 
industry. By failing to engage in this process in a formal 
manner, NOAA has abdicated its responsibility to salmon 
management. NOAA has turned its back on 14,000 jobs and a $1.5 
billion sockeye salmon sector that is the largest in the world.
    So as I have said many times, we must let science lead, and 
the Administration is not listening to science and NOAA is not 
sticking up for the science. This is an important public health 
issue, and it is important to protect these fisheries. I don't 
know what has happened with NOAA losing sight of this mission, 
but I guarantee you that the coastal communities that I 
represent, the fishermen that I represent, the jobs that they 
represent, and the sockeye salmon industry are very 
disappointed and we deserve better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell. We 
have written statements from all four of our witnesses and they 
will be placed in the record at this point, and we recognize 
each of our panelists to summarize testimony in 5 minutes. And 
we begin in person with Dr. Doremus. Sir, you are recognized.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Sullivan. Sorry to interrupt. I was going to take a 
minute to introduce one of the witnesses here.
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Sullivan. Alaskan, who is a good friend of mine. If 
I can take a moment to introduce Ms. Cora Campbell. Cora is an 
individual who I have great respect for, both as a friend and 
for her experience in harvesting, processing, and literally 
managing Alaska's fisheries resources. Cora's fishery career 
began in Petersburg, Alaska where she grew up fishing with her 
family. Following this, she moved on to fisheries policy in 
Alaska, served on numerous boards and committees including the 
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council's Advisory Panel, 
United Fishermen of Alaska, the Alaska Seafood Marketing 
Institute, and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.
    In addition, Mr. Chairman, she served as a policy advisor 
to two Governors in Alaskan fisheries, wildlife, climate 
change, and natural resources, seafood marketing, and Arctic 
development. And perhaps most importantly, she is the former 
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and 
represented the State of Alaska on the North Pacific Fisheries 
Management Council from 2010 to 2014. I had the distinct honor 
and pleasure of serving in a cabinet position with Cora when 
she was the Commissioner of Fish and Game and I was the 
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
    She certainly, at that time, had one of the toughest jobs 
in the State of Alaska and did in an exemplary job in leading 
the Department of Fish and Game. I worked with her closely 
literally on a daily basis during that time. She is currently 
the President and CEO of Silver Base Seafoods, a fishermen-
owned Alaska seafood processing company. She is also currently 
serving on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 
Lives in Anchorage with her husband and two children, and I am 
very, very excited to have her testify and answer questions 
today.
    Mr. Chairman, I can't think of a more qualified, 
experienced, and important person from my state to be 
testifying in front of the Committee on this important hearing 
today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Sullivan, for 
those introductory remarks. And now we'll begin with 5 minute 
summaries of testimony. And again, I call on Dr. Paul Doremus. 
You are recognized.

          STATEMENT OF PAUL DOREMUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

         ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONS, NATIONAL MARINE

      FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 
          ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today regarding the impacts of COVID-19 
on U.S. fisheries and the broader seafood industry. I am Paul 
Doremus. I serve as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
Operations at NOAA Fisheries. We are responsible for the 
stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources, 
responsible for managing productive and sustainable fisheries, 
ensuring safe sources of sustainable seafood supply, recovering 
and conserving protected resources, healthy ecosystems--all 
based on sound science and an ecosystem-based approach to 
management. Since March, we saw very quickly that we needed to 
take a proactive role in understanding the scale and the scope 
of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the entire sector.
    Senator, as you noted in your opening comments, our seafood 
industries depend very heavily on restaurant and food service 
retail outlets to the tune of 70 percent of sales, and that 
source of demand for U.S. seafood products, in the context of 
the social distancing requirements of the pandemic, dropped 
precipitously. We are seeing significant impacts across the 
seafood supply chain from that changed structure of demand, and 
including but not limited to U.S. harvesters, seafood dealers, 
processors, wholesalers, distributors, and the recreational 
for-hire sector. Market demand has dropped substantially in 
these sectors as customers continue to stay home, public docks 
or ports stay closed or have limited utility. Harvesting, 
processing, and distribution have been curtailed for many fresh 
high-end products and in some cases have largely stopped in 
response to restaurant and other food service sector closings 
throughout the U.S. as well as globally.
    The industry's outlook in the coming months is highly 
uncertain. Our initial analysis of industry impacts indicates 
that the scale and scope of the effects of COVID-19 on the 
entire sector are broad and are likely to continue to be felt 
for some time. We have a range of people in the industry, 
agencies, businesses, all parts of society that are coming to 
terms with trying to understand and adjust to the new realities 
of our COVID-19 environment and how the markets will be 
evolving from here.
    We are continuing to assess both the near-term and 
immediate impacts of this pandemic and trying to assess over 
time how the pandemic will evolve in terms of its impact, and 
look at ways that we can improve the long-term resilience, the 
recovery initially, and then the long-term resilience and 
competitiveness of U.S. seafood and fisheries industries. We 
would certainly like to thank Congress for your close attention 
to date to the negative effects of COVID-19 on the industry as 
a whole.
    Recently the Secretary of Commerce announced the allocation 
of $300 million to fisheries assistance, funding provided by 
section 12005 of the CARES Act to states, tribes, territories 
with coastal and marine fishery participants who have been 
negatively affected by COVID-19. We are working aggressively. 
This has been the highest priority of ours to implement this 
funding and get it in the hands of those who deserve it as 
quickly as possible, and we are in the process of doing that at 
this moment in close collaboration with our partners in the 
marine fisheries commissions and elsewhere in the states.
    In addition to the CARES Act funding, we are providing 
technical assistance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
expand the range of species purchased by USDA for food 
assistance programs and other types of outlets for their buying 
programs, and in the near-term our fisheries finance program 
has modified and extended loan repayments, upon request, to 
seafood companies with short-term liquidity needs. These are 
the types of things that we have been trying to do where we can 
work both within NOAA and across the Federal agency community 
to provide immediate assistance to U.S. fisheries and seafood 
industry.
    We are also trying to look longer term. While the COVID-19 
crisis has profoundly affected the seafood industry and we have 
a near-term need for immediate assistance, there is also an 
opportunity to rebuild fisheries, or the seafood sector as a 
whole, in ways that improve our ability to handle these types 
of crises in the future and address long-term systemic 
challenges, some of which existed prior to the pandemic itself. 
These challenges include reducing the cost of goods relative to 
foreign competition, modernizing or expanding U.S. seafood 
processing capacity, reducing reliance on foreign processing in 
the process, expanding domestically sourced supply and 
development of U.S. aquaculture, providing new product forms 
and market delivery techniques and generating greater demand 
through seafood marketing and promotion.
    These are the types of things that we hope long term will 
help us mitigate the immediate and long-term effects of the 
pandemic on the industry. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify in front of you today. I look forward to your questions 
and it is a great pleasure to join the other panelists as 
Senator Sullivan mentioned and others who provide a great deal 
of expertise on this topic as well. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Doremus follows:]

Prepared Statement of Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
  Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Overview
    Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members 
of the Committee. My name is Paul Doremus and I serve as the Deputy 
Assistant Administrator for Operations within the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NOAA Fisheries) in the Department of Commerce. NOAA Fisheries is 
responsible for the stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources 
and their habitats, including managing productive and sustainable 
fisheries, safe sources of seafood, the recovery and conservation of 
protected resources, and healthy ecosystems--informed by sound science 
and an ecosystem-based approach to management.
    NOAA has a robust process in-place for actively monitoring and 
adjusting operations during emergencies and is doing so in response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic. NOAA's systems are continually monitored and 
staff are routinely prepared to ensure operational continuity. At this 
time, NOAA Fisheries remains operational; however, some key functions, 
such as certain fisheries surveys and field research, have been 
temporarily suspended due to social distancing requirements and related 
safety considerations. As we continue to manage operations, we are 
focusing first and foremost on the health and safety of our staff and 
partners, and evaluating current and upcoming operations based on 
mission priorities and operational risks. NOAA Fisheries will continue 
to fulfill our mission to the greatest extent possible under the 
current circumstances, maintaining our Nation's seafood supply and 
protecting marine life while minimizing risks to staff and facilities. 
Today, I will speak to the impacts of the pandemic on U.S. fisheries 
and the broader seafood industry.
Overview of COVID-19 Impacts
    Since March, NOAA Fisheries has taken a proactive role in 
monitoring and adjusting to COVID-19 impacts. In keeping with our 
mission, the agency conducted a rapid economic assessment to identify 
immediate impacts of the pandemic on the U.S. seafood industry. Based 
on the rapid assessment, the agency recently published a report, NOAA 
Fisheries Initial Impacts Assessment of the COVID-19 Crisis on the U.S. 
Commercial Seafood and Recreational For-Hire/Charter Industries, which 
includes an initial snapshot of COVID-19 effects on the industry 
nationally and regionally as of March 2020.
    Initially, some elements of the seafood industry in the United 
States felt the impacts of COVID-19 due to the broad scale closures of 
ports and seafood processing facilities in China beginning in late 
January as China enacted stringent protective measures, including 
quarantines and stay-at-home orders to all but essential workers, to 
reduce the spread of the virus.\1\ As COVID-19 spread globally, the 
United States and many other countries implemented social distancing 
and other protective measures to reduce transmission rates, including 
closing restaurants but eventually extending to stay-at-home guidance 
and later stay-at-home orders for all but essential workers. These 
measures had a swift and sweeping impact on many U.S. fisheries but 
especially on fresh, high-end products that are primarily sold to 
restaurants. Domestic shellfish aquaculture operations were similarly 
hard hit by restaurant closures. Further, as social distancing measures 
expanded, the for-hire recreational industry, especially in southern 
states with active fishing seasons already underway, was essentially 
shut down as customers stayed home and public docks closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ From 2015-2019, China was the United States' top export country 
for the January through May timeframe. China was the second largest 
source of seafood imports into the United States for this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, those interviewed indicated that in contrast to the fresh 
fish market, consumers dramatically increased supermarket purchases in 
late March 2020 of shelf stable and frozen product forms--including 
canned tuna, Alaska pollock and king mackerel. Sales figures for this 
surge in supermarket sales published in the seafood and food trade 
press included a greater than 100 percent increase in sales of canned 
tuna fish compared to the same week last year while sales of frozen 
seafood increased 65 percent from March 15 to April 26 \2\ compared to 
the same period in 2019.\3\ However, because restaurant sales accounted 
for 60 percent to 70 percent of seafood sold in the United States pre-
COVID-19, increases in supermarket sales have not offset the loss of 
the restaurant trade.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See, for example, https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/05/04/
opinion-can-tuna-sustain-us-through-and-after-this-pandemic/
    \3\ Source IRI, Inc. as cited in https://www.theshelbyreport.com/
2020/05/09/frozen-food-sales-top-50-gains-versus-year-ago/
    \4\ National Marine Fisheries Service (2018) Fisheries of the 
United States, 2017. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery 
Statistics No. 2017 Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
feature-story/fisheries-united-states-2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The COVID-19 crisis and associated market and international trade 
disruptions have not only altered the way the seafood industry does 
business, the crisis also provides an opportunity to rebuild in a way 
that addresses longer-term systemic challenges. These challenges 
include reducing the cost of goods for U.S. seafood relative to foreign 
competition, modernizing or expanding U.S. processing capacity to 
reduce reliance on foreign processing of U.S. seafood (especially 
China), expanding domestically sourced supply by making full use of 
wild harvest catch and developing U.S. aquaculture, pivoting to new 
product forms and market delivery techniques, and generating greater 
demand for U.S. seafood through generic seafood marketing and 
promotion. Support for these transitional actions will help the seafood 
industry rebuild more quickly and to increase industry resilience to 
potential future crises and market shocks.
Sector-by-Sector Breakdown
    For U.S. wild-caught commercial fisheries, fisheries reliant upon 
the Chinese and other Asian markets were immediately and significantly 
impacted by COVID-19 as demand collapsed in key markets. The rolling 
closures of restaurants across states and other social distancing 
measures beginning in March primarily affected fresh, high-end 
products, including lobster, swordfish, tunas, halibut, sablefish, 
snapper, oysters and other shellfish, sold mainly to restaurants and 
food service sectors. Some seafood products are more resilient to the 
current events because they are processed into ``shelf stable'' product 
forms (such as frozen, canned, or ready meals), sold through retailing 
outlets, or frozen into blocks for future processing. Sharp declines in 
market demand for fresh product through the customary supply chain has 
resulted in fishermen in several regions attempting direct-to-consumer 
sales or changing product forms. Fisheries waiting for seasons to open 
or those peaking this summer will be affected if demand remains low 
(e.g., Alaska and West Coast salmon, tunas and swordfish).
    For U.S. marine aquaculture, shellfish farming on all coasts of the 
United States has virtually shut down. Especially hard hit are markets 
for live oysters, geoduck, and other shellfish and associated 
hatcheries that are not receiving seed orders for the spring. A two-to 
three-month impact will cause some operations to close, however, the 
general feedback from industry was that most operations will weather a 
crisis of this duration but warned that longer impacts could cripple 
the domestic shellfish industry for several years (or more).
    U.S. seafood dealers and processors, especially those that rely on 
fresh and high value products typically sold by restaurants, have been 
severely affected by the collapse in market demand. Some processors are 
not buying and fish houses with full freezers are unable to buy more 
product, reflecting the fact that the increased sales of frozen 
products at supermarkets did not offset the drop in demand by the 
restaurant and food service sector.
    For recreational for-hire operations, for-hire and party boat 
operations have ceased in many states and have been significantly 
curtailed in the remaining states due to social distancing measures, 
stay-at-home orders, and travel restrictions. Southern states (states 
in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions), California, and 
Hawaii, which have strong demand for trips during the March to April 
timeframe, have been particularly affected. In addition to current 
closures, all states reported cancelled future bookings. While to date, 
layoffs have been limited in this sector, many operations have sharply 
reduced employees' hours to reduce costs. Shore-side businesses have 
also been negatively impacted; a number of tackle shops, marinas, boat 
rentals/dealers, restaurants and hotels have closed or are operating on 
sharply reduced hours.
    For exports of U.S. seafood, initial impacts of COVID-19 in China 
in late January led to decline in U.S. seafood exports to China of 31 
percent and 44 percent compared to January and February of the previous 
year.\5\ The fresh seafood export trade has virtually stopped, 
including shellfish (lobster, crab, oysters, and geoduck). The lack of 
airline flights and inability of ships to land product (e.g., ports in 
the European Union and Asia are currently backed up) have also 
curtailed demand.\6\ New information indicates that China is resuming 
or may soon resume purchases of U.S. seafood products such as geoduck 
and West Coast groundfish species; however, lack of airline flights may 
still hamper shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Note that the drop in demand cited may not all be attributable 
to COVID-19; at this time, it is not possible to determine causality. 
Seafood trade data available at: https://www.st
.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/
    \6\ See, for example, https://www.npr.org/2020/02/25/807422595/
some-u-s-farmers-boxed-in-by-coronavirus-outbreak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications for the Future of the Seafood Industry
    As illustrated above, COVID-19 effects are already having 
significant impacts on the seafood supply chain, including but not 
limited to U.S. harvesters (wild and farmed), seafood dealers and 
processors, seafood wholesalers and distributors, and the recreational 
for-hire sector. Harvesting, processing, and distribution have been 
curtailed for many products and in some cases have ceased in response 
to restaurant and other closings throughout the country and globally. 
Further, the industry's outlook in the coming months is highly 
uncertain. Overall, our initial analysis of industry impacts indicates 
that the scale and scope of the effects of COVID-19 on the entire 
sector are broad.
    The 2020 COVID-19 crisis also created a turning point for the U.S. 
and global seafood industry and created new long-term opportunities as 
well as challenges to expanding our sustainable domestic seafood 
sector. The long-term impacts of COVID-19 will likely be felt for a 
while as people, agencies, businesses, and other parts of society 
adjust to a new reality. NOAA Fisheries will use this information to 
assess the immediate and long-term needs to secure and enhance the 
resilience of the U.S. seafood and fisheries industries.
CARES Act Financial Assistance and Other Relief
    We would like to thank Congress for their attention to the negative 
effects from COVID-19 on the seafood and fishing industries. Recently, 
the Secretary of Commerce announced the allocation of $300 million in 
fisheries assistance funding provided by Sec. 12005 of the Coronavirus 
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also called the CARES Act, to 
states, Tribes, and territories with coastal and marine fishery 
participants who have been negatively affected by COVID-19. NOAA 
Fisheries is working aggressively to ensure that these funds can be 
distributed to fishery participants as fast and fairly as possible. 
NOAA Fisheries will use these allocations to make awards to our 
partners--the three interstate marine fisheries commissions, Puerto 
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands--to disburse funds to address direct 
or indirect fishery-related losses as well as subsistence, cultural, or 
ceremonial impacts related to COVID-19. This relief package will help 
support America's fishermen, seafood farmers, and seafood processors 
along with a portion of the recreational fishing industry such as 
charter boat captains. We stand with the men and women working to 
provide healthy and safe seafood during this uniquely challenging time, 
while our U.S. fisheries work to continue to support 1.7 million jobs 
and to generate $200 billion in annual sales.
    NOAA Fisheries will continue to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on 
the seafood industry as the year progresses and as data on economic 
impacts becomes more readily available across industry segments and 
regions. Summer is the most important revenue earning season for 
fishery participants, and NMFS will closely monitor the impacts to 
industry, and continue to look for ways to support it during these 
unprecedented challenges.
    I would also like to discuss some of the other ways NMFS is 
assisting the fishing community. In addition to disbursing the CARES 
Act funding, NOAA Fisheries is providing technical assistance to the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand the range of species 
purchased by USDA for food assistance programs. Also, NOAA Fisheries' 
Fisheries Finance Program, which has over $500 million in outstanding 
loans to the seafood sector, has modified and extended loan repayments 
upon request to seafood companies (within the limits and flexibilities 
of existing authorities) to assist companies with short term liquidity 
needs. In addition, NOAA Fisheries is working with the regional Fishery 
Management Councils to closely monitor the COVID-19 situation. There 
have been a number of requests for emergency actions to help address 
impacts the industry is facing and we are working through the Council 
process to address them. In addition, NOAA Fisheries has already 
implemented some emergency measures that have been recommended by the 
Councils. We encourage the public to stay up to date by monitoring 
councils' websites and other media as the COVID-19 situation 
progresses.
    Finally, from the early stages of the pandemic, Sea Grant, a 
congressionally established partnership between NOAA and 33 university-
based organizations that work to create and maintain a healthy coastal 
environment and economy, has worked with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service Office of Aquaculture to identify the most critical areas in 
which it can assist the aquaculture and seafood communities. Sea Grant 
worked with their state programs to identify priority topics for the 
aquaculture industry, including: (a) developing response plans for 
recovery; (b) education and implementation of previously developed 
knowledge or tools directed towards improving cash flow and business 
sustainability (e.g., product storage techniques, direct marketing best 
practices for fishers; cooperative research; etc.); (c) assistance with 
accessing other relief programs (e.g., the CARES Act), including 
assisting stakeholders with business records and loss documentation; 
and (d) developing processes to make industries more resilient against 
future disruptions to their respective supply chains.
    The National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) is also committed to 
supporting local response to the challenges listed above by investing a 
total of $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 funds. Summaries of 
funded projects will be posted on the Sea Grant website, and will be 
provided to the relevant committees and Member offices. Additionally, 
the NSGO has created a webpage (https://seagrant.noaa.gov/seafood-
resources) to provide pertinent and timely information and resources to 
the U.S. seafood industry--both wild harvest and aquaculture. While 
content is currently focused on challenges related to COVID-19, this 
page will continue to serve as a valuable resource to the U.S. seafood 
industry well into the future.
Executive Order Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and 
        Economic Growth
    On May 7th the President signed a new Executive Order Promoting 
American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth. This historic 
Executive Order will propel the United States forward as a seafood 
producer by strengthening the American seafood economy; improving the 
competitiveness of American industry; ensuring food security; providing 
environmentally safe and sustainable seafood; supporting American 
workers; and ensuring coordinated and transparent Federal actions. The 
2020 COVID-19 crisis has created a turning point in the way the seafood 
industry does business and--in addition to other efforts and financial 
support--this Executive Order and the funding available through the 
CARES Act creates new opportunities to address long-term challenges to 
expanding our sustainable domestic seafood sector.
    In particular, the Executive Order gives added emphasis to 
increasing production of America's wild caught fisheries, opening 
export markets, strengthening international requirements for 
sustainable fishing, and renewing efforts to expand responsible U.S. 
aquaculture production. These actions will be taken without 
compromising America's world-class marine stewardship and environmental 
requirements.
Conclusion
    We will continue to work to understand and mitigate the immediate 
and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. fisheries and 
our Nation's living marine resources. Longer term, NOAA will explore 
ways to rebuild and create a U.S. seafood industry that will be more 
resilient to future market, environmental, or other shocks.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Doremus. And now, we 
call upon Ms. Leann Bosarge, Council Member of the Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Council. Ms. Bosarge, are you joining 
us from Tampa today?
    Ms. Bosarge. No, sir. I am joining you from the great State 
of Mississippi today.
    The Chairman. All right, OK. Where are you?
    Ms. Bosarge. Pascagoula, Mississippi.
    The Chairman. Very good. Well, thank you very, very much 
for joining us and your testimony has been received already. We 
ask you to summarize it in approximately 5 minutes, please 
ma'am.

