    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  RESTORING AMERICAN SEAFOOD COMPETITIVENESS

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

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   before the

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                            Wednesday, June 4, 2025
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-30
                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                    ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    60-647 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2026

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                      ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
                       JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Joe Neguse, CO
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Paul Gosar, AZ                       Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Seth Magaziner, RI
    Daniel Webster, FL                   Jared Golden, ME
    Russ Fulcher, ID                     Dave Min, CA
    Pete Stauber, MN                     Maxine Dexter, OR
    Tom Tiffany, WI                      Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Emily Randall, WA
    Cliff Bentz, OR                      Yassamin Ansari, AZ
    Jen Kiggans, VA                      Sarah Elfreth, MD
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Adam Gray, CA
    Mike Collins, GA                     Luz Rivas, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY               Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Mark Amodei, NV                      Debbie Dingell, MI
    Tim Walberg, MI                      Darren Soto, FL
    Mike Ezell, MS                       Julia Brownley, CA
    Celeste Maloy, UT                    Susie Lee, NV
    Addison McDowell, NC
    Jeff Crank, CO
    Nick Begich, AK
    Jeff Hurd, CO
    Mike Kennedy, UT

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          William David, Chief Counsel
                   Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                     ------

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                         HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair
                           MIKE EZELL, MS, Vice Chair
                        VAL T. HOYLE, OR, Ranking Member

    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Seth Magaziner, RI
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Debbie Dingell, MI
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Jared Golden, ME
    Daniel Webster, FL                   Dave Min, CA
    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Sarah Elfreth, MD
    Cliff Bentz, OR                      Adam Gray, CA
    Jen Kiggans, VA                      Luz Rivas, CA
    Tim Walberg, MI                      Darren Soto, FL
    Mike Ezell, MS                       Julia Brownley, CA
    Celeste Maloy, UT                    Joe Neguse, CO
    Addison McDowell, NC                 Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
    Jeff Crank, CO
    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                    ------

                                   CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
    Hearing held on Wednesday, June 4, 2025..........................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Hageman, Hon. Harriet, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Wyoming...........................................     1

        Hoyle, Hon. Val, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Oregon..................................................     3

        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Bellavance, Rick, Chair, Council Coordination Committee,
          North Kingstown, Rhode Island..............................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    14

        Guyas, Martha, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director, American
          Sportfishing Association, Tallahassee, Florida.............    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    18
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    23

        O'Connor, Jamie, Deputy Director, Alaska Marine Conservation
          Council, Anchorage, Alaska.................................    24
            Prepared statement of....................................    25

        Delano, Dustin, Chief Operating Officer, New England
          Fishermen's Stewardship Association, South Portland, Maine.    31
            Prepared statement of....................................    32
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    35

        Hunter, Larson, Chairman, Coastal Villages Region Fund,
          Scammon Bay, Alaska........................................    37
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
            Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    42

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
          Department of Commerce, Statement..........................    74

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman

            National Fisheries Institute, Letter.....................    72

            U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils Letter on H.R.
              4690, Letter...........................................    73

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Ezell

            Stronger America Through Seafood, Letter.................    77

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Fry
            Management of Red Snapper, Letter........................    78

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Crank
            Russia's Espionage War in the Arctic, Article............    60

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Rutherford
            Governors Letter from the States of Florida, Georgia and
              South Carolina, Letter.................................    71

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    To:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

    From:     Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries staff: Annick
            Miller, (annick.miller@mail.house.gov), Doug Levine
            (doug.levine@mail.
            house.gov), Kirby Struhar (kirby.struhar@mail.house.gov), and
            Thomas Shipman (thomas.shipman@mail.house.gov) x58331

    Date:     Monday, June 2, 2025

    Subject:   Oversight hearing titled ``Restoring American Seafood
            Competitiveness''
    ________________________________________________________________________

        The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold an
    oversight hearing on ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness'' on
    Wednesday, June 4, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House
    Office Building.
        Member offices are requested to notify Jackson Renfro
    (jackson.renfro@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2025,
    if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
    I. KEY MESSAGES
         President Trump and Committee Republicans are committed to
                pursuing a policy agenda that secures public access to
                natural resources and restores America's seafood
                competitiveness.

         Enjoyed by millions, recreational fishing is both a major
                pastime activity and an important economic driver for
                coastal communities. Similarly, commercial fishing is an
                engine for job creation and economic growth that makes a
                significant contribution to the nation's food supply chain.

         The system developed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)
                has made America the world's gold standard in fisheries
                management. Operating under this system and by engaging
                with stakeholders, regulators, and other experts, Congress
                can identify new opportunities to support fishing in the
                United States, safeguard fishing's role in the national
                economy, and meet responsible stewardship obligations.

         The hearing will examine opportunities to partner with the
                Trump administration and sector stakeholders to develop the
                policies needed to steward and promote the productive
                harvest of our seafood resources.

    II. WITNESSES

         Mr. Rick Bellavance, Chair, Council Coordination
                Committee, U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, North
                Kingstown, RI

         Mr. Dustin Delano, Chief Operating Officer, New England
                Fishermen's Stewardship Association, South Portland, ME

         Ms. Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy Director,
                American Sportfishing Association, Tallahassee, FL

         Mr. Larson Hunter, Chairman, Board of Directors, Coastal
                Villages Region Fund, Scammon Bay, AK

         Ms. Jamie O'Connor, Deputy Executive Director, Alaska
                Marine Conservation Council, Anchorage, AK [Minority
                witness]

    III. BACKGROUND
    Fishing in the United States
        Fishing, in both its recreational and commercial forms, is an
    essential feature of American life. Recreational fishing is enjoyed by
    millions nationwide and fosters a deep appreciation for the country's
    natural resources. A recent study found that 57.7 million Americans
    participated in recreational fishing in 2023.1 This total,
    the largest participation ever recorded for a single year, includes 4.2
    million new participants, 13 million youths, and 21.3 million
    females.2 In addition to bringing joy to millions of
    Americans, recreational fishing also contributes significantly to the
    national economy. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, for example, found
    that outdoor recreation activities, including fishing, accounted for
    2.3 percent of overall gross domestic product in 2023, or nearly $640
    billion.3
        America's commercial fishing industry is no less vital. The
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the primary
    federal regulator of the United States' marine fisheries, found that
    the commercial fishing and seafood industry generated more than $183
    billion in economic value in sales and supported 1.6 million jobs in
    2022.4 Total landings revenues for the commercial sector
    totaled $5.9 billion that same year.5 Beyond these sizable
    economic benefits, commercial fishing also supplies the country with a
    healthy food source.6
        Despite the importance of these sectors, they have faced
    considerable difficulties over the last several years. Diverse
    stakeholders have alerted Committee Republicans to challenges ranging
    from serious concerns with the science and data that NOAA has used to
    inform management decisions, to measures that have unduly restricted
    fishing communities' access to marine resources, and overly burdensome
    regulatory structures that have developed under statutes like the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
    (MMPA).
        Committee Republicans and President Trump are dedicated to solving
    these problems and reinvigorating the commercial and recreational
    fishing sectors in the United States. This commitment reflects actions
    taken in President Trump's first term. In 2020, the President issued
    Executive Order (EO) 13921, titled ``Promoting American Seafood
    Competitiveness and Economic Growth,'' 7 which outlined a
    federal policy to ``identify and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers
    restricting American fishermen and aquaculture producers.''
    8 The EO also included provisions to combat illegal,
    unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, sought to remove barriers to
    aquaculture permitting, and established an Interagency Seafood Trade
    Task Force.9
        President Trump built upon these efforts promptly after returning
    to office. On April 17, 2025, as part of his first 100 days agenda, the
    President signed an EO titled ``Restoring American Seafood
    Competitiveness.'' 10 The EO stated that, despite the
    opportunities that the United States has to lead the world in fishing
    and seafood production, ``seafood is one of the most heavily regulated
    sectors in the United States.'' 11 The EO cited some of the
    many challenges faced by American fishermen, including ``restrictive
    catch limits, . . . inaccurate and outdated fisheries data, and delayed
    adoption of modern technology.'' 12 To ameliorate these
    problems, the EO directed the federal government to address unfair
    trade practices, promote integrity in the seafood supply chain, reduce
    regulatory burdens, and level the playing field for American
    companies.13
        The EO also directed the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to
    consult with the fishing industry and the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services to ``immediately consider suspending, revising, or rescinding
    regulations that overly burden America's commercial fishing,
    aquaculture, and fish processing industries.'' 14 It further
    required the Secretary to identify the most overregulated fisheries
    within 30 days and work with each of the Regional Fishery Management
    Councils (Councils) to reduce that regulatory burden. Additionally, in
    line with the President's EO from 2020, each of the Councils is
    directed to provide a list of recommendations ``to reduce burdens on
    domestic fishing and to increase production'' within 180
    days,15 with goals of increasing profitability, preventing
    closures, and stabilizing access.16 The Councils will each
    develop a work plan to implement these actions. Alongside those
    efforts, the Secretary is directed to work with the public, experts,
    and stakeholders to improve management and science in accordance with
    requirements under the MMPA, ESA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act (MSA).17 Finally, the EO
    also directs the Secretary, through the National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS) to ``incorporate less expensive and more reliable
    technologies and cooperative research programs into fishery
    assessments,'' 18 and to ``take all appropriate action to
    modernize data collection and analytical practices'' to improve
    fisheries management.19
        These recent executive actions present many exciting opportunities.
    Given the desire from stakeholders and Committee Members to enhance
    commercial and recreational fishing in the United States, examining
    this recent EO and other means of accomplishing these objectives is a
    timely discussion.
    Federal Fisheries Management System
        The United States is the gold standard for fisheries management.
    Signed into law in 1976,20 the MSA is the principal statute
    that governs marine fisheries management in the United States' federal
    waters up to 200 miles offshore, within the nation's exclusive economic
    zone (EEZ).21
        The MSA established a federal fishery management system based on
    cooperative federalism, empowering eight Councils to craft fishery
    management plans (FMPs) to manage their resources. The eight Councils
    are: New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of
    America, Pacific, Western Pacific, and North Pacific.22
    Councils are made up of stakeholders from the commercial and
    recreational fishing sectors, scientists, seafood processors, and other
    experts.23 This bottom-up approach allows for diverse
    viewpoints to be heard and considered as Councils develop FMPs,
    providing the regional flexibility needed to sustainably manage our
    nation's federal fisheries.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Councils develop FMPs based on 10 guidelines included in
    the MSA known as the National Standards.24 These standards
    are: 25

         National Standard 1: Optimum Yield

         National Standard 2: Scientific Information

         National Standard 3: Management Units

         National Standard 4: Allocations

         National Standard 5: Efficiency

         National Standard 6: Variations and Contingencies

         National Standard 7: Costs and Benefits

         National Standard 8: Communities

         National Standard 9: Minimize bycatch and bycatch
                mortality

         National Standard 10: Safety of Life at Sea

        Over time, changes have been made to these standards consistent
    with direction from Congress. For example, in 2016, NOAA released a
    final rule to revise guidelines for National Standards 1, 3, and
    7,26 to meet requirements that Congress included in the 2007
    reauthorization of the MSA.27 The Biden administration, by
    contrast, attempted to update National Standards 4, 8, and 9 in
    2023,28 even though Congress had not made changes to MSA
    directing NOAA to do so. Reclaiming Congress' role in updating these
    standards and their application in the development of FMPs is therefore
    critical, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent
    decision overturning Chevron deference.
        The MSA also established the Council Coordination Committee (CCC),
    which consists of the executive director, chair, and vice chair of each
    of the 8 Councils.29 The CCC was created to ``discuss issues
    of relevance to all Councils, including issues related to the
    implementation of this Act.'' 30 Accordingly, the CCC
    provides the Councils with a forum to share information and expertise
    at the regional level and engage with headquarters staff from NOAA and
    NMFS.
        The CCC normally meets twice a year; once in the spring or summer,
    hosted by each of the councils on a rotating basis, and once in the
    fall, hosted by NMFS in the Washington, D.C., area.31 Most
    recently, the CCC gathered in May 2025 in New Bedford,
    Massachusetts,32 where each of the Councils provided their
    own updates and heard presentations from various NOAA and NMFS
    officials on recent presidential EOs, fisheries science and research
    priorities, and budgetary matters.33
        In line with the broader goals outlined in President Trump's EO,
    this hearing provides an opportunity to consider the discussions that
    took place at the most recent CCC meeting. Considering those
    discussions can help Congress determine how best to partner with the
    administration to support the council system. An effective partnership
    can encourage the continued sustainable management of our natural
    resources while allowing our recreational and commercial fishing
    sectors to thrive.
    Management and Permitting Challenges
        Although the management process under the MSA has often garnered
    broad approval from those involved in U.S. fishing, the fishing
    industry has faced challenges in recent years. In recent years, members
    from both the commercial and recreational fishing sectors have raised
    substantial concerns about the management and operation of American
    fisheries. Stakeholders in both communities, for instance, have
    repeatedly expressed their lack of confidence in the science that
    informs management decisions and in the dearth of timely stock
    assessments. Additionally, regulations developed under the ESA and MMPA
    have often placed burdens on recreational and commercial fishing,
    creating unnecessary hardship. Efforts under the National Marine
    Sanctuary Act (NMSA), or through the establishment of marine national
    monuments, have also restricted access to fisheries resources. This can
    place the United States at a competitive disadvantage compared to
    international competitors, including our adversaries.
        Stakeholders have also voiced concern over issues plaguing NOAA's
    data collection and survey efforts. The timely collection of data is
    critical for NOAA to inform stock assessments and the development of
    FMPs. Stock assessments based on inaccurate or outdated data--which
    have proliferated in recent years--can lead to shorter fishing seasons
    or more restrictive catch limits and quotas. Additionally, if NOAA or
    other partners are delayed in collecting the data needed to make key
    management decisions, openings or early closures of fisheries could
    also be delayed, which could produce other negative consequences.
    Industry and recreation advocates have called for deploying
    technologies that could improve these data collection efforts, with the
    potential to both reduce costs and boost efficiency.34 In
    the recreational fishing community, there have also been concerns with
    the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP),35 NOAA's
    data program that seeks to estimate total recreational catch to inform
    management for recreational fisheries.36 Recent discussions
    have also examined how NOAA can better partner with anglers and state
    agencies to gather the data needed to manage recreational fisheries.
        These issues were discussed at great length at the most recent CCC
    meeting. In his presentation, Dr. Evan Howell, NOAA's Acting Chief
    Science Advisor and Director of Scientific Programs, talked about the
    importance of NOAA engaging with each of the Councils on their
    scientific priorities.37 This issue is important, given the
    requirements under the MSA for each of the Councils to submit their
    multi-year research priorities to NOAA 38 and for the
    Secretary to publish a strategic plan for fisheries research for a
    five-year period.39 Dr. Howell also talked about the
    importance of cooperative research and engaging with industry
    participants in formulating stock assessments and gathering other
    social and economic data.40 Given the numerous ways in which
    the President's EO focused on engaging stakeholders and modernizing
    technology to improve data collection, the Committee has an opportunity
    to seize on these CCC meeting topics and partner with the Trump
    administration to fix some of the longstanding issues that have
    afflicted fisheries management.
        The Committee has also been heavily engaged on regulatory issues
    related to the MMPA and ESA. In February, the Committee held an
    oversight hearing in which stakeholders testified that both statutes
    contain requirements and ambiguities that can negatively impact the
    fisheries sector. Under the MMPA, the requirement for NOAA to make a
    negligible impact determination for commercial fishing operations
    41 is challenging to implement, particularly because the
    statute does not define ``negligible impact.'' It was also noted during
    the February hearing that the formula NOAA uses to develop negligible
    impact determinations is widely viewed as overly
    precautionary.42 MMPA issues haven't just impacted the
    commercial sector, however. States have also faced recent challenges
    and delays under MMPA in obtaining permits and authorizations for
    various fisheries research programs. For example, the Texas Parks and
    Wildlife Department has spent several years working with NOAA to obtain
    permits for its research activities. After years of discussion, the
    proposed rule and request for comments for the permit were finally
    published in the Federal Register in May 2025.43
        The ESA also raises significant obstacles, including the
    designation of critical habitat by NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS). Under the current framework, Section 4 of the ESA
    charges FWS and NMFS with reviewing and acting on petitions to list
    species as threatened or endangered and designate their critical
    habitat.44 Designation of critical habitat can lead to the
    enactment of measures that similarly restrict access, which can also
    challenge fisheries management. Two examples from the Biden
    administration were NOAA's proposed rule to designate critical habitat
    for Rice's whales,45 along with another proposal to
    dramatically expand an existing vessel speed restriction along the
    Atlantic coast to protect the North Atlantic right whale.46
    Both proposals would have had devastating consequences for industries
    that operate offshore, including fishing. During the 118th Congress,
    these proposals were the subject of extensive Committee oversight and
    faced criticism from many Committee Members.
        While both proposed rules were never finalized, underlying
    challenges with the ESA still exist. To address this issue, Chairman
    Bruce Westerman (R-AR-04) has introduced the ``ESA Amendments Act of
    2025,'' which would make critical reforms to the permitting process and
    address statutory ambiguities. More information on that legislation can
    be found here.
        In addition to critical habitat, sanctuary designations under the
    NMSA and the enactment of marine monuments can also be detrimental for
    commercial and recreational fishing. In the Pacific Ocean, the
    designation of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument had
    historically closed off access to commercial fishing for the United
    States' fleet. This measure put the United States at a competitive
    disadvantage and threatened geopolitical security given China's
    presence in the region. On April 17, 2025, however, President Trump
    corrected this historic mistake by issuing a proclamation ``Unleashing
    American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific,'' which expanded commercial
    fishing from 50 to 200 miles within the EEZ.47 This change
    was met with a great deal of enthusiasm from leaders in the
    region.48
    Moving Forward
        The challenges that the recreational and commercial fishing sectors
    have faced in recent years, along with the Trump administration's keen
    focus on them, present the Committee and the Congress with a tremendous
    opportunity. The 119th Congress should work with federal agencies,
    states, experts, and other interested stakeholders to ensure that the
    goals of President Trump's recent executive actions are met. This will
    require engagement with NOAA, the Councils, and other federal agencies
    to ensure that all voices are represented at the discussion table. This
    work has the potential to be transformative across the United States by
    encouraging greater recreational opportunities for families and
    individuals, strengthening the commercials industries that contribute
    to the American economy and food supply, and solidifying the United
    States's position as the gold standard for advancing each of these
    pursuits far into the future.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 4, 2025

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                 Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet
    Hageman [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Hageman, Wittman, Bentz, Kiggans,
    Ezell, Maloy, Crank, Westerman; Hoyle, Magaziner, Dingell,
    Golden, Min, Rivas, Soto, and Huffman.
        Also present: Representatives Begich and Rutherford.
        Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
    Fisheries will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome members,
    witnesses, and our guests in the audience in today's hearing.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the subcommittee at any time.
        Under Committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. I
    therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening
    statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
    submitted in accordance with Committee rule 3(o).
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from
    Alaska, Mr. Begich; the Congressman from Georgia, Mr. Carter;
    the Congressman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford; and the
    Congressman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, be allowed to
    participate in today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        We are here today to hold an oversight hearing titled,
    ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.'' I now recognize
    myself for a 5-minute opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Ms. Hageman. Today the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
    Fisheries is holding a hearing on restoring America's seafood
    competitiveness. We will be specifically focusing on how we can
    bolster both commercial and recreational fishing across the
    United States.
        Millions of Americans depend on fishing for their
    livelihoods and to connect with their communities. Both
    recreational and commercial fishing are tremendous economic
    drivers. Ensuring access to our abundant fishery resources
    supports millions of jobs and generates millions of dollars in
    conservation investments through excise tax revenues. Our
    domestic seafood sector, including its role in our food supply
    chain and as a major part of our trade strategy, makes massive
    contributions to our economy. Enhancing the commercial sector
    can also serve important geopolitical goals, like countering
    the aggression of the Chinese Communist Party and Russia.
        In recent years, however, both our fishing sectors have
    faced tremendous challenges. Whether it is issues related to
    the science and data collection used to inform management
    decisions under the Federal Fisheries Management System,
    regulatory challenges associated with implementation of the
    Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, or
    additional efforts to restrict access to our waters, fishing in
    the United States has become quite complicated, with our
    smaller, independent fishermen facing the most challenges.
        The good news is that President Trump is committed to
    addressing these issues. In April he signed an executive order
    titled Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness which is
    intended to reduce regulatory burdens and restrictions to
    ensure that the American fishing industry can thrive. President
    Trump's executive order directed the Secretary of Commerce to
    work with the eight regional fishery management councils to
    make the necessary changes to reduce regulatory burdens, to
    adopt new technologies to improve management, and work with
    stakeholders across this community.
        Today's hearing is intended as a signal to those
    stakeholders that Congress will support President Trump in
    these efforts, and will work with this Administration to
    develop the necessary approach to chart a better path forward.
    We look forward to partnering with the Trump administration to
    carry out these shared goals.
        The United States has long served as the world's gold
    standard for fisheries management. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act is a cooperative, stakeholder-
    driven approach to fisheries management in the United States.
    This approach has long been supported and trusted by the many
    stakeholders working with the Fishery Management councils. And
    yet challenges still persist.
        As the President's executive order states, one central
    challenge for both the recreational and commercial sectors has
    been the lack of adequate data to inform fisheries management
    decisions. A lack of complete data can lead to shorter fishing
    seasons and more restrictions. That is why conducting thorough,
    complete stock assessments and fishery surveys to sustainably
    manage our Federal fisheries is at the core of NOAA's mission.
    This work must not only continue, but it must be prioritized.
        A common theme throughout our WWF hearings on a variety of
    topics has been the need for certainty and stability for our
    industries and small businesses. Perhaps the biggest driver of
    economic instability has been the Federal Government's
    promulgation of overburdensome regulations. Within our
    jurisdiction the ambiguity and lack of clarity of environmental
    statutes like the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act are the main drivers in this area. Our fishermen
    and women simply do not know what the rules are going to be
    from administration to administration. That isn't fair to them,
    and such a situation undermines their ability to invest in
    their fleets and in infrastructure.
        As we have heard in recent months and years, both the
    commercial and recreational sectors have faced undue burdens
    under both the ESA and the MMPA. Reforming and modernizing
    these statutes will help reduce burdens, promote access to our
    marine resources, and provide certainty and clarity for the
    regulated community while at the same time protecting our
    fisheries and marine resources. We can, in other words,
    continue to protect our marine and mammal species while also
    protecting our fishing industries.
        Above all, we must promote access to our fisheries while
    continuing to serve as good stewards of our resources. Today's
    hearing is a first step to lay out a vision for the future of
    Federal fisheries management, one that embraces the cooperative
    approach between fisheries managers and stakeholders, demands
    better science and data, and embraces the role that technology
    can play in solving these issues.
        With that I want to thank our witnesses for being here and
    the members for their interest in these important issues.
        Ms. Hageman. And I yield back. I now recognize Ranking
    Member Hoyle for her opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. VAL HOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, and thank you to the witnesses for
    being here today. I know some of you traveled a long way.
        From coast to coast, the American fishermen and fisherwomen
    fuel the economy and feed the world. Our fisheries are some of
    the best managed and most sustainable in the world. Science-
    based management, led by members of the fishing industry in
    close collaboration with scientists, protect the balance of our
    ocean ecosystems and ensure that fishing can continue for
    generations to come.
        I appreciate that the Trump administration wants to support
    the competitiveness of our domestic seafood industry.
    Certainly, it is an important part of the economy of my
    district. I hope to work with the Administration and my
    colleagues in the majority to achieve that goal. But I don't
    see how the Administration is going to succeed when it spent
    the last 4 months haphazardly cutting the funding and workers
    that our fisheries rely on. Fishing communities in my State and
    many fishing communities around the country have been thrown
    into chaos due to these DOGE cuts. You are not going to make
    our seafood industry more competitive by firing staff at NOAA,
    canceling research, banning NOAA staff from traveling to
    meetings, or by instigating trade wars with erratic and
    unstrategic tariff policies.
        Over one third of the NOAA fisheries positions are now
    vacant. Fishery science centers across the country are bleeding
    talent, and key NOAA fisheries staff have been fired. For
    example, this spring, hatcheries that normally release millions
    of Chinook salmon are in limbo because the single NOAA
    employee, Krista Finlay, was abruptly terminated in February by
    DOGE. Her job was to ensure hatchery operations met Federal
    standards under the ESA and provide permits to release them.
    Now NOAA isn't processing compliance reviews, the hatchery fish
    can't be released, and this isn't just a this-year problem. It
    hurts the long-term future of West Coast salmon runs.
        The Pacific Northwest needs a functioning Federal partner
    that takes its responsibilities seriously. Meanwhile, the
    President's budget would eliminate or zero out over a dozen
    programs that support fisheries and coastal communities,
    including the Sea Grant.
        Oregon's Sea Grant scientists provide resources that help
    fishermen sell more seafood, prevent and treat boating
    injuries, and reduce plastic pollution. This program leverages
    $5 in additional funding and economic benefits for every
    Federal dollar invested, and that is a good return on
    investment. It certainly seems like a worthy and efficient
    investment to me, and yet the second hearing in a row NOAA
    leadership has refused to appear in person to answer the
    Committee's questions about their plans to eliminate the Sea
    Grant program and many others.
        I want to support our fisheries by investing in them and
    the tools they need to be sustainable and successful. That is
    something we should all be able to get behind and I look
    forward to hearing more from our witnesses today.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Hageman [continuing]. I now recognize the Ranking
    Member of the full Committee for his opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our
    witnesses. I am looking forward to this conversation. I would
    love to have a serious bipartisan discussion on what is going
    on with our fisheries, what is going on with leveling the
    playing field for American fishers who we hold to very high
    standards, a serious discussion about IUU fishing and any
    number of other really important issues. So I applaud you,
    Madam Chair, for having a hearing on this subject.
        But pretending that what is going on right now with NOAA
    and this Administration, pretending that that is OK, pretending
    that this Administration is somehow on the right track toward
    these statements about restoring seafood competitiveness is
    just deeply disingenuous if not gaslighting. You can't speak
    these things into action. You have to do actual policies that
    make them happen, and we are not on the right track in that
    regard.
        Let's be clear. President Trump's imperial edict on
    restoring American seafood competitiveness doesn't restore
    anything. It certainly doesn't help American fishers. It
    dismantles the programs, the science, and the safeguards that
    have made U.S. fisheries among the most sustainable in the
    world. You don't strengthen American fisheries by gutting the
    systems that keep populations sustainable. You don't support
    fishers by sidelining science-based decisions, which everybody
    agrees is the core to maintaining a sustainable fishing
    economy. You don't help American fishers by ignoring illegal,
    unreported, and unregulated, or IUU, fishing that floods our
    markets and sabotages their livelihoods.
        Now, I understand that in his imperial edict President
    Trump said he wanted to crack down on IUU fishing. But in the
    same breath he is dismantling the one program that we have to
    confront it: the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, SIMP. He is
    absolutely crippling the one agency that we have to manage
    fisheries, who has a significant role in confronting IUU
    fishing. So there is an incredible disconnect between these
    catchy phrases and the title of this hearing and what is
    actually going on with the policies and actions of this
    Administration.
        President Trump and his DOGE cronies are thoughtlessly
    slashing budgets. They are firing seasoned scientists. They are
    pushing disruptive, bureaucratic reshuffling schemes, including
    moving commercial fishery regulation over to an agency that has
    zero experience and zero capacity to even deal with commercial
    fishing. They don't even know what it is at the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. So that is the kind of thoughtlessness and
    recklessness that we are seeing right now. And we sure ought to
    be talking about that instead of gaslighting and pretending
    that everything is on the right track.
        Science should be at the core of fisheries management, and
    that requires consistent investments in things like stock
    assessments, ecosystem monitoring, data collection. These are
    the tools that give us a clear picture of fish populations and
    how to manage them responsibly so that we don't crash them, so
    that we don't have to close fisheries, so that people can
    continue to be out on the water earning their living.
        And I represent a lot of those people on the water, and I
    promise you they are not woke liberals. Most of them are not
    even Democrats. I fight for them because I believe in what they
    do. And many of them are telling you, Madam Chair, and they are
    telling this Administration and raising alarms in every way
    they can that this stuff is not OK: what is going on with DOGE,
    what is going on with NOAA, some of these wrong-headed
    proposals, the notion that you can talk about confronting IUU
    fishing but then do things that absolutely cripple our ability
    to take it seriously.
        So, look, this should be a bipartisan subject. I have
    always approached this issue, and I have been working on it for
    many, many years, I have always approached it in a bipartisan
    manner, whether that was working with the late Don Young or
    whether that was working with Garret Graves or any number of my
    other colleagues. I will soon be reintroducing my bipartisan
    bill, Sustaining America's Fisheries for the Future, with Mr.
    Moylan, as well as Mr. Case and others. We are attempting to
    reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act and also modernize it, include some significant
    updates to our fisheries law to address new challenges facing
    the fishing community in the era of climate change, to support
    emerging technologies, and do a lot more. I will also continue
    to work on and introduce legislation to seriously confront IUU
    fishing, which is going to require a lot more than lip service
    and gaslighting titles of hearings.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I hope
    they won't hold back because it is very important that we hear
    from people that know what they are talking about, that are not
    just some of the powerful industry insiders who are not
    interested in sustainable management, who are not interested in
    actually confronting IUU fishing. We need to hear from the
    other voices, and I hope we will today.
        Mr. Huffman. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Hageman. I will now introduce our panel of witnesses.
        Captain Rick Bellavance, the Chair of the Council
    Coordination Committee from North Kingstown, Rhode Island.
        Ms. Martha Guyas, the Southeast Fisheries Policy Director
    at the American Sportfishing Association in Tallahassee,
    Florida.
        Ms. Jamie O'Connor, the Deputy Executive Director of the
    Alaska Marine Conservation Council in Anchorage, Alaska.
        Mr. Dustin Delano, the Chief Operating Officer of the New
    England Fishermen Stewardship Association in South Portland,
    Maine.
        And Mr. Larson Hunter, the Chairman of the Board of
    Directors for the Coastal Villages Region Fund from Scammon
    Bay, Alaska.
        Now I want to remind the witnesses that under committee
    rules they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but
    their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
        To begin your testimony please press the button on the
    microphone.
        And we use timing lights. When you begin the light will
    turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining the light will
    turn yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes the light will
    turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
        I will also allow all witnesses to testify before member
    questioning.
        I now yield 30 seconds to Representative Magaziner to
    introduce his constituent, Mr. Bellavance.
        Mr. Magaziner. Well, thank you to the Chair, and thank you
    to my friend and constituent, Rick Bellavance, Captain Rick,
    for being here today.
        Rick is a born and raised Rhode Islander who has spent his
    entire life on the water. He started fishing in the
    Narragansett Bay at age 10 on a 12-foot wooden skiff. Today he
    is the captain owner-operator of a charter boat, priority two,
    out of Point Judith, Rhode Island. He serves as President of
    the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat Association, has been a
    member of the New England Fishery Management Council since
    2016, and is Chairman of the Council Coordinating Committee.
        Thank you, Rick, for making the trip down here and for
    advocating for the fishing industry in our State.
        And I will yield back.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Bellavance for
    5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF RICK BELLAVANCE, CHAIR, COUNCIL COORDINATION
                COMMITTEE, NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND

