[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5934-H5936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENCOURAGING ELIMINATION OF HARMFUL FISHING SUBSIDIES
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 94) encouraging the
elimination of harmful fishing subsidies that contribute to
overcapacity in commercial fishing fleets worldwide and that lead to
the overfishing of global fish stocks, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 94
Whereas nearly 1,000,000,000 people around the world depend
on fish as their primary source of dietary protein;
Whereas the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization has found that 75 percent of the world's fish
populations are currently fully exploited, over exploited,
significantly depleted, or recovering from overexploitation;
Whereas scientists have estimated that a significant
percentage of big predator fish such as tuna, marlin, and
swordfish are gone from the world's oceans as a result of
overfishing by foreign fishing fleets;
Whereas the global fishing fleet capacity is estimated to
be up to 250 percent greater than is needed to catch what the
ocean can sustainably produce;
Whereas the Congress recognized the threat of overfishing
to our oceans and economy and therefore included the
requirement to end overfishing in the United States by 2011
in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-479);
Whereas the United States Commission on Ocean Policy and
the Pew Oceans Commission identified overcapitalization of
the global fishing fleets as a major contributor to the
decline of economically important fish populations;
Whereas harmful fishing subsidies encourage
overcapitalization and overfishing; support destructive
fishing practices such as high seas trawling that would not
otherwise be economically viable; and amount to billions of
dollars annually;
Whereas such subsidies have also been documented to support
illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, which impacts
commercial fisheries in the United States and around the
world both economically and ecologically;
Whereas harmful fishing subsidies are concentrated in
relatively few countries, putting other fishing countries,
including the United States, at an economic disadvantage;
Whereas the United States is a world leader in advancing
policies to eliminate harmful fishing subsidies that support
overcapacity and promote overfishing; and
Whereas a wide range of countries are currently engaged in
historic negotiations to end harmful fishing subsidies that
contribute to overcapacity and overfishing: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the United States
[[Page H5935]]
should continue to promote the elimination of harmful fishing
subsidies that lead to--
(1) overcapitalization;
(2) overfishing; and
(3) illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
General Leave
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I commend the chairwoman of the Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Congresswoman Madeleine
Bordallo, for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 94. This
resolution will encourage the United States to support the elimination
of foreign fishing subsidies that lead to overcapacity and overfishing
in global fisheries.
House Concurrent Resolution 94, as amended, resolves that the United
States will continue to support efforts to eliminate harmful subsidies
issued by foreign governments to their fishing fleets. These subsidies
reduce the cost of fishing to foreign fishermen, making fishing a
profitable enterprise where it otherwise would not be, and leading to
overcapitalization, overfishing and illegal, unregulated and unreported
fishing. The end result is that foreign fishing subsidies hurt American
fishermen who have to compete against subsidized foreign fishing.
We support this noncontroversial resolution, as amended, and commend
Ms. Bordallo for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 94, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Concurrent Resolution 94 has been adequately explained by the
majority, and I urge adoption of the resolution.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 94 expresses
our support for ending the fishing subsidies given to foreign
fishermen. I appreciate the chairman of the House Natural Resources
Committee, Nick Rahall, and the Ranking Republican, Don Young, for
their assistance in moving this legislation.
Foreign governments' subsidies to fishermen are common in many
countries around the world. Too little of these subsidies go toward
beneficial purposes, such as improving fisheries management and
science. Instead, they typically are used to offset fishing costs, for
example, by providing support for fuel consumption and vessel
construction.
The subsidies artificially decrease the cost of fishing for foreign
fishermen, making fishing a profitable trade when it would not be
otherwise. The subsidies increase the rate of overfishing worldwide.
Current estimates reveal that the sheer number of vessels actively
fishing around the world today is up to 250 percent greater than is
sustainable, according to the World Wildlife Fund.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has found
that 75 percent of the world's fisheries are fully exploited, over
exploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion. There is clearly no
need to expand the world's fishing fleets beyond their current
capacity. Quite the contrary. By eliminating the subsidies that lead to
fleet expansion, we can reduce some of this pressure.
The United States--like other countries--reserves to American
fishermen and women the exclusive right to fish within 200 nautical
mile of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Hundreds of foreign vessels
each year, however, are intercepted while fishing illegally in U.S.
waters. This rise in illegal fishing, most certainly contributed to by
the overcapacity in the world's fleets, is placing additional pressure
on our already exploited resources, damaging our marine ecosystems, and
taking away potential revenue from our domestic fishing industry. In
2006 alone, the United States Coast Guard intercepted 164 vessels
fishing in our EEZ.
In my home district of Guam the problem of illegal fishing is
significant. The Western Central Pacific area is considered one of the
Coast Guard's three highest threat areas for illegal foreign fishing.
In 2006, the Coast Guard recorded 11 incidents of illegal foreign
fishing in the Western Central Pacific area. Since 2000, the Coast
Guard has intercepted an average of 34 vessels per year. And this only
represents the vessels that are being caught.