  STATEMENT OF LEANN BOSARGE, COUNCIL MEMBER, GULF OF MEXICO 
                   FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

    Ms. Bosarge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 
Committee. I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak 
to you today. As I said, my name is Leann Bosarge from 
Pascagoula, Mississippi, and I hail from a long line of 
commercial fishermen. My parents started taking my sisters and 
I out shrimping at a very young age and I spent my fair share 
of time in engine rooms with my daddy rebuilding engines. But I 
also went on to become the first member of my family to earn a 
college degree, two of them in fact, working at the family 
business all the while.
    These days, I am on land most of the time doing a little 
bit of everything, new business development, corporate taxes, 
or prepping for Coast Guard inspections. And over the years, 
the family business has grown to a fleet of five trial vessels 
which shrimp throughout both the Gulf of Mexico and the South 
Atlantic. Now for the topics of today's hearing. First topic, 
the effect of COVID-19 on the seafood industry. Well, it turns 
out the bulk of U.S. consumers buy their seafood in restaurants 
not grocery stores. When restaurants closed and stopped buying 
from fish houses, fish houses had to stop buying from the 
fishermen. Boats were tied to the dock and the industry was out 
of work.
    As the restrictions on restaurants were eased, fishermen 
were able to make a few fishing trips here and there but 
markets dictated they catch fewer fish at lower prices. Seafood 
markets have barely begun to thaw and increasing cases of 
COVID-19 unfortunately mean that they could revert back to a 
standstill any day now. Second topic you asked us to speak on, 
the CARES Act. We would like to thank Congress very much for 
passing the CARES Act and including a pool of funds that were 
directed to commercial fishermen. The fishing industry also 
appreciates capping of administrative fees. There is also a 
high value placed on transparency in determining allocations 
and timeliness in dispersing the funds. Third topic, building a 
more resilient seafood industry.
    So the virus revealed the kinks in our seafood supply 
chain. It taught us that our markets are too limited and that 
our National seafood policy cannot continue with a bias toward 
the side of tainted imports. So here are my top four ideas for 
addressing these issues. Number one, increasing testing of 
imported seafood to ensure it does not contain banned chemical 
substances. In 2015, 99.9 percent of seafood imported into the 
U.S. was not tested for banned substances. Increase testing by 
the EU, on the other hand, has led to a diversion of these 
tainted products to U.S. markets.
    Increased testing will improve food quality for our 
citizens and level the playing field for our domestic 
fishermen. Decades of depressed shrimp prices caused by cheap 
imports have contributed to a generation of children choosing 
not to follow in their parents footsteps and become shrimpers, 
instead leaving their heritage for a different career. This 
graying of the fleet, as it is called, is a sad state of 
affairs and I implore you to make the increased testing of 
imported seafood a priority. Idea number two, country of origin 
labeling on restaurant menus Nation--hear me out on this. 
Marketing the superiority of wild caught domestic seafood has 
led to an educated seafood consuming public in the U.S. They 
know they prefer domestic product.
    Unfortunately, they don't always know if they are in fact 
eating domestic seafood at restaurants. I am sure all of you 
are thinking about creative ways to direct money to the 
restaurant industry right now. How about a tax credit for 
restaurants that provide country of origin labeling for seafood 
on their menus? The tax break for restaurants would be a win-
win for the restaurant industry, the seafood industry, and the 
American seafood consumer. Idea number three, establish the 
infrastructure for a nationwide online seafood market place. 
Think of it as a virtual farmers market for seafood.
    COVID-19 has brought about a paradigm shift in how our 
fishermen reach consumers, but we need a nationwide platform 
these fishermen can utilize to market their products. Think of 
Etsy. The Etsy platform allows the artisan to reach an 
exponential member number of customers because Etsy boosts the 
online efforts of that individual artisan to a whole other 
level because Etsy is recognized nationwide as a one-stop shop 
for home artisan products. Since seafood is a public resource, 
this platform shouldn't belong to a private entity. And please 
expand the role of the seafood trade task force established by 
Executive Order 13921 and make the creation of a nationwide 
virtual farmers market for seafood part of their mission.
    Final note, number four, support of young fishermen 
development programs. It is time for us to let our young people 
know that fishing is a viable career path. The young fishermen 
development programs being founded around the country are 
excellent vehicles for participation at career fairs in middle 
schools, in high schools to plant that seed as young people 
begin to think about their future.
    Vocational training programs should be expanded to include 
commercial fishing as a desirable career. The Young Fishermen's 
Development Act can help resurrect our heritage. Mr. Chairman, 
I look forward to working with you on these and many other 
ideas to strengthen our domestic seafood industry.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bosarge follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Leann Bosarge, Council Member, Gulf of Mexico 
                       Fishery Management Council
    Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Leann 
Bosarge, and I'd first like to thank you for inviting me to speak 
before you today. As a brief background on myself, I hail from a long 
line of commercial fishermen, who over the years have harvested 
everything from butterfish and red snapper to oysters, crabs and 
shrimp. I grew up working at our family business, Bosarge Boats, which 
owns and operates a fleet of trawl vessels, i.e., shrimp boats, which 
fish the waters of both the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic. I 
was the first member of my family to earn a college degree--of course 
working at the family business all the while. After college, I carried 
out my mother's wishes to at least try another industry, I spent a few 
years working for a publicly traded financial institution, before 
returning to my true love--the commercial fishing industry and the 
family business. In 2013, I was appointed to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council and was honored to be elected and serve as Chairman 
of the Council from 2016 to 2018. I'm currently in my third term on the 
Council as a voting member, and I am honored to have had the 
opportunity to share in shaping the future of our fisheries and 
ensuring their long term, science-based sustainability.
Gulf perspective on the short and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the 
        seafood industry
    There is not an industry in this country that has been unscathed by 
COVID-19, but I feel it important to first acknowledge those who have 
lost loved ones as they have endured the greatest sacrifice.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a wide range of adverse 
socio-economic impacts on the Gulf of Mexico seafood industry. These 
impacts are still unfolding and include significant decreases in ex-
vessel landings, employment losses, disruptions to the supply chains of 
seafood products, price decreases and sizeable reductions in revenues 
across all nodes of the supply chains for most seafood species landed 
in Gulf of Mexico.
    As restaurants continued to close, orders of seafood products began 
to decrease and in some cases disappear. In turn, the depressed demand 
for seafood products by restaurants has led seafood dealers to 
drastically reduce or temporarily suspend orders from commercial 
fishermen. In reaction to the reductions in orders from dealers, 
commercial fishermen had to adjust their operations downward. These 
adjustments continue to include decreases in the number of commercial 
fishing trips taken, drops in the quantity of fish harvested per trip 
and reductions to the number of crew members taken out on a given 
fishing trip. This sequence of events continues to adversely impact 
employment prospects throughout our supply chains.
    In the following sections, I will briefly discuss the impacts of 
the COVID-19 pandemic on the commercial finfish and shrimp sectors, 
with a particular emphasis on changes in ex-vessel landings and 
revenues. The detrimental effects on the seafood industry are still 
unfolding, due to the continuing evolution of this pandemic. In the 
Gulf of Mexico, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through 
its South East Regional Office (SERO) and South East Fisheries Science 
Center (SEFSC) are designing or conducting studies to evaluate these 
effects. At a state level, through their state fisheries departments or 
sea grant and extension services, the five constituting states are 
developing or are conducting ongoing surveys to assess the impacts of 
the pandemic on their respective state fisheries sectors. Therefore, 
examples and data included in my testimony rely on regional and Gulf-
wide data from NMFS or state-specific data, depending on availability.
    For finfish fisheries, there is a general downward trend in ex-
vessel landings associated with economic losses borne by commercial 
fishermen due to decreases in ex-vessel revenues. Compared to the first 
half of 2019, ex-vessel revenues from finfish for the first 6 months of 
2020 have decreased by 23 percent in the Southeast region, which 
includes the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
    Examples of individual Gulf of Mexico reef fish species with 
noteworthy reductions in ex-vessel landings and revenues during the 
same time interval include greater amberjack and yellowtail snapper. 
For greater amberjack and yellowtail snapper, ex-vessel landings 
decreased by 46 percent and 51 percent, respectively. Associated 
decreases in greater amberjack and yellowtail snapper ex-vessel 
revenues were 42 percent and 55 percent, respectively.
    Preliminary data from a University of Florida and Florida Sea Grant 
survey of about 300 commercial fishermen provide an example of the 
devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on commercial fisheries at 
the state level. Survey respondents reported a 74 percent average 
revenue loss due to the pandemic. Subsets of respondents including reef 
fish or coastal migratory pelagic fishermen reported average losses in 
revenues of 76 percent and 72 percent, respectively. In an accompanying 
survey, Florida seafood wholesale dealers report, on average, 70 
percent revenue losses due to COVID-19.
    A survey administered by the Louisiana State University 
Agricultural Center, Louisiana Sea Grant, and Department of Wildlife 
and Fisheries illustrates revenue losses and reductions in employment 
borne by seafood dock owners and dealers in Louisiana. Preliminary 
survey results indicate a 51 percent average decrease in revenues among 
respondents during the first quarter of 2020 compared to the first 
quarter of last year. Survey respondents also reported a loss of all 
foreign personnel and a 55 percent average decrease in full time 
employment. Losses in employment were somewhat mitigated as dealers and 
dock operators converted some of the laid off full time workforce to 
part-time.
    In the University of Florida and Florida Sea Grant survey I 
mentioned earlier, survey respondents who are commercial shrimp 
fishermen reported 63 percent average revenue losses due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. According to the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA), a shrimp 
industry organization, aggregate shrimp landings in the Gulf of Mexico 
during the first six months of 2020 were the lowest ever recorded in 
the Gulf of Mexico. The SSA further indicates that Gulf shrimp landings 
during the first half of 2020 were about 38 percent lower than the 
previous 18-year average for landings.
    In addition to these effects, because commercial fishermen and 
dealers can no longer primarily rely on orders from restaurants and 
institutional clients such as corporate clients, large venues, event 
organizers, and universities, the traditional repartition of seafood 
consumption between seafood consumed away from home and seafood bought 
at retail outlets for in-house consumption has been upended. According 
to the Washington Post (Laura Reiley, April 8, 2020), U.S. consumers 
spend approximately twice as much on seafood consumed away from home 
relative to seafood bought in grocery and retail stores for in-house 
consumption. The proportions of seafood consumed away from home and 
seafood products bought at retail for in-home consumption are 
approximately 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively. In a July 20, 
2020 article, Seafood News, a seafood trade magazine, notes that with 
the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage of seafood products 
consumed at home has increased by as much as 20 percent. The 
persistence of such a trend could result in seafood consumed at home 
representing as much as 65 percent of the total seafood consumption. 
The increase in the relative importance of in-house seafood consumption 
may offer future opportunities to develop retail markets. However, the 
development of reliable and profitable market relationships with 
retailers is not without challenges for commercial fishermen. While 
commercial fishermen primarily concentrated on supplying seafood to 
restauranteurs, retail chains heavily relied on imported seafood to 
satisfy their customer demand. Therefore, domestic commercial fishermen 
would have to compete with cheaper imported product to further develop 
relationships with the retail sector.
CARES Act
    On May 7, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce announced the allocation 
of $300 million in fisheries assistance funding provided by Sec. 12005 
of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also called 
the CARES Act, to states, Tribes, and territories with coastal and 
marine fishery participants who have been negatively affected by COVID-
19.
    The purpose of the CARES Act allocation is to provide timely 
financial relief to commercial fishermen, seafood wholesale dealers, 
charter fishing businesses, and marine aquaculture businesses that have 
suffered financial losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While 
this financial relief is much needed in the Gulf of Mexico, to date no 
funds have been made available to the affected industry participants. 
It is anticipated most state spend plans will be drafted by the states 
by mid-July. Those plans will then be reviewed and approved by NOAA 
before money is distributed to those impacted. On behalf of the Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Council, I would like to encourage an 
expedited effort to make these funds directly available to the intended 
recipients to mitigate financial losses and prevent further harm to 
Gulf of Mexico fisherman.
    Under this Act, NOAA Fisheries has allocated $28M in support of 
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries 
Commission. An additional $23M has been allocated to Florida (both east 
and west coasts) through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council looks forward 
to the positive impacts resulting from the CARES Act but is not 
directly involved in the administration of funds or programmatic 
activities.
    The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission is working with Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to develop spend plans on how the 
allocated funds [Louisiana ($14,785,244), Texas ($9,237,949), Alabama 
($3,299,821) and Mississippi ($1,534,388)] will be distributed to 
qualified fishery participants. As noted above, Florida has been 
allocated $23,471,286 through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission. Please note that the final allocations are slightly less 
due to administrative costs for NOAA Fisheries and the Commission. I am 
also grateful for the foresight of leaders in capping the 
administrative fee percentages which could be deducted from these 
funds, thereby ensuring that a greater portion of the funds will end up 
in the hands of the fishermen affect by the pandemic.
Priorities for Future Legislative or Administrative Action
    The strength of our U.S. domestic fisheries lies in management that 
is based on science. In the Gulf of Mexico, many of our fisheries are 
currently harvested at the maximum sustainable amount allowed by the 
biological science. Legally mandated catch limits protect the health of 
our stocks today and also ensure that our fishermen's livelihoods and 
our Nation's seafood supply are sustainable into the future. One of the 
most important priorities for the future of domestic commercial seafood 
is to diversify our supply chain and expand our target markets. The 
need for diversifying our supply chain has been laid bare this year as 
the seafood industry has been heavily impacted from the closures due to 
COVID-19 described above. Promoting commercial fishing and increasing 
the demand for our domestic product will increase American jobs, both 
primary and secondary jobs, strengthen the American economy via the 
increased revenues, and add to our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Over 
the last 10 years, the value of seafood imported into the United States 
has increased by $7.3 billion,\1\ reflecting growing demand for seafood 
in this country. Meeting this increased American demand with 
domestically produced seafood, as opposed to imported seafood, will 
create lasting gains for commercial fishing in this country and ensure 
our national food security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. International Trade Commission's Dataweb for the value of 
merchandise exported under Chapter 3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States as well as under HTSUS codes 1603, 1604, and 1605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following are some ideas for future legislative or 
administrative action that will strengthen the domestic commercial 
fishing industry as well as our national economy. The Gulf Council 
brainstormed and formulated a list of ideas at its last meeting in the 
context of recommending actions to promote American seafood 
competitiveness and economic growth, in response to Executive Order 
13921. The Gulf Council will continue to discuss these and other ideas 
in greater detail and will formalize its recommended proposals at a 
future Council meeting. Many of these ideas were on the initial list 
formulated by the Gulf Council, but the further fleshing out of these 
ideas below is specific to the commercial industry and does not 
necessarily reflect the Gulf Council, which has not had an opportunity 
to contribute its thoughts to today's hearing.
Increased Testing of Imported Seafood
    Testing of imported seafood should be increased to ensure that FDA 
standards are met and that imports do not contain prohibited chemical 
substances, such as banned antibiotics, which is prevalent in imported 
seafood species, especially shrimp. These substances are added to 
enhance yield and to produce the product more cheaply, but can cause 
health concerns and often displace domestic seafood products in 
restaurants and grocery stores. In Fiscal Year 2015, the U.S. Food and 
Drug Administration tested just 0.1 percent of seafood entry lines for 
the presence of veterinary drug residues.\2\ In contrast, the European 
Union (EU) requires that 50 percent of all shipments of farmed seafood 
from India be tested for veterinary drug residues prior to being 
allowed into the EU market.\3\ Worse, as the EU has increased its 
testing to prevent access of contaminated shrimp to its markets, the 
EU's efforts to protect European consumers have led to the diversion of 
these tainted exports to the U.S. market, which lacks the more 
stringent testing. Increasing the testing of imported seafood would 
therefore improve the quality of imported seafood and ensure that our 
domestic fishermen are competing on a fair playing field by rejecting 
contaminated product. Therefore, I humbly request that Congress 
consider prioritizing funds towards increased testing of imported 
seafood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Imported Seafood 
Safety: FDA and USDA Could Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Unsafe Drug 
Residues, GAO-17-443 (Sept. 2017) at 19.
    \3\ See Commission Implementing Decision 2016/1774 of 4 October 
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country of Origin Labeling for Seafood on Restaurant Menus Nationwide
    The closures due to COVID-19 revealed that a significant amount of 
our domestic seafood is consumed in restaurants rather than purchased 
at grocery stores to be prepared at home.\4\ Although labeling the 
country of origin for seafood imports is required in grocery stores, it 
is not generally required in restaurants.\5\ As consumers have become 
more conscientious about the source of their food, demand has increased 
for domestic wild caught seafood. Unfortunately, consumers have no way 
of knowing the source (i.e., country of origin) of what they are served 
at a restaurant. It's time to establish a nationwide policy for 
restaurants to inform consumers on the origin of seafood menu items so 
American consumers can make informed decisions on their seafood 
choices, the majority of which occur in restaurants. Given we are in 
the throws of a pandemic, maybe this effort could begin initially with 
a tax incentive, i.e., stimulus, for restaurants willing to place 
country of origin labeling for seafood on their menus. In this way, 
both the restaurant industry and the domestic commercial seafood 
industry gain. At the point in time when this temporary stimulus effort 
is set to expire, an evaluation can be made of the willingness of 
restaurants to engage in this type of reporting for consumers. If it 
seems the country of origin labeling was in fact palatable to the 
restaurant industry, then maybe legislation requiring it across the 
board would not be burdensome at that future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ ``Americans spend more than twice as much on seafood in 
restaurants as they do at home.'' Laura Reiley, Commercial Fishing 
Industry in Free Fall as Restaurants Close, Consumers Hunker Down and 
Vessels Tie Up, Washington Post (Apr. 8, 2020), available at: https://
www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/08/commercial-fishing-
coronavirus/
    \5\ Because of a loophole in the agency's administration of the 
law, seafood markets do not have to comply with the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for 
seafood unless that market purchases more than $230,000 worth of fresh 
or frozen agricultural produce in a calendar year. This means that 
labeling rules only really apply in grocery stores. As the USDA 
explains on its website ``Retail firms such as fish markets and butcher 
shops, as well as small stores that do not sale the threshold amount of 
fresh produce, are exempt from country of origin labeling 
requirements.'' See USDA, Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Frequently 
Asked Questions, available at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-
regulations/cool/questions-answers-consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing the Infrastructure for a Nationwide Online Seafood 
        Marketplace
    Consumers have become more conscientious about the quality and 
source of their seafood, creating an opportunity to promote the 
diversification of the supply chain and expansion of target markets by 
connecting consumers to fishermen and fish houses. With agency 
assistance, infrastructure could be established for an online platform 
to help the industry better market its product and to facilitate access 
for consumers nationwide. Such a direct sea-to-consumer platform would 
also strengthen the domestic seafood supply chain. The Seafood Trade 
Task Force created by the recent Executive Order 1392 would serve as an 
excellent starting point for such a project, and I hope the scope and 
mission of that group will be expanded to allow them the freedom to 
pursue this and other endeavors which may strengthen the resilience of 
our domestic seafood industry.
Put Domestic Seafood on Public School Lunch Menus and Prohibit Imported 
        Seafood on Public School Lunch Menus
    Our domestic seafood target market should be diversified to include 
public school lunch menus, in a real and meaningful way, across the 
country. It is shameful that our children are not receiving ample 
seafood in school. What children eat is important, and they should eat 
balanced diets at school--which includes seafood as a protein option. 
The quality and healthiness of our school lunches lags behind 
consumers' broader movement towards healthy food choices, which could 
be addressed by providing a healthy, low-fat protein source. Add to 
this the fact that domestic wild-caught seafood is naturally fortified 
with vitamins and minerals that are essential for children's growth and 
development, both physical and mental. And yet, even the cheapest of 
seafood options cannot be found on the lunch menu in most of our public 
schools. In addition to promoting our children and grandchildren's 
health, it will also promote food security for the future by the 
creation of a long-term, stable demand source for domestic seafood.
Support of Young Fishermen Development Programs
    For many years, commercial fishing has been a generational pursuit, 
with the children of fishermen often following in their parents' 
footsteps. However, for some time, the average age of participants in 
U.S. domestic fisheries has been increasing while labor recruitment 
into domestic fisheries has been waning, termed ``the graying of the 
fleet'' in commercial fisheries. This has led to labor issues in 
supplying domestic seafood to the U.S. marketplace. We need to let our 
young people know that commercial fishing is a viable profession and 
add this career path to vocational training programs. In pursuit of 
this, Young Fishermen Development Programs are being established around 
the country. I'm proud to say the Gulf of Mexico has recently populated 
such a group and is already getting to work fleshing out what its 
program will look like. These Young Fishermen Development Programs will 
be paramount; they will be the ones putting in the long hours on the 
ground with our young people and educators to put these plans into 
action. To achieve long-term viability for the industry, the 
professionalization of the industry requires support and 
appropriations. For example, a Bill referred to this Committee last 
year, the Young Fishermen's Development Act,\6\ would provide grants to 
support new and established local and regional training programs for 
young fishermen. Such programs would provide vocational training for 
our young people in the U.S. and include fisheries as a desirable 
career path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/496
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rewriting of USCG Safety Requirements--Making Them Region Specific
    The United States Coast Guard Alternative Safety Compliance Program 
for Commercial Fishing Vessels began with the best of intentions, 
however, its one-size-fits-all approach to safety for commercial 
fishing vessels across the Nation has led to protocols which many times 
do not address the true nature of the safety concerns in a particular 
region. In the Gulf of Mexico, it is not vessels sinking which cause 
the bulk of our fatalities. Therefore a program, like the Alternative 
Safety Compliance Program, which is aimed at ensuring the utmost 
structural integrity of the vessel to prevent sinking, is not what is 
needed to save lives in the Gulf region. The main driver of fatalities 
in the Gulf of Mexico is individual instances of one crew member 
falling overboard. Due to the relatively small crew size on Gulf 
vessels (usually 1-4 crew on board); an individual falling overboard 
often goes unseen, leading to a considerable amount of time passing 
before the search begins. If the intent is really to save lives of 
commercial fishermen, the current Alternative Safety Compliance Program 
should be repealed and replaced by a program with a regional approach 
tailored to addressing the drivers of fatality in each region. In the 
Gulf of Mexico, such a regional program could go a long way to reducing 
fatalities, i.e., improving safety at sea, by focusing on life jackets 
that crew will realistically wear while working, swimming skills and 
emergency shut offs for the winch--rather than costly standards for the 
physical integrity of vessel. Regional working groups, which allow and 
encourage substantial participation by commercial fishermen, should be 
formed with the mission of rewriting the USCG Alternative Safety 
Compliance Program for Commercial Fishing Vessels in order to address 
the drivers of fatalities unique to each region in an attempt to 
earnestly save the lives of those we love.
Reduce the hypoxic zone (dead zone) in the Gulf of Mexico
    Hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, is an environmental phenomenon where 
the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water column decreases to 
a level that can no longer support living aquatic organisms. The 
formation of hypoxic zones may be rapid but once formed may persist for 
months or longer. For marine organisms this may result in movement from 
the affected area, reduced growth rates, or large-scale mortality 
events (e.g., fish kills) that impairs sustainable fisheries and 
reduces primary production and health of marine ecosystems. Hypoxia can 
occur naturally or result from human activities and hypoxic zones are 
becoming more common worldwide. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the 
largest human caused dead zone in the United States and the second 
largest in the world. The maximum extent of this dead zone encompassed 
8,500 square miles in 2002 and has averaged 5,300 square miles over the 
last 30 years. The primary cause is the discharge of nutrient enriched 
freshwater from the Mississippi River from approximately 41 percent of 
the land area of the contiguous United States, ranging as far west as 
Idaho, north to Canada, and east into New York State. These nutrient 
enriched waters of the Mississippi River flow directly into the 
northern Gulf of Mexico.
    Nutrient concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous in the 
Mississippi River discharge have increased dramatically in recent 
decades and are caused primarily by the increased use of fertilizer to 
support agricultural activities. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, this 
nutrient enrichment leads to phytoplankton blooms and eventually 
hypoxic zones as the decomposing marine life depletes the available 
oxygen. This reoccurring dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico negatively 
affects marine ecosystems and the fisherman that depend upon the living 
resources in this area for their livelihood and as a source of 
recreation and food production for the Nation. Meaningful action to 
reduce both point and non-point nutrient inflows into the Gulf of 
Mexico is necessary to promote conservation and sustained benefits of 
this region to the Nation in terms of economic activities, continuance 
of traditional fishing engagement, and as an important food source for 
the Nation.
    Here again, I realize that farmers have felt the detrimental 
economic impacts from COVID-19 just as fishermen have. Regulations 
requiring large scale action by farmers to reduce runoff would 
exacerbate the current economic strain in the agricultural industry. 
Therefore, a carrot would be much better served than a stick. Here 
again is an opportunity to provide a possible (temporary) tax 
incentive, i.e., stimulus, to farmers who can show investment in 
capital expenditure projects which have a reasonable expectation of 
resulting in reduced nutrient rich runoff. This creates a win-win for 
both farmers and fishermen. I truly believe that if we can ever get the 
ball rolling in a meaningful way, we will begin to turn the tide on 
nutrient runoff and create even greater sustainability for both our 
farmers and our fishermen.
No Further Areas Closed to Commercial Fishing Outside the Purview of 
        the 
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    Around the nation, commercial fishermen have lost access to many 
areas that they have traditionally fished. Reducing the fishing grounds 
accessible to our fishermen through area closures which occur outside 
the Regional Fishery Management Process is an impediment that creates 
an undue burden on domestic seafood production. Yet, whether the 
intended benefits of these area closures are met often remains unclear 
years after the closures are established. In my opinion, any closure of 
Federal waters to fishing (or regulations which have the same effect as 
fishing closures, such as prohibitions on the of use specific fishing 
gear types in an area or rules regarding transit of these areas) should 
take place through the rigorous scientific process carried out under 
the purview of the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as opposed to 
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act or the Antiquities Act. This would 
ensure that due consideration of affected fisheries be given in 
evaluating if those fisheries can be sustainably harvested and managed 
in a manner that does not compromise the broader objectives of the 
spatially protected area.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much for that excellent 
statement. And now we recognize Ms. Cora Campbell. Are you with 
us, Ms. Campbell?
    Ms. Campbell. Yes, Mr. Chair, I am.
    The Chairman. And where are you joining us from?
    Ms. Campbell. Unfortunately. I am not in the great State of 
Alaska today. I am joining you from Seattle.
    The Chairman. Still pretty early.
    Ms. Campbell. Yes.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much for joining us and you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF CORA CAMPBELL, MEMBER, NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY 
 MANAGEMENT COUNCIL; AND PRESIDENT AND CEO, SILVER BAY SEAFOODS