        Mr. Bellavance. Thank you, Chair Hageman and distinguished
    members of the Subcommittee. My name is Rick Bellavance, Chair
    of the Council Coordination Committee.
        The CCC is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and
    executive directors from each of the eight regional fishery
    management councils. These councils manage commercial and
    recreational fisheries in Federal waters and ensure sustainable
    fishing practices. I own and operate a fishing business in
    Point Judith, Rhode Island, and have served on the New England
    Fishery Management Council for nearly 9 years. I will be
    finishing my term and service as council chair this August.
        I am honored to appear before you today to provide this
    testimony on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee. I
    will discuss the importance of fishing to the United States,
    the unique role of public participation in fisheries management
    afforded by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the current challenges
    that our fisheries face, and how the Nation can work together
    to ensure prosperous and sustainable fisheries for decades to
    come. This includes our current work with NOAA to implement
    Executive Order 14276, Restoring American Seafood
    Competitiveness.
        Fishing supports over 2 million jobs in the United States
    and adds billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. In 2022 U.S.
    commercial and recreational fishing combined to generate $321
    billion in sales, with an additional $150 billion in added
    value impacts.
        In putting seafood on American tables, the commercial
    fishing industry involves many more people than the brave
    fishing captains and crews who go to sea. There are vessel and
    gear manufacturers, processors, distributors, fishing families,
    and communities, both large and small, including remote
    islands. The recreational sector includes private anglers, for-
    hire vessels, and larger party charter operations that support
    significant tourism and outdoor recreational economies.
    Finally, subsistence fisheries is a way of life for many
    communities.
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, councils use a public
    participatory process to manage fisheries, relying on NOAA
    science to develop regulations tailored to our regional needs.
    The collaborative approach has rebuilt many depleted stocks
    while reducing bycatch. In 2023, 94 percent of U.S. stocks with
    known status were not over-fished and 82 percent of stocks were
    not subject to over-fishing.
        Councils are also finding ways to help industry efficiently
    harvest over longer seasons, adopt gear innovations, use more
    electronic technologies for reporting and monitoring, and
    increasing safety at sea. We continue to address the
    differences with what fishermen see on the water and what
    science says can be caught sustainably through cooperative
    research. I have personally participated in cooperative
    research projects, and it is harder to argue against the
    science when I am part of the collection efforts. When
    scientists share a day on the water with fishermen, the things
    we both learn are priceless.
        The United States is the gold standard for fisheries
    management, but domestic fisheries face several challenges.
    Variability in data across regions, particularly in
    recreational fisheries, limits understanding of fish
    populations. Ecosystem changes such as warming waters in the
    Mid-Atlantic and New England have shifted stock distributions,
    making some species inaccessible to fishermen.
        Additionally, NOAA budget cuts and staffing reductions have
    hindered fish surveys, stock assessments, and have resulted in
    prolonged delays in the publications of regulations that allow
    fishermen to fish. Cancelled or scaled-back stock assessments
    threaten economically important fisheries like groundfish,
    monkfish and scallops in New England. Proposed cuts could
    further erode NOAA's ability to provide critical science for
    management decisions. These uncertainties often lead to
    cautious catch limits, reducing harvest limits for both
    commercial and recreational fisheries. Funding uncertainties
    also affect public meetings and limit stakeholder participation
    and transparency.
        The council's work to ensure prosperous and sustainable
    fisheries directly aligns with the stated goal of EO 14276 to
    promote the productive harvest of our seafood resources. NOAA
    fisheries has asked that all councils submit recommendations to
    reduce burdens on domestic fishing and increase production, and
    to commit to a work plan and schedule for implementation to
    ensure these actions are prioritized. The councils, with the
    input of technical staff, advisors, and the public, are now
    redirecting efforts to update and add to recommendations we
    made in 2020.
        Despite NOAA's stretched resources, the councils are
    committed to balancing conservation with productive harvests of
    U.S. seafood. By continuing collaboration, leveraging science,
    and engaging stakeholders, the councils, individually and
    working through the CCC, aim to increase fishing opportunities
    while ensuring that the essential ongoing work of keeping
    fishing operating is not compromised.
        Thank you. I can take your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bellavance follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Rick Bellavance, Chair, Council Coordination
              Committee, U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

        Chair Hageman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my
    name is Rick Bellavance, and I am the Chair of the Council Coordination
    Committee (CCC). The CCC is made up of the chairs, vice-chairs, and
    executive directors from each of the eight Regional Fishery Management
    Councils that manage commercial and recreational fisheries throughout
    the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, from New England to Alaska, to the
    territories in the Western Pacific and Caribbean. I am from Point
    Judith, Rhode Island and am the owner/operator of Priority Charters, a
    recreational for-hire and commercial fishing business fishing for cod,
    pollock, haddock, hake, and winter flounder, among other species. I
    have served on the New England Fishery Management Council for nine
    years and will be finishing my term and service as Council Chair this
    August.
        I am honored to appear before you today to provide this testimony
    on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee. I will discuss the
    importance of fishing to the U.S., the unique role of public
    participation in fisheries management afforded by the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act for nearly 50 years, current challenges that our fisheries face,
    and how the Nation can work together to ensure prosperous and
    sustainable fisheries for decades. This includes our current work with
    NOAA to implement Executive Order 14276, ``Restoring American Seafood
    Competitiveness''.
    IMPORTANCE OF FISHING IN THE UNITED STATES
        Fishing has long-been important to our Nation, today supporting
    over two million jobs and contributing billions of dollars to the U.S.
    economy. According to NOAA's ``Fisheries Economics of the United States
    2022'' report, the U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries combined
    to generate $321 billion in sales in 2022 and supported 2.3 million
    jobs. The commercial fisheries and seafood industry generated $183
    billion in sales, $47 billion in income, and $74 billion in value-added
    impacts, as well as supported 1.6 million full- and part-time jobs.
    Recreational fishing generated $138 billion in sales, $45 billion in
    income, and $75 billion in value-added impacts, supporting nearly
    700,000 jobs.
        Top commercial fishing ports span the nation and can be found in
    Alaska, Massachusetts, Virginia, Louisiana, Hawaii, Washington,
    American Samoa south of the Equator, and California, and there are
    hundreds of ports important to the commercial, recreational and
    subsistence fisheries in all coastal states and territories.
        In putting seafood on American tables, the commercial fishing
    industry involves many more people than the fishing captains and crew
    who go to sea. There are vessel and gear manufacturers, dealers,
    processors, distributors, restaurants, fishing families, and fishing
    communities large and small, including remote islands. The recreational
    sector includes private anglers, for-hire vessels and larger party-
    charter operations that support significant tourism and outdoor
    recreation economies. Finally, subsistence fishing is a way of life for
    many communities.
    REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS
        The eight U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils manage
    fisheries that exist primarily within federal waters, from three miles
    off our coasts to the edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone. They do this
    through a unique public participatory process where the Councils
    develop recommendations for regulations that are then approved and
    administered by NOAA Fisheries within the Department of Commerce.
        In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act (MSA) set up the Council system to deliberately include those who
    are directly regulated and most affected by management in the decision-
    making process. Fishermen, other engaged members of the public, and
    representatives of each coastal state and territory serve as voting
    Council members. They also participate in Council advisory panels and
    attend our many public meetings where they can make comments on the
    record and interact directly with Council members. Increasingly,
    meetings of the Councils and their committees are broadcast online,
    which has helped increase public access.
        Councils are required by the MSA to use a scientific body to set
    maximum catch limits, and they also use other scientific products
    generated by NOAA and other partners to develop management measures
    that are tailored to specific fisheries and regions. The scientific
    support system includes expert biologists, ecologists, economists,
    sociologists and others from federal and state/territorial agencies and
    academia who collaborate with professional staff at the Councils to
    ensure that the best available science is used to support all
    decisions. Keys to successful management include continued active
    participation of fishery users, building and sustaining trust in the
    process, and ensuring that regulations are well-matched with the state
    of the fishery resources.
    MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES
        Over nearly 50 years of Council management, we have rebuilt many
    depleted stocks and reduced bycatch. In 2023, NOAA reported that 50
    stocks had been rebuilt since 2000. Of the stocks with known status,
    94% were not subject to overfishing, and 82% were not overfished.
    Notable recoveries include the mid-water snapper complex in the Gulf of
    America, Atlantic bluefish and sea scallops, and Washington coast coho
    salmon.
        In addition, Councils are finding ways to help the industry
    efficiently harvest over longer seasons, adopt gear innovations, use
    more electronic technologies for reporting and monitoring, and increase
    safety at sea. We continue to try to address differences between what
    fishermen see on the water and what the science says can be caught
    sustainably through cooperative research. I have personally
    participated in several cooperative research projects, and it is harder
    to argue against science when I am part of the collection efforts. When
    scientists share a day on the water with fishermen, the things we all
    learn are invaluable.
    Highlights of successful management from each Council region include:

         The region supports 290,000 jobs and $28 billion in
                annual sales and is home to the nation's top grossing port
                of New Bedford, MA. The sea scallop fishery, one of the
                most valuable in the U.S. (worth $467 million in 2022),
                was rebuilt through limited access and rotational area
                management.

         Mid-Atlantic: The Council successfully completed a five-
                year strategic plan in 2024 that lays the groundwork for
                continued progress on long-term goals in communication,
                science, management, ecosystems, and governance.

         South Atlantic: Sustainable management of Spanish and king
                mackerel fisheries supports over $600 million in sales
                impacts and 4,200 jobs annually in the U.S. economy.

         Caribbean: The Council successfully transitioned to
                island-based fisheries management to better support small-
                scale, artisanal fisheries vital to local economies.

         Gulf: Goals and objectives of the red snapper and grouper-
                tilefish individual fishing programs have been updated to
                further promote access to fishing quota, improve safety-
                at--sea, reduce discards, and increase profitability.

         Western Pacific: The Council restored access to U.S. EEZ
                areas for pelagic tuna fisheries, incorporated new data-
                poor methods for catch limits, made protected species
                bycatch mitigation more practical, and implemented use of
                archipelagic-based fishery ecosystem plans.

         Pacific: The Council's successful groundfish rebuilding
                plans transformed a collapsed fishery into a $150 million
                fishery.

         North Pacific: The Alaska pollock fishery (the nation's
                largest fishery by volume) supports 30,000 jobs and
                contributes over $4 billion to the U.S. economy.
                Sustainable management has led to consistent supply for
                thousands of U.S. buyers and restaurants, surimi (imitation
                crab), and global whitefish markets. This fishery supports
                significant community development initiatives and projects
                along the coast of western Alaska and the Aleutian chain.

    MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
        While we have arguably the best managed fisheries in the world,
    domestic fisheries have many challenges. Collectively, we manage over
    500 stocks, but the regional approach to management under the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act results in differences across the Nation and within Council
    regions in the data available to understand commercial or recreational
    fishing participation and abundance and life history of species that
    fishermen rely on. Some stocks are assessed with complex models, but
    many species rely on simpler approaches because data are lacking. The
    lack of adequate data is directly linked to how much fish we can catch
    today to ensure sustainable harvests tomorrow. Uncertainty results in
    reduced harvest levels for both commercial and recreational sectors
    because Councils are required by the National Standard Guidelines to
    account for scientific uncertainty when setting catch limits.
        Ecosystem changes are outpacing our existing tools to measure fish
    stocks, understand environmental driving factors, and adapt management.
    Recent short-term changes in water temperatures severely impacted
    species like Pacific cod and snow crab in the North Pacific. The New
    England and Mid-Atlantic ocean regions are warming at some of the
    fastest rates in the world resulting in shifting stock distributions
    and reduced access for fishermen. Personally, I have seen many changes
    on the water over 30 years of fishing, including cod disappearing and
    black sea bass inundating southern New England waters. I am catching
    sandbar sharks for the first time, but instead of landing them, I tag
    and release them to help improve science.
        The Councils' budgets have not been fulfilled in Fiscal Year 2025,
    and it is unknown if and what additional funds will be provided from
    now through September and beyond. Public meetings in fishing
    communities are critical to the Council process, but lack of certainty
    in the current fiscal year has hampered our ability to plan for robust
    public participation. Councils are scaling back, and in some cases,
    canceling meetings, which means we cannot do our jobs to recommend
    management measures to the Secretary of Commerce, as required by the
    MSA.
        Budget and personnel reductions at NOAA and uncertainties about the
    availability of funds in the near term and beyond have been challenging
    for the Councils. Under the proposed cuts to NOAA, we expect to face
    increasing uncertainty in the science that underpins fisheries
    management decision-making, and reduced capacity to develop measures
    that foster prosperous fisheries. NOAA has had reduced capacity to
    conduct fishery-independent surveys, assess fish populations, and
    provide the Councils and public with timely information to make well-
    informed management recommendations.
        This spring, planned assessments for many fish stocks have been
    scaled back or canceled. Reduced stock assessment capacity causes
    uncertainty in setting catch limits, such as for the groundfish,
    monkfish, and skate fisheries in New England. In the Western Pacific,
    the human observer program's future is uncertain due to NMFS budgetary
    constraints, putting monitoring of the Nations' largest tuna longline
    fisheries in a precarious position. The Councils are supportive of
    cooperative research, including the use of advanced technologies;
    however, these approaches may be limited under the proposed cuts.
        Additionally, there have been delays in the publication of
    regulations required for allowing fishermen to be able to fish.
    Reductions in NOAA support have already caused delays in implementing
    fishing specifications for the New England scallop fishery, one of the
    most valuable fisheries in the Nation, and freezes on Federal contracts
    and grants have impacted vital surveys in most regions.
        Reduced science, policy, and administrative staffing at NOAA is
    likely to limit our capacity to increase flexibility and maximize U.S.
    seafood production in the future. The fisheries science and management
    enterprise may need to be simplified, which could present challenges to
    adapt and respond to resource conditions and the needs of fishing
    communities.
    Examples of challenges faced by all Regional Fishery Management
            Councils include:

         Science / Data Collection

                 Lack of fishery-independent surveys for
            regional stocks

                 NOAA research vessel maintenance and repairs

                 Recreational data uncertainty (Marine
            Recreational Information Program)

                                D For-hire reporting

                                D Headboat sampling

                 Delays in availability of commercial catch
            data

                 Limited life history information

                 Data poor and model resistant stocks

         Management

                 Burdensome regulations

                 Lack of flexibility

                 Slow bureaucratic and regulatory processes
            that result in untimely responses

                 Reduced programmatic support (e.g., reductions
            in Federal resources)

                 Shortcoming of U.S. international negotiations
            to follow the ``Ensuring Access to Pacific Fisheries Act''

                 Litigation

         Funding
                 Difficult to plan for future staffing and
            priority needs

                 Funding needs to be consistent with statutory
            requirements

                 Inability to address the fishing and seafood
            industries holistically

                 Reduced opportunities for public participation

         Environmental Changes

                 Inadequate baseline data on stocks and
            environmental conditions

                 Shifting fish distributions and changing
            productivity regimes

                 Inability to account for external driving
            factors in static management system
                 Depredation issues

         Financial Crisis in Fishing Industry

                 Increasing costs of monitoring

                 Loss of infrastructure needed to process fish
            and support fishing operations

                 Longterm decline in seafood production

                 Unfair trade practices and tariffs affecting
            markets for U.S. fisheries

                 Survival of small boat fisheries being
            threatened

                 Highlighted example:

                 From 2022 to 2023, Alaska's seafood industry
            suffered a $1.8 billion loss, with a 50% decline in
            profitability, due to 1) low seafood prices due to global
            market forces; 2) reduced global consumer demand; 3) subsidies
            and lower cost of seafood processing in countries that compete
            with U.S. seafood products.

         Stakeholder Confidence in Process/Outcomes

                 Concern about the quality of stock assessments

                 Substantial changes in stock size estimates
            harm scientific credibility

                 Frequent lack of agreement across data sources

                 ESA/MMPA actions continue to burden fisheries
            and fishing communities

                 Stocks in rebuilding plans with unrealistic
            targets can constrain fisheries indefinitely (for example,
            stocks reacting poorly to a changing marine ecosystem are still
            required to be rebuilt even if fisheries have little to no
            impact on their rebuilding success)

                 Communication challenges with stakeholders to
            avoid confusion and dissatisfaction with management

    Examples of challenges faced by individual Regional Fishery Management
            Councils include:

         New England/Mid-Atlantic Region

                 In the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions,
            the 2025 stock assessment schedule has been altered in response
            to staffing and budget constraints at NOAA's Northeast
            Fisheries Science Center. Several planned assessments have been
            downgraded to data updates, which provide less robust
            scientific information for setting catch limits. Adjustments to
            the 2026 schedule are also underway, and further disruptions
            are anticipated. Furthermore, all research track assessments
            originally scheduled for 2026 and 2027, except for longfin
            squid, have been paused. Research track assessments are
            critical to address complex scientific questions that increase
            our understanding of individual stocks and support
            sustainability.

         South Atlantic Region

                 The Southeast Regional Office Social Science
            Branch, which is made up of economists and social scientists
            and responds to the needs of the South Atlantic, Gulf, and
            Caribbean regions, is down by three positions which is half of
            their recent total branch staff. As a result, their capacity
            has notably decreased and there will likely be delays in
            completing analyses necessary for evaluating fishery management
            actions and submitting amendments to modify regulations. Stock
            assessment capacity available to the South Atlantic Council has
            long been inadequate and is further reduced due to loss of an
            analytical position. Despite managing over 60 stocks, the
            Council will receive only 2-3 assessments per year for the
            foreseeable future. Additionally, travel restrictions have
            reduced the efficiency of recent regional assessment workshops.
            Approval and implementation of amendments submitted by the
            South Atlantic Council to improve and modernize commercial
            fishery data through an electronic logbook and modernize the
            Wreckfish ITQ program have been delayed.

         Caribbean Region

                 The U.S. Caribbean fisheries depend on larvae
            and juveniles of shared species with other Caribbean countries.
            The reduction in NOAA personnel and budget has affected the
            Caribbean Council's capacity to interact with key Caribbean
            institutions such as the FAO Western Central Atlantic
            Commission (WECAFC), which is in charge of the fisheries in the
            Caribbean Sea. This has reduced the Council's efforts that
            started in the 1970s for pan-Caribbean management of important
            species like spiny lobster, the most important species in the
            U.S. Caribbean economy.

         Gulf Region

                 Nearly all finfish species (representing 36
            species) managed by the Gulf Council have been impacted by the
            recent loss of funding for the dockside sampling component of
            the Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS). This survey has
            allowed samplers to interview for-hire headboat participants at
            the dock to ask about the fish they have caught and collect
            biological information on individual fish (i.e., fish lengths
            and weights) since 1986. A continuously running decades-long
            (nearly 40 years) fishery survey, like the SRHS, is rare in any
            region and provides an essential long-term time series to
            monitor the abundance and health for numerous fish stocks. Data
            from the SRHS is either used or considered for use in every
            Gulf finfish stock assessment. For lane snapper, the SRHS is
            the only landings data stream used when conducting that data
            limited stock assessment. A dockside intercept component is
            fundamental in a survey design to provide validation to the
            catch logbooks reported by survey participants. If that
            validation/dockside intercept methodology is absent, data from
            that survey is not considered suitable for input in stock
            assessments or management decision making. [1] Thus, nearly all
            other fleet-specific fishery surveys, whether conducted by a
            state or the Federal government, have a dockside sampling
            component. Therefore, this funding loss will disrupt the
            historical fishery time series, introduce greater uncertainty
            into stock assessments, and tremendously restrict the Gulf
            Council's ability to monitor a substantial portion of the
            economically important fish species it is tasked to manage.

         Western Pacific Region

                 In the Western Pacific Region, funding for the
            Hawaii and American Samoa longline observer program to monitor
            for protected species interactions is facing reductions and may
            be phased out as early as 2026. The transition from resource--
            intensive human-observers to a more cost-efficient electronic
            monitoring (EM) program in these longline fisheries is
            dependent on federal funding availability, which is currently
            on hold due to the contract review process. NMFS reported at
            the May 2025 CCC meeting that the sole fishery independent
            survey (Bottomfish) conducted in the Pacific Islands has been
            postponed. The information from this survey is used to inform
            the data-poor stock assessments for bottomfish in the region.

         Pacific Region

                 Reductions in staffing at NOAA have hampered
            the ability to move Pacific groundfish regulations through the
            Council process and into implementation phase. The slowdown is
            occurring due to delays in reviewing analytical packages prior
            to final action by the Council, as well as a slowdown in the
            review and approval of final regulatory packages that are being
            transmitted by the Council for implementation. Actions that
            have been slowed include several which alleviate regulatory
            restrictions upon Pacific groundfish fishermen.

         North Pacific Region

                 The North Pacific Council is currently
            contending with funding shortages, loss of profitability of the
            fishing industry due to global market forces, and ecosystem
            instability that has resulted in mass mortality events due to
            marine heatwaves and steep declines of Chinook and Chum Salmon
            populations.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 14276
        The Councils' work to ensure prosperous and sustainable fisheries
    directly aligns with the goal of EO 14276 to ``promote the productive
    harvest of our seafood resources.'' In New England, we are looking at
    constraints to our skate and monkfish fishermen that have resulted in
    underutilization of quotas. In April, the North Pacific Council took
    action to allow more Bering Sea halibut quota to be fished on fewer
    vessels to respond to fishermen's requests to address economic changes
    in the fishery.
        To comply with the EO tasking, NOAA Fisheries has asked that all
    the Councils submit recommendations to reduce burdens on domestic
    fishing and increase production, and to commit to a work plan and
    schedule for implementation to ensure these actions are prioritized.
    Councils, with the input of technical staff, advisors, and the public,
    are now redirecting efforts to update and add to recommendations made
    in 2020 that responded to EO 13921 ``Promoting American Seafood
    Competitiveness and Economic Growth.'' While we look forward to
    increased opportunities to promote U.S. fishing under EO 14276, we
    recognize that NOAA resources are stretched thin. The Councils and NOAA
    are working closely to increase fishing opportunities while ensuring
    that the essential, ongoing work of keeping fisheries operating is not
    compromised.
        The Councils, individually and working through the CCC, remain
    committed to sustaining public engagement in managing the fishery
    resources of the United States and promoting the productive harvest of
    our seafood resources.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and share
    perspectives from the Regional Fishery Management Councils.

                                     ______

     Questions Submitted for the Record to Captain Rick Bellavance, Chair,
                         Council Coordination Committee

             Questions Submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman

        Question 1. Mr. Bellavance, the President's Executive Order,
    ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,'' directs the Secretary
    of Commerce to work with the Secretary of Agriculture to ``develop and
    implement an America First Seafood Strategy to promote production,
    marketing, sale, and export of United States fishery and aquaculture
    products and strengthen domestic processing capacity.'' In your
    opinion, how could the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program help advance this
    effort?