The countries whose vessels are the most likely to be found illegally
fishing in the U.S. EEZ are also countries that provide large capacity-
increasing subsidies to their fishing fleets. Because enforcement is so
difficult, it is even more important that we attack the issue at its
root by encouraging worldwide capacity reduction and by discouraging
other countries from making it economically feasible for their vessels
to travel into our waters to fish.
While we have no direct control over the actions of foreign
governments, the Doha Round of the current World Trade Organization
(WTO) negotiations have placed the United States in a unique position
to influence the future use of harmful fisheries subsidies by other
countries. Through these negotiations the United States has an
opportunity to exercise its leadership internationally in encouraging
the elimination of subsidies that increase fishing capacity and that
promote overfishing. By passing this concurrent resolution, Congress
can demonstrate to the world its support for our government as they
move forward with these negotiations.
I strongly urge my colleagues to take a strong stance against harmful
foreign fishing subsidies by supporting this House Concurrent
Resolution 94.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con.
Res. 94, encouraging the elimination of harmful fishing subsidies that
contribute to overcapacity in commercial fishing fleets worldwide and
that lead to the over-fishing of global fish stocks.
I commend my esteemed colleague from Guam, the Chairwoman of the
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans for
submitting this concurrent resolution. She understands the severe
impact that over-fishing has on our world's oceans and this resolution
is an important step in gaining the cooperation of other nations in
managing our shared ocean resources responsibly.
According to a 2006 scientific study, there may be no more commercial
fish stocks left in the sea by 2050. As the report states, since 1950
29% of the world's commercial fish species have already collapsed. If
we do not change our course and stop over-fishing, our children could
be the first generation to face entirely empty oceans.
One major contributor to this precipitous decline in global fish
stocks is the huge overcapacity of our global fishing fleets. By some
accounts, the current fishing fleet capacity is 250% of what is needed
to catch the maximum sustainable yield from the oceans. In many
instances, this overcapacity is fueled by harmful subsidies provided by
a limited number of foreign governments to their fishing fleets,
leading to over-fishing, and ecologically unsound bottom-trawling in
international waters.
Through our nation's laws, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have
established a strong federal policy supporting sustainable fishing
practices here in the United States. In order to successfully manage
the world's limited ocean resources, however, we need to promote the
elimination of these fishing subsidies with the cooperation of our
neighbors in the world community. This Resolution is an important first
step in developing a global plan to manage our oceans responsibly.
Again, I thank my friend from Guam and I urge my colleagues to support
H. Con. Res. 94, encouraging the elimination of these harmful fishing
subsidies.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res.
94. I want to thank Chairwoman Bordallo and Chairman Rahall for their
efforts on this resolution.
I know the issue of harmful foreign fishing subsidies is one of the
key concerns of the West Virginia fishing fleet and I congratulate Mr.
Rahall on his interest in this resolution.
All kidding aside, this issue is a global concern. Harmful foreign
fishing subsidies that threaten the sustainability of legitimate
fisheries and threaten the economic viability and international
competitiveness of the U.S. fishing industry must be identified and
eliminated.
Some foreign fishing fleets have been heavily subsidized by their
governments and this has led to over exploitation of some important
fish species.
Harmful subsidies not only put legitimately prosecuted fisheries in
jeopardy of overfishing, but also put U.S. fishermen at an economic
disadvantage in the global fish market.
However, we need to be careful when discussing subsidies because some
subsidies are actually beneficial. Government programs which help
fishermen reduce unnecessary bycatch, which aid efforts to develop
``clean'' fishing gear, which aid governments in monitoring or
enforcing the fisheries, or which
[[Page H5936]]
make the fishery safer for fishermen are all legitimate and beneficial
governmental programs.
Harmful subsidies that increase the size and harvesting capabilities
of fishing fleets beyond the capacity needed to sustainably harvest the
quotas in a fishery can be harmful environmentally and economically.
While I support the main concept of this resolution--to place the
House of Representatives on the record opposing harmful fishing
subsidies by foreign governments--one statistic used in this resolution
is misleading even though it is often quoted. The resolution uses the
statistic that ``75 percent of the world's fish populations are
currently fully exploited, over exploited, significantly depleted or
recovering from overexploitation.'' Full exploitation of fisheries is
not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the full utilization of our
Nation's fisheries is a key purpose of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Admitedly, fully exploited fisheries
need to be carefully managed, monitored, and enforced to keep them from
becoming over exploited.
If you remove ``fully exploited'' from this statistic, the figure
drops to approximately 25 percent. This figure, while much less
dramatic, is still a concern that we need to address. Foreign subsidies
that contribute to this figure need to be addressed.
The United States has already taken a leading role in addressing IUU
fisheries and in addressing harmful foreign subsidies. I support these
efforts and urge support of efforts to continue to reduce harmful
foreign fishing subsidies.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and
therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I also yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res.
94, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________