    Ms. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, and members of the Committee. I really appreciate 
this opportunity to testify today on the impacts of COVID-19 on 
the Alaska seafood industry. As I was introduced, I am Cora 
Campbell. I am here today as a member of the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council, and I am also President and CEO of 
Silver Bay Seafoods, which is a fisherman owned Alaskan seafood 
processor. The North Pacific Council, as you know, manages some 
of the largest fisheries in this Nation.
    We support a strong commercial fishing industry and we 
provide critical food security for America. And a great concern 
to our Council this year was the cancellation of five of six 
large-scale no assessment surveys off Alaska due to COVID-19. 
These surveys are our fundamental data source to support our 
stock assessments. They are NOAA's most critical responsibility 
to meet its mission of monitoring the health and sustainability 
of marine resources and their habitats. These surveys are 
necessary to support fishing at optimum yield and they directly 
impact the amount of fish that we can harvest. The less 
uncertainty there is, the greater the harvest potential. So 
given the data gap that was created by missing these surveys in 
2020, the Council has been clear that the full suite of core 
surveys for 2021 is an absolute imperative. We recently sent a 
letter to NOAA requesting a full 2021 survey plan. All of our 
core surveys need to be conducted in 2021.
    The plan needs to provide for COVID-19 contingencies and 
there needs to be a plan for full funding of these stock 
assessments. We need this plan from NOAA in order to ensure 
that our Council can meet its responsibilities under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide for optimum yield and to 
maintain the domestic production of seafood. And I want to make 
it clear that I share these concerns and make these comments 
with the utmost respect for our partners at the Alaska 
Fisheries Science Center and the challenges that they are 
facing. I would also like to address the Committee today as a 
representative of the shoreside processing sector. As you 
probably know, Alaska's wild seafood harvest supports nearly 
60,000 jobs and generates almost $14 billion in U.S. economic 
output each year. And we are proud of the fact that we are 
supplying Americans with healthy sustainable protein, but our 
industry faces challenges on multiple fronts.
    Since well before COVID-19, our industry has been 
struggling in the face of tariffs that limit our access to and 
our competitiveness in the world's biggest seafood market. We 
faced uncertainty in securing a workforce for our large volume 
fisheries, we faced habitat threats due to proposed development 
projects, and now the pandemic is adding additional costs and 
uncertainties. And I want to express our great appreciation 
that early on seafood processing was recognized as essential 
critical infrastructure and my appreciation for how quickly 
Congress worked to direct funding to the seafood industry, 
because in a short period, Alaska seafood processors have spent 
tens of millions of dollars implementing proactive health and 
safety measures to ensure that we're minimizing the risk to the 
communities that we operate in, that we are protecting our 
workforce, and that we are maintaining our operations.
    So these costs include things like initial quarantines for 
up to 18,000 workers that we bring to Alaska for the summer 
season, testing, often multiple tests for every worker, medical 
professionals onsite at our plants, personal protective 
equipment, medical and sanitation supplies, modifications to 
our plants to increase the distancing and the protection on the 
processing lines, security to ensure that our facilities remain 
closed to protect our communities, and even chartering aircraft 
to move our workers safely.
    And so we are taking on these tens of millions of dollars' 
worth of costs while we are facing severe disruptions to our 
key markets and they are adding on top of our multiple pre-
COVID cost burdens. And we are facing uncertainty in this 
sector because there is no specific Congressional directive to 
support these costs for the critical seafood supply chain. So 
as you consider a second Relief Act, we would strongly urge you 
to authorize funding and spending authority for these COVID-
related costs for the seafood industry, and we would consider 
it an investment in protecting health and safety, keeping these 
seafood processing jobs, which enables us to purchase seafood 
from thousands of independent fishermen thereby protecting 
their jobs and the Nation's food supply.
    And I want to just close by thanking you for your attention 
to the seafood industry and the complex and large-scale impacts 
that we are enduring across the Nation during this pandemic. 
And working together to address these challenges, we believe, 
will allow us to continue to operate safely to adapt to our 
market challenges, address our foreign trade issues, and keep 
Alaska seafood flowing to protect America's food supply. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Cora Campbell, Member, North Pacific Fishery 
     Management Council; and President and CEO, Silver Bay Seafoods
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide testimony today on the impacts of COVID-19 on 
the Alaska seafood industry and what's needed to build a stronger and 
more resilient seafood sector. My name is Cora Campbell, and I'm here 
today as a member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. I'm 
also President and CEO of Silver Bay Seafoods, an Alaskan seafood 
processor with operations across the state of Alaska including Bristol 
Bay, False Pass, Kodiak, Prince William Sound, and Southeast Alaska. 
The North Pacific Council manages the majority of fisheries in the 
U.S., supporting a strong commercial fishing industry, culture, and 
community and providing critical food security for America.
    Speaking as a Council member, a great concern to the Council this 
year was the cancellation of five of six large-scale NOAA assessment 
surveys in Federal waters off Alaska due to COVID-19. These surveys 
serve as our fundamental data source to support groundfish stock 
assessments and ecosystem assessments and are NOAA's most critical 
responsibility to meet its mission of monitoring the health and 
sustainability of living marine resources and their habitat. To be 
clear, these surveys are our primary data source to support fishing at 
optimum yield and directly impact the amount of fish that we can 
harvest--the less uncertainty there is, the greater the harvest 
potential.
    The Council is concerned with the potential consequences of not 
conducting surveys in 2020 due to COVID-19 challenges, which will be 
even more severe if 2021 surveys are not completed. At our June 
meeting, our scientific advisors noted that loss of the 2020 surveys 
will increase uncertainty in stock status and projections. This may 
result in more conservative harvest levels, particularly for crab, 
Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, and some rockfish species. These are 
primary species in the North Pacific, encompassing valuable crab 
stocks, and groundfish species that comprise more than 82 percent of 
our total harvests in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Rapidly 
changing distributions and populations in recent years, particularly 
for Alaska pollock and Pacific cod, increases the importance of the 
baseline NOAA survey effort.
    The Council is hopeful that our long survey time series and NOAA's 
investments in modeling and other data sources will temper the effect 
of one missing survey year but completing 2021 surveys is an 
imperative. The Council has been clear that the full suite of core 
surveys for 2021 would necessitate 5 to 6 vessels to cover three 
geographies: one vessel for the Northern Bering Sea; two vessels for 
the Eastern Bering Sea, and 2 to 3 vessels for the Gulf of Alaska. We 
recently sent a request to NOAA for a survey plan for 2021 that 
includes all of our planned core surveys, and that provides for COVID-
19 contingencies related to vessel operations and labor, as well as a 
plan for funding. We need a robust plan for conducting surveys in 2021. 
This is the greatest need in order to provide for optimum yield from 
Alaska's fisheries consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to 
increase the domestic production of seafood, a direct objective of 
President Trump's ``Executive Order Promoting American Seafood 
Competitiveness and Economic Growth.''
    I'd like to also address the Committee today representing the 
shoreside processing sector and the Alaska seafood industry. Alaska's 
annual wild seafood harvest of 5 to 6 billion pounds supports nearly 
60,000 jobs and generates nearly $14 billion in U.S. economic output 
each year and supplies Americans with healthy sustainable protein. At 
the same time, our industry faces challenges on multiple fronts that 
are eroding our economic foundation. Since before COVID-19, our 
industry has been struggling in the face of tariffs that limit our 
access to the world's biggest seafood markets; loss of a critical meal 
tax deduction; uncertainty in securing a sufficient workforce for large 
volume fisheries; and habitat threats due to proposed development 
projects. Now, the pandemic is adding new costs and uncertainties, and 
exacerbating old ones.
    Our industry's focus on health and safety protocols during the 
pandemic warrants additional attention. In March, DHS rightly 
recognized seafood processors as ``essential critical infrastructure,'' 
as did the State of Alaska. As such, we have an obligation to continue 
to operate in order to help provide the Nation with healthy, 
sustainable seafood. Given our essential role in the food supply chain, 
we must be able to operate safely. We have been fortunate to have a 
state Administration that engaged early in determining public health 
mandates and protocols for seafood processing operations and other 
critical infrastructure, to provide and continually adapt guidance to 
protect both our processing workforce and the rural coastal fishing 
communities in which we operate. At the same time, we need Congress to 
prioritize support for safe operations so we can continue our important 
role as food producers.
    In the past several months, Alaska seafood processors have spent 
tens of millions of dollars implementing proactive health and safety 
protocols to ensure we are minimizing risks to Alaska communities, 
protecting our seasonal and resident workforce, and maintaining 
operations. These costs include implementing initial quarantines for up 
to 18,000 workers, which can include hotel, food, and daily medical 
screening; testing (often multiple times) for every worker; hiring 
medical professionals to provide daily screening and be on-site at 
plants; PPE; medical supplies; sanitation supplies; modifications to 
ensure better social distancing on the processing line; security to 
maintain closed facilities and chartering aircraft to move workers 
safely. These are significant and unique costs due directly to COVID-
19, but they are necessary in order to operate, and protect the food 
supply chain, the workforce, and Alaska communities.
    Remember, the industry is taking on these costs out of pocket at 
the same time we are facing severe disruption in key markets and 
multiple pre-COVID cost burdens. While a fraction of these costs may be 
reimbursed, we face significant uncertainty because there's no specific 
Congressional directive to support health and safety protocol costs for 
critical seafood supply chains.
    On behalf of Alaska's shoreside seafood processors, we want to 
recognize Congress for taking swift action to direct CARES Act money to 
fishermen and the seafood industry. As Congress considers a second 
relief act, we strongly urge you to clearly authorize funding and 
spending authority for such costs for the seafood industry, and to 
ensure that any such financial support extended to farmers and ranchers 
is also extended to fishermen. This should be seen as an investment 
that not only protects health and safety, but that also retains seafood 
processing jobs, enables us to take deliveries of seafood from 
thousands of independent fishermen, and provides access to healthy 
American product to seafood consumers.
    Finally, as a member of the seafood industry, I must also highlight 
the role of USDA and how it can help provide financial support through 
commodity purchases and to address trade impacts. Section 32 purchases 
are a lifeline to the seafood industry in times like this, and we 
appreciate any Congressional support of this program. We also 
appreciate that President Trump directed USDA to consider assistance 
for ``other segments'' of the seafood industry as it considers 
financial support for lobster; because we face the same impacts of the 
same retaliatory tariffs, we ask for the same consideration.
    Thank you for your attention to the seafood industry and the 
complex and multiple impacts commercial fisheries are enduring across 
the U.S. during this pandemic. Addressing these challenges will allow 
us to continue to operate safely in a COVID-19 environment, adapt to 
long-term market changes and continued foreign trade issues, and keep 
the Alaska seafood supply flowing to protect America's access to the 
resource.