        Answer. The Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Program could be highly
    effective for advancing the objectives outlined in the President's
    Executive Order, ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,'' in
    several ways. By aligning its funding priorities with the goals of the
    Executive Order, the S-K Program can play a strategic role in advancing
    a comprehensive America First Seafood Strategy by bolstering domestic
    seafood production, processing, marketing, and exports while supporting
    innovation, sustainability, and economic opportunity in U.S. fishing
    communities.
    Supporting Innovation and Technology in Domestic Seafood Processing
        The S-K Program can prioritize funding for projects that directly
    align with the EO's aim to strengthen domestic processing capacity:

         Enhance automation and efficiency in domestic seafood
                processing

         Develop value-added products from U.S. fisheries and
                aquaculture

         Promote sustainable practices that increase yield without
                degrading resources

    Promoting U.S. Seafood Through Marketing and Consumer Education
        By funding projects focused on stimulating demand and boosting the
    sale and export of American seafood:

         Domestic and international marketing campaigns that
                highlight the quality and sustainability of U.S. seafood

         Public awareness initiatives about the benefits of buying
                American seafood (e.g., nutrition, environmental
                sustainability, job creation)

         Branding and traceability technologies that build consumer
                trust in U.S. seafood

    Supporting Aquaculture Development
        The EO emphasizes expanding aquaculture as part of an ``America
    First Seafood Strategy.'' S-K funds can:

         Support research and pilot programs that reduce barriers
                to aquaculture expansion

         Fund development of cost-effective, environmentally
                responsible systems, including offshore and recirculating
                aquaculture

         Promote training and workforce development for
                aquaculture-related jobs

    Enhancing Data and Infrastructure for Fisheries Management
        Robust fisheries data and infrastructure support competitive and
    sustainable seafood production. S-K grants can:

         Improve stock assessments, catch data, and traceability
                tools

         Invest in port infrastructure and facilities that support
                domestic landing, storage, and processing

         Support collaborative projects with fishermen and
                processors to inform science and policy

    Building Resilience and Expanding Opportunities for Coastal Communities
        S-K projects can also help smaller operations and communities by:

         Supporting local processing and distribution systems

         Providing grants for small-scale businesses to expand
                their operations or enter new markets

         Enhancing economic stability in fishing communities

        Question 2. Additionally, in remarks submitted for the record, the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) mentions 14
    camera-based electronic monitoring programs across different fisheries.
    NOAA states that the adoption of new technologies can improve the
    management process while also reducing costs. How do you think the
    Regional Fishery Management Councils and the Council Coordination
    Committee can work on these issues going forward, particularly
    considering the Executive Order's mention of new technology?

        Answer. The Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and the
    Council Coordination Committee (CCC) are in a strong position to help
    implement the Executive Order's call for the adoption of new
    technologies to improve fisheries management and reduce costs. By
    actively promoting and coordinating the adoption of electronic
    monitoring and other new technologies, the Councils and CCC can play a
    central role in realizing the Executive Order's vision of a modern,
    efficient, and competitive American seafood industry.
    Integrate Electronic Monitoring (EM) into Fishery Management Plans
        Councils can assist in aligning with the EO's emphasis on
    innovation and effective resource management:

         Incorporate EM requirements or options into existing and
                new Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), especially where
                traditional observer programs are costly or impractical

         Tailor EM systems (e.g., cameras, sensors, e-logbooks) to
                specific fishery needs, balancing regulatory compliance,
                data quality, and cost-efficiency

    Standardize Best Practices Across Regions
        The CCC can support standardization to increase adoption, reduce
    duplication of effort, and enhance regulatory efficiency:

         Facilitate the sharing of best practices, data protocols,
                and performance metrics across all Councils

         Encourage inter-council pilot projects to compare
                technology outcomes in different fisheries and regions

    Foster Partnerships for Innovation
        Councils and the CCC can promote the kind of research-to-operations
    activities the Executive Order envisions:

         Partner with NOAA, academic institutions, and industry to
                test and refine camera-based monitoring technologies

         Support public-private collaborations that help scale
                successful innovations and reduce costs over time

    Guide Funding Opportunities
        The Councils can provide guidance to funding sources to ensure that
    new technology adoption addresses real-world management challenges:

         Identify and advocate for funding, including through NOAA
                programs (like Saltonstall--Kennedy or Cooperative
                Research) or public-private investment

         Provide guidance to NOAA on funding priorities that align
                with council-identified technology needs

    Engage Stakeholders to Build Support and Ensure Equity
        New technology can raise concerns about cost, privacy, and impacts
    on small-scale fisheries; ensuring buy-in will be critical to
    widespread and sustained adoption. Councils should:

         Actively engage fishermen and stakeholders to gather
                feedback, explain benefits, and address concerns

         Consider scalable and flexible approaches that work for
                both small and large operations

    Monitor Outcomes and Adapt
        Councils and the CCC should promote a data-driven approach
    consistent with the Executive Order's goals:

         Track the performance of EM technologies in terms of cost
                savings, data accuracy, and compliance improvements

         Use an adaptive management framework to update FMPs and
                practices based on results

                                     ______

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. I now recognize Ms.
    Guyas for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MARTHA GUYAS, SOUTHEAST FISHERIES POLICY DIRECTOR,
        AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

        Ms. Guyas. Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, Ranking
    Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting me to speak today on behalf of the American
    Sportfishing Association regarding restoring American seafood
    competitiveness.
        In 2023, 57.7 million people went fishing in the United
    States. Recreational fishing supports more than 1 million jobs
    and contributes more than $230 billion to the economy. For
    Americans, fishing is more than a pastime. It is a cultural and
    economic engine rooted in conservation. The recreational
    fishing community contributes $2 billion annually towards
    conservation through license fees, excise taxes, and direct
    support. No other user group contributes nearly as much towards
    ensuring our Nation's fisheries and waterways are healthy and
    accessible to the public.
        While much of the President's executive order on restoring
    American seafood competitiveness pertains to commercial fishing
    and seafood trade, many of the policies and priorities apply to
    the United States marine fisheries more broadly, including
    recreational fisheries. Recreational fishing is also a
    significant source of seafood for millions of Americans who
    consume their own catch. My testimony today will focus on
    challenges faced by the recreational fishing community,
    particularly in the Southeast, and opportunities to address
    them.
        One of the biggest challenges we faced is management based
    on inaccurate and uncertain recreational catch and effort
    estimates from MREP, which is the Federal recreational data
    collection system. Originally designed for estimating long-term
    trends, it is currently used to enforce strict harvest limits
    based on inflated and uncertain estimates that have error
    margins so high that NOAA warns against using them. Despite the
    lack of confidence in these estimates, they are all too often
    used to close or restrict fisheries to the detriment of not
    only anglers but the businesses that support them. In response,
    several States have stepped up with State-run data programs
    that are designed to deliver more accurate and timely
    recreational catch information that is trusted by anglers. Many
    of these programs are NOAA-certified and are being used to
    inform Federal assessments and management.
        One example where we have seen success in this regard is
    with Gulf red snapper, where State-led data collection has
    enabled State-led management of the private recreational
    component of the fishery. This allows management to not only be
    based on more reliable catch information, but also tailored to
    local needs. In contrast, red snapper in the South Atlantic is
    a significant challenge, despite being a rebuilding success
    story. Anglers and scientists agree that this fishery is more
    abundant than ever, yet the recreational season was reduced to
    a single day last year, and the outlook for this year is
    uncertain.
        On top of this extremely limited harvest access, NOAA has
    proposed rulemaking known as amendment 59 that would create a
    large seasonal area closure off the east coast of Florida that
    would close fishing for 55 species to prevent anglers from
    interacting with red snapper while they fish for other species.
    NOAA's proposal is based on flawed and highly uncertain
    estimates of red snapper that are caught and released by
    recreational anglers. At the same time, NOAA acknowledges that
    Atlantic red snapper is no longer over-fished, and that it
    should no longer be considered to be undergoing over-fishing.
    While ASA welcomes this recognition from NOAA, the proposed
    closure will cause irreparable harm to coastal economies with
    little benefit to anglers.
        To that end, the ASA supports the Red Snapper Act which
    would pause harmful closures until better data like the South
    Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count is incorporated into the
    ongoing stock assessment. With the amendment 59 imminent, a
    growing red snapper stock, and new data feeding into a new
    stock assessment, Atlantic red snapper anglers are wondering
    whether they can expect to have reasonable access to harvest.
    Increasingly, South Atlantic States are expressing interest in
    bringing the Gulf red snapper model of State data collection
    and management to the South Atlantic.
        Before the Gulf States were delegated authority to manage
    Gulf red snapper, they were able to test State management for 2
    years via Excepted Fishing Permits, or EFPs. President Trump's
    executive order calls for expanding EFP programs to promote
    fishing opportunities. As in the Gulf, EFPs to test State
    management in the South Atlantic could be a game changer. ASA
    supports consideration of this approach, which could provide a
    major breakthrough if adequate quota is allocated to the South
    Atlantic States.
        The last issue I will touch on today is shark depredation,
    which is where sharks eat hooked fish before fishermen can land
    them. Depredation is becoming more common, and these
    interactions are not only frustrating but can impact survival
    and sustainability of target species. ASA supports the SHARKED
    Act, which would create a task force to bring scientists,
    managers, and anglers together to find practical, science-based
    solutions to address this issue. We thank Congressmen Wittman,
    Webster, and Soto for their leadership on this legislation,
    which notably has already passed in the House. We look forward
    to introduction and passage in the Senate.
        Thank you for the opportunity today to share perspectives
    from the recreational fishing industry and, as always, we are
    committed to working with the Committee to continue
    strengthening the management and conservation of our Nation's
    natural resources.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Guyas follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Martha Guyas, Southeast Fisheries Policy
                  Director, American Sportfishing Association

        On behalf of the American Sportfishing Association, I am honored to
    have been asked to testify before the House Committee on Natural
    Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries regarding
    legislation that affects marine resources and the recreational fishing
    industry.
        The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the sportfishing
    industry's trade association committed to representing the interests of
    the sportfishing industry as well as the entire sportfishing community.
    We give the industry and anglers a unified voice when emerging laws and
    policies could significantly affect sportfishing business or
    sportfishing itself. ASA invests in long-term ventures to ensure the
    industry will remain strong and prosperous, as well as safeguard and
    promote the enduring economic, conservation and social values of
    sportfishing in America. Recreational fishing is truly an all-American
    activity. Our fisheries resources, which are held in the public trust
    and conserved through sound laws and policies, are envied the world
    over. In 2023, 57.7 million people went fishing in the U.S.\1\
    Recreational fishing supports 1,111,920 jobs and contributes $230.5
    billion to the economy.\2\ Fishing is the third most popular outdoor
    recreation activity, behind only running and hiking.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation. 2024 Special
    Report on Fishing. Available online at: https://www.takemefishing.org/
    getmedia/7d775bde-f3a1-4f97-b9bb-845dcb9e05ba/Special-Rport-2024-
    Infographic.pdf.
        \2\ American Sportfishing Association. 2025 Economic Contributions
    of Recreational Fishing. Available online at: https://asafishing.org/
    economic-impacts-of-recreational-fishing/.
        \3\ Outdoor Foundation. 2021 Participation Trends Report. Available
    online at: https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2021-
    Outdoor-Participation-Trends-Report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All of this fishing activity supports the economy, connects people
    to the outdoors and provides substantial funding for conservation.
    Through fishing license purchases, excise taxes and direct donations,
    the recreational fishing community contributes approximately $2 billion
    toward aquatic resource conservation each year. I am confident in
    saying that no other user group contributes nearly as much toward
    ensuring our nation's waterways and fisheries are healthy and
    accessible to the public.
        Fishing participation is dependent on two primary factors--access
    and healthy fisheries. Access can take several forms, including
    physical access to water (e.g., boat ramps, piers, public shorelines)
    and regulatory access (e.g., seasons, bag limits, size limits,
    closures). While simply being outdoors and wetting a line is a large
    part of the enjoyment of fishing, at some level, most people want to
    actually catch fish too. There are many more effective ways of catching
    fish than a rod, reel and hook, so for recreational fishermen to have a
    decent probability of encountering a fish, there have to be a lot of
    fish in the water.
        On April 17, President Trump issued his Executive Order for
    ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.'' While much of the
    Executive Order pertains specifically to commercial fishing and seafood
    trade, many of the policies and priorities apply to United States
    marine fisheries more broadly, including recreational fisheries, such
    as addressing overregulation, ensuring access, improving fisheries
    management and science, and modernizing data collection. Recreational
    fishing is a significant source of seafood for millions of Americans
    who consume their own catch. In 2022, recreational anglers in the
    United States took over 200 million fishing trips and caught an
    estimated 1.1 billion fish. Of these, approximately 61% were released
    alive, while the remaining 39% were harvested.\4\ ASA looks forward to
    working with the new administration on advancing the goal of the
    Executive Order while strengthening the recreational fishing industry.
    My testimony will focus on challenges faced by the marine recreational
    fishing community, particularly in the southeastern United States, and
    opportunities to address them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ NOAA Fisheries Service. Fisheries of the United States 2022.
    Available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/
    fisheries-united-states-reports.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recreational Catch and Effort Data
        In most cases, the foundation for fisheries management and
    conservation decisions is scientific information. Credible data on
    catches and fishing effort, along with information about the biology
    and ecology of fish stocks, are critical to ensuring fisheries stock
    assessments accurately characterize the status of stocks and in turn,
    ensure that management decisions are informed by the best science.
        This is particularly the case with federal fisheries management, in
    which harvest is monitored relative to annual catch limits (ACLs), and
    accountability measures such as seasonal closures and ACL paybacks are
    used to constrain harvest. The federal government, via the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), manages fisheries in the
    exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which for the purpose of fisheries
    management is 3-200 miles off the South Atlantic coast and 9-200 miles
    in the Gulf.
        Too often, especially in the southeastern U.S. where I live,
    fisheries stock assessments have high levels of uncertainty (if
    assessments are even available) due to unreliable or sparse fishery
    data. The uncertainty caused by use of questionable fishery data to
    inform the status of fisheries and make management decisions can have
    severe implications for fish stocks, anglers, businesses, communities
    and the economy.
        The Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) is a NOAA
    program that provides estimates of recreational fishing catches and
    trips that occur from Maine to Mississippi and Hawaii. These data are
    used to assess and manage state and federal fisheries in the Atlantic,
    Gulf and Hawaii. MRIP is the product of two different components:

      1.  Dockside interviews administered by state partners that gather
                information on angler catch rates (i.e., number, types and
                sizes of fish caught); and

      2.  A mail survey administered by NOAA known as the Fishing Effort
                Survey (FES), which is used to estimate fishing effort
                (i.e., the number of fishing trips that occur).

        For years, MRIP catch estimates have been a source of contention
    for anglers, state agencies, and other fishery managers that depend on
    accurate and precise data for decision-making. MRIP was originally
    designed to provide broad (imprecise) information about recreational
    fishing catch and effort trends. However, MRIP is currently used to
    manage federal fisheries to exact, poundage--based ACLs, in accordance
    with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    (MSA). In most cases, MRIP is the only information available on
    recreational catch and effort due to a lack of alternative data
    sources, and is considered best scientific information available by
    default. NOAA cautions use of MRIP estimates in fisheries management
    when percent standard error (PSE), which is a measure of precision or
    margin of error around an estimate, is greater than 30 and does not
    support use of MRIP estimates with PSEs above 50.\5\ Unfortunately,
    MRIP estimates routinely have PSEs that are well above these thresholds
    but are nonetheless used by NOAA as the basis for fisheries management
    decisions. Using data that does not meet data quality standards to
    manage our fisheries is incompatible with the recent executive order,
    ``Restoring Gold Standard Science,'' results in lost access when
    fisheries are closed due to unrealistically high and highly uncertain
    catch estimates, is detrimental to conservation, and further erodes
    public trust in the fishery management process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ NOAA Fisheries Service. An Introduction to Marine Recreational
    Information Program Data. Available online at: https://
    www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/introduction-marine-
    recreational-information-program- data#data-use-considerations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In response to longstanding concerns with MRIP or its precursor,
    the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS), several
    states designed their own recreational data collection programs to
    supplement or replace MRIP to better align data collection with their
    management needs. The most recent state surveys are those developed and
    implemented over the past 10 years by the Gulf states, such as
    Louisiana's LA Creel. There is a long history of state--run
    recreational fishery surveys being used to generate recreational
    fisheries data that are used for management our nation's fisheries. For
    example, California, Oregon, and Washington replaced MRFSS with state
    surveys that better meet local needs about 20 years ago. Many state
    surveys are certified by NOAA, meaning they have undergone a rigorous
    scientific peer review process and have been found to be scientifically
    sound and defensible.
        Since FES was overhauled in 2018, replacing a survey design based
    on calls to coastal landlines to a mail-based survey, many anglers and
    state agencies have expressed concerns that MRIP effort estimates have
    been greatly inflated, often producing unrealistically or impossibly
    high estimates. Indeed, a 2023 pilot study \6\ conducted by NOAA in
    response to these and other concerns about MRIP estimates found that
    the order of mail survey questions in FES may be causing overestimation
    of recreational catch and effort by 30-40%. While ASA appreciates that
    NOAA recently conducted a follow-up study to further investigate this
    issue (the results of which are expected to be released in July), it is
    clear that changes beyond adjusting MRIP are needed to meet the needs
    of anglers and fisheries managers. MRIP and recreational fisheries data
    collection is in need of an overhaul, not tweaks around the margins.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ NOAA Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology.
    Evaluating Measurement Error in the MRIP Fishing Effort Survey.
    Available online at: https://apps-st.fisheries.noaa.gov/rpts/main/
    public_docs/ Evaluating%20Measurement%20Error%20in%20the%20FES%20
    Consolidated%20Final%20w%20Review.pdf?method=PUB_MANUSCRIPT&id=32268.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State-led, NOAA-certified recreational data collection programs
    that are designed to address MRIP shortcomings are providing
    alternative recreational catch and effort estimates that are
    increasingly used in federal management and assessments and are trusted
    by the anglers from which they collect data. In line with the Executive
    Order's directive to promote fishing opportunities, and modernize data
    collection for responsive fisheries management, these programs provide
    a model for recreational data collection improvements that are tailored
    to local needs and management and are trusted by anglers. For example,
    data from Florida's State Reef Fish Survey (SRFS), which is
    specifically designed to provide better recreational catch and effort
    data for 13 reef fish species, has now been used in federal stock
    assessments on Florida-centric stocks including Gulf gag grouper,
    yellowtail snapper, and mutton snapper. SRFS data is currently or
    expected to be used for federal management of these species in lieu of
    MRIP.
        State-led data collection also provided a path toward innovative
    management led by the states for Gulf red snapper that was not possible
    under MRIP. After two years of testing the concept of state management
    under exempted fishing permits, in 2020, NOAA delegated each of the
    Gulf states the ability to set red snapper seasons, bag limits, and
    size limits for their anglers in adjacent federal waters. State
    management has been a game changer by providing reasonable private
    angler access to red snapper harvest that is tailored to local needs
    while improving recreational catch monitoring compared to the federal
    Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Prior to state
    management, the federal Gulf red snapper seasons got shorter every year
    and was down to just a handful of days. Last year, private recreational
    angler red snapper seasons set by the states ranged from 49 to more
    than 150 days.
        Under state management, each state must monitor and constrain
    harvest relative to their allocated portion of the private angler
    component of the recreational ACL. To do this, each state uses their
    own data collection program that is designed to meet the needs of their
    state and its anglers. For example, Louisiana's program, called LA
    Creel, replaced MRIP in 2014 to provide more precise, localized, and
    near real time data on all saltwater recreational fisheries, including
    red snapper.
        Alabama and Mississippi designed programs that also provide red
    snapper harvest estimates independent of MRIP and recently adopted
    changes to their data collection methodology similar to LA Creel.
    Florida's program, called the State Reef Fish Survey, was designed to
    provide more precise and more timely catch and effort data on 13 reef
    fish species, including red snapper, by supplementing MRIP. Texas has
    always used their own data collection program (rather than MRIP) to
    monitor recreational saltwater landings trends. The surveys from
    Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are ``MRIP certified'' by
    NOAA, which means they have been peer-reviewed and determined to be
    statistically valid for monitoring recreational catches.
        Overall, state-led data collection and management has delivered
    recreational fisheries data improvements that in turn led to management
    improvements that promote conservation, angler access, and economic
    growth. Crucially, state management is viewed favorably by Gulf
    anglers, so much so that a focus group of Gulf anglers recently
    requested and the Gulf Council has expressed interest in considering
    state or regional management for greater amberjack.
    South Atlantic Red Snapper
        In terms of rebuilding, Atlantic red snapper is a success story.
    The fishery has responded to the strong regulatory measures taken by
    the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) to rebuild the
    stock. Since 2010, South Atlantic red snapper have rebounded so much
    that scientists and fishermen both agree the stock is at record
    abundance and biomass, such that there are now more red snapper in the
    South Atlantic today than any living person has ever seen.
        Recruitment of young fish into the population has also been
    consistently high for nearly a decade. However, success in rebuilding
    has not translated into successful management that provides reasonable
    harvest opportunities. The recreational fishery has largely been closed
    for the past 13 years except for a few weekend openings. Last year's
    recreational harvest season was a single day.
        Rather than exploring ways to improve management and access to this
    abundant fishery, on January 14, NOAA Fisheries released Amendment 59
    to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the
    South Atlantic that would prohibit fishing for 55 species, including
    red snapper, off much of the Florida Atlantic coast for three months of
    the year. This proposed Secretarial Amendment was prepared unilaterally
    by NOAA Fisheries as part of a legal agreement that requires the agency
    to take action to end overfishing of red snapper in the South Atlantic.
    As part of this legal agreement, the final rule for Amendment 59 must
    be submitted to the Federal Register by June 6. However, the consensus
    from an overwhelming number of public comments from South Atlantic
    fishermen over the past several years, discussions and decisions by the
    SAFMC, and recommendations from the SAFMC's Snapper Grouper Advisory
    Panel is that additional management measures to end overfishing are not
    necessary.
        The results of a stock assessment update completed by NOAA
    Fisheries and used as the basis for Amendment 59 confirms what
    fishermen already knew: Atlantic red snapper is no longer overfished.
    In recognition of the growth of the red snapper fishery and recent
    above average recruitment, as part of Amendment 59, NOAA Fisheries
    recommends changing the definition of overfishing for red snapper such
    that red snapper is no longer classified as undergoing overfishing. In
    other words, the status quo is working and management restrictions via
    Secretarial Amendment are simply not necessary to allow the stock to
    rebuild by the 2044 deadline.
        While the Amendment 59 proposals to remove the overfished and
    undergoing overfishing designations for red snapper and an increase in
    quota are positive steps, NOAA Fisheries' proposed closure to snapper
    grouper fishing is based on notoriously unreliable estimates of fish
    released by recreational anglers. During the proposed closure, all
    recreational hook-and-line fishing (including trolling) would be
    prohibited from December--February each year in federal waters from
    Cape Canaveral to the Florida / Georgia border (an area the size of the
    Virginia).
        The 55 species proposed to be closed include snappers, groupers,
    jacks, sea basses, porgies, triggerfish, hogfish, tilefishes, and
    grunts. If adopted, this drastic action will cause irreparable economic
    damage to the coastal communities and businesses in the area of the
    closure that rely on recreational fishing, as well as recreational
    fishing manufacturers and suppliers across the country. In exchange for
    this large area closure to 55 species, NOAA Fisheries proposes a 4-9
    day recreational harvest season for red snapper. In terms of both
    angling opportunities and economic impact, this proposal is not a good
    trade. While an increase in the recreational season is certainly
    warranted, it is unjustified to simultaneously propose drastic
    closures.
        ASA is grateful to Florida Congressman Rutherford, as well as
    subcommittee members Congressman Soto, Congressman Webster, and
    Congressman Ezell for taking a stand against this harmful proposal by
    sponsoring the Red Snapper Act (H.R. 470), which would stop NOAA
    Fisheries from unilaterally closing the South Atlantic red snapper
    fishery until reliable and accurate data from the South Atlantic Great
    Red Snapper Count is incorporated into the ongoing stock assessment.
    Over the past three years, Congress has invested $8.7 million in
    independent survey data over the past three years, including $3.3
    million for the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count, which will
    provide an independent estimate of red snapper abundance. This study,
    along with other ongoing and recently completed studies aimed at
    addressing data needs such as reliable recreational discard
    information, will help address data deficiencies to improve management
    of the Atlantic red snapper fishery.
        With the imminent release of the final rule for Amendment 59, a
    growing red snapper stock, and new data feeding into a new stock
    assessment, Atlantic red snapper anglers are wondering whether they can
    expect to have reasonable access to red snapper harvest. Many have
    watched state recreational red snapper seasons increase in the Gulf and
    have asked when it will be their turn. Likewise, recent statements from
    Governor DeSantis of Florida,\7\ Governor Kemp of Georgia,\8\ and
    Members of Congress from South Carolina \9\ all express interest in
    bringing the Gulf red snapper model of state data collection and
    management to the South Atlantic.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://floridapolitics.com/archives/730659-snapper-desantis-
    trump/.
        \8\ https://ccaga.org/2025/04/10/kemps-letter-on-red-fish/.
        \9\ https://fry.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_5.28.2025_-
    _sc_delegation_letter_to_sec_lutnick_re_state_management_of_
    red_snapper.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Before the Gulf states were officially delegated management
    authority for Gulf red snapper, they were able to test state management
    for two years via exempted fishing permits (EFPs) following a directive
    in Senate Report language 114-239 accompanying the 2017 Appropriations
    Bill.\10\ Section 4(c) of President Trump's Executive Order on seafood,
    which calls for expanding exempted fishing permit (EFP) programs to
    promote fishing opportunities, could provide this break for Atlantic
    red snapper if adequate red snapper quota is allocated to the South
    Atlantic states. Given the ongoing federal management challenges to
    provide reasonable harvest access to Atlantic red snapper despite
    successful rebuilding, ASA supports consideration of this approach. As
    in the Gulf, EFPs to test state management in the South Atlantic could
    be a gamechanger.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/
    senate-report/239.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shark Depredation and SHARKED Act of 2025 (H.R. 207)
        Imagine hooking the fish of your lifetime, enduring a long, hard
    fight to get it to the boat, and at the last second before landing the
    fish, a shark emerges and engulfs your catch. Few experiences can match
    the highs and lows of fishing as shark depredation, and unfortunately
    it is becoming an increasingly common occurrence.
        Shark depredation occurs when a shark eats or damages a hooked fish
    before the fish can be landed. These interactions can be frustrating
    for anglers when they result in damage to or loss of fish, bait, and/or
    fishing gear. There are also concerns that increasing levels of shark
    depredation on hooked fish and scavenging of released fish is reducing
    fish survival, negatively impacting fisheries, and will eventually
    contribute to stricter regulations intended to offset or avoid shark
    interactions. The sportfishing community cares about conservation of
    all marine life, and the escalating issue of shark interactions with
    recreational fishing must be addressed for the benefit of all fisheries
    and the fishing public.
        A recent study found that, ``77% [of anglers surveyed] had
    experienced depredation in nearshore and pelagic fisheries in the last
    five years, with depredation more commonly reported in the southeastern
    United States.'' \11\ 87% of charter guides surveyed said they
    experienced depredation with clients, resulting in a negative business
    impact. This research underscores the economic burden and negative
    attitudes generated from shark interactions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Grace A. Casselberry, Ezra M. Markowitz, Kelly Alves, Joseph
    Dello Russo, Gregory B. Skomal, Andy J. Danylchuk. When fishing bites:
    Understanding angler responses to shark depredation, Fisheries
    Research, Volume 246, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the United States, sharks are managed at state, interstate, and
    national levels and through international treaties. Historically, shark
    populations were significantly reduced primarily due to overfishing.
    Over the past few decades, management under MSA has focused on
    rebuilding overfished stocks and maintaining sustainable shark
    fisheries. As such, the United States has achieved increases in
    populations of many shark species.\12\ Despite this progress, several
    shark species are expected to be in rebuilding plans for decades
    because they are slow to grow and reproduce; prohibited from harvest
    for conservation purposes; and/or listed under the Endangered Species
    Act.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Peterson et al. 2017. Preliminary recovery of coastal sharks
    in the south-east United States. Fish and Fisheries (18):845-859.
        \13\ NOAA HMS, 2021. 2021 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
    Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. National Marine Fisheries
    Service, Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Division. 250 pp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although this multi-layered management framework has contributed to
    the success in rebuilding shark stocks, it also presents constraints in
    how fishery managers can respond to increasing shark interactions.
    Human conflicts with sharks are expected to further increase as shark
    populations continue to improve. This will require fishery managers and
    scientists to collaborate with the recreational fishing community on
    solutions, while considering the complexities of shark fishery
    management and science.
        Increasing shark depredation is negatively impacting fishing
    experiences, threatening the safety of sharks and humans, and
    negatively impacting the sustainability of targeted fish populations.
    ASA believes that fishery managers need to move beyond identifying the
    challenges with shark interactions and begin working collectively on
    solutions.
        The SHARKED Act (H.R. 207), which has already passed the House, is
    a huge step toward addressing this issue. H.R. 207 would establish a
    task force of experts, including state and federal fishery managers and
    shark researchers to develop ways to improve coordination and
    communication to address shark depredation, identify research
    priorities and opportunities, develop recommended management strategies
    to address shark depredation, and coordinate development of educational
    strategies to help the fishing community minimize shark interactions.
    ASA is grateful to House Natural Resources Committee members that have
    championed this bill: Vice Chairman Wittman, Congressman Webster, and
    Congressman Soto. We look forward to introduction and passage of the
    SHARKED Act in the Senate.
    Conclusion
        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the sportfishing
    industry's perspective on some of the top challenges and opportunities
    for marine recreational fishing, particularly in the southeastern U.S.
    We are grateful for the ongoing work of the House Natural Resources
    Committee to advance legislation that will strengthen the management
    and conservation of the nation's public lands and waters. We look
    forward to working with the Committee on legislation that affects the
    recreational fishing industry and America's 57.7 million anglers.

