[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 68 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3882-H3885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
                     SHARK FINNING PROHIBITION ACT

  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3535) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act to eliminate the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice 
of shark finning, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3535

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Shark Finning Prohibition 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to eliminate the wasteful and 
     unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning and to reduce the 
     high mortality levels associated with shark finning in waters 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON REMOVING SHARK FIN AND DISCARDING 
                   SHARK CARCASS AT SEA.

       Section 307 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (O) by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark (including 
     the tail) and discard the carcass of the shark at sea;
       ``(ii) to have custody, control, or possession of any such 
     fin aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding 
     carcass; or
       ``(iii) to land any such fin without the corresponding 
     carcass;''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3535.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 3535, the Shark Finning 
Prohibition Act, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham). This legislation amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act to prohibit the removal of shark fins, 
including the tail, and then discard the carcass into the sea; to 
prohibit having the custody, control, or possession of any such fin 
aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; and to 
prohibit the

[[Page H3883]]

landing of such fins without the corresponding carcass.
  The practice of shark finning is wasteful and wrong. In addition, the 
practice of shark finning is inconsistent with rules governing the 
harvest of sharks on the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the 
Caribbean. This legislation will make shark finning illegal in all U.S. 
waters.
  The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 
reported H.R. 3535 by voice vote with one amendment on May 18, 2000. 
The full Committee on Resources then reported the bill without 
amendment by voice vote on May 24. This is a noncontroversial bill that 
should be supported by all Members.
  Members may remember that the House reported a nonbinding resolution 
on this issue in October of last year which expresses the sense of 
Congress that the practice of shark finning is a wasteful and 
unsportsmanlike practice that could lead to overfishing of shark 
resources.
  The resolution further encouraged Federal and State fishery managers 
to promptly and permanently end the practice of shark finning in all 
Federal and State waters in the Pacific. Regrettably, this has not 
occurred; and this legislation is, therefore, necessary.
  I urge an aye vote on this important conservation legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the individuals 
from the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie).
  I read in a magazine where sharks had literally been caught, the fin 
taken off, and then the sharks dumped back into the water still alive. 
I am a sportsman. I love to hunt and fish. But I also like management 
and preservation, and I do not like horrific practices when it comes to 
animals.
  The committee has seen fit to bring first a resolution and now this 
bill, Mr. Speaker. This legislation before the House today will 
establish scientifically environmentally sound and responsible 
standards for all American fisheries in this particular issue.
  The Shark Finning Prohibition Act has broad bipartisan support. It is 
strongly supported by Ocean Wildlife Campaign, the coalition includes 
Center for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society, National 
Coalition of Marine Conservation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife Fund. It is also 
supported by the State of Hawaii and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 
which had direct interest into this issue; the American Sportfishing 
Association; Recreational Fishing Alliance; the Sports Fishing 
Association of California; the Cousteau Society; Western Pacific 
Fisheries Coalition.
  I would like to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that, according to the 
National Marine Fishery Service, in 1992, there was only 2,289 sharks 
taken. In just a short time, one can see the growth of the shark 
finning and the numbers that have actually been released. Over 78,000 
sharks had been taken and only 982 were released.
  H.R. 3535 will establish America as a worldwide leader in shark and 
conservation efforts.
  I would like to thank my colleagues. When I came to Congress, I did 
not start off banning hunting and fishing and unsportsmanlike conduct 
on certain issues. But since then, the tuna-dolphin bill, protecting 
elephants, snow geese, the MSCP, which provides quarters for endangered 
species and such, this is good scientific basis for this particular 
bill. I would like to thank my colleagues for the support in a 
bipartisan support for this particular bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters for the Record, as 
follow:

                                      Ocean Wildlife Campaign,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Cunningham: We are writing to express 
     serious concern regarding the management and health of shark 
     populations in U.S. Pacific waters, specifically in areas 
     under the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional 
     Fishery Management Council (WESPAC). Driven by the 
     international demand for shark fin soup, the practice of 
     shark finning--cutting of a shark's fins and discarding its 
     carcass back into the ocean--is a rapidly growing problem 
     that is directly responsible for huge increases in the number 
     of sharks killed annually and appalling waste of this 
     nation's living marine resources. The National Marine 
     Fisheries Service has prohibited shark finning in the U.S. 
     Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. It is time to ban 
     finning in the Pacific.
       Between 1991 and 1998, the number of sharks ``retained'' by 
     the Hawaii-based swordfish and tuna longline fleet jumped 
     from 2,289 and 60,857 annually. In 1998, over 98 percent of 
     these sharks were killed for their fins to meet the demand 
     for shark fin soup. Because shark fins typically comprise 
     only one to give percent of a shark's bodyweight, 95 to 99 
     percent of the shark is going to waste. Sharks are 
     particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their 
     ``life history characteristics''--slow growth, late sexual 
     maturity, and the production of few young. Once depleted, a 
     population may take decades to recover.
       The National Marine Fisheries Service, conservationists, 
     fishermen, scientists, and the public have pressured MESPAC 
     to end the practice of shark finning. Nevertheless, WESPAC 
     and the State of Hawaii recently failed to take action to end 
     or control finning.
       This issue of shark finning is characterized by a dangerous 
     lack of management, rampant waste, and egregious 
     inconsistencies with U.S. domestic and international policy 
     stances. It is the most visible symptom of a larger problem: 
     a lack of comprehensive management for sharks in U.S. Pacific 
     waters. The history of poorly or unmanaged shark fisheries 
     around the world is unequivocal: rapid decline followed by 
     collapse. Sharks are not managed in U.S. Central and Western 
     Pacific waters, and with increased fishing pressure there may 
     be rapidly growing problems.
       We urge your office to take whatever action is necessary to 
     immediately end the destructive practice of shark finning in 
     U.S. waters and encourage WESPAC to develop a comprehensive 
     fishery management plan for sharks that will, among other 
     things:
       1. Immediately prohibit the finning of sharks;
       2. Immediately reduce shark mortality levels by requiring 
     the live release of all bycatch or ``incidentally caught'' 
     animals brought to the boat alive;
       3. Immediately reduce the bycatch of sharks;
       4. Prevent overfishing by quickly establishing 
     precautionary commercial and recreational quotas for sharks 
     until a final comprehensive management plan is adopted that 
     ensures the future health of the population. Given the 
     dramatic increase in the number of sharks killed in the 
     Hawaiian long line fishery, WESPAC should cap shark mortality 
     at 1994 levels as a minimum interim action, pending the 
     outcome of new population assessments.
       Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
     David Wilmont, Ph.D.,
                                          Ocean Wildlife Campaign.
     Carol Safina, Ph.D.,
                                         National Audubon Society.
     Lisa Speer,
                                Natural Resources Defense Council.
     Tom Grasso,
                                              World Wildlife Fund.
     Sonja Fordham,
                                   Center for Marine Conservation.
     Ken Hinman,
         National Coalition for Marine Conservation.
     Ellen Pikitch, Ph.D.,
     Wildlife Conservation Society.
                                  ____

                                                   State of Hawaii


                                   Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

                                   Honolulu, HI, February 3, 2000.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Cunningham: The purpose of this letter is 
     to strongly endorse H.R. 3535, which you recently introduced, 
     banning shark finning in areas where the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act has jurisdiction.
       As you are no doubt aware, there has been considerable 
     outcry among the Native Hawaiian population, as well as the 
     population at large in Hawaii, about the practice of shark 
     finning. Currently there are five bills that have been 
     introduced in our legislature to address a ban of Shark 
     finning in waters in which the State has jurisdiction.
       Because Hawaiian culture is integrally tied to the health, 
     abundance, and access to indigenous natural resources, 
     Hawaiians have always strived to play a stewardship role by 
     sound management and protection of the natural environment on 
     which the culture relies. Unfortunately, Hawaii is constantly 
     endangered by the imposition of Western beliefs, customs, 
     religions, and economic desires which do not necessarily hold 
     similar views about the importance of the natural 
     environment. Taking a small portion of a shark or any animal 
     and wasting the remainder clearly runs counter to the 
     Hawaiian stewardship views. Traditional use of sharks in 
     Hawaiian cultural meant utilization of the entire animal.

