[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.
____________________