                                     ______

       Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Martha Guyas, Southeast
         Fisheries Policy Director at American Sportfishing Association

             Questions Submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman

        Question 1. Ms. Guyas, the President's Executive Order, ``Restoring
    American Seafood Competitiveness,'' talks about the use of new
    technologies and modernizing data collection efforts. How could
    implementing those provisions improve recreational fisheries
    management?

        Answer. Too often, especially in the southeastern U.S. where I
    live, fisheries stock assessments have high levels of uncertainty (if
    assessments are even available) due to unreliable or sparse fishery
    data. The uncertainty caused by use of questionable fishery data to
    inform the status of fisheries and make management decisions can have
    severe implications for fish stocks, anglers, businesses, communities
    and the economy. New technologies and modernized data collection would
    benefit recreational fisheries management by providing more accurate
    information to inform stock assessments and management decisions.
        Several efforts led by states in my region are underway to
    modernize recreational data collection and determine how new
    technologies can help improve data that feeds into fisheries stock
    assessments and management. The Gulf states created their own programs
    to improve recreational catch and effort estimates and address Marine
    Recreational Information Program (MRIP) shortcomings nearly a decade
    ago. These programs allowed for the Gulf states to be delegated
    authority to manage private angler harvest of Gulf red snapper in
    federal waters. With the Gulf states in charge of data collection and
    management of this fishery, recreational harvest access has drastically
    improved and management is tailored to local needs and trusted by
    anglers.
        In the South Atlantic, the State of Florida is currently using
    innovative technologies like cell phone apps as part of exempted
    fishing permit (EFP) research programs to collect much needed data from
    offshore recreational anglers, such as information on discards (fish
    that are caught and released rather than harvested). This information
    is critical because MRIP estimates of recreational discards are highly
    unreliable but have been cited by NOAA Fisheries as a major source of
    fishery mortality in fisheries such as Atlantic red snapper and black
    sea bass, and even used by NOAA Fisheries to justify a draconian
    proposal to close fishing for 55 species in a large area off east
    Florida to prevent anglers from catching and releasing red snapper.
    Better data to characterize recreational fisheries are critical to
    ensuring management actions are reasonable and appropriate to balance
    conservation and access.

                                     ______

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your helpful testimony, Ms.
    Guyas, and I now yield 30 seconds to Representative Begich to
    introduce his constituent, Ms. O'Connor.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my honor to
    Honored to introduce Ms. Jamie O'Connor, a fifth generation
    commercial fisherwoman from the Bristol Bay region of Alaska,
    and the Deputy Executive Director of the Alaska Marine
    Conservation Council.
        Jamie has worked every summer since age 12 on her family's
    salmon boat, and today she leads advocacy on behalf of small
    boat fishermen and fish-dependent communities across our State.
    Ms. O'Connor brings a unique, grounded perspective to this
    hearing. She understands firsthand how fisheries policy affects
    not just harvesters, but the fabric of coastal Alaska, from
    infrastructure to market access to generational continuity. Her
    voice is especially important at a time when small, independent
    fishermen are facing mounting uncertainty. I am glad the
    committee will have the benefit of her insight today.
        Ms. Hageman. I now recognize Ms. O'Connor for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF JAMIE O'CONNOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA MARINE
                CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

        Ms. O'Connor. Thank you, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member
    Hoyle, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee,
    and thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak to you
    today. And thank you, Congressman Begich, for your warm
    welcome.
        My name is Jamie O'Connor, and I am first a fifth-
    generation salmon fisherman from Ekuk Beach in Bristol Bay,
    Alaska. I also serve as the Deputy Executive Director of the
    Alaska Marine Conservation Council, or AMCC, a fisherman-
    founded and fisherman-run organization committed to ensuring
    Alaska's marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on
    them thrive for generations. Today I speak not only for myself,
    but for over 1,000 small boat fishermen across the country as a
    founding member organization of the Fishing Communities
    Coalition. I speak on behalf of rural coastal communities that
    rely on healthy oceans, and our message is simple: the future
    of America's seafood industry depends on a fully-funded and
    fully-staffed NOAA.
        Fishing is more than a job. It is a way of life. It is also
    a small business, a science-based profession, and a deeply
    rooted cultural identity. I fished on our family crew every
    summer since I was 12. I learned how to work, how to pay for
    university, and later bought a small home. Fishing is my
    American dream. But today that dream is harder to hold on to.
    In recent years Alaska lost $1.8 billion in seafood revenue.
    Profitability dropped by half. Nearly 7,000 fishing-related
    jobs disappeared. And now NOAA faces the most severe budget and
    staffing cuts in its history, compromising the systems our
    industry relies on.
        Let me be clear. This isn't red tape. It is the foundation
    of our food supply economy and the stability of our
    communities. NOAA's budget underpins virtually every part of
    the U.S. seafood supply chain. Cuts aren't just numbers on a
    spreadsheet. They are delayed surveys; outdated stock
    assessments; long waits for permits, loans, and disaster
    relief; weakened enforcement; and failure to modernize. Without
    timely science and vigorous oversight, we can't make good
    decisions, and we risk losing one of the last wild protein
    industries on Earth.
        Our working waterfronts continue to fall into disrepair
    nationwide. Processing plants, cold storage, boatyards, and
    fuel docks form the physical and economic backbone of U.S.
    seafood. When neglected, the community declines. In many
    coastal towns fishing is the only economic engine. Without it,
    families move away, unemployment rises, food insecurity
    increases, and generations of local knowledge is lost. We must
    treat working waterfronts as national strategic assets. I urge
    Congress to prioritize infrastructure projects that restore and
    expand waterfront economies through port and community
    development as well as public works programs.
        We also rely on other agencies. The Coast Guard is our
    lifeline at sea. NIOSH oversees critical safety training in one
    of America's most hazardous professions. The National Weather
    Service is responsible for the timely forecasts we use to make
    daily safety decisions. In fact, the cost of weather disasters
    we aren't prepared for far exceeds the cost of fully funding
    NOAA. Under-investment in these systems risks lives as well as
    billions of dollars of property and critical infrastructure.
        The USDA should also treat seafood as a core pillar of the
    American food system. I urge Congress to support the creation
    of a USDA office of seafood, and to ensure that seafood is
    fully integrated into USDA grant and loan opportunities, as
    well as nutrition and Federal purchase programs.
        The vast majority of U.S. fishing vessels are independent,
    family-owned small businesses. We are not asking for a handout.
    We are asking for a fair shot alongside the rest of America's
    food producers. We are business owners, laborers, and marine
    stewards. And right now many of us are working hard just to
    hold on.
        I see potential in the recent executive orders to restore
    America's seafood competitiveness. Increasing U.S. consumption
    of American seafood, investing in infrastructure, and
    streamlining regulatory barriers are all promising steps. But
    streamlining can't mean cutting corners. De-regulation and
    efficiency, done right, are thoughtful, strategic, and
    inclusive. Together we can build a system that works for fish,
    for business, and the country. But without a fully resourced
    NOAA, these investments won't reach our decks, your dinner
    plates, or the American economy.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. O'Connor follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Jamie O'Connor, Bristol Bay Salmon Harvester,
         Deputy Executive Director, Alaska Marine Conservation Council

        Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today. My
    name is Jamie O'Connor, and I am, first and foremost, a fifth-
    generation salmon fisherman from Ekuk Beach in Bristol Bay, Alaska. I
    also serve as the Deputy Executive Director of the Alaska Marine
    Conservation Council, or AMCC--a fishermen-founded and fishermen-run
    organization that, for over 30 years, has worked to protect the
    integrity of Alaska's marine ecosystems and ensure that fish-dependent
    communities can prosper for generations to come.
        AMCC is a founding member of the Fishing Communities Coalition,
    which represents more than 1,000 small-boat commercial fishermen from
    Alaska to Florida and Maine. Today, I speak on behalf of those
    fishermen--on behalf of the rural, coastal communities that rely on
    healthy oceans, fair access to fisheries, and a regulatory system that
    works with us rather than against us.
        My primary message for Congress at this moment is that America's
    fisheries and the communities that depend on them need the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to be fully staffed and
    funded. Amidst the exciting opportunity to refocus our efforts in
    support of domestic seafood producers, our future as fishermen has
    never felt so uncertain.
    Introduction & Personal Background
        My great-grandfather, and my first Captain, arrived in Alaska
    during the Great Depression. He used to say that during the peak of the
    Bristol Bay run, you could walk between the fishing sailboats on the
    backs of the sockeye. Standing on the shore of the Nushagak River, he
    felt awe, relief, and a deep sense of respect. ``This is God's
    country,'' he thought. ``This land will feed us.''
        And Alaska still feeds us. It produces more than 58% of the
    nation's seafood harvest and supports over $6 billion in annual
    economic activity. Commercial fisheries generate $183 billion
    nationwide and support 1.6 million jobs. This work--harvesting the
    healthiest, most sustainable protein in the world--is our American
    dream, passed down through generations. It is the backbone of coastal
    economies and family-owned businesses, sustaining schools, marine
    trades, and local commerce.
        Commercial fishing is more than a job. It is a lineage, a culture,
    and a deeply held identity. Every season, we pass knowledge between
    generations. We learn how to read weather, fix gear, clean fish, and
    anticipate the tide. These traditions anchor entire communities. I've
    fished as paid crew every summer since I was twelve. That income helped
    me get through University and buy a small home. I'm proud to be part of
    this industry that feeds our nation and the world.
        Picking salmon out of a net with the smell of tundra on the wind is
    my heritage and my Alaskan dream.
    Economic & Cultural Stakes
        Yet today, that dream is at risk. According to the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) latest Alaska Fisheries
    Economic Snapshot, between 2022 and 2023, we lost $1.8 billion in
    seafood revenue. Profitability dropped by half, and nearly 7,000
    fishing-related jobs disappeared between 2021 and 2023.
        NOAA's budget underpins virtually every aspect of the U.S. seafood
    supply chain. Funding reductions will have both immediate and long-term
    adverse effects on the economy and food supply, including disruptions
    to seafood data collection, a decline in fisheries science capacity,
    delays in disaster relief, compromised critical weather forecasting,
    weakened enforcement, and reduced support for seafood marketing and
    promotion.
        The number one barrier to restoring America's seafood
    competitiveness is uncertainty. While instability has a profound impact
    on the entire seafood supply chain, from processors to boat builders,
    retailers, and restaurants, America's substantial numbers of small-boat
    fishermen are particularly vulnerable to unstable trade policies,
    rising living costs, and decreased demand.
        Fuel prices and supply costs are squeezing razor-thin margins. At
    the same time, we're facing increasing competition from countries that
    don't meet U.S. environmental or labor standards, like Russia, which
    continues to undercut U.S. seafood prices while using the proceeds to
    fund its war in Ukraine.
        Independent seafood harvesters make up 97% of our nation's fishing
    vessels. These are small, often family-owned businesses. We work hard,
    not only on the water but at all the administrative and regulatory
    tasks required of any small business. Unlike many other sectors,
    fishermen wear multiple hats: we are business owners, laborers, food
    producers, and environmental stewards. We manage vessels, attend
    meetings advocating for regional and national regulations, navigate
    complex permitting systems, handle payroll and insurance, and operate
    in one of the most hazardous industries in America. We're not asking
    for a handout. We're asking for a fair shot. Strong, stable federal
    oversight is essential for profitable fishing businesses and healthy
    fish populations. Weather data and forecasting systems are essential
    for our safety and business operations. If this system collapses, we
    risk losing one of the last remaining wild protein industries on Earth.
        In Alaska and across the country, we are losing our working
    waterfronts, critical infrastructure--processors, cold storage,
    harbors, fish buyers--are disappearing. When these pieces go,
    communities hollow out. A recent study in Southeast Alaska found that
    the loss of infrastructure is directly correlated with the loss of
    fishery access: once permits and boats are gone, it's nearly impossible
    to revive commercial fishing. In roadless coastal Alaska, these
    fisheries are often the only economic engine available. The downstream
    effects are devastating: rising unemployment, outmigration, reduced
    access to traditional foods, and rapidly worsening health outcomes.
        Working waterfronts are the physical and economic foundation of the
    U.S. seafood supply chain and broader coastal economies nationwide.
    These spaces support not just fishing operations but the boatyards,
    fuel docks, processing facilities, port infrastructure, and
    transportation hubs that keep seafood moving from ocean to table, and
    underpin the coastal economy. They are vital to tourism, marine
    services, mariculture, and other coastal sectors. Without sustained
    access to the water and the data systems that enable us to interact
    with it safely and effectively, no investment in boats, science, or
    technology will be sufficient. Working waterfronts must be treated as
    national strategic assets. I urge Congress to prioritize infrastructure
    projects that expand and protect working waterfront access through the
    Port Infrastructure Development Program, Economic Development
    Administration Public Works grants, and Community Development Block
    Grants (CDBGs).
        We have seen what happens when fisheries are mismanaged or
    neglected. Communities die.
    NOAA/NMFS Capacity Crisis
        That's why I'm here today. We are at a crucial inflection point.
    Your choices will have long-ranging impacts. The federal systems that
    make our work possible--especially NOAA and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS)--are under serious strain, and the cracks are
    widening. These agencies do far more than issue reports. They provide
    the data, tools, and staffing that enable safe, science-based, and
    economically viable fisheries management.
        We rely on NOAA science not just for fishery management but for
    economic forecasting, subsistence planning, and climate adaptation.
    When NOAA is underfunded, it's not just data that's lost--it's
    capacity, credibility, and community resilience. It's economy,
    competitiveness, and food security. We are asking small, rural towns to
    survive rapid ecological and economic change without the tools to see
    it coming, and risking the significant benefits they provide to the
    nation.
        In Alaska, our fishery management councils rely on NOAA science to
    establish harvest limits that ensure sustainable fishing practices.
    Observer programs and emerging electronic monitoring technologies
    protect accountability. Permitting, rulemaking, and stakeholder
    engagement keep the entire system moving. And all of that feeds a
    stable, long-term food economy.
        But these core functions are faltering. Budget and staffing cuts
    are already delaying essential fishery surveys, stretching regulatory
    and enforcement staff, and stalling modernization of aging data
    systems. I hear directly from fishing families who are waiting too long
    for permit decisions, navigating outdated stock data, having essential
    loan programs delayed or revoked, and witnessing the decline in
    capacity at NOAA offices. This is not red tape--it is our food supply,
    our economic health, and the stability of entire regions.
        A strong, functioning NOAA and NMFS is not a luxury. It is a
    baseline requirement for a stable and competitive seafood industry.
    These agencies set the scientific and regulatory guardrails that allow
    the industry to operate sustainably, plan long-term investments, and
    access domestic and international markets with credibility. Without
    timely stock assessments, quota decisions, permit processing, and
    enforcement of standards, the seafood sector cannot function
    efficiently or fairly. Budget cuts and administrative delays at NOAA
    and NMFS not only slow down the government but also destabilize an
    entire food-producing industry.
        Without strong, science-based fisheries management, harvest
    decisions must be overly cautious to avoid the risk of
    overexploitation. Fishermen understand that when science says a stock
    is declining, we need to fish less to protect fish populations.
    However, if we are doing so due to a lack of scientific understanding
    and an accompanying increase in uncertainty, it could also leave
    valuable resources in the water and unnecessarily hinder the economic
    potential of fishing communities. Robust fisheries science is essential
    not only to maximize sustainable harvests but to ensure the long-term
    health of both fish stocks and the communities that depend on them.
    Without continued investment in accurate stock assessments, ecosystem
    monitoring, and adaptive management, we risk jeopardizing the
    resilience of our fisheries and the livelihoods of future generations.
    Without sufficient scientific data, we risk overlooking a stock's
    decline or growth, leading to unsustainable harvest rates or missed
    opportunities that could deplete resources, undermine economies, and
    erode future fishing opportunities.
        Strong fishery science also ensures we make the best decisions
    relating to overall resource development. Fish habitat must be
    meaningfully considered in federal permitting decisions, particularly
    those involving oil and gas development, timber sales, and large-scale
    water infrastructure. Healthy marine and freshwater habitats are the
    foundation of sustainable fisheries, and permitting processes must be
    aligned with long-term ecosystem and community resilience.
        Regional Fishery Management Councils play a crucial role in
    balancing sustainable harvests, maintaining ecosystem health, and
    addressing community needs across the nation's diverse fisheries. These
    councils bring together fishermen, scientists, managers, and
    stakeholders to develop and recommend locally informed, adaptive
    management plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (MSA). However, their effectiveness depends heavily on
    sufficient funding to support scientific research, public engagement,
    enforcement coordination, and timely decision-making. We urge Congress
    to provide increased and stable funding for the Councils to ensure they
    have the resources necessary to deliver sound, science-based management
    that protects fish stocks, supports fishing communities, and sustains
    the economic vitality of the U.S. seafood industry.
        Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that the cost of weather
    disasters for which we are unprepared far exceeds the cost of a fully
    funded NOAA and NMFS nationwide. Hurricanes, flooding, and other
    natural disasters experienced throughout the year across coastal
    America cause billions in property damage, threaten American lives, and
    disrupt both the economy and culture. NOAA programs are critical to
    ensuring we have the information we need to evacuate, reinforce, and
    protect communities and critical infrastructure.
    Executive Orders and Strategic Implementation
        I appreciate the intent of recent Executive Orders aimed at
    restoring America's seafood competitiveness. Expanding federal
    procurement of U.S.-harvested seafood, investing in infrastructure, and
    streamlining regulatory barriers are all urgently needed. These steps
    are promising, and with robust implementation, they can deliver
    tangible benefits to small-boat operators and coastal communities.
        Implementation matters. Without a fully resourced NOAA and NMFS,
    these investments will not reach the water. Small-boat operators are
    already worried about being sidelined by vague timelines and policy
    shifts that could favor consolidation. Streamlining should not mean
    removing the safeguards that protect small-scale access.
        Many of our existing fisheries regulations stem from public process
    and compromise, with many serving as revisions of prior rules to ensure
    policies remain adaptive and responsive to evolving management needs.
    Fishing regulations are often complex because they aim to balance the
    competing needs of diverse stakeholders while ensuring the long-term
    sustainability of the resource through tailored management approaches.
    NMFS already has the authority to review and revise outdated rules.
    Many fishermen would welcome updates that move us into the 21st
    century. Deregulation done well is strategic, fair, and inclusive. With
    targeted investments and collaborative rulemaking, we can modernize our
    seafood sector while maintaining high standards and community
    protections.
        Programs such as the Saltonstall-Kennedy Research and Development
    (SK) program already exist to support domestic seafood marketing and
    infrastructure. Unfortunately, this tariff-derived funding has been
    diverted by Congress to support NOAA's core functions, leaving very
    little leftover to pursue its intended goals. However, if congressional
    appropriations fully funded NOAA, SK's funds would be available to
    pursue the restoration of America's seafood through infrastructure,
    research, and marketing. Releasing these funds for their original
    purpose would jumpstart local economic development, job creation, and
    stronger domestic markets.
        Congress should also reauthorize and fund the Young Fishermen's
    Development Act (YFDA), which was passed thanks to the hard work of
    several members of this committee, including the late Don Young, and
    signed into law by President Trump in 2020. To ensure the next
    generation has the tools, training, and support they need to enter and
    sustain careers in fishing. Without targeted investment in young
    harvesters, we risk losing not just jobs but a way of life.
    Additional Federal Agency Support
        We also rely on other federal agencies to ensure our industry
    remains safe and operational. The U.S. Coast Guard is our lifeline at
    sea. Consistent funding for air and surface assets is vital, especially
    in Alaska, where a rescue can be hundreds of miles away. The National
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health administers commercial
    fishing safety programs, which are indispensable in one of the nation's
    most hazardous professions. Similarly, the National Weather Service
    must be supported to provide accurate forecasts and marine safety
    information.
        The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also plays a significant
    role. Seafood must be treated as a core pillar of the American food
    system. I urge Congress to fund the creation of a USDA Office of
    Seafood in the upcoming Farm Bill and to support full inclusion of
    seafood in federal nutrition and procurement programs. This will
    strengthen domestic demand, improve food security, and help stabilize
    our markets. These changes can unlock new economic opportunities,
    better integrate seafood into the national food strategy, and help
    address hunger with one of the healthiest proteins available.
        Fishermen are often excluded from the same level of support,
    investment, and recognition that other food producers receive.
    Directing resources from the USDA Regional Agricultural Promotion
    Program (RAPP) and the Community Project Funding process toward
    modernization of seafood processing plants, cold storage capacity,
    fleet upgrades, and workforce development would deliver outsized
    returns. Reforming the NOAA Fisheries Disaster Assistance process by
    aligning it more closely with USDA emergency and crop insurance
    programs would also improve access and fairness.
        The Seafood Tariff Relief Program (STRP), implemented during
    President Trump's first term, was an excellent example of the USDA's
    ability to swiftly and efficiently provide relief to fishermen
    negatively impacted by retaliatory tariffs imposed by foreign nations.
    We encourage Congress to view STRP as a valuable template to help
    independent harvesters weather current and future trade uncertainties.
        Empowering fishermen as entrepreneurs means providing access to
    small business support programs, low-interest loans, intergenerational
    succession planning, and workforce training, particularly for rural and
    Tribal communities. This is how you restore our engine for seafood
    competitiveness. We need to be recognized in policies targeting small
    business resilience and rural economic development. By viewing
    fishermen as small business leaders and rural economic drivers, we can
    build more resilient coastal economies for future generations.
        The Department of State, in coordination with NMFS, supports U.S.
    fisheries diplomacy, upholding our obligations in critical ongoing
    negotiations, such as the Pacific Salmon Treaty and Commission, the
    International Pacific Halibut Commission, the International Whaling
    Commission, and the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, among
    others. The work of these bodies must be fully supported to vigorously
    defend the United States' interests and leadership in global fisheries.
    MSA
        As you consider reauthorization of the MSA, I urge you to
    prioritize:

         Strengthening equity and access for rural and Indigenous
                communities.

         Elevating bycatch accountability and habitat protection.

         Supporting Tribal representation on councils.

         Reinvesting in entry pathways for young and community-
                based harvesters.

        The Act remains a strong framework, but we must modernize it to
    meet 21st-century challenges and ensure the next generation can
    participate.
        Representative Huffman's bill, Sustaining America's Fisheries for
    the Future Act, is a step in the right direction toward envisioning a
    modernized system that addresses the changes and challenges our
    fisheries are facing. We at AMCC and FCC stand ready to collaborate on
    an enduring MSA reauthorization that maintains our nation's leadership
    in fisheries management and sustainability for decades to come.
    Conclusion: Key Recommendations for Congress
        To support a resilient U.S. seafood economy, vibrant coastal
    communities, and sustainable fisheries, I respectfully urge Congress to
    take the following actions:
    House Natural Resources Committee Legislative Priorities
         Continue strong, bipartisan oversight of NOAA and NMFS.
                Support science-based management, accountability, and
                inclusive stakeholder engagement.

         Pass legislation to protect and expand working waterfronts
                as strategic national assets. Ensure continued access to
                the infrastructure needed for seafood production and
                coastal resilience.

         Promote cooperative fisheries research. Support
                partnerships between fishermen, scientists, and managers to
                improve outcomes and trust in the process.

         Protect essential fish habitat in federal permitting.
                Ensure fisheries values are considered in decisions on
                energy development, timber sales, and water use.

         Reauthorize the Young Fishermen's Development Act. Equip
                the next generation with tools for business succession,
                training, and workforce development.

         Advance reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)
                that:

                Strengthens bycatch accountability

                Enhances Tribal and community-based access

                Protects fish habitat

                Supports fairness and transparency in
            management

    Cross-Committee & Interagency Coordination Needs
         Establish a dedicated Office of Seafood within USDA.
                Coordinate with NOAA and elevate seafood within national
                food and trade policy.

         Support small-boat fishermen as entrepreneurs. Expand
                access to USDA and SBA programs for loans, business
                planning, and workforce development.

         Recognize seafood as a core pillar of U.S. food security.
                Include it in federal nutrition, procurement, and trade
                programs alongside other food producers.

    Appropriations Recommendations
         Fully fund NOAA and NMFS in FY26. Ensure timely stock
                assessments, regulatory processing, enforcement, and data
                modernization.

         Restore the purpose of the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K)
                program. Direct funds to marketing, innovation, and support
                for small-boat fisheries.

         Invest in working waterfront infrastructure.Leverage
                programs like the Port Infrastructure Development Program,
                EDA Public Works, and CDBGs.

         Reform and fund NOAA's Fisheries Disaster Assistance
                Program. Investiage models like crop insurance to better
                respond to fisheries disasters.

        Together, we can revitalize coastal economies, restore seafood
    competitiveness, and ensure the next generation of Americans continues
    to benefit from the ocean's abundance.
        Strong science, transparent rulemaking, and fair access are not
    anti-business--they are the very conditions that allow this industry to
    thrive. I'm proud to be part of a profession that feeds this country. I
    believe in the promise of a seafood system that is just, resilient, and
    deeply American.
        We are standing on the edge of a precipice. The decisions you make
    this year will determine whether coastal communities like mine continue
    to feed the country or become stories of what once was.
        Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak today. I look
    forward to your questions.

