[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 36 (Monday, March 2, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H2879-H2880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 81) to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 
Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 81

       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 Conservation Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM 
                   PROTECTION ACT.

       Section 610(a) of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 
     Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826k(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking so much as precedes paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Identification.--The Secretary shall identify, and 
     list in the report under section 607--
       ``(1) a nation if--'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;
       (4) by moving subparagraphs (A) through (C) (as so 
     redesignated) 2 ems to the right;
       (5) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) a nation if--
       ``(A) fishing vessels of that nation are engaged, or have 
     been engaged during the preceding calendar year, in fishing 
     activities or practices that target or incidentally catch 
     sharks; and
       ``(B) the nation has not adopted a regulatory program to 
     provide for the conservation of sharks, including measures to 
     prohibit removal of any of the fins of a shark (including the 
     tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea, that is 
     comparable to that of the United States, taking into account 
     different conditions.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION 
                   AND MANAGEMENT ACT.

       Section 307(1) of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (P) to read as follows:
       ``(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark (including 
     the tail) at sea;

[[Page H2880]]

       ``(ii) to have custody, control, or possession of any such 
     fin aboard a fishing vessel unless it is naturally attached 
     to the corresponding carcass;
       ``(iii) to transfer any such fin from one vessel to another 
     vessel at sea, or to receive any such fin in such transfer, 
     without the fin naturally attached to the corresponding 
     carcass; or
       ``(iv) to land any such fin that is not naturally attached 
     to the corresponding carcass, or to land any shark carcass 
     without such fins naturally attached;''; and
       (2) by striking the matter following subparagraph (R) and 
     inserting the following:

     ``For purposes of subparagraph (P), there shall be a 
     rebuttable presumption that if any shark fin (including the 
     tail) is found aboard a vessel, other than a fishing vessel, 
     without being naturally attached to the corresponding 
     carcass, such fin was transferred in violation of 
     subparagraph (P)(iii) and that if, after landing, the total 
     weight of shark fins (including the tail) landed from any 
     vessel exceeds five percent of the total weight of shark 
     carcasses landed, such fins were taken, held, or landed in 
     violation of subparagraph (P).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 81, the Shark Conservation 
Act of 2009. Sharks are vital to the health of marine ecosystems, but 
the practice of shark finning is driving the decline of their 
populations worldwide.
  Nine years ago, Congress passed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act to 
protect these important species. The pending measure reconfirms the 
original intent of Congress to prevent shark finning by prohibiting the 
removal of fins at sea and the possession, transfer or landing of fins, 
which are not naturally attached to the corresponding carcass.
  Reducing shark finning is imperative to conserving sharks, a critical 
species within marine ecosystems. This bill passed the House during the 
last Congress but was not acted upon by the other body. Today, we are 
repeating our effort for this important conservation.
  I especially want to acknowledge the efforts of Madeleine Bordallo, 
the Chair of the Insular Affairs Oceans and Wildlife subcommittee. She 
has worked hard on this. And for the sake of the ecosystem of our 
world's oceans, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 81, 
the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. Due to an unfortunate court ruling, 
a loophole was opened in the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 
which allows fishermen to transfer shark fins from fishing vessels to 
transshipment vessels at sea. This type of at-sea transfer was clearly 
a violation of the Act, but the court ruled otherwise.
  Another provision in the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 
required fishermen to land the carcasses of the sharks they had caught 
so that fishery managers could determine the number and type of shark 
species being harvested. H.R. 81 takes that one step further and 
requires U.S. fishermen to land sharks with the fins still attached.
  While the change in shark management included in this legislation is 
consistent with the regulations developed by the Secretary of Commerce 
for Atlantic shark fisheries, management measures for sharks in the 
Pacific are normally developed through the Western Pacific Fishery 
Management Council.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman said, this bill will 
correct an oversight in the existing law, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, in the 106th Congress, we 
enacted the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000. At the time 
fisheries managers were unable to quantify the number and the species 
of sharks being harvested in some fisheries and this made shark 
management unsuccessful. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act required 
that fishermen land the carcass of the shark along with the fins so 
that fishery managers could track shark mortality.
  Unfortunately, some shark fin buyers attempted to create a loophole 
in the law by purchasing fins without the carcasses at sea from 
fishermen and then ``transferring them to transhipment vessels. This 
clearly violated the intent, if not the actual provisions, of the law.
  To make things worse, a court ruling seems to have sanctioned this 
unintended loophole in the law.
  This legislation closes that loophole and I support this legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 81.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________