[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, ([email protected]), Doug Levine
(doug.levine@mail.
house.gov), Kirby Struhar ([email protected]), and
Thomas Shipman ([email protected]) 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
([email protected]) 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]