                                     ______

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Ms. O'Connor, and I now yield 30
    seconds to Representative Golden to introduce his constituent,
    Mr. Delano.
        Mr. Golden. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Delano is
    technically not a constituent of mine, but my wife hails from
    the region that he calls home. And there is no daylight between
    the fishermen that I represent in my congressional district and
    the fishermen in the rest of the State. The job they do is so
    important to the entire State that I really think of myself as
    a representative to every one of them, and I care about their
    communities and what they do.
        Dustin has 20-plus years of fishing experience, but in his
    family alone he has 4 generations of fishing knowledge standing
    behind him. Dustin is the real deal. He knows his trade and he
    loves it, but he has also put a lot of time into learning the
    regulatory and political process that affects his own and other
    fishing families and communities. And he has made a big
    decision to join NEFSA to bring his expertise to bear for the
    good of the fishing communities all over Maine, New England,
    and I think I can say even for fishing communities all around
    the country.
        So thanks for being here, Mr. Delano, and we look forward
    to hearing your testimony.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Delano for 5
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF DUSTIN DELANO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, NEW
     ENGLAND FISHERMEN'S STEWARDSHIP ASSOCIATION, SOUTH PORTLAND,
                                 MAINE

        Mr. Delano. Chair Hageman and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is
    Dustin Delano. I am the Chief Operating Officer of the New
    England Fishermen Stewardship Association and a fourth-
    generation lobster fisherman from Friendship, Maine.
        I started going out lobstering with my father as soon as I
    learned to walk. By the time I could fish commercially, I knew
    it wasn't just a job; it was a way of life. I spent over 20
    years learning not only the skills of the trade, but the values
    that define Maine's coastal communities. After a decade
    participating in the regulatory processes in Maine, I saw how
    disconnected policy had become from reality. That is why I
    stepped back from full-time fishing to help lead NEFSA, which
    now represents thousands of fishermen, dealers, processors, and
    communities across New England. Our mission is to bring
    fishermen's knowledge directly to the policymakers shaping our
    future.
        Before I go any further, I want to ask you all something,
    and I want you to really think about it. What is the one thing
    in your life that gives you purpose? Not a favorite food, not a
    favorite vacation spot, but the thing that defines who you are.
    Maybe it is your family. Maybe it is your work. Maybe it is
    something passed down through generations, a tradition that
    shaped your identity.
        Now imagine waking up every day knowing that the very thing
    that defines you, your livelihood, your heritage, your future
    is constantly at risk not because you have done anything wrong,
    not because the resource is gone, but because layer after layer
    of regulation has been stacked so high and so fast you can no
    longer see a clear path forward. That is the reality for many
    American fishermen today. Fishing isn't just what we do, it is
    who we are. But that identity is being regulated to the brink.
    Every new rule, every flawed quota, every rushed mandate sends
    the message that our way of life is completely expendable.
        President Trump's EO was an important step. It prioritizes
    American-harvested seafood, reduces regulatory burdens, and it
    supports cooperative science. That kind of leadership is what
    we need.
        One of the most urgent issues is the crisis in the ground
    fishery caused by over-regulation and flawed quota systems.
    Fishermen are expected to base their livelihoods on stock
    assessments from a single Federal vessel, the Bigelow, which
    consistently under-reports stock levels that leads to quota
    cuts that put fishermen out of business. That is why we need
    industry vessels participating in research.
        I have worked on the Maine Lobster Ventless Trap Survey
    myself, a successful collaboration between lobstermen and
    scientists. It builds trust with fishermen and gives us real-
    world data. Currently, a pilot program is in the works for
    industry vessels to do groundfish surveys. The project, if
    funded, would essentially extend the NEAMAP survey into Federal
    waters and adjust sampling based on real-world conditions like
    tides and moon phases.
        Another major challenge is the North Atlantic right whale
    regulations. No one questions the need to protect the species.
    Fishermen have made enormous sacrifices to help. We have
    modified our gear, reduced our lines, increased trawl lengths
    to reduce entanglements. But these changes come at a cost,
    financially and physically. The longer trawls we now use create
    dangerous working conditions. The weak links in our ropes can
    snap under tension, sometimes in our faces, creating serious
    safety risks.
        One of the most damaging changes has been the 1,000-square-
    mile closure off of Maine's coast, an area I fished for years.
    It was closed to meet whale protection goals, but by the time
    it reopens the lobsters have moved offshore into places we
    can't access, and the winter conditions make gear shifting
    nearly impossible. We are shut out during the most productive
    season, left chasing what has already gone.
        We need a real solution. We need real solutions, solutions
    that protect whales and fishermen. One promising tool is non-
    invasive whale tagging, which has been successful in the
    southern hemisphere. With real-time location data, we could
    avoid conflict zones more accurately instead of relying on
    broad closures that don't reflect reality. Fortunately, Maine
    is developing a strong, congressionally-funded whale risk
    assessment model. But unless the current regulatory process is
    extended, these restrictions will return before the science is
    ready.
        Lastly, I want to quickly mention the gray zone near
    Machias Seal Island, a territorial disputed area where U.S.
    fishermen face strict regulations, while in some cases Canadian
    vessels operate freely. It is not just unfair, it is
    unsustainable. Our fishermen are playing by strict U.S. rules
    while Canadian-caught seafood enters our markets unchecked. We
    need to move toward co-management at the very least, but
    ideally assert full U.S. sovereignty and resolve this dispute
    with Canada.
        We are not asking for a free pass. We are asking for
    fairness. Because when regulation erases your ability to fish,
    to plan, to provide, you are not just losing your job, you are
    losing your identity, your future, and your community. And that
    is a loss this country cannot afford.
        I am proud of my heritage, and I want future generations to
    have the chance to fish these waters, earn a living, and keep
    our coastal culture alive. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Delano follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Mr. Dustin Delano, Chief Operating Officer,
                New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association

        Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and Members of the
    Subcommittee--thank you for hosting this hearing. On behalf of the New
    England Fishermen's Stewardship Association (``NEFSA''), I appreciate
    the opportunity to supplement the record with written testimony.
        My name is Dustin Delano, and I am the Chief Operating Officer of
    the New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association, or NEFSA, and a
    fourth-generation lobster fisherman from Friendship, Maine. I began
    going out on the water with my father from the time I could walk, and
    by the time I was old enough to fish commercially, I knew it was more
    than a job--it was a way of life passed down through generations. My
    father, relatives, and close friends still fish from the same harbor,
    and I've spent over 20 years working alongside them, learning not only
    the trade but the values and resilience that define Maine's fishing
    communities.
        Over the past decade, I became deeply involved in the regulatory
    process and saw firsthand how disconnected many policies were from the
    realities we face on the water. Too often, the voices of working
    fishermen were absent from the conversations that shape our futures.
    That's why I made the difficult decision to step back from full-time
    fishing and take on a new role at the New England Fishermen's
    Stewardship Association (NEFSA). I believe this space needs more input
    from those of us who have lived the challenges, adapted through
    generations, and care deeply about both the sustainability of our
    fisheries and the communities that depend on them.
        My goal now is to bring the practical needs and lived experiences
    of fishermen directly to policymakers in Washington, D.C. I want to
    ensure that the heritage I was born into--and the hope I have for
    future generations--remains strong, vibrant, and a cornerstone of our
    coastal economy and culture.
        NEFSA is a fishing advocacy group that represents wild harvesters
    in fisheries across New England communities. Founded in Spring 2023,
    NEFSA boasts over 850 members across New England, which means that it
    represents the interests of thousands of fishermen and harvesters, many
    of whom work with, for, or alongside NEFSA's members. NEFSA is
    dedicated to educating the public about how best to manage our seafood
    resources through sound science and the best conservation practices
    used by fishermen, with a view toward economic well-being, ecosystem
    sustainability, and U.S. food security.
        In April 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14276, which
    is titled ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.'' This
    Executive Order, which was enthusiastically welcomed by fishermen and
    harvesters throughout the Nation, marks a long-needed National effort
    to prioritize U.S.-harvested seafood, reduce crippling regulatory
    burdens on the fishing industry, and advance cooperative science
    designed to take advantage of the knowledge base held by the fishermen
    who know the waters better than any other group. This Executive Order
    offers an extraordinary opportunity to make meaningful, lasting changes
    to federal fisheries management and science.
        Given both my generations' long knowledge base and that of the
    fishermen and harvesters I represent, I respectfully offer the
    following for the Subcommittee's consideration.
        The Overregulation-Driven New England Groundfish Fishery Crisis. As
    President Trump's Executive Order notes, ``[m]ost American fish stocks
    are healthy and have viable markets,'' but ``seafood is one of the most
    heavily regulated sectors in the United States.'' \1\ Indeed,
    ``[f]ederal overregulation has restricted fishermen from productively
    harvesting American seafood including through restrictive catch limits,
    selling our fishing grounds to foreign offshore wind companies,
    inaccurate and outdated fisheries data, and delayed adoption of modern
    technology.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Executive Order 14276, ``Restoring American Seafood
    Competitiveness,'' available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
    presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-american-seafood-
    competitiveness/.
        \2\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the largest--and most flawed--drivers of overregulation is
    the belief that quota systems will preserve the Country's seafood
    stock. Simply put, the federal government has, for decades, enforced
    caps on the amount of a particular catch that a person fishing or
    harvesting may bring in. The thought is that imposing quotas will leave
    enough stock of any particular aquatic species to allow that species to
    reproduce at levels that will replace the number harvested. While
    perhaps well intentioned, ever-aggravating quota reductions are driving
    American groundfishermen out of business.
        The single biggest problem with the way in which the federal quota
    system currently operates is chronically dreadful stock assessments. At
    the risk of over-simplification, the quota system operates by assessing
    the stock of an aquatic species, determining the level of stock
    necessary to result in replacement-level species production, and then
    capping the amount of catch to keep the stock at that level. But the
    adage ``garbage in, garbage out,'' applies with full force to this
    process.
        The main culprit with this persistently shoddy data collection is
    the Bigelow, NOAA's only fisheries survey vessel. The Bigelow has never
    effectively surveyed aquatic-life data off the coast of New England,
    which means that it always underreports the stock levels in those
    waters.
        Underreporting stock levels, in turn, result in drastically reduced
    quotas. And drastically reduced quotas, naturally, result in out-of-
    work groundfishermen, who are no longer allowed to harvest at levels
    necessary to make ground fishing a lucrative (or even profitable)
    venture.
        The solution is straightforward and easily implemented. Unlike in
    years past when NOAA was the only source of stock information,
    involving fishermen like NEFSA's members to provide industry-sourced
    data and incorporating cooperative research efforts into stock
    assessments will provide a more accurate picture of the health of fish
    stocks and support fairer quotas. To be certain, there is no group more
    dedicated to the longevity of aquatic life than the fishermen who earn
    their livelihoods through America's oceans. And there is no group with
    a greater--yet still untapped--knowledge base as to how best preserve
    it.
        Right Whale Protections and the Regulatory Threat to the New
    England Lobster Industry. Another regulatory threat looms large on the
    horizon. This one is specific to the lobster industry. It is,
    unfortunately, another example of how a good intentioned, but poorly
    reasoned, preservation regulation can cause far more harm than the
    paltry good it accomplishes.
        No one--especially no lobsterman--doubts the need to ensure the
    survival of the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. But collateral
    damage must be mitigated, and the drastic over--reactionary mitigation
    efforts nearly shuttered the New England lobster industry two years
    ago. Thankfully, Congress provided a six-year pause in the
    implementation of those measures, but the day is soon coming when that
    reprieve will sunset and the severe restriction may resume. When that
    happens, the iconic American lobster industry may find itself flirting
    with extinction.
        Simply put, the timeline set by the Atlantic Large Whale Take
    Reduction Team (``ALWTRT'') is overly aggressive. There is no reason to
    believe that it will increase Right Whale protection to any great
    extent, but there is every reason to believe that it will cripple the
    work of America's lobstermen. Most importantly, there are other options
    that, again, will benefit from industry participation in the decision-
    making process.
        Most critically, better data is needed. And better data is coming.
    Specifically, the State of Maine is developing a robust,
    congressionally funded whale risk assessment model. It will not,
    however, be ready before the congressional reprieve expires and the
    draconian take-reductions regulations snap back. Extending the pause,
    in turn, would allow Maine to complete this model in enough time for it
    to be incorporated into federal Right Whale risk assessments. Thus,
    doing so ensures that Right Whale protection is maximized while
    collateral damage on America's lobster harvesters is minimized.
        Also, NEFSA offers its unconditional support for the use of non-
    invasive tagging technology. This method has been successfully
    implemented to track Southern Right Whales, and there is no reason to
    believe that the same would not hold true for North Atlantic Right
    Whales. Employing this technology would pay tremendous dividends. It
    has not only proved effective in locating new calving grounds, but it
    can also help track whale movements with much greater precisions, which
    translates into a reduction in conflicts with fisheries.
        Overregulation in the ``Gray Zone.'' An express purpose of
    President Trump's Executive Order is to ``level the unfair playing
    field that has benefited foreign fishing companies.'' \3\ There is
    likely no greater example of the current unlevel playing field than
    what has become known colloquially as the ``Gray Zone.'' The issues
    arising from the Gray Zone are crying out for attention.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Gray Zone is a maritime region surrounding Machias Seal Island.
    It is located between Maine and New Brunswick, Canada. Since 2002,
    Canadian fishing pressure in the area has grown significantly, placing
    strain on shared marine resources. From the American perspective, this
    has led to ecological and economic damage, particularly concerning
    lobster and ground fish stocks.
        The reason is obvious. American fishermen remain bound by stringent
    U.S. conservation regulations. Canadian fishermen are not. Thus,
    American fishermen work the same waters as their Canadian counterparts
    at an unfair disadvantage while Canadian vessels exploit looser rules.
    The result is a one-sided depletion of resources that U.S. policy was
    designed to protect. In other words, American fishermen suffer all the
    collateral damage of overregulation, while the sustainability purpose
    of the regulation is entirely thwarted.
        This is no small matter. The Gray Zone spans roughly 210 square
    nautical miles. And despite various diplomatic discussions and mapping
    efforts, the two countries have never submitted the dispute to
    international arbitration. It remains, and for the foreseeable future
    will remain, a flashpoint for enforcement, conservation, and
    sovereignty debates.
        The regulatory disparities are, similarly, not inconsequential. For
    lobsters, American harvesters are not allowed to keep lobsters that are
    either too small or too large. Canadian harvesters, in contrast, labor
    under no similar limits. Canadian lobstermen harvest year-round;
    American lobstermen may not. And, most critically, Canadian lobstermen
    can--and do, enthusiastically--export these lobsters to U.S. markets.
    In other words, the Gray Zone regulations on American lobstermen net
    out all burden, and no benefit.
        The same is true for halibut fishermen. Recently, U.S. halibut
    industry was saddled with drastic quota reductions, stricter size
    limits, shorter seasons, and limits on trips. Canadian halibut
    fishermen operating in the Gray Zone, by contrast, may keep more
    halibut, keep smaller halibut, and fish for halibut during more
    frequent and longer trips. Again, the burden is borne entirely by the
    American industry, and none of the conservation goals are coming close
    to being accomplished.
        Cooperative Research is a must for accurate fisheries regulation.
    We can not emphasize enough, the critical need for cooperative research
    as a cornerstone of effective and accurate fisheries regulation. For
    too long, fisheries management has relied heavily on incomplete or
    outdated data, often collected without sufficient engagement from the
    very individuals who spend their lives on the water. My own experience
    participating in the Maine Ventless Trap
        Survey--a collaborative effort that pairs lobstermen with
    scientists to collect data on juvenile lobster abundance--has
    demonstrated the immense value of leveraging fishermen's firsthand
    knowledge and access. This partnership not only enhances the scientific
    understanding of stock health, but builds trust and transparency
    between regulators, scientists, and the fishing community.
        We need to see this model extended to other fisheries, especially
    the groundfish sector, where assessments have often been contentious
    and disconnected from the daily observations of working fishermen.
    Groundfishermen must be integrated more directly into the data
    collection and research process to ensure stock assessments reflect
    reality and not just theoretical models.
        Fishermen are out on the water every day--they observe trends,
    habitat changes, and species interactions that cannot be captured
    through infrequent surveys alone. Empowering fishermen to be stewards
    of data, not just subjects of regulation, will lead to more responsive
    management, more resilient fisheries, and a greater sense of shared
    responsibility for the long-term sustainability of our marine
    resources.
    Recommendations for Future Fisheries Policy

        For all these reasons, I offer the following recommendations:

         Include fishing-industry voices in all aspects of American
                fishery regulation, including (but not limited) with regard
                to stock assessment, research programs, and the rollout of
                President Trump's ``Restoring American Seafood
                Competitiveness'' Executive Order.

         Pursue deregulatory initiatives with input from regional
                fishery management councils and commercial fishermen.

         Promote USA-landed seafood in federal purchasing and
                national branding.

         Mandate a formal review of existing marine monuments and
                their impact on fisheries.

         Assert full sovereignty over the Gray Zone and move to
                formally settle the dispute between the United States and
                Canada.

         Expand Cooperative Research to better inform stock
                assessments and policy.

                                     ______

     Questions Submitted for the Record to Dustin Delano, Chief Operating
            Officer, New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association

             Questions Submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman

        Question 1. Mr. Delano, the President's Executive Order,
    ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,'' directs the Secretary
    of Commerce to work with the Secretary of Agriculture to ``develop and
    implement an America First Seafood Strategy to promote production,
    marketing, sale, and export of United States fishery and aquaculture
    products and strengthen domestic processing capacity.'' In your
    opinion, how could the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program help advance this
    effort?

        Answer. Chairman Bruce Westerman and Members of the Subcommittee on
    Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries,

        The New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association (NEFSA)
    appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the role of the
    Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Grant Program in supporting the President's
    Executive Order, ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.'' As
    directed, this order tasks the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination
    with the Secretary of Agriculture, to develop and implement an America
    First Seafood Strategy to promote the production, marketing, sale, and
    export of United States fishery and aquaculture products, and to
    strengthen domestic processing capacity.
        NEFSA believes the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program is uniquely
    positioned to advance these objectives, provided that certain strategic
    adjustments are made to more fully align the program with industry
    needs and the realities of the domestic seafood marketplace.
    1. Enhanced Industry Engagement in Funding Prioritization
        NEFSA strongly supports the inclusion of direct fishing industry
    representation in setting funding priorities for the S-K Program. Too
    often, funding decisions have been shaped without sufficient input from
    those actively engaged in harvesting, processing, and marketing U.S.
    seafood. By establishing structured, recurring opportunities for
    fishermen, processors, and seafood business leaders to participate in
    priority-setting, the S-K Program can ensure its investments address
    the most pressing challenges and opportunities confronting the
    industry.
    2. Strategic Emphasis on Domestic Market Development
        A core pillar of the America First Seafood Strategy must be the
    expansion of domestic consumption of U.S. seafood products. The S-K
    Program should allocate a significant portion of its resources to
    initiatives that:

         Promote consumer awareness of the nutritional,
                environmental, and economic benefits of domestic seafood;

         Develop innovative marketing campaigns to elevate demand
                for underutilized species and regionally distinctive
                seafood products;

         Support product development that responds to evolving
                consumer preferences for convenience, sustainability, and
                traceability; and

         Facilitate partnerships with food service, retail, and
                institutional buyers to expand domestic seafood offerings.

    3. Investment in Domestic Processing Capacity and Infrastructure
        To reduce reliance on foreign processing and strengthen domestic
    supply chain resilience, the S-K Program should prioritize projects
    that:

         Modernize domestic seafood processing facilities through
                technology adoption and capital investment;

         Support workforce development and training programs to
                build technical skills in seafood processing and value-
                added production;

         Assist small and medium enterprises in overcoming
                logistical, regulatory, and capital barriers to growth; and

         Encourage innovation in packaging, cold storage, and
                distribution that can extend product shelf-life and expand
                market reach.

    4. Support for Export Expansion and Global Competitiveness
        While enhancing domestic consumption is critical, international
    markets also offer significant growth potential for U.S. seafood
    products. The S-K Program should work in collaboration with trade
    agencies to:

         Assist businesses in navigating export certification and
                regulatory requirements;

         Develop market intelligence and branding initiatives to
                promote U.S. seafood abroad; and

         Support participation in international trade shows, trade
                missions, and partnership development.

    5. Simplification of the Grant Process to Broaden Participation
        Finally, NEFSA recommends that the S-K Program simplify its
    application and reporting requirements to facilitate broader
    participation, particularly from small businesses, individual
    harvesters, and community-based organizations. Technical assistance
    should be made readily available to help applicants navigate the
    federal grant process.
        In conclusion, the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program has the potential to
    serve as a central tool in realizing the objectives of the America
    First Seafood Strategy. By incorporating industry leadership, focusing
    on domestic demand stimulation, investing in processing infrastructure,
    supporting export growth, and improving program accessibility, the S-K
    Program can meaningfully advance the competitiveness, resilience, and
    sustainability of the U.S. seafood sector.

                                     ______

        Ms. Hageman. Very powerful testimony, thank you for that.
        I now yield 30 seconds to Representative Begich to
    introduce his constituent, Mr. Hunter.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to
    introduce fellow Alaskan and someone whose leadership is deeply
    rooted in one of the most fisheries-dependent regions in the
    country, Mr. Larson Hunter.
        Mr. Hunter is the Chairman of the Coastal Villages Region
    Fund, the largest of Alaska's community development quota
    groups, representing more than 9,000 residents across 20
    villages in western Alaska. He also serves as the City Manager
    of Scammon Bay, a remote community near the mouth of the Yukon
    River.
        Mr. Hunter's personal journey from growing up in a
    subsistence household in Scammon Bay to leading one of the most
    important economic development institutions in our State is a
    powerful example of what fisheries-based opportunity can mean
    for rural Alaska. His testimony reflects the on-the-ground
    reality of our communities, that commercial fishing is not just
    an industry but a pathway to self-determination and stability.
    I am grateful that he is here today to share that perspective.
        Thank you for making the long trip from Alaska.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Hunter for 5
    minutes.

     STATEMENT OF LARSON HUNTER, CHAIRMAN, COASTAL VILLAGES REGION
                       FUND, SCAMMON BAY, ALASKA

        Mr. Hunter. Congressman Begich, thank you for that.
        Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    invitation to discuss the presidential executive order,
    Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness. I am the City
    Manager of Scammon Bay, Alaska, population 660. I am also the
    Chairman of the Board of Directors of Coastal Villages Region
    Fund. I am here today on behalf of CVRF.
        CVRF is a non-profit that participates in Western Alaska
    Community Development Quota program, or CDQ, which is part of
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We serve more than 9,000 people in 20
    communities. CVRF owns and operates vessels in the Bering Sea
    pollock, cod, and crab fisheries. Our annual revenue ranges
    from 70 to 90 million which funds jobs, benefits, and programs
    that we create in our communities.
        CDQ creates opportunities that would not otherwise exist.
    My life story is a testament to that. I grew up poor in western
    Alaska. There aren't many jobs and there are times we didn't
    have a lot to eat. I have always looked forward to school in
    the fall because they served us breakfast and lunch. When I was
    12 our toilet had broken and we could not afford a new one. I
    emptied the honey bucket for a few years until I got a job
    after high school, and the first thing I bought was a toilet.
    Soon after, I received a CVRF scholarship and went to college
    for an IT degree that turned into a full-time job and several
    promotions at CVRF. I eventually became the quota manager. Then
    I moved back to Scammon Bay to start a family. My wife and I
    agreed that we would raise our kids in the village with
    subsistence hunting and gathering and living by the seasons. It
    is full of challenges, but very rewarding. I also wanted to
    help CDQ do more for others, so I ran for a CVRF board seat in
    2016, and today I am grateful for the opportunity to serve as
    the chairman.
        When CDQ first started in the early nineties we had one
    staffer renting space in the city of Scammon Bay. By 2004 my
    internship started there, and 13 CVRF employees were in our
    region helping residents access benefits and programs. Today we
    have more than 100 people working full-time jobs in our
    communities. We have paid them over $4 million in wages last
    year. To put this into perspective, that is 100 families that
    are not on public assistance. Without CDQ, the alternative in
    our region is usually food stamps.
        Many of our employees work at our mechanic welder shops,
    repairing outboards, ATVs, and snow machines that people use
    for subsistence. Before CVRF opened up these shops, you had to
    fix your broken machines by yourself or send it back to
    Anchorage, which few could afford. Some of our residents work
    out on the Bering Sea vessels, including some newer hires that
    have come through our maritime training program. Other CDQ
    groups have similar stories.
        Together we create and support thousands of jobs and
    millions of dollars in wages that weren't there before and
    won't be there if we are gone. Commercial fishing in the Bering
    Sea, especially for Alaska pollock, funds all of this. Beyond
    CDQ there are over 140 coastal communities in Alaska alone that
    are seafood-dependent. This includes America's largest seafood
    ports like Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, and many smaller
    communities around the State. There are about 48,000 direct
    seafood jobs in Alaska, and the seafood sector is our state's
    largest employer.
        Naturally, commercial fishing supports more than a million
    jobs, mostly in coastal and rural communities. Commercial
    fishing and processing is a major part of rural tax base in
    Alaska, too. Several boroughs in Alaska depend on fish taxes
    for a majority of their revenue. Alaska accounts for 60 percent
    of America's domestic harvest and 70 percent that is exported.
    We are unusually dependent on world markets, which is why trade
    provisions in the recent executive order are important.
        A seafood executive order comes at a critical time. Alaska
    seafood is struggling to compete against non-market economies
    like China and Russia. The Russians are massively subsidizing
    new fishing fleets. They even require their fishing companies
    to buy these new vessels if they want quota. As a result, the
    Russian pollock harvest has increased from 1.75 million tons to
    2.46 million tons since 2021, while the U.S. harvest level
    remains steady and sustainable.
        Also, the United States remains the single most expensive
    place to build new large fishing vessels. It costs about three
    times more to build new vessels here than it does overseas. We
    compete in global markets against fishing companies with
    significantly lower capital costs. Hopefully, Congress and the
    President can address some of these issues through legislation
    and trade policies that levels the playing field for U.S.
    producers. The economic, health, and the fisheries of our
    coastal communities depends on it.
        Madam Chair, members of this Committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to speak before you. I hope my story will offer a
    new and unique perspective on these issues, and I will answer
    any questions you have for me.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Larson Hunter, Chairman, Coastal Villages Region
               Fund Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

        Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    invitation to discuss the President's Executive Order ``Restoring
    American Seafood Competitiveness'' and how Congress and the
    Administration can support this important American industry that so
    many communities rely on.
        My name is Larson Hunter. I am the City Manager for the City of
    Scammon Bay, Alaska which is a village of 600 people in western Alaska,
    just below where the Yukon River drains into the Bering Sea. I am also
    Chairman of the Board of Directors of Coastal Villages Region Fund. I
    am here today representing Coastal Villages.
    CDQ PROGRAM SUPPORTS RURAL COMMUNITIES
        Coastal Villages Region Fund, or CVRF, is a non-profit that
    participates in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program,
    which is part of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congress added CDQ to the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996. Since then, the vision of the late Don
    Young and Ted Stevens has ensured that the economic bounty of the
    Bering Sea is enjoyed by all Bering Sea communities, not only America's
    largest seafood port at Dutch Harbor. CDQ sets aside 10 percent of the
    Bering Sea's federal fishery harvests for 65 western Alaska
    communities, which are organized into six non-profits commonly known as
    ``CDQ groups.'' These groups monetize their quota and, at Congress's
    direction, use those revenues to invest in Bering Sea fisheries and
    deliver economic development programs for their residents.
        CVRF is the largest CDQ group, serving more than 9000 people across
    20 villages. CVRF is also the only CDQ group that wholly owns and
    operates vessels in the Bering Sea pollock, cod, and crab fisheries.
    Our vessels include the Northern Hawk, an Alaska pollock catcher-
    processor, two Pacific cod freezer-longliners, two crab boats, and
    several pollock catcher-vessels. We have also invested in a pollock
    mothership and 15 other pollock catcher-vessels, nine of which we
    manage. Before the current downturn in the seafood industry, these
    operations produced about $90 million in annual revenue, two-thirds of
    which came from the pollock fishery. Today, with crab stocks recovering
    but still historically low, pollock represents an even higher
    percentage of our revenue. Depending on global markets and harvest
    levels, we usually spend $8-15 million on our economic development
    programs.
        America's seafood industry provides an important economic
    foundation for rural communities around the country. Western Alaska is
    one of America's poorest and most remote regions. Yet through
    investments in the seafood industry, the CDQ program creates
    opportunities for western Alaska residents to be economically
    independent. I'd like to share my story as an example.
        I grew up poor in western Alaska. We often kept the lights turned
    off in the spring until commercial fishing began and we had some income
    to pay for electricity. I ate Pilot Bread crackers for breakfast in the
    summer. School was great because I got a free breakfast and lunch. We
    had a honeybucket for eight years after our toilet broke. The first
    thing I ever bought with my own money was a new toilet for the house.
        By the time I graduated from high school, the CDQ program had come
    to Scammon Bay and I was able to attend college in Anchorage on a CVRF
    scholarship. I learned IT skills and got an internship at CVRF'S main
    office in Anchorage. That internship soon became a full-time job. I
    went from IT Intern to Business Development Coordinator to Fisheries
    Coordinator to Quota Manager. I eventually moved back to Scammon Bay to
    raise my family. The skills I learned at CVRF have helped me succeed as
    City Manager there. In 2016, I won a community election to join CVRF's
    Board. Today, I am grateful for the opportunity to serve western Alaska
    as the President of CVRF's Board of Directors.
        My journey, and so many others' in rural Alaska, was made possible
    through the CDQ program by a sustainable commercial fishing industry,
    fair market access for American seafood products, and a reliable
    regulatory environment at the Fishery Management Councils. President
    Trump's seafood executive order reinforces the importance of this
    industry to American communities.
    GROWTH OF CDQ FUELED BY THE BERING SEA
        When CDQ first started in the early 1990's, CVRF helped local
    fishermen find halibut in Scammon Bay. Now halibut is a staple of our
    subsistence diet. CVRF had one staffer renting space in the city office
    back then. By 2004 there were 13 CVRF employees in our region, helping
    residents access benefits programs. Today, we have more than a hundred
    people working full time in our communities. We pay them $4 million in
    wages. Many of them work at our mechanic/welder shops, repairing the
    outboards, ATVs, and snow machines that people use for subsistence. I
    believe we have the only non-dealership facilities in North America
    offering Honda warranty repairs and they are all the way out in western
    Alaska. I want to thank Honda Powersports for working with us to help a
    region that relies so heavily on their products. Some of our residents
    work on CVRF's Bering Sea vessels, too, including newer hires who came
    up through our maritime training program.
        Other CDQ groups have similar stories of supporting their residents
    and delivering economic development programs in their regions of
    western Alaska. Together, we create and support thousands of jobs and
    millions of dollars in wages that weren't there before CDQ and won't be
    there if CDQ goes away. Commercial fishing in the Bering Sea,
    especially for Alaska pollock, funds all of these efforts.
    COASTAL COMMUNITIES RELY ON SEAFOOD ECONOMY
        CDQ is critically important to western Alaska villages, but there
    are over 140 coastal communities in Alaska alone that are seafood
    dependent. This includes some of America's largest seafood ports, like
    Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, and the 65 Alaska Native villages in the CDQ
    program, almost all of which have populations less than one thousand
    people.
        There are about 48,000 direct seafood jobs in Alaska and the
    seafood sector is our state's largest employer. Nationally, fishing
    supports more than a million jobs, mostly in coastal, often rural
    communities. Commercial fishing and processing is a major part of the
    rural tax base in Alaska, too. Several boroughs in Alaska depend on
    fish taxes for a majority of their revenue. Alaska accounts for more
    than 60% of America's domestic seafood harvest, and 70% of that is
    exported. Alaska seafood is unusually dependent on world markets, which
    is why the trade provisions in the recent Executive Order are so
    important.
    PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER
        The President's Seafood Executive Order comes at a critical time.
    CVRF welcomes the EO's focus on both unfair trade practices and the
    domestic regulatory environment. The Alaska seafood industry is
    struggling to compete against non-market economies like China and
    Russia. In 2020, as part of the Phase One Agreement on trade between
    the U.S. and China, China agreed to buy more U.S. seafood but never
    followed through on its commitment. Their imports of Alaska pollock
    actually dropped by more than 50%, while Russian pollock imports have
    grown.
        Russia has provided massive subsidies to build out new fishing
    fleets. They even require their fishing companies to buy these new
    vessels in exchange for fishing quotas. As a result, the Russian
    pollock harvest has increased from 1.74 to 2.46 million tons since
    2021. We believe this is an unsustainable harvest level and it has
    flooded global markets with cheaply produced and highly subsidized
    seafood. Alaska pollock from America is sustainably harvested and our
    employees earn a living wage, but consumers in Europe don't know if
    their pollock comes from Russia because of labeling rules that obscure
    the origin. Most European consumers think all their pollock comes from
    Alaska, but it's not the case.
        While we understand the policy behind the Jones Act, the United
    States remains the single most expensive place to build a new large
    fishing vessel. It costs about 3 times more to build a fishing vessel
    here than overseas. That's a huge disadvantage when new catcher-
    processors cost hundreds of millions of dollars and the aging U.S.
    fleet needs to be re-capitalized. Unlike participants in the coastwise
    trade, we compete in global markets with international fishing
    companies who enjoy much lower capital costs. Unfortunately, the U.S.
    government cannot force these competitors to build their vessels in the
    U.S. and we cannot pass on our higher capital costs, resulting in
    unfair competition.
        Attached to my testimony is a March 2025 comment from the At-Sea
    Processors Association and the Pacific Seafood Processors Association
    to USTR in regards to unfair trade practices. It goes into greater
    detail about the trade challenges facing the Alaska seafood industry
    and the issues we hope the Administration can address through bilateral
    trade negotiations, section 301 investigations, and other means.
    America's coastal communities, including communities throughout Alaska
    and those in the CDQ program, need progress on these issues.
        On the regulatory front, the North Pacific Council does a good job
    managing the Bering Sea fisheries. CVRF urges Congress to maintain
    budgetary support for the Councils and the NOAA functions that support
    their work, including surveys and stock assessments, and especially
    including the personnel necessary to perform these functions. Reducing
    the financial and human resources available to NOAA's core fisheries
    management functions puts America's seafood economy and coastal
    communities at risk.
        That said, there are some issues in the North Pacific region where
    NOAA could be more transparent, efficient and fair, such as cost
    recovery in limited access programs, including the CDQ program.
    Industry has approached NOAA through the North Pacific Council and we
    are hopeful our concerns will be addressed.
        Hopefully, Congress and the President can address the important
    trade and regulatory issues through legislation, trade policy, and
    efficient regulation that levels the playing field for U.S. seafood
    producers and maintains core fishery management functions. The economic
    health of America's coastal communities depends on it.

        [The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Hunter
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250604/118330/HHRG-
    119-II13-Wstate-HunterL-20250604-SD004.pdf