    The Chairman. Thank you very, very much Ms. Campbell. And 
now we turn to Mr. Phil Anderson, Chair of the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council. Are you there, Mr. Anderson?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am.
    The Chairman. And where are you appearing from?
    Mr. Anderson. I am coming to you from Westport, Washington, 
a small fishing community kind of on the central part of the 
Washington coast.
    The Chairman. Great. Well you are recognized and we are 
delighted to have you. Thank you for joining us.

             STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, CHAIR, 
               PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

    Mr. Anderson. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Wicker, 
and Ranking Member Cantwell, and all of the members of the 
Committee. My name is Phil Anderson. I am currently serving as 
the Chair of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. I am also 
a Commissioner on the Civic Salmon Commission and I am a past 
Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. As 
many of you are aware, the Pacific Council manages both 
commercial and recreational and travel fisheries for about 119 
different species, including salmon, various species of 
groundfish, coastal pelagic, and highly migratory species. The 
West Coast commercial and recreational fishing industry has 
definitely suffered from the COVID pandemic in a number of 
ways, some that are quantifiable, others that are not. There 
are both direct and indirect impacts, some that I fear will be 
long-lasting.
    For the West Coast commercial fisheries, there has been a 
$21 million reduction in exvessel revenue in the period from 
March through May. When we compare that same period to a 2015 
through 2019 base period, that represents about a 40 percent 
loss. Moreover, income impact estimates are down in all sectors 
in support of the fishing industry, anywhere from 17 up to 69 
percent in decreases in income. Seafood processing plants are a 
part of our Nation's critical food infrastructure. Seafood 
markets and supply chains, as has been presented in prior 
testimony, have been disrupted virtually overnight with the 
shutdown of restaurants. And as has been also repeated that 
that represents a significant part of our West Coast processor 
sales, up to 70 percent. Workplace disruptions caused by 
positive test cases have caused significant market 
interruptions.
    Temporary closures of facilities have caused economic 
damages totaling in the tens of millions of dollars. The 
recreational fishing industry has also suffered significant 
losses. Economic effects are harder to measure than in 
commercial fisheries, but angler effort is clearly down to 
fishery closures, restriction on charter boat operations, port 
facility closures, and other social distancing requirements. An 
example of the reduction of angler trips on charter boats and 
coastal ports in Oregon, Washington are down 67 to 76 percent 
respectively.
    The summer months also appear to be down as people hesitate 
to travel. Not only the fishing industry has been hurt but so 
has management. Our web-based Council meetings that we held in 
April and June, we restricted the agenda until only essential 
items. That will in turn delay important progress on issues 
intended to increase efficiency and management as well as 
provide additional access to unutilized fish that remain in the 
water. As you have heard from Cora, NOAA, in our case as well, 
NOAA has also canceled the majority of fishery independent 
surveys to protect the health and well-being of NOAA's 
employees, which will as Ms. Cora stated, impact stock 
assessment data bases and the ability to manage fisheries 
effectively in the future.
    The Civic Council joins with the North Pacific Council in 
ensuring that NOAA Fisheries has a plan for 2021 so that we can 
ensure that those trial surveys are done in 2021 and we don't 
lose a second year of data. The monetary assistance provided in 
the CARES Act specifically for the seafood and fishing industry 
is very much appreciated. It is now in the hands of the States 
developing plans. We believe that we should continue to have 
oversight from the Federal level in terms of the development of 
those plans to ensure that the allocations are fair and 
reasonable across the various sectors of the fishing industry. 
I have five specific items I would like to recommend to assist 
the fishing industry to survive and recover from this pandemic. 
Provide funds to increase West Coast salmon hatchery 
production.
    Hatchery fish are essential to the survival of both 
commercial and recreational salmon fisheries on the West Coast, 
but the production has been significantly reduced, particularly 
in the Pacific Northwest, over the past decade. Two, provide 
annual funding to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 
Commission so they can continue to provide a video review and 
storage costs associated with the West Coast electronic 
monitoring program. This is about a $500,000 annual investment 
that will directly and immediately benefit the fishery that is 
expected to take this burden on beginning in 2021. Provide 
funding to NOAA Fisheries for the trial surveys that I 
previously mentioned. As I mentioned, the information derived 
from these surveys are the foundation of our science based 
management approach. These surveys have been underfunded in 
recent years and I fear that they will continue to be 
underfunded if attention isn't paid to the importance of--and 
how it affects science-based management.
    Four is provide funds to offset the cost of human 
observers. At a cost of approximately $500 per day per vessel, 
this would provide immediate assistance to the segment of our 
West Coast ground fishery that are among the hardest hit by the 
pandemic. Other sectors would also benefit. Finally, provide 
funds for an industry directed marketing program designed to 
help rebuild essential restaurant trade as well as other 
markets that will be needed to help get ourselves out of the 
hole that were in with this pandemic.
    The industry on the West Coast has proven through a recent 
cooperative rockfish marketing program that they have the 
knowledge, the skills, and the abilities to develop such 
program and recover loss markets. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to testify before you today and for your efforts to 
address these urgent and important issues. And I would be 
pleased to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you 
very much, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Philip Anderson, Chair, 
                   Pacific Fishery Management Council
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is 
Phil Anderson and I am the Chair of the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council.
    The Pacific Fishery Management Council is one of eight fishery 
management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The Council has jurisdiction 
over the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 miles 
offshore). The Council manages commercial, recreational and tribal 
fisheries for about 119 species of salmon, groundfish, coastal pelagic 
species, and highly migratory species in Federal waters. Our fishery 
management plans are guided by the National Standards of the MSA, which 
in part state that we should achieve optimum yield from fisheries for 
the U.S. fishing industry, consider efficiency in utilization of 
fishery resources, provide for the sustained participation of fishing 
communities, and promote safety of human life at sea These standards 
provide the context for my comments on the effects of the COVID 
pandemic on the seafood industry today.
    The seafood industry has suffered from the COVID pandemic in a 
number of ways; some quantifiable, others not, both direct and 
indirect, long-lasting and short, obvious and subtle.
COVID effects on West Coast commercial fisheries:
    Overall, West Coast commercial fisheries are experiencing economic 
hardship value compared with the 2015-2019 average. From March through 
May 2020 there has been a $21 million reduction in exvessel revenue 
relative to the average for the same period in 2015-2019, representing 
a 40 percent loss to fishing businesses. Of the 12 fisheries sectors 
examined, nine are showing decreases.\1\ In addition to fewer landing, 
lower price per pound due to market disruption is also a significant 
factor affecting exvessel revenue.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ PacFIN database
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Income impact estimates are down in all sectors, ranging from -17 
percent to -69 percent decreases, averaging -41 percent.1 In 
addition to exvessel revenue, income impacts account for earnings by 
fish processors and those who supply material inputs and services to 
harvesting vessels and processors, as well as those who earn income 
when those employed in the fishing industry re-spend their money in the 
regional economy. The effects are far reaching into coastal 
communities, and the seafood supply across the Nation.
    Seafood processing plants are part of our Nation's critical food 
infrastructure and have a responsibility to continue operating. Seafood 
markets and supply chains were disrupted virtually overnight with the 
shutdown of restaurants, which is where 60 percent-70 percent of West 
Coast processor sales went.\2\ Because of market disruption, there are 
surpluses of things like Dungeness crab in freezers, which will 
potentially negatively impact the markets long-term.4 
Workplace disruptions caused by positive test cases have caused 
significant market interruptions on both the supply and sales sides, 
limiting delivery schedules and harming the ability to provide domestic 
seafood products to American consumers. Recent temporary closures of 
seafood processing facilities owned by Bornstein Seafoods in Astoria, 
Oregon and Pacific Seafood in Newport, Oregon have caused economic 
damages totaling in the tens of millions of dollars.\3\ In order to 
reopen, processors have had to implement a suite of health and safety 
protocols and equipment in plants to address workforce safety. Such 
measures are not only costly but have slowed production.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ WCSPA OR Senate testimony
    \3\ WCSPA, pers. comm
    \4\ MWT setter to Chris Oliver, July 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These closures also affected fishermen as some were forced to go 
from weekly deliveries to only being able to deliver once or twice a 
month.\4\ Outbreaks on whiting vessels have meant boats being tied up 
for weeks, which will make it harder to harvest the available quota.
    Trying to account for what is going to happen with the pandemic 
conditions, prices and markets, labor supply, and the overall ability 
of businesses to weather the storm and continue to operate introduce a 
lot of uncertainty in business planning, and likely will continue well 
into the future.
COVID effects on current and future management:
    The COVID pandemic affects not only fishing industries and 
communities, but also our ability to manage fisheries effectively and 
responsibly. Due to use of webinar-based Council meetings, agendas were 
restricted to only essential items for our April and June meetings, 
delaying progress on important issues intended to increase the 
efficiency of management frameworks and fishing related businesses. 
Examples include:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ PFMC Agenda Item C.5 Supplemental Attachment 6 June 2020.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Improving whiting mothership utilization of quota

   Approving new gear to safely access underutilized rockfish 
        quota

   Revising groundfish sector allocations so quotas are 
        appropriately sized