[[Page H3884]]

       Equally as important to Hawaiians is the cultural and 
     spiritual significance of the shark itself. Many Hawaiian 
     families hold the shark in special esteem as the physical 
     manifestation (called kinolau) of their family guardian 
     (aumakua), who was also regarded as a family ancestor. There 
     are many other kinolau in Hawaiian culture, including the 
     owl, lizard, dog, rocks, and clouds. Imagine the uproar that 
     would arise if the Spotted Owl were to be taken, even as 
     ``bycatch'' for its wings. The intensity of feeling about 
     shark finning among Hawaiians is magnified a hundred-fold 
     because of the special spiritual significance of the shark. 
     To hurt or destroy the shark wantonly and intentionally is 
     for many families equivalent to desecrating one's own 
     ancestors and heritage. In summary, as recently noted by 
     Hawaiian cultural practitioner Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell, the 
     practice of shark finning is ``very offensive'' to Hawaiians.
       Our Mahalo for your interest in this matter. We hope that 
     the legislation will be reported out by the House Committee 
     on Resources, and approved by the full House and the Senate. 
     If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me or Jerry B. Norris, our Federal Desk Officer at 
     (808) 594-1758.
           Sincerely,

                                           Colette Y. Machado,

                                   Chair, Committee on Legislative
     and Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                            American Sportfishing Association,