                                    ------

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much. I want to thank each of
    the witnesses for your testimony, and I am now going to
    recognize the members for 5 minutes each for questions. I am
    going to begin with myself.
        Mr. Hunter, very interesting information that you have
    provided. In your testimony you state that, given the
    challenges that the seafood industry in Alaska is facing,
    President Trump's executive order comes at a critical time.
    Broadly, can you share your perspective on how the executive
    order can help the seafood industry in Alaska?
        Mr. Hunter. Madam Chair, I believe the term equaling fair
    trade will open the door to making things fairer for us. We
    have got a large concern with what the Russians are doing. My
    understanding is they are increasing their fleet. They play by
    different rules than we do. We are heavily regulated, we have
    got rules we need to follow. If we could level the playing
    field, I think being competitive with Russia down the road in
    the future is in our best interest.
        Ms. Hageman. What other factors should Congress be looking
    at to further encourage fishing and seafood in the United
    States?
        Mr. Hunter. Could you repeat the question, please?
        Ms. Hageman. Sure. Are there other factors or ideas that
    Congress should be looking to to help your industry?
        Mr. Hunter. Well, we have got many challenges, and one of
    the biggest challenges we have is bycatch in our region. It is
    an ongoing issue. We struggle locally with the salmon issue.
    And I think Congress, if they were able to fund more into
    research, into what the causes are, I think that would be a
    great impact to our region.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Delano, I agree with you about over-
    regulation in this country. And not only does it affect your
    industry, it affects many industries across the board, but I do
    know that the fishing and lobstering industry have been hit
    especially hard. The lack of adequate data is directly linked
    to how many fish or how much seafood, how many lobster you can
    catch. And this executive order from Mr. Trump makes it clear
    that no one needs to reprioritize the critical work such as
    stock assessments.
        What can NOAA do differently under this Administration to
    ensure that, first of all, the data is in fact collected and
    that it is accurate and reliable?
        Mr. Delano. Thank you for the question.
        I believe some of this has been mentioned that it is
    important that we continue the work that needs to be done to
    assure that fisheries are permitted, and that is through
    surveys that are existing and continuing those time series. It
    is important to have the funding to do that.
        But I think that the root of a majority of our problems
    comes from the way that the data is collected, and that could
    be very much improved by involving industry in the data
    collection methods. Fishermen know how to catch fish very well.
    Scientists know how to handle the information and to develop
    conclusions about what is going on. They need to work together.
    That is how we move forward. Until we do that, our fishing
    industry is going to continue to be crippled.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, I don't think that you can actually
    discuss the future of the right whale without discussing the
    impact of the offshore wind farms, yet our Federal regulatory
    agencies have turned a blind eye, and refuse to address that
    issue. But this is one area that I believe that we need to
    collect additional data. Mr. Delano, would you agree with that?
        Mr. Delano. I agree 100 percent.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. What would you recommend in terms of what
    we can do to actually assess the right whale situation and make
    sure that we can protect it?
        Mr. Delano. I think it is important to look into non-
    invasive tagging, as I mentioned in my testimony. There have
    been examples with southern right whales, where they have
    actually discovered calving grounds as a result, and they have
    discovered areas where they didn't know they were. We have had
    observations of right whales in Europe, and we have had right
    whales that have disappeared for a number of years that we
    thought may have died that have actually just this year showen
    up that hadn't been seen in a long time. And the last time they
    were seen they were injured.
        And so there is a disconnect. There is something going on.
    If we are going to come up with draconian measures, we need the
    hard facts of where these whales are.
        Ms. Hageman. I agree with you. I think we need additional
    data.
        Mr. Bellavance, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each
    regional Fishery Management Council to submit multi-year
    research priorities to NOAA. The Act also directs the Secretary
    of Commerce to publish multi-year research priorities that
    reflect the Council's input. Given your experience with the
    Council's system, how important is this process, and are there
    areas of improvement?
        Mr. Bellavance. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question.
        Well, first, I think our research priorities are very
    important. I think the Council has put a lot of time into
    developing them and offering them to NOAA as guidance for what
    would help us do our job as managers. So any time there is a
    compromise to the level of research that can be accomplished
    throughout any given year, it is going to impact our decision-
    making process. So I think it is extremely important.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I yield back. I am out of time. And
    so the Chair recognizes Mr. Huffman for 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I think most of our witnesses would
    agree that the Magnuson-Stevens Act remains the bedrock of
    sustainable fisheries management, that it has been a success by
    almost any analysis, and that it is critically important. But I
    want to talk about how the promise of this law and this
    framework is actually holding up in practice, where it is being
    stretched thin, where some critical gaps jeopardize the
    viability of fishing communities.
        And so, Ms. O'Connor, you come from a family with deep
    roots in Bristol Bay. Your voice represents a sector that has
    certainly been the backbone of coastal communities, small
    fishing families, and businesses. But a sector that too often
    gets drowned out sometimes in Washington by big lobbyists and
    imported seafood interests, but I know that your family
    probably and the folks you fish with do not depend on foreign
    fish processors. You don't commingle your catch with fish
    caught from bad actors in Asia. You are not part of this opaque
    seafood supply chain that is really the heart of the problem
    and IUU fishing. So I definitely want to ask you a little about
    that.
        But I want to start with National Standard 2 of the MSA,
    which simply states that conservation and management measures
    should be based on best available science. Why is that so
    important? Why does it matter for the long-term health and
    productivity of fisheries?
        Ms. O'Connor. Thank you for the question, and I appreciate
    your leadership on this bill and on this issue. I think the
    legislation and the opportunity to revisit it is an important
    opportunity to strengthen the backbone of our coastal
    economies, and we strongly support provisions that prioritize
    healthy habitat, foster participation for place-based
    harvesters, and advance climate-ready fisheries, reduce
    bycatch, and require tribal representation in the North Pacific
    Management Council.
        We prioritize in our work the well-being of coastal
    communities and marine ecosystems. And to your question, we
    must have the best available science. But not only that, we
    must be consistently improving it and improving the science
    that we are relying on for our decision-making. So I appreciate
    the work that you are doing to integrate that ability to adapt
    and grow our capacity for that in your bill.
        Mr. Huffman. And to level the playing field between our
    great American fishers and some of the bad actors overseas that
    are engaged in slave labor and all kinds of terrible
    environmental practices and other things. Why is it important
    that we have transparency in the seafood supply chain, even if
    it is inconvenient for some big, powerful interests who might
    kind of be commingled into that less-than-transparent supply
    chain? They might save money by maybe mixing their catch with
    the catch from some of these Russian oligarchs.
        I agree with the Chair when she talked about how we have
    got to confront the Russian oligarchs that are in the fishing
    industry, what they are doing to pollock and other species; the
    Chinese Communist Party, which is a big, bad actor in this IUU
    fishing space. But sometimes the transparency of our supply
    chain can be inconvenient for some big American interests. Why
    is that important to tackle, from your perspective?
        Ms. O'Connor. I think, as most of us have spoken to here,
    transparency is key due to the fact that uncertainty is our
    number-one barrier to doing our work.
        And so in the case of Russia, for instance, not only are
    they, you know, flooding global markets with hatchery-produced
    salmon, it is also often mislabeled.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes.
        Ms. O'Connor. And so we are operating in the best faith
    that we can as small businesses to compete in a vast global
    market. And we need your help to do that.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate that.
        Captain Bellavance, I really appreciated your testimony
    because you are a fisherman and you are a policymaker and a
    regulator. And there is this interesting kind of love-hate
    relationship, I think, between folks who make their living on
    the water. You heard a little bit of that coming through from
    Mr. Delano, this strong libertarian thread, but also a need for
    good regulation, good science-based regulation to prevent us
    from going back to the Wild West, where we were crashing
    fisheries and closing fisheries, and to make sure we have
    learned from those days.
        How do you go about making regulation and considering
    regional circumstances and science and stakeholder input to get
    it right?
        Mr. Bellavance. Thank you. Thank you for the question. It
    is a good one.
        So it is a complicated process, right? I think when we go
    about making regulations, we have a lot of meetings similar to
    this, where we have stakeholder engagement. We rely on a lot of
    science from NOAA fisheries to help us kind of characterize the
    resources and then try to do our best to afford fishermen the
    biggest opportunities they can get while also trying to
    preserve fish for the future. It is a delicate balance. It
    doesn't always go the way managers want it or the fishermen
    want it, but it is the best system in the world, in my opinion.
        Mr. Huffman. Thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chair, I yield
    back.
        Dr. Wittman [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. I will
    recognize myself for 5 minutes. I would like to thank our
    panelists for joining us today.
        Ms. Guyas, I want to start with you. You spoke about shark
    depredation. It has become a massive problem for anybody that
    pursues fish, whether it is commercial or recreational. We know
    a lot of their catch is lost, unfortunately, to sharks that are
    uninvited guests. They are being conditioned, I think, to boats
    and fishermen. You talk about the massive impact that it has on
    those fisheries, you spoke about 77 percent of folks in the
    fisheries have been affected in one way or another by shark
    depredation. I hear it on a daily basis from our commercial and
    recreational fishermen. It does have an impact.
        The scary thing about shark depredation is this. As we
    manage fisheries, and there has been a lot of talk about
    managing fisheries on good science. I am 100 percent in
    agreement. My minor was fisheries science. I worked as a
    commercial fisherman and recreational fisherman growing up. My
    son is a commercial fisherman. Science is key, but what we are
    missing in the science is when a shark eats a fish that a
    fisherman tries to catch, and it doesn't get it but the shark
    gets it, does that get counted in how we manage fisheries, Ms.
    Guyas?
        Ms. Guyas. I don't think it is getting counted in very
    many, although this is a discussion that is coming up more and
    more. People are concerned about this because, as you have
    said, it is a growing issue. You hear about it almost every
    day. I hear about it almost every day. It seems like it is
    affecting everyone, whether you are fishing inshore, offshore,
    recreational, or commercial.
        Dr. Wittman. Sure. It is interesting because when we talk
    about managing fisheries, we talk about mortality, and
    mortality either happens naturally--a fish grows to an old age
    and dies; something else in the ocean eats it, that prey-
    predator relationship; or human catches it; whatever. That
    measure of mortality is how we manage fisheries. But when we
    have an imbalanced view of mortality, when sharks are eating
    fish that are easily targeted, I would argue that shark is not
    going to eat that fish if it gets its own fair chance to swim
    away, but when a fisherman has it either in a net or on a
    fishing rod it is easy prey for the shark.
        And then, as we are calculating how much mortality happens
    from fishermen, and you say, oh, the fishermen caught one tuna
    fish today, but the fishermen had to hook 20 tuna in order to
    bring 1 tuna to the boat because the other 19 were eaten by
    sharks, I would argue we are creating a great imbalance in the
    system that is not reflected in good science. It is not
    reflecting really what needs to happen as far as how we manage
    the fisheries.
        So I just want to get a little more of your perspective on
    how do we get to the root of that problem and make sure that
    there is that balance between sharks and the environment? I
    have nothing against sharks, but I want to make sure too that
    somebody that goes out there to fish, that we get to get a few
    of the fish to the boat and the sharks can get one or two, but
    there is an imbalance there.
        Ms. Guyas. Yes, thank you for the question. And thank you
    for your leadership on the SHARKED Act, because I think that
    gets to this very issue.
        What that would do would bring together all the people that
    need to get together to collaborate on this. Managers,
    scientists, stakeholders, fishermen potentially can inform the
    process. We need to tell fishermen how to handle the situation.
    We need to understand exactly what is happening and if there
    are circumstances where we can avoid it. We need to look at
    technology.
        It is a complicated issue that probably is a complicated
    solution.
        Dr. Wittman. Yes.
        Ms. Guyas. So the SHARKED Act helps get the right people
    together to put their heads together on this.
        Dr. Wittman. Yes, get some experts together. We talk about
    science. Let's base it on science. How do we properly manage
    all the different interests there?
        Mr. Delano, I appreciate your efforts in the commercial
    fisheries side. As I said, my son is a commercial fisherman. I
    grew up commercial fishing, worked in seafood safety for two
    decades. So to me, it is a family issue, it is a family
    business. But it is also an issue that is important not only
    for the district that I represent, but it is an important issue
    for our Nation, an important issue for local coastal economies.
        Let me ask you, as we look at cooperative fisheries
    research, a great example is Virginia Institute of Marine
    Science. They do cooperative research in the sea scallop
    industry. They put observers on boats. They watch what
    fishermen do. They gather the data about what is happening
    there. They gather the data too about what is happening in the
    environment that supports scallops. And as a result of that, we
    have had an incredibly successful management of the scallop
    industry because the scientists are actually working shoulder
    to shoulder with the fishermen. They are gathering the data,
    they are using observational data from fishermen to validate
    the decisions that they make.
        Give us your perspective on how you see the benefit of
    these cooperative research efforts to make sure that scientists
    are there shoulder to shoulder with fishermen there on the
    water, observing what is going on?
        Mr. Delano. Yes, thank you. I can't preach enough the need
    for better data collection and collaboration between scientists
    and fishermen. I think that is extremely important. And I
    certainly in my testimony was not trying to take a shot at
    regulators because, you know, they are held to a standard, and
    they only have what they have for information. But we can
    always do better, and we need to do better before it is too
    late.
        Dr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Delano. Now we will
    go to Mr. Magaziner.
        Mr. Magaziner. Thank you to the Chair and again to our
    witnesses.
        In Rhode Island the fishing industry creates thousands of
    jobs, generates hundreds of millions of dollars of economic
    value. And it is good to see with Rick Bellavance, leading the
    Council Coordinating Committee, that Rhode Island has a
    rightful leadership role nationally on fisheries issues.
        But make no mistake, we are in a moment of crisis right now
    when it comes to fisheries management because of the Trump
    administration's gutting of NOAA over the last 4 months. And to
    be clear, Elon Musk doesn't know anything about the fishing
    industry. The 20-year-olds that he hired to go through and fire
    thousands of Federal workers don't come from a fishing industry
    background. They have no idea what they are doing. And they
    fired 2,000 out of the 12,000 employees at NOAA. Nearly 20
    percent of the staff gutted, a third of the positions at NOAA
    fisheries are vacant right now because of those cuts.
        And so when I hear Chairwoman Hageman and her opening
    statement and my Republican colleagues talking about the
    importance of data, if you don't have people collecting the
    data, where is the data coming from? You need people at NOAA
    who can actually process the data that is coming in, collect it
    in partnership with the fishing industry, process it, and make
    good, informed decisions. Because if you don't have good data,
    it is the fishing industry itself, the men and women who make
    their livelihood from the fishing industry, who are hurt. If
    you don't have accurate data, you could have an under-count,
    and so the quotas are lower than they should be, and people are
    not allowed to fish as much as they should be allowed to, so
    they don't make the money they should be able to make. If you
    have poor data, maybe you could have an over-count, and that
    hurts the long-term sustainability of the fishing industry. If
    you want good data, you need the staff at NOAA to help collect
    and analyze and process the data.
        And it is not just NOAA, by the way. The University of
    Rhode Island in my district has a tremendous research arm
    devoted specifically to this, and they have had to lay people
    off because of grants being canceled for, again, no good
    reason.
        So, when I sent the CCC, the Council Coordinating
    Committee, a letter earlier this month, I asked for feedback on
    what the impact of these NOAA cuts would be. And they responded
    in no uncertain terms that these assessments that study the
    health of fish populations are the foundation of how NOAA and
    the councils manage fisheries. And without good scientific
    data, the councils are forced to proceed with caution, which
    means lower catch limits. It hurts the industry to have a
    gutted NOAA workforce. That means less money for fishermen. It
    means higher prices for consumers, as well, if you are under-
    fishing because there isn't adequate stock data.
        So I would like to ask Rick to weigh in on this. I mean,
    what are the consequences of NOAA staff being decimated and the
    impact on stock assessments and ultimately on the industry as a
    whole?
        Mr. Bellavance. Thank you, Congressman Magaziner. I
    appreciate the question. So, I think you touched on it pretty
    eloquently in your opening statement there.
        Our job as managers is to try to use the information that
    we have to craft regulations in accordance with all the
    different laws that impact fishing regulations. Any time there
    is a compromise to the quality of the data that we use to make
    those decisions or the personnel that we need to promulgate
    those regulations, publish them in the Federal Register and so
    on, it is just more difficult for us to do our job.
        I think you mentioned that we typically try to put an
    uncertainty buffer in the quotas to compensate for some of that
    uncertainty that we have, and that directly impacts the fishing
    community by allowing less fish to be taken out of the water.
    So it is super important.
        Mr. Magaziner. And just to highlight this once again. The
    President's proposed budget cuts NOAA by 30 percent for NOAA
    fisheries and a 74 percent cut to NOAA research. And where is
    the Administration? They have not produced anyone from NOAA,
    despite an invitation from the majority. They have not produced
    anyone for this hearing. They have not produced anyone from our
    previous hearing on this topic. Why won't they come and defend
    what they are doing and the impact that it is having on
    fishermen in Rhode Island and across the country?
        And I yield back.
        Dr. Wittman. I thank the gentleman. We will now go to Mr.
    Ezell.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
    being here today and giving us this information.
        I grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and that has been
    a big part of my life. And I see the food industry has been
    plagued by dominating imports, burdensome rules and
    regulations. Imported shrimp accounts for 90 percent of the
    shrimp that are consumed in the United States, a lot which
    comes from a lot of these bad actors, as we all well know,
    which don't go by the rules that we go by. And so we got to get
    a hold of that.
        Our seafood industry cannot compete with the low pricing
    and transportation costs of some of these foreign competitors.
    When I go back home to the Gulf and I order seafood, that is
    the last thing that I want to eat is something imported from
    China. I want to eat locally-caught seafood from small business
    owners that I know and trust, and enjoy the whole environment.
        I have introduced the Safer Shrimp Imports Act alongside
    Senator Hyde-Smith to require the FDA to significantly increase
    testing of imported shrimp and publicly report inspection
    results, giving consumers more confidence in the safety of what
    is on their plates. Our local Gulf Coast shrimpers are playing
    by the rules while foreign producers are flooding the market
    with unsafe, low-quality products.
        Building off that concept, I was pleased to see the
    President's EO that restores the American seafood industry
    finally lifting some of these burdens that has been placed on
    the fishermen by giving some real meaning to locally caught. I
    am proud to be working on the bill text to codify parts of the
    EO as we speak. Putting American seafood first means restoring
    jobs, national food security, and increased health of all
    Americans.
        Part of President Trump's EO directs agencies to
    immediately consider suspending, revising, or rescinding
    regulations that overly burden America's commercial fishermen,
    aquaculture, and fish processing industries, and the fishery-
    specific level. I fished the Gulf Coast my entire life, and as
    so many of my friends, and I am glad to see some of these
    issues are being addressed.
        Ms. Guyas, I understand that the EO is focused more on
    commercial fishing, but there are aspects to apply to
    recreational fishing as well, as you mentioned in your
    testimony. How important is it that we continue this discussion
    and codify President Trump's EO?
        Ms. Guyas. Well, thank you for the question. Yes, as I
    mentioned, I think there are a lot of things in that EO that
    apply to the recreational fishery: improving data decreasing
    unnecessary regulations, improving access. And then the
    provision in the executive order about exempted fishing
    permits, as I mentioned, I think could be critical for
    improving the situation for Atlantic red snapper, similar to
    what we had in the Gulf, gosh, it has been several years ago
    now, under the first Trump administration.
        Mr. Ezell. The Mississippi Gulf Coast is home to, if not
    the best, some of the best recreational fishing in the country.
    Sportsmen in Gulfport have access to incredible stock of tuna,
    snapper, mackerel, and grouper. In previous years our
    recreational fishermen have had their ability, to responsibly
    and sustainably harvested fish challenged by Federal
    management, National Marine Fisheries Service. Can you detail
    some of the challenges that your recreational fishermen have
    faced in the Gulf, along with the Gulf Coast?
        Ms. Guyas. Sure. I will talk about Gulf red snapper for a
    minute, because that was a really big challenge for us. But we
    have managed to turn that around.
        So we were in a situation where we had a season that was
    just a handful of days.
        Mr. Ezell. Right.
        Ms. Guyas. And we got to a breaking point where it was just
    too difficult. And really, the Gulf States stepped up. They put
    their heads together. They came up with data collection systems
    to help improve the information that was feeding into
    management, and then ultimately were able to use that
    information to inform State-led management, where they are
    setting seasons that fit the needs of their state. And so that
    has been a really big deal for us, for our community.
        Mr. Ezell. Very good. You mentioned in your testimony that
    State management for the red snapper recreational fishery has
    been a game changer, just like you were just saying. Can you
    talk about that work that took place and was assumed by the
    State management?
        Ms. Guyas. Yes, in the Gulf, as I said, the States
    developed their own data collection systems. And then, after
    that, actually, there were some Senate language in one of the
    budgets that directed NOAA to create an opportunity for States
    to get exempted fishing permits to test State management. And
    so they did that, and then we went through the process and it
    was codified through the Gulf Council.
        Mr. Ezell. Has this really improved the fishing?
        Ms. Guyas. Absolutely, There is more access, more days
    open, and those seasons are based on more reliable information.
    So I definitely consider that a success.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much. And I would like to say,
    back to those sharks, I have caught plenty of red snapper that
    were 20 pounds that ended up being only 2 pounds when I got him
    in, so thank you very much.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Maloy [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
    Mrs. Dingell for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a lot of those
    stories, too. I want to thank you for holding today's important
    hearing on America's seafood competitiveness.
        And this hearing is being held on the same day that myself
    and Representative Mast have reintroduced the bipartisan bill
    titled the Forage Fish Conservation Act, which is a vital step
    forward in ensuring the health and sustainability of our marine
    ecosystems. This legislation builds on the proud legacy of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which
    has guided our Nation in the responsible management of
    fisheries for decades by improving protections for forage fish
    action.
        Forage fish like sardines, herrings, and anchovies are the
    backbone of the ocean food web, providing essential prey for
    larger fish such as tuna, salmon, and cod, as well as marine
    mammals and seabirds. These small fish play a major role in
    supporting fisheries vital to coastal communities. However,
    these populations have experienced substantial decline because
    of human activity which threatens the viability of marine
    ecosystems as well as opportunities for recreational fishermen.
    Currently, there are few management measures in place to
    address this decline, and that is why this bill is so
    important.
        The Forage Fish Conservation Act makes certain that we take
    a science-based, ecosystem-wide approach. It ensures that
    before new forage fisheries are authorized, we understand the
    full impact on existing fisheries, on local economies, and on
    the broader marine environment. It also makes sure that the
    needs of these essential predator fish and the voices of
    fishing communities are considered every step of the way.
    Importantly, this bill respects the role of States in managing
    the waters closest to home, while strengthening national
    efforts to protect forage species offshore.
        And this legislation has received support from
    conservationists and sportsmen alike. It is endorsed by the
    American Sports Fishing Association, the National Audubon
    Society, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. I
    could go on, and I welcome all my colleagues to support it.
        But now let me turn to you, Ms. Guyas. Why is conserving
    forage fish so important for the health of fisheries?
        And what actions is National Marine Fisheries Service
    currently taking to safeguard forage fish?
        Ms. Guyas. Thank you for the question. I will take your
    second question first, actually, and I think the answer is not
    much, to be succinct.
        So forage fish are, from a sport fishing perspective, food
    for a lot of our sport fish. And so that is really important,
    certainly part of a healthy marine environment, and we need all
    of those things to support recreational fishing and
    recreational fishing businesses all around the country,
    including your State of Michigan.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. It is important to note that the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act is not currently designed to account for
    the unique role of forage fish in the marine ecosystem. The
    bipartisan Forage Fish Conservation Act would address this need
    while maintaining MSA's State-based management flexibilities.
        Ms. Guyas, how much of a role do forage fish play in the
    greater food web, and how does their importance play in
    ensuring a healthy sport fish population?
        Ms. Guyas. I mean, forage fish are really the base of the
    food web in a lot of marine ecosystems, so, as you said, very,
    very important. And those fish provide food for sport fish and,
    as I mentioned, up the chain supporting recreational fisheries
    and a lot of commercial fisheries, as well. Then on and on, the
    economic impacts from there, the businesses, the anglers,
    manufacturers throughout the country. So very important.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. That is why we all need to work on
    it.
        My Ranking Member asked for some time, so I am not going to
    ask another question, and I will yield the remainder of my time
    to him.
        Mr. Huffman. I could have listened to you talk about forage
    fish all day long, because I am with you completely on that.
    And thanks to the witnesses.
        But in the limited time I have, Mr. Bellavance, I want to
    pick up where we left off. There is a big push right now to
    deregulate, to have more flexibility in fisheries management.
    At the same time we are already falling behind on stock
    assessments and on the basic bedrock science we need to do
    regulation.
        I am wondering what happens if you do all the relaxing of
    conservation standards, you do all the flexibility stuff that
    some are calling for, and you lose that science. Is that a good
    thing for those who make their living on the water?
        Mr. Bellavance. Thank you, Congressman Huffman. So I think
    the science is the integral part of the equation, right? In
    order to make decisions, the science has to be the best
    possible quality that it can be. So any time there is a
    compromise of that, it is going to impact not only the managers
    that are managing the fish, but the fishing community at large.
        Mr. Huffman. Would you agree that that is a recipe for
    crashing fisheries and ultimately closing fisheries when you
    open up flexibility and take away the science needed to
    thoughtfully and carefully manage them?
        Mr. Bellavance. I mean, it could be, right? Like, it can go
    the other way, too, I guess. But yes, definitely there is an
    opportunity for lax regulations to cause over-harvest. And in
    the long term that would be bad.
        Mr. Bellavance. But at the same time there are unnecessary
    restrictions, as well.
        Ms. Hageman [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair now
    recognizes Chairman Westerman for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chair Hageman, and thank you to
    the witnesses for being here today to talk about a very
    important issue.
        And Mr. Bellavance, you have been involved in Federal
    fisheries for decades. And in your testimony you highlight the
    progress made under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And some people
    think that MSA needs sweeping, dramatic changes, yet a lot of
    stakeholders that I have talked to have expressed trust and
    confidence in the Federal fisheries management system as it
    exists. I am not saying we don't need to change some things
    about it, but can you share from your perspective how
    successful the Act has been, and its existing management
    system, and the results we have seen over the past several
    decades?
        Mr. Bellavance. Yes. I apologize, could you repeat the
    question? I am sorry.
        Mr. Westerman. Some people think we should change the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act dramatically, but can you explain the
    benefits you have seen from the Act and the changes that we
    have seen over the decades?
        Mr. Bellavance. I think the record of rebuilding fish
    stocks kind of speaks for itself, right? We have a lot less
    over-fished stocks than we have in the past. And 82 percent of
    our stocks are not subject to over-fishing. So the cooperative
    process that lays out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act works, right?
    It is rebuilding stocks.
        Now, it could be made a little better, but in general I
    believe strongly in the Magnuson and our whole council process.
        Mr. Westerman. Yes, several of us on the committee just got
    back from a CODEL last week to Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.
    And the IUU fishing is a huge issue in those countries. We had
    a chance to visit the fish market in Tokyo, which was quite
    amazing.
        But other countries are dealing with issues of just
    enforcing the laws. They don't have the Coast Guard and the
    ability that we have to enforce our fisheries laws, even though
    the South Koreans are making a big effort to try to change
    things where they are fishing. But they still have a lot of
    foreign vessels that come into their waters and do damage to
    their fisheries.
        How well are we able to enforce the laws that we have in
    our fisheries?
        Mr. Bellavance. Thanks for the question. So I think we have
    rules in place that would do a decent job of enforcing the
    policies that we have, but it is a huge ocean, and there is a
    lot involved in international enforcement, right?
        So I know that the folks that are involved in enforcement
    at NOAA fisheries and local regions and so on are super
    dedicated to their job and they try hard. But it is a
    complicated thing to try to get at all these different attempts
    to try to circumvent our system and disadvantage our fishermen
    here in the United States.
        So I think it is on the council's mind, for sure, of how we
    can craft regulations that protect our fishermen, and I think
    maybe the executive orders will help us do that, as well.
        Mr. Westerman. Yes, and Mr. Hunter, in your testimony you
    talk about how the Community Development Quota program has
    encouraged investments in the seafood industry, which in turn
    has provided a great level of economic independence for the
    people that your organization serves. And thank you for telling
    your personal story, and I would consider that a great American
    success story. But can you expand on the ways that CDQ program
    has improved the lives and livelihoods in Alaska?
        Mr. Hunter. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I want
    to preface that with the reality of what it is like to live in
    the village. It is tough. Growing up poor, I didn't realize I
    was poor until I got a little older. But I see the struggles
    that a lot of families go through.
        And the one example I like to give like in my testimony,
    every person that we give a job is somebody you pull off of
    welfare, off of public assistance. And we had a crisis
    recently. We had a change in management at a local store, and
    they couldn't take food stamp. And all the people that were on
    public assistance couldn't go and shop from the store. So they
    are begging and pleading with neighbors and the people that are
    better off. Many of them are our employees that we hire there.
    I believe we have about a dozen or so in Scammon Bay alone that
    we hire through the CDQ program. And my hope is in the future
    is to expand on that.
        We have maxed out on the benefits and programs that we
    provide with the resources that we have. And our goal and dream
    is to expand on CDQ, and maybe Congress could help with that.
        Mr. Westerman. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. That
    reminds me of something Ronald Reagan said, that the best
    social welfare program ever invented is a job. We need to do
    more of those.
        I have got questions for the other witnesses, but I am way
    out of time, so we will submit those.
        Mr. Westerman. But thank you all for being here today.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Golden for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Golden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        All right, Dustin, the moratorium on right whale
    regulations that Congress passed back in 2022, that was for 6
    years, so we got until 2028 there, but the new TRT process
    begins in 2026. Can you talk a little bit about why that
    doesn't make sense, just the timing of that, and what will be
    lost if we don't consider a slight delay in the TRT process?
        Mr. Delano. Absolutely, thank you for the question.
        So basically, we had a 6-year reprieve, and we were very
    grateful for Congress passing that. However, the TRT process
    has draft regulations that are supposed to come out in January
    2026. And we just started a significant right whale monitoring
    program in the State of Maine, where Congress generated tens of
    millions of dollars to start this program. And we have just
    started collecting data there, but the timeline and the TRT
    process is not going to allow for all of the millions of
    dollars' worth of data that we have started collecting to be
    applied in the process. We need more time to be able to include
    that in the process so that we can be better informed.
        But also, the State of Maine separately is working on its
    own assessment tool, and that also will not be ready in time
    with this strict timeline.
        Mr. Golden. Is 6 years long enough for the moratorium? Will
    you be able to get all that data in and use it in an informed
    process by, let's say, 2028?
        Mr. Delano. I do not think that 6 years is enough time. I
    think what was asked in the first place was 10 to 12, and that
    is because here we are, 2 1/2 years after that legislation, and
    we are finally able to get the funding and able to get started
    on collecting the data. And it takes a significant amount of
    time to get through the TRT process, and so that is why they
    are already starting in that direction.
        Mr. Golden. Great. You have talked a little bit about the
    gray zone, not necessarily in the purview of this committee,
    but I think it would be good for anyone that watched the
    testimony of Secretary Lutnick to U.S. Trade Representative
    Jamieson Greer or just generally Members of Congress to be
    aware. What are some of the Canadian fishing practices in the
    gray zone that Maine fishermen actually believe is harming the
    long-term health of the lobster fishery?
        Mr. Delano. Being a lobster fisherman myself, and believing
    in the strong conservation measures that we have put in place
    mostly ourselves, I think one of the largest issues is the fact
    that the Canadian vessels do not have a maximum size on
    lobsters. Our broodstock is very dependent on those large
    female lobsters. And when the Canadian vessels come in, they
    can harvest those lobsters and they can send them to market.
    And I believe that our American fishermen are starting to see
    the results of that behavior in their catches now, and I think
    it is really important that we start looking at this issue
    before it is too late.
        Mr. Golden. Great. I am running out of time here, so I will
    try and squeeze this one in.
        So you talked about fish stock assessments, the pilot
    program that you hope gets funded. Congress could do that. Or
    maybe the Administration could find some of that funding. I
    think it is fair to say that NEFSA feels confident that the
    fish stock assessments are under-counting the health of many
    fish populations out in the Atlantic. Correct?
        Mr. Delano. Yes, we typically do feel that way.
        Mr. Golden. Right. So part of the President's goal with his
    trade agenda is to see less foreign imports, less reliance on
    foreign goods, particularly core ones like food. But what would
    you say to them about the importance of the pilot program like
    yours to making sure that we don't just stop our reliance on
    foreign food imports, but also unleash the domestic resource so
    that you can put healthy food on the plates of American
    families?
        Mr. Delano. Yes, so, we can't stress enough how important
    it is to have more data, better data collection, but to work
    with industry partners, to work with fishermen at collecting
    that. Eighty-two percent of our seafood in the United States is
    imported. That is not acceptable. We have the means here. We
    just need to improve the data. We need fishermen to be involved
    in these processes.
        Mr. Golden. All right. Thanks for your time and your
    testimony today.
        Mr. Delano. Thank you.
        Ms. Hageman. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Maloy for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being
    here and testifying.
        I represent Utah, which is the second driest State in the
    country. And in case you haven't looked at a map of the United
    States recently, it is a long way from the ocean. I don't even
    eat fish if I can avoid it, but I am really excited about the
    idea of good resource management, so I am thrilled to be here
    today for pure policy reasons. I don't even have a dog in the
    fight.
        To that point, Mr. Delano, I am probably going to call you
    Delano because we have a peak in my district that is spelled
    the same way and pronounced differently, but you are a
    fantastic witness. And when you started talking about picture
    what really matters to you, and if layer after layer of
    regulations placed on it and you lose that, how would you feel,
    that really resonated with me. I think it would resonate with
    my constituents in a dry State far from the ocean, because we
    have similar problems when it comes to timber and livestock and
    mining.
        And so I have been sitting here listening to all these
    questions and thinking about you talking about how much you
    love fishing and how it is in your blood, but you left being on
    the water to do policy. And I hope being here today helps you
    realize that that is worth it. Getting this policy right can
    save that way of life for the rest of your family that is still
    out there. And if your family is watching and they think you
    are a slacker because you are here and not out fishing, I hope
    they see how important this is too.
        So I don't have a question, I just wanted to recognize
    that. I do have questions for some of the rest of you.
        Ms. Guyas, you talked about how recreational fishing is
    rooted in conservation, and I agree. We don't have a lot of
    fishing in Utah. We have much more recreational fishing than
    commercial, but I watch how much people who fish care about
    conservation and want to make sure we get this right. But you
    also talked about how the MREP data is unreliable, and even
    used an example of a red snapper fishery being closed based on
    flawed data.
        And I have got some of the main points from the executive
    order on seafood competitiveness sitting here in front of me.
    It tells the agencies to identify fisheries with high
    regulatory burden and collaborate with regional councils to
    revise or remove barriers, improve data collection through
    cooperative research and new technologies, and increase
    stakeholder input in management decisions. What regulatory
    changes would you recommend to reduce restrictions and help
    recreational fishing grow economically and socially.
        Ms. Guyas. That is such a good question. I think there is a
    lot of things that we could do.
        The fishery that I focused on a lot in my testimony was red
    snapper, and I think we have a model for where we could go from
    the Gulf into the Atlantic. If we are able to use the exempted
    fishing permits that were proposed in the EO in the South
    Atlantic to help increase access for red snapper in the South
    Atlantic, that would be a really big deal. And similar in the
    Gulf, that might be one of the few ways that we get out of this
    management trap, where we have a whole lot of fish out there
    and anglers that are catching them, but very little access. We
    don't even know if we are going to have a season this year. We
    will find out potentially in a couple of days. But it is a
    tough situation. And so that might be the way to at least try
    and get us out here.
        Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
        Mr. Bellavance, same thing. We have got these three
    standards: identify fisheries with high regulatory burden, and
    collaborate with regional councils to revise or remove
    barriers; improve data collection through cooperative research
    and new technologies; and increase stakeholder input in
    management decisions.
        You are part of the regional councils. How are the regional
    fishery management councils implementing this EO to reduce the
    regulatory burdens on commercial and regulatory fishing?
        Mr. Bellavance. Thank you for the question.
        So currently, all of the eight regional fishery management
    councils are working through their advisory panels, their
    technical staff, and their stakeholders to come up with a list
    of regulatory actions that they feel would be something we
    could look at to remove some burdens. I think we have until the
    end of September to put those together.
        And then, once we deliver them, we will work with NOAA
    fisheries to decide which ones can be acted upon.
        Ms. Maloy. Thank you. I am almost out of time, so I am not
    going to ask any more questions, but I just want to go back to
    what I started with, of what Mr. Delano said about protecting a
    lifestyle. And all of you testified about that. And even though
    I live in a dry State and represent not a commercial fishing
    area, we owe it to you to make sure that policy doesn't destroy
    your lifestyles. And thank you for being here and being willing
    to talk about it.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Rivas
    for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Madam Chair, for recognizing me.
        Ms. O'Connor, you have over a decade of experience
    understanding the needs and economics of the fishing industry,
    especially in Alaska where fishing powers the livelihoods of
    many communities across the State. The small businesses that
    you advocate for depend on reliable data from NOAA and the
    National Marine Fisheries services to navigate the most rugged
    and dangerous seas along the Alaskan coast to help fulfill
    orders across the country.
        Ms. O'Connor, how would the DOGE cuts to NOAA and the
    National Marine Fisheries Service impacts small businesses?
    Specifically, how the lack of data that were impacted by these
    cuts will impact their day-to-day operations.
        Ms. O'Connor. Thank you for the question. The impacts of
    the DOGE cuts have been immediate and concerning things. Alaska
    has lost 30 percent of its NOAA and NMFS staff, and for us that
    has manifested in canceled surveys. The travel freeze resulted
    in us being unable to provide airplane tickets to the
    volunteers that participate in the survey, so that is about
    half of the survey effort. We have seen season start delays and
    also early closures of our seasons, Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod
    being one.
        I have also heard examples of that on the East Coast. And
    we have also seen uncertainty in our weather forecasts, which
    for us represents danger on the daily. So we are making big
    decisions on whether we want to go out in 10-foot seas in a 22-
    foot skiff or not, and we need to know what the weather is
    going to do, and we need that to be accurate.
        We also have seen decommissioning of critical navigational
    buoys and some of the safety programs provided by NIOSH. And it
    may not be well known that in certain fisheries receiving a
    certificate that you have done that training is a requirement
    to be able to go out and fish. So not only are we requiring
    that training, we are also no longer able to receive it. So it
    puts us in a really difficult position.
        So in the last several months we have seen immediate and
    very concerning----
        Ms. Rivas. Thank you for your answer. Like you mentioned,
    we have seen that the Trump administration is proposing these
    budget cuts that will decimate key departments overseeing this
    work, including $1.33 billion in budget cuts to NOAA's
    operation, research, and facilities, a 50 percent cut to the
    National Ocean Service, a 29 percent cut to the National Marine
    Fisheries Service, and a 74 percent cut to the Office of Ocean
    and Atmospheric Research and a zeroing out of science-based
    programs, including the Integrated Ocean Observing System and
    the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
        So these reckless cuts coupled with this big, ugly bill
    that House Republicans passed will have dire consequences for
    the environment, our public health, and for all of our
    constituents. We are already seeing how these actions are
    resulting in increasing costs and limiting what needs to be
    done like what Ms. O'Connor mentioned.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Hageman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crank for 5
    minutes of questions.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Hageman. He almost got away.
        Mr. Crank. I tried to, Madam Chair. I am sorry about that.
    I just have to run to another committee here, but I just did
    want to talk very quickly about illegal, unreported, and
    unregulated fishing, a serious global issue. And I know lots
    have talked about that. It depletes our fish stocks, it weakens
    our local fishing economies, and it is often linked to
    organized crime, forced labor, human trafficking, smuggling,
    and it poses a pretty significant national security threat.
        Unsurprisingly, China and Russia are among the worst
    offenders. Of the 152 countries scored by the IUU Fishing
    Index, China ranks number 1 and Russia number 2. In 2022 a
    European Parliament report found that half of all vessels
    engaged in IUU fishing flew Chinese flags. China's role in IUU
    fishing is driven by two key factors: rising domestic demand
    for seafood; the second and more concerning reason is China's
    desire to be a maritime power.
        China has invested over $1 trillion in its Belt and Road
    Initiative, and the Chinese Communist Party has explicitly
    outlined the key role maritime trade and access play in
    expanding its soft power and geopolitical influence. Experts
    estimate China commands over 17,000 vessels in its distant
    water fleet. China secured fishing agreements with over 42
    countries, granting access not just to seafood resources, but
    to ports, logistics hubs, and surveillance opportunities. And
    many of these vessels are equipped with advanced communication
    and surveillance equipment, enabling them to monitor foreign
    naval activities and collect maritime intelligence.
        China is not alone. Russia also uses fishing fleets for
    dual purposes. Norway and Denmark have raised alarms about
    Russian trawlers operating in the Arctic being used for
    espionage. These ships often loiter near undersea cables, which
    we have discussed in this committee before; wind farms; and
    military installations.
        Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record a 2024
    New Yorker article detailing Russia's use of fishing trawlers
    for military intelligence purposes.
        Ms. Hageman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The article submitted for the record by Mr. Crank
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250604/118330/HHRG-
    119-II13-20250604-SD001-U1.pdf