    NOAA has also cancelled the majority of fisheries-independent 
surveys to protect the health and wellbeing of NMFS employees, which 
will impact stock assessment databases and the ability to manage 
fisheries effectively in the future.
    Finally, salmon harvest models are based on CWT sampling data. 
Insufficient CWT sampling would eliminate the possibility of using 
brood years of Chinook and coho encountered in 2020 fisheries in future 
management cycles, increasing uncertainty in the management process. 
Reduced CWT sampling would also inhibit our ability to meet and assess 
obligations for Chinook under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ PFMC Agenda Item E.4.a Supplemental STT Report 2 April 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COVID effects on West Coast recreational fisheries:
    Economic effects are harder to measure than in commercial 
fisheries, but effort is clearly down due to ramp closures and other 
social distancing requirements. As examples, bottom fishing charter 
angler trips for March-May 2020 were down relative to 2015-2019 
averages: statewide in Washington were down 76 percent, and in Oregon 
were down 67 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ RecFIN database
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions:
    The monetary assistance provided in the CARES act specifically for 
the seafood and fishing industries were much appreciated; although 
distribution is still pending development and approval of spend plans 
by the states. Should any COVID related Federal legislation advance, we 
would appreciate any additional assistance to industry that could be 
provided, as well as streamlining the distribution process. In addition 
to immediate relief, there are two issues that will help the long-term 
recovery from the COVID pandemic that I would like to mention. First, 
support of West Coast salmon hatchery funding is vital to that fishery 
sector, as well as supporting ecosystem functions such as prey for 
endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. Hatchery funding levels 
have not kept pace with inflation, reducing production levels and 
eroding the infrastructure at hatchery and fish passage facilities. 
Second, the surveys conducted by NOAA and NMFS are the foundation of 
our science-based management approach. Although we have had some 
productive discussions with NMFS leadership on this issue, funding has 
been reduced since Fiscal Year 2018, and West Coast industry contract 
surveys have been cut in half in some recent years. Furthermore, due to 
the COVID pandemic NOAA has also cancelled most NOAA Corps surveys on 
the West Coast this year. It is critical that these surveys are 
restored or replaced with comparable methods to preserve the integrity 
of the long-term databases used to assess the status of our managed 
fish stocks.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and for your 
efforts to address these urgent and important issue. I would be pleased 
to answer any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. And thank all of 
you. We have learned today that for some reason Americans would 
rather not cook seafood in their homes. That some 60 or 70 
percent of all seafood is consumed in restaurants and other 
food service establishments. Can we all agree that if we could 
get the restaurant business back open and running as it had 
been before, that that would go a long way toward solving our 
problem in the seafood industry with that. Is that correct, Dr. 
Doremus?
    Dr. Doremus. There is a very high degree of interdependence 
between the seafood industry, harvesters producers of various 
sorts, and the restaurant industry. As I indicated, previous to 
the pandemic, 70 percent of sales were directed toward the 
restaurant and food service industries generally.
    So yes, there has been an enormous impact through that 
channel and the restoration of demand through the restaurant 
sector would be profoundly important. We are seeing some signs 
of change in consumer behavior, which is of interest to all of 
us who care about the health of Americans. A larger portion of 
seafood in the American diet is a good thing and we hope that a 
broader array of sales opportunities come out of this pandemic 
for all U.S. producers.
    The Chairman. Well it is good for you. I had salmon for 
lunch yesterday as a matter of fact, and I am going to have 
some seafood at restaurants this weekend. I have--as I 
mentioned, I have a Restaurant Act that would establish a 
restaurant revitalization fund. Any of the other witnesses have 
thoughts in this regard before I move on? Anybody want to 
volunteer to speak up? Well, then let me ask you then Dr. 
Doremus, about these the survey cancellations. Did it have to 
be done to this extent? And what do you have to say about the 
testimony we have had in that regard?
    Dr. Doremus. I think the testimony was very compelling, 
Senator. These are extraordinary times that we're in. I have to 
say, not very many people ever foresaw such a dramatic event 
that would affect our ability to do this core work of ours and 
I think remarks of yours, Ranking Member's comments, and those 
of the additional panelists here today noted the great 
dependence of our seafood industry on a healthy survey and 
stock assessment process.
    We have not been able to collect the data in Fiscal Year 
2020 that we normally would, and we are fully committed, as was 
brought up by Ms. Campbell among others, by Senator Cantwell, 
we are aggressively planning now for Fiscal Year 2021 in light 
of what was not able to be done in Fiscal Year 2020. We are 
certainly highlighting areas where we had losses of survey data 
from Fiscal Year 2020 that will clearly be a priority in areas 
where we have commercially, highly sensitive stocks at high 
value, Alaska pollock, cod, West Coast hake, groundfish, and 
Northeast groundfish.
    We also need to worry about resources as well, protected 
resources, we are very sensitive to data on their welfare such 
as North Atlantic Right Whales and we have areas where we have 
extremely high dependence on continuity of data over time to 
understand ecosystems, how they are evolving, what their impact 
are----
    The Chairman. Right. And you may want to supplement your 
answer in writing, but it makes me ask if it had to be 
diminished to that extent? Ms. Campbell, were there ideas 
submitted about actually going forward in some way that would 
have protected the workers involved in these surveys or were 
they justified and it is just something we have to live with?
    Ms. Campbell. Chairman Wicker, thank you for the question. 
Unfortunately, the Council received notice quite late in the 
process that the surveys would be canceled for 2020 so we 
didn't have much of an opportunity to interact with the agency 
and provide ideas.
    But my understanding is that personnel concerns were one of 
the driving factors and so one of the things that we are hoping 
that the agency can take into account for 2021 is ways to 
implement quarantines, testing to protect personnel on survey 
ships the same way that the industry has had to do, if we are 
still in a COVID-19 environment, when it is time to take on 
those 2021 surveys. And that is what we would hope to see in 
the plan.
    The Chairman. OK. My time has expired. I am going to ask 
you when we conclude this hearing, and I will take a second 
round, I will ask you to each comment about if you have had an 
opportunity to look at the plan, which has been passed by the 
House of Representatives, in response to COVID and is more or 
less a Phase 4. If you had a chance to look at the proposal by 
the White House and the Republican leadership in the Senate and 
to give us some ideas about things you like about that that 
might help the seafood industry and ways that that could be 
improved. But I will wait for that answer for round two and 
turn to my friend, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the 
issue you and I are both trying to articulate is we want to see 
money out the door. I mean, the money has been absolutely 
appropriated but is it getting into the hands of fishermen and 
communities that need the help and support? So hopefully we 
will get an answer on that. And as it relates to stock 
assessments writ large, look there is a huge opportunity, as 
the world needs more protein demand, for fish products to play 
a great role. I think it was Trident that came up with a fish 
pasta that is now on the marketplace.
    There is all sorts of innovations that are happening, and 
yet, guess what? If you don't have stock assessments, then you 
are not going to have the fisheries, and if you don't have the 
fisheries, you are not going to have the product. So there is a 
way for us to move forward but it all hinges on doing the right 
science analysis of the stock assessment. So I hope that we 
will get this right and not wait until 2021. Back to the Pebble 
Mine issue. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Doremus, about this issue 
as it relates to NOAA's, what I would call, lack of 
participation. Obviously the mine built would basically process 
1.3 billion tons of ore out of a 608 ore acre open-pit. The 
footprint is 8,000 acres with two huge dams that would 
potentially create acid generating mine waste.
    This is always a concern in an area without much water. The 
water in there would have to be treated perpetually just to get 
rid of the toxic materials. The mine would result in a 
permanent loss of over 3,000 acres of wetlands, 55 acres of 
lakes and ponds, 81 miles of stream, 11 acres of marine 
waterways. I think there is a picture there you can see. Does 
that look like a place that we would be putting a mine?
    And so the destruction of this habitat, which is critical 
to the sockeye salmon for the Northwest, is beyond concerning 
when I look at what U.S. Fish and Wildlife submitted in 
response to the Army Corps. It basically said, ``based on these 
identifying deficiencies, the draft DIS is inadequate and it 
precludes meaningful analysis. EPA Region 10 office, ``many 
have a substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts on 
fisheries resources.'' So even the Marine Mammal Commission 
weighed in and basically said, ``concerned the construction and 
operation of Pebble Project would have a significant long-term 
impacts on wildlife and communities.''
    So I am trying to understand because I certainly asked 
Director Jacobs about this. I asked him at his confirmation 
hearing and he basically said yes, NOAA would participate in 
the review process. So all I have found from NOAA is that you 
need more data to understand the Pebble Mine impacts. So could 
you respond to what NOAA is doing to articulate the concerns 
about the impacts on fishery sockeye salmon in the Northwest?
    Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. We certainly do understand 
your concerns. We have a consultation role through the 
Endangered Species Act that we are responsible for. This is not 
an area where I am personally deeply involved and given the 
extent of your concerns, I think it would be best for us to 
follow up with more detailed reviews of where we currently 
stand with this and what our engagement is. We would be happy 
to answer your question.
    Senator Cantwell. So you are saying you're going to get me 
a response from NOAA?
    Dr. Doremus. Yes, I would be happy to do that. It is not an 
area that I am personally deeply involved in and I would rather 
consult with folks who are and provide better answers to the 
questions that you have today.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I want you to hear that NOAA hasn't 
fulfilled its role, Mr. Jacobson hasn't fulfilled his role, and 
there is a lot at stake. Mr. Anderson, is there a lot at stake 
here?
    Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much for the question, Senator 
Cantwell. Well, it is a $1.4 billion industry that supports 
thousands of jobs many of which are in the Pacific Northwest, 
many of which are in Alaska. It supports, as you mentioned, the 
largest sockeye run in the world. The project, from some of the 
information I have read from the Army Corps of Engineers, 
suggest that more than 2,200 acres of wetlands and waters are 
going to be permanently destroyed along with 105 miles of 
streams. So from a fishery management perspective and a 
harvesting perspective and fishery businesses that are 
dependent on renewable resources, this is a huge concern to 
those of us here in the Pacific Northwest.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Senator Scott.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 
Cantwell for holding this important hearing. This pandemic and 
the economic crisis it has caused have clearly impacted 
adversely Florida's fishing industry. The fact that most of our 
seafoods consumed by Americans is imported from other country 
clearly should concern us, especially with some of the 
uncertainty we are dealing with, especially with the issues we 
are dealing with with communist China.
    We clearly need to have a stable supply of seafood. I hope 
we will take this opportunity to bolster the domestic and 
sustainable fishing industry and reduce our reliance on global 
seafood supply chains. Dr. Doremus, as our Nation works to 
recover from the pandemic and economic toll, access to safe and 
managed fishing with an additional Atlantic red snapper season 
in the fall could be a great way to support our economy and our 
local families. Do you think it is feasible to extend the red 
snapper season given the sustainability restrictions of NOAA 
Fisheries?
    Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. We are currently in the 
process of working through the----
    Senator Scott. I can't hear you.
    Dr. Doremus. Apologies. You have to hit the talk button.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Doremus. We are working through updated stock 
assessment in that area that should give us a greater guidance. 
We greatly appreciate the collaboration with the State of 
Florida looking at best available data. I can't predict what 
the management decisions will be coming out of that but we are, 
as you well know, deeply committed as we talked about here 
today, to evaluating the best available science and making our 
management decisions based on that.
    Senator Scott. Now, I got asked more about red snapper 
season. As Governor, anything other than--probably almost more 
than anything I ever got asked while I was Governor in my 8 
years. In May, President Trump directed Secretary Ross to 
identify aquaculture opportunities in the U.S. exclusive 
economic zone to help build our industry and self-reliance. 
Clearly, with a thousand miles of coastline, Florida should 
have an opportunity. So what factors do you think we ought to 
be considering in determining whether we have--there is a 
potential for an aquaculture opportunity zone?
    Dr. Doremus. Senator, one of the most important features of 
the Executive Order that you referenced is the requirement to 
establish aquaculture opportunity areas. This is a mechanism to 
use best available science to understand the current and 
existing uses of ocean space and define areas that are best 
suited that minimize use conflicts and also are best suited for 
aquaculture development. So we will be looking very closely. We 
are stepping down the path right now of implementing that 
requirement.
    Looking at the scientific tools, we have many very new and 
very powerful tools for making very good citing decisions and 
involving stakeholders in that process so we understand how to 
balance existing uses most effectively. So we will be providing 
additional information later this summer as we go down this 
path as we think about what regions are good places to start 
given current conditions, state of the science, industry 
demands, and other kinds of factors like that.
    And we will, from there, use these types of science-based 
decisionmaking tools to help map out, dots on the map if you 
will, areas where we can do additional science and prepare the 
groundwork for subsequent industry permit requests, which would 
have their own review and evaluation process. We look forward 
to working with the State of Florida and other coastal states 
who see great potential in broadening, diversifying our seafood 
economy and building greater capability to produce U.S. 
sustainable, safe, and very high quality aquaculture products 
of all types.
    Senator Scott. So, right. When that happens, will you come 
out with ideas of how we can support the growth and self-
reliance of the aquaculture industry in the U.S.? Is that part 
of what you do?
    Dr. Doremus. Indeed. We are looking at ways to improve the 
regulatory environment to make it more efficient, to ensure 
that all the existing regulatory authorities that multiple 
agencies have are coordinated and efficiently executed so that 
there are minimal barriers to entry, if you will.
    We also have a lot of work we need to do over the long haul 
to improve the infrastructure for aquaculture industries from 
species knowledge, hatchery capacity, a lot of factors. 
Scientific and technical support need to come into play over 
the long haul to build a stronger industry as well.
    Senator Scott. By the way, if you go fishing off the coast 
of Florida right now, you are going to catch some gigantic 
Goliath groupers. So all my all my friends that are fishermen 
believe we have got a lot--got to really look at it. I mean 
unbelievable growth of Goliath grouper. I am sure you are 
looking at that also.
    My last question is on the lobster industry. Florida, 
probably like Maine, we are lobster--the lobster industry has 
really been impacted by the tariffs imposed by the Chinese 
Government. Senator Rubio and I in the Florida Congressional 
delegation sent a letter requesting to Secretary Ross, 
requesting that the Florida commercial fishermen be included in 
the Lobster Relief Program announced by President Trump.
    So what do you think about that and what do you think we 
can do to better protect our lobster industry? And I assume it 