                               Alexandria, VA, September 23, 1999.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Duke Cunningham: On behalf of the nearly 500 members 
     of the American Sportfishing Association, I wish to express 
     my strong support for your resolution to ban the wasteful 
     practice of shark finning. I commend your initiative in 
     tackling this important, yet easily dismissed issue.
       For far too long, we have neglected to take action to stop 
     this most unsportsmanlike fishing activity. We now know that 
     the best shark is not a dead shark; that these oft maligned 
     fish play critical roles in preserving balance in the marine 
     ecosystem. Healthy shark populations help maintain robust 
     fisheries. Your effort to ban finning will not only benefit 
     depressed shark populations, but many other species of 
     commercially and recreationally important fish.
       Thank you for your leadership in this area.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hon. Mike Hayden,
                                                    President/CEO.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3535, the Shark Finning 
Prohibition Act that is authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) who just spoke in the well.
  Shark finning is currently one of the most visible and controversial 
conservation issues in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. While the 
practice of finning has already been banned in Federal waters in the 
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean, as well as waters of 11 
coastal States, it remains unregulated in the Pacific.
  As a result, and because of the strong demand and the high price of 
shark fins in Asia, the harvest of shark fins in the Pacific has 
increased over the past 7 years by more than 2,000 percent. More than 
60,000 sharks were caught and killed in 1998 alone, and 98 percent of 
those sharks were killed simply for their fins, or less than 5 percent 
of their body weight, and then the shark was dumped overboard to die. 
This is wrong. It is culturally wrong. It is morally wrong. It is 
certainly wrong in terms of the laws of conservation and maintaining 
this species.
  In addition, shark finning is inconsistent with U.S. policy, both 
domestically and internationally. In the United States, it is contrary 
to the Magnuson Act which requires fisherman to reduce bycatch and the 
mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. Given that 85 percent of 
the sharks caught are alive when they reach the boats, prohibiting the 
finning of these sharks will reduce bycatch by significant amounts.
  The Shark Finning Prohibition Act will not prevent U.S. fishermen 
from harvesting sharks, bringing them to shore, and then using the fins 
or any of the other parts of the shark. Instead, it would simply 
prevent cutting off of the fins and disposal of carcass at sea, or the 
transport or landing of fins harvested in this manner by another 
fishing vessel.
  This is good legislation. The House should support it. We should put 
an end to these kinds of very narrow and greedy practices by some 
nations that devastate, in this case, the shark species, but it is 
rampant in other parts of the world with respect to other species. This 
is a good legislation. The House should support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong support of H.R. 3535, the Shark 
Finning Prohibition Act. I do want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) for introducing this measure, and I want to 
thank the Committee on Resources for expeditiously approving the 
legislation which we have found out is certainly needed.
  H.R. 3535 would bring an end to the abhorrent wasteful and 
unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning in American waters. The 
legislation will ban both the act of shark finning and the possession 
of shark fins without a shark carcass.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who are unfamiliar with the practice, the 
repugnant act of shark finning is a removal of a shark's fins and 
subsequent dumping of the dying or dead shark back into the ocean. It 
is a wasteful and environmentally harmful practice. The legislation to 
ban shark finning is strongly supported by a coalition of environmental 
and recreational organizations.
  U.S. law currently prohibits shark finning in the Federal waters of 
the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. However, we know that the demand 
for shark fins from the Pacific Ocean is dramatically increasing. 
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, more than 60,000 
Pacific sharks were killed in 1998. Almost 100,000 of these sharks were 
killed solely for their fins.
  Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3535, I urge swift 
passage of this legislation to immediately end repulsive shark finning.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3535, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act.
  In the continental United States, there is obviously a strong feeling 
that shark finning is a wasteful, abhorrent practice which has no place 
in U.S. waters. It is seen as contrary to current effort to maintain 
ecological balance in our oceans, and wasteful in that less than 5% of 
a shark's mass is comprised of its fins, with the rest of the carcass 
thrown back into the water unused. Many feel that the trade-off between 
the loss of life for the benefit of a good-tasting soup, much of which 
is consumed in Asia, balanced against the amount of waste and the 
importance of the fishery is tipped significantly in favor of the 
fishery.
  I understand the economic incentives which drive this activity. A 
small cup of shark fin soup costs $100 in parts of Asia and is 
considered a delicacy just as much as chocolate-covered ants, snails, 
and horse meat are in other cultures.
  Most of the sharks caught and finned in Hawaii-area waters are a 
bycatch from long-line fishing boats which are targeting tuna and 
swordfish. But sharks are not the only bycatch or miscellaneous fish 
caught and then discarded as waste because they do not have the same 
market value as tuna or swordfish, and I do not find it particularly 
reassuring that we are addressing the blue shark problem and ignoring a 
problem of much greater magnitude with other miscellaneous fish. The 
killing of these fish just because they are unwanted should be of no 
less of concern to all of us. We should also be addressing that 
problem, but are not because we do not have adequate stock assessments 
of most stocks. Part of the blame for this lies with the National 
Marine Fishery Service for not requesting additional funding to carry 
out this research, but part of the problem lies with the Congress as 
well, for not funding this important work.
  Obviously the United States alone cannot adequately address the 
problem of shark finning, as many other countries participate in this 
fishery as well. The United States is responsible for only a very small 
percentage of this industry, and I hope the Administration addresses 
this subject through international treaty. In the Pacific, the 
management commission being developed by the Multilateral High level 
Conference would be appropriate.
  As introduced, this legislation did not address the issue of 
transshipment of shark fins through U.S. ports. The practice of shark 
finning in international waters by foreign fishing vessels, and then 
shipping the fins from U.S. ports to foreign countries, is significant. 
To partially address this problem, I offered an amendment in 
Subcommittee to prohibit this practice, and I want to thank the 
majority for accepting that amendment. I hope that our next step will 
be to address the issue of shark fins transshipped through U.S. ports 
as bonded cargo. In response to a question I asked

[[Page H3885]]

the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council earlier this 
year, the Council reported that approximately 200 tons of dried shark 
fins are transported through U.S. Pacific ports as bonded cargo.
  There are groups in the Pacific that support a ban on shark finning; 
however, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, the entity 
tasked by law with management of the fisheries in the U.S. Central and 
Western Pacific Ocean, has repeatedly said that there is insufficient 
data on which to make that decision. While I do not agree with the 
Western Pacific Council on this one issue, I do wish to acknowledge the 
Council's work in including pelagic sharks in its management of pelagic 
fisheries dating as far back as 1987. To its credit, the Council has 
also taken aggressive conservation action in many other areas since it 
was established.
  I want to thank Congressmen Cunningham, Chairman, Don Young and 
Saxton, and Congressman George Miller for the active roles they have 
taken in moving this legislation forward, and I look forward to seeing 
the passage of the bill later today.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3535, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________