                                    ------

        Mr. Crank. And then finally, the dual purpose nature of
    foreign fishing fleets underscores the urgent need for the U.S.
    to protect its maritime boundaries not just to preserve fish
    stocks, but to prevent adversaries from spying on U.S. military
    and infrastructure assets.
        And with that, Madam Chair, I do need to run back to the
    Armed Services Committee. I had several questions, but I think
    I will forego those for sake of time. But thank you.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Crank. And the Chair now
    recognizes Representative Min for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Min. Thank you, Chair Hageman, I appreciate you holding
    this hearing today. It is a very important topic.
        I have the privilege of representing California's 47th
    congressional district, home to some of the world's most
    beautiful coastlines, including off the coast of Seal Beach,
    Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach. And my
    district is home to hundreds of great seafood restaurants I
    encourage you all to visit, fish markets, and other businesses
    that rely on fish supply to meet demand.
        Now, our commercial fisheries in Orange County are vital to
    our culinary identity, an important driver of our coastal
    economy. And so, for example, the local spiny lobster fishery
    not only provides a popular delicacy but also supports and has
    supported generations of fishing families promoting responsible
    marine stewardship. Like so many other parts of the country,
    Southern California's seafood industry is struggling in recent
    years and even weeks due to a number of factors. In recent
    years the availability and pricing of seafood have become
    increasingly challenging for restaurant operators to manage.
    Changes in import costs, supply disruptions, and labor
    shortages have all impacted the stability and operating margins
    of our regional seafood industries, including forcing
    restaurants to either adjust their offerings or absorb higher
    costs.
        At the same time, with roughly 90 percent of U.S. seafood
    being imported from other countries, it is clear that the
    status quo is not sustainable. Now, in this environment I know
    it is tempting to resort to simplistic policies like tariffs
    and massive deregulation of the industry. But we know from a
    lot of experience that those policies will be counter-
    productive. Right now I am hearing a deluge of complaints about
    President Trump's tariffs, which seemingly go up or down, on or
    off based on what Trump had for breakfast that morning. And
    presumably it is not seafood. But those tariffs not only
    increase the price of imported fish, but also the price of fish
    exported for processing and then brought back into the U.S.
    market.
        Businesses in Orange County and throughout the country are
    seeing the impacts through the higher prices, reduced foot
    traffic, and dwindling profit margins which put jobs and
    livelihoods at risk. Meanwhile, while some regulatory changes
    are probably appropriate, including ones I want to mention,
    simply slashing regulations runs the risk of over-fishing and
    depleting our fish stocks.
        Of course, fishing regulations are some of the oldest
    regulations in this country's history because fishing creates
    what we in economics call a tragedy of the commons problem.
    There are incentives to try to fish as much as possible for any
    individual or company, but not necessarily to think about
    sustainability, leading to depleted fish stocks over time.
    Sustainability is a crucial aspect of fishing not just as a
    buzzword, but as a set of practices.
        And I want to reinforce the point made by Ms. O'Connor in
    her testimony: fully funding the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Agency, or NOAA, is critical for this goal of
    sustainability. Elon Musk, of course, illegally slashed NOAA's
    budget, and now President Trump's skinny budget seeks to codify
    a lot of that by shrinking NOAA's budget by more than $1.5
    billion, about 25 percent below current levels. This would
    accelerate the negative impacts that local fisheries are
    already seeing from NOAA cuts, including delayed stock
    assessments that hinder science-based management and undermine
    food security.
        The American seafood industry is one of the best in the
    world. It is the safest, aided by environmental and labor
    standards matched by very few foreign producers. But again,
    having 90 percent of our seafood come in from other countries
    is not sustainable. Clearly, we need to think about smart
    changes. And so I guess my first question is, are any of you
    familiar with the Norway model of aquaculture? You can just
    raise your hands.
        I guess not. In Norway they have developed a massively
    successful aquaculture system of facilitating and growing
    domestic sources of seafood through a model based on
    sustainability, including through circularity of inputs and
    outputs thinking about things like sustainable feeds and
    recycling in a virtuous circle where academic research,
    industry, and the government work together, including through
    regulatory adaptations to try to promote aquaculture and
    sustainable fishing. And so, actually, Norway has become a big
    exporter of fishing, and so I think they create an example
    where we could follow here in the United States.
        Now, today, aquaculture contributes only 7.3 percent of our
    total domestic seafood supply. But it is something that I think
    could be very promising. So we would just encourage you all to
    think about this in this committee, as well as what regulatory
    barriers might be inhibiting us from thinking about
    sustainability in a model of aquaculture or anything else.
        With that I want to yield back.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Min. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Begich for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is
    for Ms. O'Connor.
        Ms. O'Connor, you spoke about the generational nature of
    Alaska's fisheries and the critical role they play in
    sustaining communities. What do you see as the biggest
    obstacles to keeping young Alaskans in the fisheries economy?
        And how might Congress help lower those barriers, whether
    through loan programs, apprenticeships, or permitting reforms?
        Ms. O'Connor. Thank you for that question. Our young people
    are experiencing the number-one barrier for all of us, which
    includes uncertainty. We are getting hit with uncertainty in
    the markets, uncertainty in regulation, trade, the climate. And
    also, as you are well aware through your work, it is
    increasingly more and more expensive to enter our fisheries.
        So the work of this committee in previous Congresses--the
    Young Fishermen's Development Act, was a great step. It was the
    first workforce training initiative at the Federal level for
    young fishermen. It is up for reauthorization in 2026, so I
    want to put a plug in for that there. And I think treating us
    as what we are, which is small businesses, so loan programs
    through the SBA, improving our working waterfronts so that we
    can have more control over our fish, there is a lot that you
    can do, and I am happy to brainstorm.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you. You will be pleased to know that
    today we are actually introducing a bill to reauthorize the
    Young Fishermen Development Act in a bipartisan fashion. I will
    be a co-lead on that. So I don't think we talked about that,
    but that is interesting you bring that up just while you were
    here.
        The second question is for Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter, as you
    rightly pointed out, Alaska's seafood industry is under siege
    from foreign competition countries that subsidize fleets and
    bypass environmental standards. Now, this is a direct threat to
    western Alaska's economy. What new trade tools or labeling
    requirements should Congress pursue to ensure that Alaskan
    seafood competes on a level playing field both here at home and
    in export markets?
        Mr. Hunter. Thank you for the question. I think that is a
    challenging front to tackle. We have influence over our local
    domestic product. We have no influence over what Russia does,
    what China does, what the EU does. I would hope that there is
    something that we could do through either Congress or this
    Administration to make requirements that allow us to be up
    front on what kind of product we have and identify that it is
    sustainable.
        And the other actors, the other competitors we have with
    Russia, China, that the world is aware of what they are buying.
    And I think Alaska is prime seafood that we need to advocate
    and advertise for.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you. We saw some really interesting
    proposals from Korea in our discussion on IUU fishing. And one
    of the things that they are pursuing, and I know this is
    happening here domestically, as well, within the industry, is
    complete supply chain visibility, where we can see at the
    retail level where a fish was actually caught, and confirm with
    the consumer that it was caught in a sustainable fashion. And I
    think that we need to continue to invest in programs that
    provide that kind of supply chain visibility so that people do
    have confidence that when it says it is an Alaskan wild caught
    salmon, it is an Alaskan wild caught salmon. And I think that
    is important that Congress create regulations and a structure
    to provide for that.
        I think it is interesting, as we are talking about the
    issue of tariffs and some of the executive actions that have
    that have come forward in the last few months, you mentioned
    that there is not a whole lot we can do about Europe and Russia
    and China. There are things we can do about Europe, Russia, and
    China, but a lot of that happens at the executive level. And I
    think the Trump administration has signaled that they are more
    than willing to engage in some very maybe uncomfortable and
    challenging discussions, but hopefully part of that discussion
    with these nations will be illegal, unreported, and unregulated
    fishing, as well as a number of the subsidies that, as we have
    heard today, have been provided by countries like Russia that
    really damage our ability to be competitive in Alaska.
        So it is my view that we need an international
    harmonization of regulations and international framework for
    enforcing those regulations and, as I mentioned earlier, supply
    chain visibility that gives confidence to the consumer and all
    those in the supply chain that what they are receiving is
    actually what is being advertised.
        And with that I yield back.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Begich. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Recreational fishing is a way of life in Florida, a driver
    also of our top industry of tourism, and it is key for
    commercial fishing which brings popular fish like red snapper,
    grouper, and mahi mahi to the plates of both Florida residents
    and folks from around the country and the world.
        I am honored to represent bass country, so if you are
    watching major tournaments in the wintertime you will hear
    about a great place called Big Lake Tohopekaliga, one of the
    only warm places in the middle of January and February that you
    could see pro bass fishing.
        I am also proud to be a co-lead with my dear friend,
    Representative Rutherford, who has joined us today, on the
    bipartisan Red Snapper Act. The red snapper season for the
    Gulf, 126 days. But the South Atlantic a puzzling 1 day. This
    discrepancy is concerning. And I have heard from so many
    constituents, especially those who prefer the East Coast
    fishing versus the West Coast fishing, which we won't get into
    that right now, it is really stopping a lot of them who really
    enjoy recreational fishing on the Atlantic. The bill stops
    closures in the South Atlantic until the Great Red Snapper
    Count. This is, of course, a two-way street, though. The relief
    will only work if Congress also funds NOAA enough to do the
    count.
        Ms. Guyas, thank you for being here today. I appreciate all
    the work you have done on these issues in Florida. Why is the
    Red Snapper Act so important?
        Ms. Guyas. The Red Snapper Act is important is because it
    helps us make sure that we are using the best data to drive
    decisions, especially a decision where we are threatened
    potentially with a large area closure off the east coast of
    Florida for 55 species to protect red snapper, which are very
    abundant. That would be devastating economically for coastal
    communities and, really, the whole State. As you mentioned,
    anglers are from all over Florida, are fishing on both coasts
    and coming from all over the country to fish in Florida.
    Florida is the fishing capital of the world. It is people's
    dream. And so before we do anything drastic, let's make sure we
    have got the right information in front of us.
        Mr. Soto. And how important is NOAA funding to make sure we
    get this count right, even as we are working on this bill to
    give relief to Floridians and others?
        Ms. Guyas. Congress has invested a lot of money in this
    count, and so certainly would like to see it through.
    Absolutely.
        Mr. Soto. Ms. O'Connor, what can be the consequence of
    fisheries if NOAA can't conduct accurate counts?
        Ms. O'Connor. Thank you for the question, and I think it is
    an important one. It adds uncertainty in a way that can both
    lead us into a fisheries disaster we don't see coming or leave
    fish in the water that we could have otherwise safely
    harvested.
        Ms. O'Connor. So either way, we are in a tough spot.
        Mr. Soto. Sure. So very important. I wanted to talk a
    little bit about both grouper and lionfish.
        First, Ms. Guyas, how is the grouper population going right
    now? I know a lot of people love fishing for grouper.
        Ms. Guyas. It depends on where you are at. We are hearing
    some really good things in the Gulf right now. They are meeting
    and talking about this this week.
        The Atlantic, it depends on what species you are talking
    about unfortunately.
        Mr. Soto. What are the ones that are doing well and the
    ones that are concerned right now?
        Ms. Guyas. We have got good news in the Gulf with red
    grouper and gag grouper. We are seeing more of those, so that
    is promising because both of those were not looking great just
    a couple of years ago.
        Mr. Soto. And where are the areas of concern for the
    grouper population?
        Ms. Guyas. On the Atlantic side we have got some issues
    with gag. It is a little bit different situation over there.
    The habitat is different and the stock is different. But the
    South Atlantic Council is working on a plan to deal with that.
        Mr. Soto. Great. And then last question, lionfish, right?
    Invasive species. It is like a tank. It could be in shallow
    water or in the deep. It eats a lot of the eggs of a lot of
    these sports fish. So how do you think the progress is going on
    addressing the invasive fish that is the lionfish?
        Ms. Guyas. I think word is getting out that lionfish are,
    even though they look kind of weird, are really delicious.
        Mr. Soto. Sure.
        Ms. Guyas. We have got derbies across the State of Florida
    where spear fishermen, both commercial and recreational, are
    fishing them. There are some commercial markets now for them,
    as well. Just a few weeks ago there was a lionfish festival in
    Destin, where the whole point of it is to raise awareness about
    lionfish and its harm to the environment and delicious meat.
        Mr. Soto. Let's fight it by putting them on the menu,
    right?
        Well, and we know lionfish, they don't really have natural
    predators. The spine is poisonous, so a lot of fish back away
    from it. But if you remove it correctly, you have a tasty dish
    that a lot of us certainly will enjoy.
        With that I yield back.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs.
    Kiggans for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
    panelists for being here today.
        I represent Virginia's 2nd congressional district, so
    Hampton Roads area. A large portion of that just encompasses
    the Chesapeake Bay. So, as many of you know, our home is some
    of the most diverse and abundant fisheries on the planet. Our
    unique access to both the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean
    provides our recreational fishermen with access to prized
    trophy fish, and our commercial fishermen with the largest
    fishery on the East Coast.
        In 2023 commercial fishermen in Virginia harvested over
    150,000 metric tons of seafood, behind only our friends in
    Louisiana and Alaska. We must continue to find ways to improve
    the competitiveness of American seafood and foreign and
    domestic markets while improving local health and recreational
    benefits for our communities. I thank the Chairwoman for
    holding this hearing as an opportunity for dialog in how we can
    accomplish these goals.
        Conversations surrounding the North Atlantic right whale
    have been ongoing in this committee. The Chairwoman asked
    earlier in this hearing how we can protect this critical
    endangered species and mentioned potential impacts of offshore
    wind. Virginia's 2nd district is home to the largest offshore
    wind project in the country, and we are very proud of the work
    being done to promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy. This
    project also benefits the Naval Air Station, which is in need
    of a power grid upgrade, and we have a fabulous public-private
    partnership where Dominion Energy will be providing about a
    $500 million power grid upgrade to that base, which I am
    thankful for.
        I look forward to working with you all in ways to protect
    marine life, using a data-driven and science-based approach
    like tagging and geomonitoring. Our goal is to protect this
    threatened species without implementing burdensome speed
    restrictions on commercial and recreational fishermen.
        So Ms. Guyas and Mr. Delano, can you both expand on the
    concerns and experiences you had with these proposed speed
    rules?
        And how should Congress think about these issues in the
    context of protecting commercial fishing industry and American
    seafood competitiveness?
        Mr. Delano. I appreciate the question, but we actually
    haven't been subjected to speed restrictions in the Northeast
    yet with the commercial fishing, other than, like, mandatory
    slow-down zones when whales are present.
        Ms. Guyas. With the proposal that was out for North
    Atlantic right whale, one of our major concerns right from the
    get-go was, you know, our community was not really part of the
    process in coming up with that solution and we felt like there
    are other ways to come at this problem, notably technology. Mr.
    Delano mentioned some of that. But there are also technologies
    on vessels nowadays can be quite sophisticated. And I think
    there is an opportunity there to use some of the technologies
    that are on vessels to help fishermen and other mariners out
    there from avoiding whales. So there could have been other ways
    to come at this.
        Mrs. Kiggans. Yes, has the issue been kind of tabled for
    now? Is it in a place where people are happy just to sit with
    it? Or is there a concern that they will be back? Because we
    hear from our local fishing industry, who are opposed to these
    new restrictions, that the issue will be back.
        Ms. Guyas. My understanding is that it has been put aside
    for now. But there is always the question that it could come
    back. But I can tell you that our community, we are thinking
    about technology and how to be proactive in dealing with this
    issue.
        Mrs. Kiggans. I think that is the right place to be. Thank
    you for that.
        And Ms. Guyas, you live in Florida, but I understand you
    grew up in the Chesapeake Bay, and one of my top priorities
    here in Congress is supporting efforts to protect and restore
    the Bay. An important component of these efforts is supporting
    oyster reef restoration and commercial aquaculture, as oysters
    filter water, improve water quality, and provide essential
    habitat for other species. So could you please just talk about
    what role do oysters play in supporting our recreational
    fisheries, and in turn promote our domestic seafood industry?
        And are we seeing stability in the number of oysters that
    America is able to harvest?
        Ms. Guyas. Yes, thanks for the question. Not only are
    oysters cleaning the water, which is very important, but they
    provide habitat for a lot of fisheries, particularly juvenile
    fisheries, sport fish and commercial fisheries.
        And so, similar to my remarks with Mrs. Dingell about
    forage fish, it is the base that we need to have healthy
    fisheries, to have healthy recreational fisheries, and to
    support recreational businesses. So very, very important to us.
        And remind me of your other question. I am sorry.
        Mrs. Kiggans. If the numbers of oysters that we are seeing
    being harvested in America, if there is stability in that
    number, I just want to make sure there is not a decrease or
    maybe at times there is an increase, but just it has been a
    pretty stable market?
        Ms. Guyas. I can't speak to the exact number, but I can
    tell you that a lot of oyster farming operations certainly are
    taking off in my region. And so I think there are a lot of good
    opportunities there, and oyster growing and harvesting
    opportunities.
        Mrs. Kiggans. Our region too, we are seeing a lot of that.
        And I think my time has expired, so I will yield back. But
    thank you.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
    Member Hoyle for 5 minutes of questions.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. My mother's family are
    commercial fishermen, were commercial fishermen off the west
    coast of Ireland. The fishing industry in Ireland has
    decreased, has been devastated over quite a period of time
    because of over-fishing by other countries, because of over-
    regulation that happened without the input of the commercial
    fishing industry, and inherently bad trade policy. So I think
    this hearing is really important, and I appreciate everything
    that you are saying and your input.
        Given that I represent the central and south coast of
    Oregon, the commercial fishing and sports fishing industries
    are absolutely critical to our economy, especially since the
    crash of the timber industry. We lost a lot of jobs there.
        One of the things that our fishermen are most concerned
    about is the gutting of staff at NOAA and what that has done to
    the National Weather Service. I was listening to projections
    about wildfire preparedness last week, and we learned about the
    firing of a number of the staff that impacted the amount of
    weather balloons that are being sent up in Alaska, in Maine,
    across the United States. And that impacts the ability for us
    to get weather information specifically for our fishermen
    before they go out. That kind of information saves lives.
        We also have had threats by anti-government groups
    specifically to NOAA because there is disinformation about what
    these weather balloons do. Apparently, some people think they
    create weather, as opposed to telling us the weather. So this
    kind of disinformation can cost people their lives. The thing
    about weather balloons is that they give you information you
    can't get any other way.
        Ms. O'Connor, can you, and actually, anybody else, really,
    but first you, could you talk about maybe some of the impacts
    that these NOAA cuts have had, and specifically how you rely on
    the National Weather Service and what impacts those cuts will
    have?
        Ms. O'Connor. Thank you for the question. Absolutely. So
    one of the first impacts that I was made aware of from the DOGE
    cuts was turning off the webcams at Alaska's rural airports.
    And those not only allow our pilots to understand what they are
    flying into but allow all of us to make travel decisions from
    small skiffs to tiny, two-person airplanes. So it has extended
    from there, unfortunately, to more systematic cuts to the
    Weather Service which have impacted our ability to project snow
    in seasons that we might not have been expecting it, also high
    seas, and we are seeing the long-ranging impacts of that which
    include our understanding of our changing climate.
        So the impacts, I think, have already been felt and will
    continue to be felt, and I would very much encourage fully
    funding and fully staffing the Weather Service.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Bellavance, how do you expect staff cuts at NOAA to
    affect your council's work?
        And have you been forced to take on unfunded mandates due
    to the chaos at NOAA? Basically, how has that affected you?
        Mr. Bellavance. Thank you for the question.
        So at the council level we rely on NOAA fisheries to
    provide us with scientific information, to help us make
    management decisions. We also rely on the regional offices to
    guide us through the regulatory process. And ultimately, NOAA
    will have to publish proposed rules and final actions on quotas
    and specifications to allow fishermen to fish.
        We have noticed recently that there seems to be less people
    available to do stock assessments. We have had to look at our
    stock assessment schedule into the future and readjust that.
    And we have also had delays in publication of regulations that
    we have promulgated at the council. So hopefully, we can come
    up with ways to streamline that and recover, but it has been a
    challenge.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Rutherford for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
    opportunity to address the Subcommittee and the witnesses here
    this afternoon. And I really do appreciate all of you, and I
    know you all know probably more than anyone else that good
    fisheries management requires good, reliable scientific
    fisheries data.
        What we just saw in these Gulf States, they have shown us
    that State-led management can work and work well. The Gulf
    States data collection programs have produced more accurate
    numbers than NOAA and allowed for more responsive management
    that has resulted in greater fishing opportunities for anglers.
    That is thanks to that improved State data.
        This year, my State, the State of Florida, was even able to
    announce a record-breaking 126-day season in the Gulf. Now,
    compare that to the Southeast Atlantic. That is 125 days more
    than we had. We had 1 day. One day. The State-led management in
    the Gulf, compared to what NOAA gave us in the Southeast
    Atlantic. And we know they are wrong. In fact, they know they
    are wrong. Even NOAA has admitted that their data is flawed,
    saying in 2003 that recreational harvest estimates could be off
    as much as 40 percent. That is unacceptable, especially when
    anglers in my district are constantly telling me the red
    snapper is so abundant down there.
        You have been out there, Ms. Guyas. There is more red
    snapper than you can shake a stick at.
        So the good news has come for the States of Florida,
    Georgia, and South Carolina. Just this morning, Madam Chair,
    this letter was sent by Governor DeSantis to Secretary Lutnick
    asking that they be allowed, the States of Florida, Georgia,
    and South Carolina, to State-manage our fisheries. That is a
    strong signal that the States are ready to step up.
        So Ms. Guyas, let me ask you because you have been heavily
    involved in the Gulf, as well. What are some of the next steps
    that we could do to help push this along as Members of
    Congress?
        Ms. Guyas. Yes, that is very encouraging that that letter
    came through, and perfect timing, considering we are having
    this discussion.
        Mr. Rutherford. Absolutely.
        Ms. Guyas. I think what the Congress can do, certainly, and
    you all have done this, is help get better information to
    inform fisheries management and supporting State management.
        One thing that could be helpful is making sure the States
    have the resources that they need to do this. Florida has a lot
    of experience doing it in the Gulf. South Carolina and Georgia
    and other South Atlantic States like North Carolina, this would
    be a new thing for them. And so really just providing that
    support, I think, is going to be critical, especially if the
    executive order paves the way for this.
        In the Gulf there was support from Congress, as well, and
    there was directive language in the budget bill that year to
    direct NOAA to create these EFP programs. So that is another
    option, as well.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. And I will tell you, I
    really feel like this whole amendment 59 has kind of shot NOAA
    in the foot, so to speak, because, and this was under the
    previous Administration, as they were going out the door, 6
    days before they went out the door they announced this
    amendment 59, rule 59. And now we are seeing a response to that
    concept, that they want to close the bottom for 90 days every
    year in the Southeast Atlantic, not just the red snapper, but
    all 55 bottom species.
        And so I think they have really overstepped their
    boundaries, and that is why I think you are seeing the States
    step up and respond and say, hey, whoa, wait a minute. Let us
    do this. We can do this much better. They have proven it in the
    Gulf.
        And Madam Chair, I am hoping that we can certainly do that
    from Congress and allow the Southeast Atlantic fisheries to be
    managed by the States of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.
    And with that I see my time is up. I yield back, Madam Chair,
    but thank you for this opportunity.
        Ms. Hageman. Mr. Rutherford, would you like to submit that
    letter for the record?
        Mr. Rutherford. Actually, I would.
        Ms. Hageman. OK.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
        Ms. Hageman. Without objection, it is so ordered.
        [The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Rutherford
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250604/118330/HHRG-
    119-II13-20250604-SD007.pdf

                                    ------

        Ms. Hageman. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    hearing record a letter from the National Fisheries Institute
    on the importance of strengthening and supporting a thriving
    domestic U.S. seafood economy.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The letter submitted for the record by Ms. Hageman
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250604/118330/HHRG-
    119-II13-20250604-SD005-U1.pdf

                                    ------

        Ms. Hageman. And I also seek to introduce the November 4,
    2021 letter to The Honorable Jared Huffman and The Honorable Ed
    Case from the U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils
    addressing the bill that Representative Huffman talked about
    earlier today that he has introduced.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The letter submitted for the record by Ms. Hageman
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250604/118330/HHRG-
    119-II13-20250604-SD004.pdf

                                    ------

        Ms. Hageman. I see that we might have some other unanimous
    consent requests.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous consent
    to include the following news article relating to the impact of
    the deep cuts in NOAA for the record, and also ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record the 2025 article entitled,
    ``Uncertain United States Seafood Sustainability and a
    Manufactured Crisis'' by Dr. Halley Froehlich and Dr. Jessica
    Gephart.
        Ms. Hageman. Without objection, so ordered.

    The Honorable Val Hoyle did not submit articles to the
    Committee by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the
    printed record.

        Ms. Hageman. I want to thank the witnesses for your
    valuable testimony and the members for attending and your
    questions today.
        The members of the Committee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    those in writing. Under Committee rule 3, members of the
    Committee must submit such questions to the Subcommittee clerk
    by 5 p.m. Eastern on Monday, June 9. The hearing record will be
    held open for 10 business days for these responses.
        And without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                            Statement for the Record
               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                          U.S. Department of Commerce

    June 4, 2025

    Introduction
        NOAA appreciates the ongoing work with this Subcommittee to
    spotlight the importance of our fisheries to our economy, food
    security, recreation, and tourism.
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, Science, and Management
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
    has been instrumental for successful fisheries management. U.S.
    fisheries are among the world's largest and most sustainable. The MSA,
    the keystone of U.S. fisheries management legislation, turns 50 next
    year, and in that time has demonstrated that a dynamic science-based
    management process is fundamental for sustainably managing fisheries.
    The goal of fisheries management is to achieve fisheries that are
    recreationally, economically and environmentally sustainable. In
    partnership with regional fishery management councils (councils),
    interstate fishery commissions, coastal states, and our stakeholders,
    and driven by the MSA, NOAA Fisheries has ended overfishing in most
    cases and is rebuilding domestic fish stocks. Currently, 90 percent of
    stocks for which we have assessments are not subject to overfishing and
    88 percent are not overfished.\1\ U.S. commercial and recreational
    fishing supported 2.3 million jobs and generated $321 billion in sales
    across the broader economy in 2022. By preventing overfishing and
    rebuilding stocks, we are strengthening the value of fisheries to the
    economy and communities that depend on them, and also ensuring a
    sustainable supply of seafood for the nation in the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NOAA Fisheries Fishery Stock Status Updates. 2024 Quarter 4
    Update through December 31, 2024. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
    national/population-assessments/fishery-stock-status-updates#2024-
    quarterly-updates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The MSA created broad goals for U.S. fisheries management,
    including ten national standards to promote sustainable fisheries, and
    a unique, highly participatory management structure centeredon the
    councils. This structure encourages a collaborative, ``bottom up''
    process where fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected states,
    tribal governments, and the Federal Government all provide input and
    influence decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries.
        Flexibility to determine what management approach will be most
    effective for each council's fisheries is a fundamental element in the
    success of the council system. In making their recommendations, each
    council can choose from a variety of approaches and tools to manage
    fish stocks and meet the mandates of the MSA--specifying how to
    establish required catch limits, determine allocation mechanisms for
    who receives what amount of fish, and develop a structure for
    rebuilding overfished stocks when such actions are necessary.
        Councils make management recommendations through a transparent,
    collaborative process that includes extensive public input, scientific
    research, and consideration of economic and social impacts. These
    recommended measures are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for
    approval and, if approved, are then implemented by NOAA Fisheries. The
    MSA also established a Council Coordination Committee (CCC), which is
    made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors from each
    regional council. NOAA Fisheries meets with the CCC twice a year to
    discuss issues relevant to all councils and to work collaboratively to
    develop national solutions to those issues.
        Management decisions that provide for thriving and sustainable
    fisheries need sound science. For instance, scientific analyses and
    assessments that incorporate data collected on fish stocks, fisheries,
    and the surrounding marine ecosystems are used to implement policies
    including the catch limits required by the MSA. NOAA Fisheries has
    established a first-rate scientific enterprise built upon our internal
    resources, such as our fleet of research vessels, advanced technology
    assets, and the scientific expertise of our staff, as well as our
    strong collaborations with the fishing industry. As we continue to
    advance our scientific enterprise to address emerging priorities, we
    remain eager to work with the committee to modernize data collection
    efforts and analytical capabilities, such as through expanded use of
    Artificial Intelligence (AI), to improve the underlying science
    necessary to increase the responsiveness of fisheries management to
    real-time ocean conditions, as called for in the President's 2025
    Executive Order 14276 on Restoring America's Seafood Competitiveness
    (E.O. 14276). An important pillar for effectively managing U.S.
    fisheries is the timeliness and quality of fishery-dependent data
    collected from the fishery, in some cases during fishing operations.
    NOAA Fisheries continues to improve the efficiency of our data
    collection programs by implementing electronic logbooks for fishermen
    and observers, continuing to shift data systems to the Cloud, and
    developing camera--based electronic monitoring programs. As an example,
    the entire Greater Atlantic Region (North Carolina to Maine which
    covers thousands of vessels) implemented an electronic logbook program
    for every commercial and for-hire fishery, and we are working to extend
    those capabilities for the entire Atlantic coast, in an effort to
    streamline logbook reporting especially for fishermen that operate in
    multiple regions.
        In addition, NOAA Fisheries has implemented 14 camera-based
    electronic monitoring programs across U.S. fisheries, either to
    supplement data collected by observers in some cases or to replace
    observers in others. We are in the process of implementing an
    electronic monitoring program in the Pacific Islands longline fishery,
    which is expected to reduce costs while improving monitoring coverage
    to support long-term management decisions. The adoption of an
    electronic monitoring program in this fishery will provide NOAA
    Fisheries an opportunity to address data sharing challenges that can
    limit the potential of using AI in monitoring programs, especially in
    international fisheries.
        Further, we have identified additional opportunities to develop
    cross-regional or national standards to support technology integration
    and greater efficiency for fishermen. Expanding electronic logbook
    programs requires improvements to coast-wide vessel permitting systems
    and shared tools for software development. There are a number of
    opportunities to leverage AI to save the agency and fishermen costs in
    these programs, such as creating video interoperability standards and
    building a cloud-based image library for internal and public access to
    improve the efficiency of analyzing video collected from camera-based
    systems.
    Seafood Competitiveness
        While the United States is a global leader in sustainable fisheries
    management due to our participatory, science-based system, the U.S.
    seafood sector faces growing pressures from global competition,
    evolving market demands, and changing ocean conditions. Domestic
    fishery landings decreased by approximately 1 billion pounds between
    2019 and 2023, landings revenue decreased 16% and average price
    (revenue-per-pound) decreased 18% in inflation-adjusted terms between
    2022 and 2023. The United States imports nearly 80 percent of its
    seafood. It is essential to ensure that our high demand for imported
    seafood does not create incentives for illegal, unreported, or
    unregulated (IUU) fishing activity. NOAA must also work to ensure fair
    global market access for U.S. seafood producers. That is why, in
    response to E.O. 14276, the Department of Commerce, through NOAA
    Fisheries, is launching a coordinated effort to help revitalize the
    U.S. seafood sector. This effort builds on the work begun in response
    to President Trump's 2020 Executive Order 13921 on Promoting American
    Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth (E.O. 13921).
        Through the implementation of E.O. 14276, NOAA aims to address the
    recent decline in domestic fisheries landings and revenue, boost
    sustainable aquaculture, reduce the seafood trade deficit, and
    strengthen supply chain resilience. NOAA Fisheries has identified three
    strategic objectives for meeting the directives outlined in E.O. 14276:
    1) Promote the productive harvest of U.S. seafood resources by
    streamlining regulatory burdens while maintaining sustainability
    standards;
    2) Modernize fisheries science and data systems to enable real-time
    business and management decisions, and 3) Strengthen domestic and
    global market access and domestic processing capacity to reduce the
    seafood trade deficit and remove barriers to fair competition for
    American seafood producers. The United States had a $20.4 billion
    seafood trade deficit in 2023--nearly unchanged relative to 2020 after
    spiking to around $26 billion in 2021 and 2022.
        As one of the first steps in this effort, NOAA plans to seek public
    comment on suggestions to improve fisheries management and science, as
    outlined in E.O. 14276. Further, we have already initiated efforts to
    engage our council partners to identify recommendations to reduce
    burdens on domestic fishing and to increase production.
        NOAA is working with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
    and other Seafood Trade Task Force agencies to develop a comprehensive
    seafood trade strategy. Through the implementation of E.O. 14276, NOAA
    aims to improve and ensure fair market conditions for U.S. seafood
    producers. The strategy aims to improve access to foreign markets and
    address unfair trade practices of foreign nations, including IUU
    fishing and unjustified non-tariff trade barriers, while ensuring
    parity for U.S. seafood producers. The strategy will build upon NOAA
    Fisheries' existing efforts to prevent IUU fish and fish products from
    entering our markets, advance U.S. seafood competitiveness and
    conservation objectives through bilateral and multilateral trade
    agreements and organizations, and engage partners to address harmful
    fisheries subsidies that undermine effective fisheries conservation and
    management.
    Conclusion
        We all share a collective goal of healthy fisheries that provide
    food for Americans, promote economic benefits to the Nation, and can be
    sustained for future generations. Without clear, science-based rules,
    fair enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management,
    short-term pressures can easily undermine progress toward restoring the
    social, economic, and environmental benefits of a healthy fishery.
    Opportunities exist to modernize aspects of our data collection
    efforts, increase America's seafood competitiveness, and level the
    playing field for American fishers. NOAA looks forward to work with
    Congress on fisheries science and management issues that builds on our
    successes and considers the needs of fish, fishermen, ecosystems, and
    communities.

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Ezell

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250604/118330/HHRG-
    119-II13-20250604-SD002-U1.pdf

                                    ------

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Fry

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250604/118330/HHRG-
    119-II13-20250604-SD003.pdf

                                     [all]