is the exact same thing true for Maine, not just Florida, and 
to make sure that, you know, we can protect them and they can, 
you know, continue to have a thriving industry.
    Dr. Doremus. Senator, thank you for your letter. And a 
formal response to that is in process. You mentioned tariffs on 
lobster. There has been a lot of attention to that. One of 
the--back to the Executive Order that you mentioned, one of the 
important features of that Order is the establishment of a 
seafood trade task force. That is under way.
    The agency has taken input from the public, from industry 
about the core components of a National trade strategy for our 
seafood sector and we do believe that that will provide an 
excellent avenue to address the kinds of considerations that 
you have raised.
    Senator Scott. Are you actually looking at the unbelievable 
number of Goliath groupers that are off our coast now in 
Florida and the impact it is having on other fish?
    Dr. Doremus. I am not personally familiar with that. I 
would be happy to get an answer back to you from our folks in 
the region who are assessing the health of the abundance and 
distribution of different species in the Gulf. So we will look 
forward to getting back to you with a specific answers to the 
Goliath grouper.
    Senator Scott. Yes. You wouldn't believe, if you go--I was 
40 miles off, back in May, fishing and the size of these 
groupers that we caught, you can't bring them on the boat or 
anything, you release them, but they were very big.
    Dr. Doremus. It is an impressive fish. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. Senator Scott, are you are you finding them 
in the Gulf and the Atlantic?
    Senator Scott. I only was in the Gulf fishing. I mean 
generally--you know, Roger on when I have done it down in the 
Keys, we have mostly been--we have been--with bonefish and I 
have not gone very far off. We were--the last one I went was 
back in May. It was just off of Sarasota and it was, I mean 
they--and you couldn't get anything else because the Goliath 
groupers were eating everything else. The guys were complaining 
about both the size and the number of Goliath grouper.
    The Chairman. So every silver lining has a cloud, I guess. 
Well, thank you, Senator Scott, for those questions, and 
Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I 
want to thank the witnesses. Dr. Doremus, just in the last 
couple days I have had very useful conversations with Chris 
Oliver and Dr. Jacobs on this issue of the lost fishery 
surveys. It is very troubling. You heard from Senator Cantwell, 
you heard it from my friend Cora Campbell. And so I have asked 
for a strong written commitment on this issue for next season, 
but I want to know, you know, Congress provided additional 
money for surveys, additional money in the CARES Act to NOAA to 
ensure continuity of operations, uphold worker health.
    Where did NOAA spend that money if you are not spending it 
on surveys? The State of Alaska did surveys. So to be honest, I 
was quite disappointed. As you know, the reduction in fishery 
surveys results in uncertainty and that is not good for any 
fishery, particularly mine.
    Dr. Doremus. Senator, we absolutely understand that concern 
and fully share it. Our inability to survey was certainly not 
our preference. It was driven by the circumstances and the 
ability to respond effectively to the requirements for ensuring 
the health and safety of all vessel participants.
    Senator Sullivan. No, I understand that, but can you--your 
bosses have already committed it to me so maybe you should as 
well, commit to me to work with this committee to make sure 
that regardless of where we are on COVID next year, certainly 
hope that we are beyond it and it is in the rearview mirror, 
but even if we are not, that we have a strong plan on the 
surveys that you are going to do for certainly the North 
Pacific fisheries area, but also for the whole country, so we 
don't have the same situation. Let's get that commitment from 
you.
    Dr. Doremus. You absolutely have that commitment, Senator, 
and we look forward to working with you.
    The Chairman. Senator Sullivan, I do think you are entitled 
to an answer to the question, was the money spent elsewhere? 
You asked where the money was spent that has been allocated for 
the survey.
    Senator Sullivan. I am curious about that.
    Dr. Doremus. I would be happy to provide an accounting for 
the resources that you are referring to----
    Senator Sullivan. As you know, plussed up above the budget 
request by NOAA for more money for surveys and my understanding 
now is that that money can go into next year which is good and 
that is clear----
    Dr. Doremus. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. But we want to make sure that this is a 
priority. It is priority for members, both Democrats and 
Republicans. It needs to be a priority for NOAA. And can you 
tell me that it is?
    Dr. Doremus. It absolutely is, Senator, and we do have and 
will account for the cost that you are asking about. Keeping in 
mind a couple of things. One is, costs are not zero, even if 
you can't get out to sea. There are still a lot of costs 
carrying our staff and carrying the daily requirements of 
managing vessels. We are carrying forward the unspent funds 
from 2020 into 2021 and we are absolutely prioritizing the 
areas that were impacted most, the stock surveys that were 
impacted most by our inability to get to sea in Fiscal Year 
2020.
    Senator Sullivan. Let me ask Cora Campbell, if you have any 
other views on the potential impacts, the loss of surveys on 
Alaskan harvests, and importantly, you talked about it in your 
opening statement, the protocols that the seafood processors 
have been undertaking with regard to health and safety.
    We know that there is a lot of spending and costs that 
relates to this with regard to the pandemic. I was proud to 
have fought hard and actually authored the language on the $300 
million fund in the CARES Act for our fishermen. We are working 
now on an additional significant funding in the Heals Act. I 
hope my colleagues on both sides aisle will support that but 
can you talk about both the survey issue, Cora, and this issue 
of additional costs that are being undertaken by our industry?
    Ms. Campbell. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, 
Senator Sullivan. For the North Pacific, we have a long time 
series with these surveys but losing 2 years of surveys in a 
row at this point is our specific concern, and we you know--you 
know for 2020, unfortunately, we are outside the window where 
we can get those surveys done so we have to focus our efforts 
on 2021. And I certainly appreciate the agency's recognition 
that this is a priority. We are still looking for a commitment 
and a written plan to show how that is going to get done. 
Certainly other scientific agencies and private industry have 
done a lot of work on how to operate safely and would be happy 
to provide any assistance that NOAA needs to feel like they can 
carry out their core mission while protecting their staff.
    And Senator, on the issue of costs, certainly, it has been 
very expensive for the commercial fisheries industry to operate 
in the safest way that we can. We just really appreciate your 
work and the work of your colleagues and Congress in 
specifically recognizing how severe these impacts have been and 
the additional costs on the top of the loss of our key markets 
in food service and the trade barriers and all the other things 
that we are facing.
    So as you go forward with considering another, you know, 
relief package, we certainly hope that you will continue to 
recognize the difficulties that we have had in the seafood 
industry to try to continue to operate safely, to continue to 
provide markets to independent fishermen and keep them 
operating with everything that we are facing. So I would be 
happy to speak to anything more specific that would be helpful 
to the Committee. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator 
Sullivan. And Senator Blumenthal is next.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
having this hearing and thanks to the panel for being here. Mr. 
Doremus, as you may know, Connecticut has a storied and 
historically important shellfish industry which is hanging on 
by a thread struggling to survive in the wake of this pandemic, 
unfortunately and in my view inexcusably, that shellfish 
industry has been excluded from the coronavirus food assistance 
program. This program was designed for aquaculture and 
agriculture.
    In my view, there is no basis to exclude the shellfish 
industry. The fact that the USDA and NOAA have determined that 
certain freshwater producers would be eligible for the 
coronavirus food assistance program, but that saltwater 
shellfish producers would be ineligible is absolutely untenable 
and unjustifiable and maybe you can give me an explanation?
    Dr. Doremus. Senator, we certainly share your concern about 
the impact of coronavirus on the shellfish sector throughout 
the United States and absolutely on the East Coast and the 
great State of Connecticut. Our intent going into this, there 
is food assistance--CARES Act direct industry assistance 
through a couple of channels. One was as, you referenced, 
through USDA and another, the $300 million through NOAA. We 
originally were trying to make sure that there were appropriate 
channels so that the resources were very clearly marked for 
different industries and different segments.
    And the intent, as we understood it, was for the shellfish 
industry to be able to get access to the USDA resources. I 
cannot speak to the particulars of why that didn't happen. We 
certainly share your concern. This industry is in a very 
difficult situation and absolutely needs this kind of 
assistance.
    Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit, and I would appreciate 
your doing so, that you will initiate a review of this policy 
because right now this $30 million industry in Connecticut has 
been severely threatened by this economic and health care 
disaster that has swept the country and its impact on these 
hard-working shellfish growers has been catastrophic. So I am 
asking that there be a review of this policy.
    Dr. Doremus. Yes, Senator. We did make that decision in the 
midst of moving quickly trying to allocate CARES Act and other 
types of direct assistance and coordinate with other Federal 
agencies. We clearly need to fix this problem and we will do 
everything we can to make sure that happens. We have a very 
good working relationship with the USDA. I don't think this was 
an intentional policy. We need to understand how we can make 
sure that things can get done better.
    The Chairman. Senator Blumenthal, just to interject, do I 
understand this was made by multiple agencies or was it a USDA 
decision?
    Dr. Doremus. The decision that Senator Blumenthal is 
referring to is a USDA decision. And the decision to--there 
were different sources of funds and we tried to coordinate with 
USDA. And so our understanding going in is that the shellfish 
industry would have access to similar types of funding as the 
$300 million CARES Act made available to other parts of the 
seafood sectors----
    The Chairman. And that turned out not to be the case?
    Dr. Doremus. Yes.
    The Chairman. OK.
    Senator Blumenthal. And what I am asking for, Mr. Chairman, 
and I appreciate your interjecting, is basic fairness here. I 
recognize that NOAA was not solely responsible, but obviously 
it is the agency with the scientific expertise that is 
important to these decisions. And so I think your intervention 
here and your commitment is extremely meaningful and I 
appreciate it. And it may have been unintentional, but it was 
extraordinarily consequential. And folks in Connecticut and 
frankly around the country who enjoy the products of our 
shellfish industry are the ones who are suffering.
    Dr. Doremus. Very much understand, Senator. Share your 
concern. We will do everything we can to try to get things 
better.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doremus, your 
testimony mentions the President's Executive Order which was 
signed in May to promote the competitiveness of the domestic 
seafood sector. Even in landlocked states like South Dakota, it 
might come as a surprise to people, aquaculture projects are 
beginning to take shape. And we think there is potential to 
bring numerous economic benefits to the region. Could you 
elaborate on how you believe the President's EO will better 
facilitate the permitting and construction of aquaculture 
projects?
    Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. The Executive Order 
broadly directs numerous Federal agencies to focus on the 
competitiveness of the U.S. seafood sector as a whole. There is 
extraordinary demand and need for seafood in the U.S. 
population. Our market is the second largest market in the 
world, are growing rapidly and there is strong reason to 
believe and evidence to point to throughout the country, on new 
opportunities to expand our existing aquaculture industry, 
whether it is inland water, freshwater, there is inland 
contained systems for marine fish, as well as throughout our 
coastal communities and ultimately in offshore domains, as 
well.
    So we are through--under the direction of the Executive 
Order, looking at all channels to strengthen U.S. industry, 
whether it is wild capture improvements or improvements in the 
ability of aquaculture producers to build stronger businesses 
and generate greater output for the U.S. market. So there are a 
range of things in terms of regulatory efficiency, in terms of 
the science base, in terms of providing technical assets for 
growth and development of the aquaculture sector as a whole, 
all of these need to come into play for all forms of 
aquaculture which are needed to be able to expand the U.S. 
seafood supply.
    Senator Thune. Well, I would just note that South Dakota 
soybeans are some of the best in the world and they are used in 
many products including fish feed.
    Dr. Doremus. Yes.
    Senator Thune. And you know, I think that there are like I 
said landlocked states that do have a role to play in 
aquaculture. And in fact, we have got a company called Prairie 
AquaTech, which is a technology company has developed a high--
developed and patented, I should say, a high-protein fish feed 
and from soy meal and it is based right in Brookings, South 
Dakota.
    So I just think due to the high demand for their product, 
they have, you know--they have got a really bright future and 
they completed construction on a new commercial facility 
earlier this year that is capable of processing 30,000 tons of 
feed annually, so I think there are economic benefits, you 
know, to the United States that are broader than what people 
might, you know, traditionally assume when it comes to seafood 
and I hope that we can embrace some of those is some of the 
parts of our country embraced domestic aquaculture.
    So, and I just say that as a sort of a comment. If you have 
any observations about the potential economic benefits to the 
entire country, we would love to hear those too.
    Dr. Doremus. Absolutely. There is--it is not just the 
producers, it is all the goods that go into the production of 
aquaculture products. And as you mentioned there is 
extraordinary innovation going on in feeds, in the central part 
of the country and elsewhere. And the industry as a whole, 
globally, is growing. So while we are trying to, you know, 
increase production in the United States to provide safe, 
sustainable locally sourced seafood, there is a globally 
growing industry as well and many U.S.-based producers of 
equipment or feed offer a lot of the intermediate goods. It is 
the entire supply chain that we have to look at.
    So, this is a great, great potential for economic 
development, economic growth that could redound to the benefit 
of producers throughout the country particularly when they look 
at it from the vantage point of global seafood markets.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Thune, you and Dr. Doremus make an 
excellent point. We all have a stake in aquaculture and it is 
very heartening to hear people from the Great Plains talk about 
the way they can contribute to this, be part of the supply 
chain and contribute to economic development where you live 
also. So I appreciate that. Let me turn now to Ms. Bosarge. How 
is the weather in Pascagoula today?
    Ms. Bosarge. It is still raining down here, sir.
    The Chairman. OK. Well, it looks pretty out the window 
there. I don't know if that is a real background or not. You 
mentioned you have two degrees, where are your degrees from, 
Ms. Bosarge?
    Ms. Bosarge. The University of South Alabama. I have a 
bachelor's in business and an MBA.
    The Chairman. OK. You mentioned young fishermen development 
programs. It is not going to be necessary for all of these 
folks to have two college degrees is it?
    Ms. Bosarge. No, most definitely not. It is certainly not 
something that requires a college degree, any sort of 
commercial fishing. In fact, it is one where on the job 
training and a very diverse skill set are needed.
    The Chairman. OK, but you are making a point and this is 
one of the things that that needed to be stressed. This is a 
good living and it is an area where our economy needs more 
participation. Is that what you are saying with regard to young 
fishermen development?
    Ms. Bosarge. Yes, sir. It is. You know, I think that by and 
large fishing in the past and even now is based on heritage, 
right? It is something that is passed down from a parent to a 
child and you know, unfortunately due to things like 
globalization and imports and depressed prices and a multitude 
of other factors, we have lost a generation in a lot of our 
fisheries and when you lose that generation, it has a trickle-
down effect.
    And so I think it is very important these days to highlight 
commercial fishing to our young people as a viable career path. 
We are not out there telling them that or marketing that. You 
know, the Waffle House is at their career fairs looking for, 
you know, management opportunities, but we are not as 
commercial fishermen and I think that is important that we be 
present and let them know that it is there and also to have 
those vocational opportunities because there is such a diverse 
skill set needed to be a successful commercial fisherman on 
things that you don't think of.
    Yes, you have to be able to catch fish but you better be a 
pretty good mechanic. You better know how to sew. I mean how 
many people know how to sew these days. You had to be able to 
mend your nets. You have to know the rules of the road with 
navigation. I think that is where a vocational program in our 
high schools to give those young people a leg up and let them 
hit the ground running when they go get on a boat would be 
paramount.
    The Chairman. OK, and then if you would expand a little 
about your idea about an online farmers market, I found that 
interesting but didn't have any chance to let you enlarge on 
that idea.
    Ms. Bosarge. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. So we have seen 
efforts by our commercial fishermen to find a way to reach that 
consumer in an environment now where unfortunately the 
restaurants are operating at reduced capacities or not 
operating at all. We have seen pop up farmers markets in vacant 
parking lots in Louisiana. I think their sea grant facility 
there has a Louisiana direct seafoods with an online 
marketplace of sorts. Individual form of fishermen are, you 
know, creating their own online opportunities, but someone may 
stumble across their individual website somewhere.
    What we need to help them is with an economy of scale and 
they would be given that with a National online marketplace 
infrastructure, right, that could be developed where fishermen 
could come in and out of that as they please when they have 
product to sell, but there would always be product available 
and the consumer would be able to go to that one stop shop as 
it were and find product from Alaska, find shrimp from the Gulf 
of Mexico, or scallops, you know, from the Atlantic, whatever 
they may choose instead of having to go here, there, and yonder 
and pick and choose.
    So that was kind of my idea and I thought the task force, 
the seafood trade task force, if their mission could be 
expanded a little bit so that it doesn't focus purely on 
international trade, but actually trading on our U.S. markets 
too, we could really strengthen our domestic seafood supply 
chain with efforts such as that.
    The Chairman. When was that Executive Order issued? Do you 
know?
    Ms. Bosarge. I want to say May but I don't have it in front 
of me.
    The Chairman. OK.
    Ms. Bosarge. Go ahead, I am sorry.
    The Chairman. Well, you can supply that to us but I want to 
give you an opportunity and a verbal answer is not required 
from any of you, but I mentioned at the end of my round one 
questions, then I would give you an opportunity to tell us what 
was right and what was wrong and what was perhaps missing in 
the Democrat plan that has been passed by the House of 
Representatives and the Republican plan that has been issued by 
the Majority Leader and the Administration, and what 
suggestions you have as we go forward, because we hope to do 
this relatively quickly in the next, I would say, in the next 
seven to eight days? So any suggestion from you, Ms. Bosarge 
and then we will go to the other two remote witnesses.
    Ms. Bosarge. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I am not 
familiar with the different versions, but I can speak generally 
to this. So our industry is obviously still suffering and very 
fragile. So we hope going forward, you know, if you are looking 
at direct support still, that you will remember the fishing 
industry. Unfortunately, we feel like things will probably get 
a little worse before they get better and it is very possible 
that our markets will freeze up completely again, if things 
continue to get worse the way they are right now.
    So that would be the direct support that I would speak to 
but then there is indirect support as well that I think could 
hopefully be placed into some of this legislation. You 
mentioned, you know, fishermen being tied to the restaurants 
and I would say for restaurants that serve domestic seafood, we 
are most definitely tied at the hip to those restaurants.
    Our two industries are highly correlated and we the 
pandemic has made that very obvious. So I think if there is any 
way to provide a tax credit or some other type of stimulus to 
restaurants that are willing to put country of origin labeling 
for seafood on their menus, that would be amazing. I hope that 
it could provide better information for the seafood consuming 
public as well as for our industry, the seafood industry, and 
provide a benefit to the restaurant industry at the same time. 
And then I want to speak to one other item.
    You all mentioned that USDA purchases of domestic seafood 
and you know, maybe there was a little hiccup with that in the 
past. But I hope that that will most definitely be revisited. 
In my written testimony, I actually mentioned domestic seafood 
on the lunch menu in our public schools in a real and 
meaningful way going forward. Maybe some of those USDA 
purchases, if they can be aimed at seafood, domestic seafood, 
we could provide that to our school children in a more 
meaningful fashion going forward.
    That is important to me as a member of the seafood industry 
because it will create a stable demand for our seafood products 
hopefully for the long term if it continues but it is also 
important to me as a mother of three. You know, I work my 
behind off to make sure that my children eat balanced meals 
that are full of the right nutrients that they need for 
development.
    Seafood is a product that is naturally fortified with all 
those vitamins and minerals that children, young children need 
for development and I think it should be a big part of our 
public school system. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Right, and I have been part of an effort just 
in recent days to move our school lunch program toward shrimp 
but for some reason they were viewing it as a luxury food much 
like lobster. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't 
be serving our public school lunch students nutritious shrimp 
and domestic seafood. So thank you very, very much for that. 
Now, then turning to either Ms. Campbell, do you have some last 
suggestions for us about what we might be looking for in Phase 
4 of the COVID response legislation other than what you might 
have already had a chance to talk about?
    Ms. Campbell. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I have 
talked about the need for, you know, the specific recognition 
of costs for health and safety and the need to recognize that. 
I would also like to echo, you know, the comments that others 
have made about how critical the USDA purchases are for our 
industry in providing additional markets so any additional 
support and speaking for the North Pacific the most critical 
products that the USDA purchases that help our industry are the 
salmon and the pollock purchases.
    If there has been mention of the Executive Order on lobster 
and the specific recognition in that Executive Order of the 
trade impacts on the lobster fishery was really striking to us 
because it is a direct explanation of what our fisheries have 
been dealing with, with the trade impacts and so any work that 
you may be able to do to ensure that that gets expanded and 
that that work that is directed under that order expands to 
deal with other fisheries that are experiencing the same impact 
of the trade discussions that have been ongoing.
    And really I would just say that anything that you can do 
to recognize that commercial fishermen and the commercial 
fishing industry are America's food producers. There are--it 
has been mentioned today but there are at times programs made 
available to farmers and ranchers that could quite possibly be 
expanded to cover commercial fishermen as well. And given that 
we are all in the business of producing food for Americans, I 
think that commercial fishermen should more often be recognized 
as America's food producers and included in some of those 
programs. That would include our access to the H-2A Visa 
Program to address some of our workforce needs.
    And you know you had mentioned early on in your comments, 
Mr. Chairman, how our industry is so tied to restaurants and 
that there is not enough domestic consumption of seafood in 
folks' homes. And now that people are cooking more at home, we 
have seen a reduction in demand. And I think that there has 
been some discussion on going about a National seafood council 
that might help educate Americans about the nutritional 
benefits of seafood. Might bring it into more homes in our 
country and have more of our products consumed domestically if 
there was more generic marketing.
    We have a great public-private partnership in Alaska called 
the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute that does that for 
Alaska products, but perhaps some consideration of whether that 
is necessary nationally to provide not only more economic 
activity and diversity for seafood producers, but more 
traditional benefits to Americans when they are cooking at 
home. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Anderson.
    Mr. Anderson. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
the opportunity to speak again on these very important topics. 
I do have a couple of other thoughts, some of which just re-
emphasize things that I mentioned in my opening remarks. First 
of all, I have not had a chance to carefully review the phase 4 
legislation. I would be happy to do that and provide any 
remarks back to the Committee that seem appropriate.
    I have been around a long time. I have seen a lot of 
disaster relief programs come and go. I think this one that we 
are in now is really unprecedented in terms of the size and 
scope of the economic and social disaster that is associated in 
the fishing industry connected with the COVID pandemic, and so 
what I am trying to include in my recommendations were things 
that I thought would both address some short-term things that 
could be done to provide immediate assistance to put dollars 
into the pockets or keep dollars from going out of the pockets 
of fishermen that are hard hit with the combination of markets 
being greatly reduced, opportunities to sell fish greatly 
reduced.
    The price of fish that are being paid our fishermen is down 
in a big way and you have those things coupled with a couple of 
additional requirements of expenditures such as the video 
storage and review costs that I mentioned associated with our 
electronic monitoring program that has been paid for by the 
Government through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 
Commission that is scheduled to be--that responsibility 
scheduled to be transferred to the industry. It is about a 
$500,000 a year investment to be made to help these fishermen 
weather this storm, if you will, to get through this.
    There is also I talked about the cost of human observers. 
Again, we have our traditional groundfish trawl fishery that a 
many or much of their product is going directly to the 
restaurants that we are talking about here. Giving them some 
relief on the $500 a day cost that they have associated with 
the requirement to have observers is another thing that could 
put money directly and quickly into the pockets of our 
fishermen to help them. We have also got the same thing at our 
processors where we have the shoreside samplers at the 
processing plant and those facilities.
    So there are some things that can be done that will 
directly and immediately provide some economic relief to our 
commercial fisheries. I also mentioned the salmon hatchery 
production there particularly through Mitchell Act that I won't 
speak further on but that is another place from a longer-term 
perspective to help both the commercial and recreational 
fishing industry come out of this on the West Coast. Westport, 
the community I live in, is a kind of a microcosm of what the 
industry is up and down the coast. We have both a strong 
recreational fishery here component that motels and restaurants 
and charter offices and boat ramps and all of the 
infrastructure that goes with that. And those stocks 
assessments we talked about are important to maintaining a 
healthy ground fishery for the recreational fishery as well as 
the commercial fishery as well as having a healthy salmon runs.
    And just maybe last is the marketing program. Leann spoke a 
little bit about that and I think Cora did too. We have got 
some great expertise and the industry has demonstrated the 
ability to cooperate between a cross between fishermen and 
processors and we have a lot, you know, a lot of more direct 
sales that individual fishers are doing but I think we have 
opportunities if we can provide them some resources to build 
upon what they have already done here on the West Coast in 
terms of rebuilding the rockfish markets as a result of the 
rebuilding of those species.
    We have got a lot more rockfish being harvested and so 
there's a real opportunity for the industry to be successful 
there. I very much would just reiterate the comment of others, 
the appreciation of looking at the needs of the commercial 
fishing industry as you develop the disaster relief packages 
and would ask you to look at some of these other opportunities 
as a way that can quickly and directly provide financial 
assistance to the industry. And again, thanks very much for the 
opportunity to provide those comments.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much for that, and let me just 
say, the three of you are appearing today on behalf of 
organizations and councils and feel free to ask them to submit 
written suggestions. With regard to the restaurant industry, 
which I think we all agree is vital, if any of your 
organizations, the three councils that you represent, if you 
would like to weigh in on the Restaurants Act which provides 
for a restaurant revitalization fund, now would be a good time 
to hear a position from each of your counsels about that.
    And Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has been able to 
include in one of the packages 100 percent business 
deductibility for meals at restaurants for the rest of the time 
of this COVID pandemic. So that is another proposal that we 
would--if you are for that or against it, if you think it is a 
good idea or not so great, hearing from your councils about 
those two legislative proposals, which are being considered 
even today, would be most helpful. Dr. Doremus, you get the 
last word if you would like to.
    Dr. Doremus. Senator, thank you. And I think the 
perspective and recommendations of some of the other panelists 
on your closing question offered enormous and very valuable 
input to the Committee for further consideration as the Nation 
grapples with the effects of the COVID pandemic on the seafood 
sector. Clearly immediate stimulus is highly beneficial. The 
CARES Act provided $300 million to an industry a set of 
sectors, that a total about $42 billion in revenues annually, 
about 2 percent.
    If we were to see something equivalent to the level of 
CARES Act support that went into land based agriculture, that 
was more than 5.5 percent, just for reference. And a number of 
panelists and others have pointed to the need for direct 
assistance buying programs. Our own fishery finance program 
offers some ways to reduce costs to existing participants and 
fisheries. These are all techniques for providing immediate 
assistance to help industry get through an extraordinarily 
disruptive time.
    I do think we also need to be thinking long-term about both 
the recovery and the long-term resilience of the U.S. seafood 
sector as a whole. We need to diversify, Senator. We need 
greater sources of supply. We need more diverse species. We 
need to de-risk our supply chains. We need to transition to new 
product forms as was mentioned earlier today. We need wider and 
different distribution channels. We need to coordinate in a 
pre-competitive way our marketing and promotion to seafood as a 
whole.
    It was mentioned many times the extraordinary health 
benefits of a greater portion of seafood in the diet, as you 
are well familiar with yourself, and that is another real 
policy imperative for the Nation. A stronger healthier 
population, a more secure source of seafood supply, and safe, 
sustainable, domestically sourced seafood are great long-term 
benefits to the Nation. And the manner in which we help recover 
can put us on a more solid path with those kinds of changes and 
the type of scientific and technical support that we can help 
provide, the grant resources that we can help provide to be 
able to ensure that that transition moves in a direction that 
benefits the Nation as a whole. Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. We have had excellent 
witnesses today. It was a good hearing and we collected 
valuable information. The hearing record will remain open for 
two weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any 
questions for the record as soon as possible but no later than 
Wednesday, August 12, 2020. Upon receipt, the witnesses are 
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as 
soon as possible but no later than Wednesday, August 26, 2020.
    And with that the hearing is concluded with the thanks of 
the witnesses.
    [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                              Paul Doremus
    Background. During the hearing, you stated, ``the agency has taken 
input from the public and from industry about the core components of a 
national trade strategy for our seafood sector,'' and later, ``we need 
to coordinate in a precompetitive way on marketing and promotion of 
seafood as a whole''. The expectation is that NOAA will do this in 
consultation with the seafood industry.

    Question 1. Can you share concrete actions and clarity for how NOAA 
has consulted (or plans to consult) with the seafood industry on this?
    Answer. In July 2020, the Federal Register published a notice 
inviting the U.S. seafood and fishing industry to submit comments and 
suggestions for the newly-established Interagency Seafood Trade Task 
Force (the Task Force), which will be co-chaired by the Office of the 
United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Department of 
Commerce. The Task Force stems from the Presidential Executive Order 
(EO) signed May 7, 2020, on Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness 
and Economic Growth. The Task Force will work to support fair market 
access for U.S. seafood products through trade policy and negotiations.
    Pursuant to the May 7 EO, USTR is working closely with interagency 
partners to develop a comprehensive interagency seafood trade strategy. 
The strategy will identify opportunities to improve access to foreign 
markets through trade policy and negotiations; resolve technical 
barriers to U.S. seafood exports; and otherwise support fair market 
access for U.S. seafood products. Submitted comments from the seafood 
industry are available online.

    Background. Given the myriad of challenges currently facing the 
fishing industry, fishermen are badly in need of increased 
collaboration between agencies to navigate these unprecedented times. 
For example, the recent memorandum, Protecting the U.S. Lobster 
Industry, emphasizes supporting the lobster industry while completely 
ignoring the identical tariffs present on other forms of American 
seafood. The continuing impacts of Chinese retaliation on Alaskan 
seafood have been devastating to countless small businesses, as well.

    Question 2. How can NOAA work to ensure increased collaboration 
between other agencies, such as USDA, to ensure a cohesive and 
comprehensive approach to the damages incurred by hardworking 
Americans?
    Answer. NOAA has been working collaboratively with agencies, such 
as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), to ensure a coordinated 
approach to compensating damages incurred by fishermen. On June 24, 
2020, the President issued a Memorandum on Protecting the United States 
Lobster Industry, which tasked the USDA to consider taking appropriate 
action, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to provide 
assistance to fishermen and producers in the United States lobster 
industry that continue to be harmed by the People's Republic of China's 
(PRC) retaliatory tariffs. In addition, it tasked USDA to consider 
including, to the extent permitted by applicable law, the U.S. lobster 
industry and other segments of the U.S. seafood industry in any future 
assistance provided to mitigate the effects of the PRC's retaliatory 
trade practices. USDA has since announced $530 million in direct 
support for commercial fishermen through the Seafood Trade Relief 
Program (STRP), which includes numerous seafood commodities including 
lobster, pollock, and crab. NOAA Fisheries provided technical expertise 
to USDA in support of their development of this program. NOAA Sea Grant 
also assisted USDA implement STRP by providing technical assistance to 
stakeholders through localized engagement and information sharing.

    Background. On May 27, 2020, NOAA announced their decision to 
cancel five of six large-scale research surveys off Alaska in 2020 
citing concern for crews and public health safety. Reduced surveys are 
highly concerning, particularly in a high level of climate uncertainty 
and change. These surveys provide data on species abundance and are 
used to set fishing quotas. During this same time, NOAA has declined to 
maintain waivers for observers present on commercial fishing boats.

    Question 3. How can NOAA justify cancelling these critical surveys 
to keep their staff safe, while still requiring observers to be present 
onboard commercial fishing boats when that runs a risk to crews and 
public health too?
    Answer. Preparing for and deploying a fisheries survey poses 
significant challenges that renders them different from deploying 
observers to a fishing vessel. Fishery surveys are complex undertakings 
that require the coordination of many moving parts (including staging 
activities, ordering parts/upgrades, shipping the gear, loading 
supplies, equipment, fuel) all while ensuring the health and safety of 
multiple crew and researchers at each step.
    On a survey mission, the moving parts must all be coordinated 
before embarking on the vessel. They have recently been made more 
challenging by the:

   restricted access to laboratories for instrument repair and 
        calibration (and even if accessible, associated delays due to 
        social distancing, group size, etc.);

   closing of businesses/providers (and the associated backlogs 
        in orders after reopening results in delays in receiving/
        shipping components, etc.);

   evolving health ordinances after spikes in COVID cases 
        (which affects our crew members ability to participate, e.g., 
        if they are primary caregivers or are in certain risk 
        categories) increases the uncertainties in the decisions that 
        we face;

   the required travel from the ships' science crew from their 
        home-base to the ship itself (across States and at times to/
        from remote areas) adds requirements based on possibly multiple 
        local and State ordinances;

   and others.

    This cumulative (and non-exhaustive) collection of challenges, 
combined with evolving safety protocols at each step, results in 
uncertainties that are different than deploying observers to a vessel.
    As we continue to mitigate impacts of COVID-19 cases nationally and 
within our own agency, we also continue to try to plan for missions 
this year. Over the past several months, NOAA has been rigorously 
analyzing various options for conducting surveys this year and are 
taking a survey-by-survey, risk-based approach.
    It is also important to acknowledge that many fishermen have 
continued their work on the water during COVID-19. As such, observers 
have also returned to work, generally matching any precautionary 
measures that vessels are imposing on their crew members. We understand 
and acknowledge that the need to get back on the water for fishermen is 
critical to their livelihoods.

    Background. A topic of much conversation is the recently released 
Final EIS for the Pebble mine. The proposed construction of this mine 
has received much concern due to its location in the headwaters of 
Bristol Bay, the most productive sockeye salmon fishery in the world.

    Question 4. How has NOAA, as fishery managers, participated in the 
review process for this Final EIS?
    Answer. NOAA Fisheries did not submit comments on the Final EIS for 
the Pebble Project during the 30-day cooling off period. NOAA Fisheries 
was not a cooperating agency with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on 
the EIS. We did however provide comments on the Draft EIS during the 
public comment period related to our trust resources (fish, habitat, 
and marine mammals). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considered those 
comments in writing the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment, 
Biological Assessment, and Final EIS. NOAA Fisheries has focused its 
efforts related to the Pebble Mine project on meeting our statutory 
obligations to consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the 
Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act regarding effects to threatened and endangered 
species and Essential Fish Habitat, respectively. The U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers recently initiated formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries 
under the Endangered Species Act. We completed the EFH Consultation 
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in September 2020.
    Pebble Mine, as an applicant, may also separately request that NOAA 
Fisheries authorize incidental take of marine mammals under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, and if so, NOAA Fisheries would discuss the 
scope of such an authorization with them and render a decision on their 
application accordingly.

                                [all]