[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 172 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8790-H8792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur
in the Senate amendment to 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 Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Table of contents.
TITLE I--SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Amendment of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium
Protection Act.
Sec. 103. Amendment of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Sec. 104. Offset of implementation cost.
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES AGREEMENT
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. International Fishery Agreement.
Sec. 203. Application with other laws.
Sec. 204. Effective date.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Technical corrections to the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Convention Implementation Act.
Sec. 302. Pacific Whiting Act of 2006.
Sec. 303. Replacement vessel.
TITLE I--SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Shark Conservation Act of
2010''.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENT OF HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM
PROTECTION ACT.
(a) Actions To Strengthen International Fishery Management
Organizations.--Section 608 of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing
Moratorium Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826i) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) to adopt shark conservation measures, 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;'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) seeking to enter into international agreements that
require measures 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 are comparable to those of the United States,
taking into account different conditions; and''.
(b) Illegal, Unreported, or Unregulated Fishing.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 609(e)(3) of the High Seas
Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
1826j(e)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking the ``and'' before ``bycatch reduction
requirements''; and
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``,
and shark conservation measures;''.
(c) Equivalent Conservation Measures.--
(1) Identification.--Subsection (a) of section 610 of the
High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 1826k) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``607, a nation if--'' and inserting ``607--'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively; and
(ii) by moving clauses (i) and (ii) (as so redesignated) 2
ems to the right;
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;
(D) by moving subparagraphs (A) through (C) (as so
redesignated) 2 ems to the right;
(E) by inserting before subparagraph (A) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(1) a nation if--'';
(F) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated) by striking
the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(G) 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 in waters beyond any national
jurisdiction 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.''.
(2) Initial identifications.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall begin making identifications under paragraph (2) of
section 610(a) of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826k(a)), as added by paragraph
(1)(G), not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 103. AMENDMENT OF MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT ACT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 307 of Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1857) 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;
``(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) or 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). In such subparagraph, the term
`naturally attached', with respect to a shark fin, means
attached to the corresponding shark carcass through some
portion of uncut skin.''.
(b) Savings Clause.--
``(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a) do
not apply to an individual engaged in commercial fishing for
smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) in that area of the waters of
the United States located shoreward of a line drawn in such a
manner that each point on it is 50 nautical miles from the
baseline of a State from which the territorial sea is
measured, if the individual holds a valid State commercial
fishing license, unless the total weight of smooth dogfish
fins landed or found on board a vessel to which this
subsection applies exceeds 12 percent of the total weight of
smooth dogfish carcasses landed or found on board.
(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Commercial fishing.--The term ``commercial fishing''
has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1802).
(B) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given that
term in section 803 of Public Law 103-206 (16 U.S.C. 5102).
SEC. 104. OFFSET OF IMPLEMENTATION COST.
Section 308(a) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of
1986 (16 U.S.C. 4107(a)) is amended by striking ``2012.'' and
inserting ``2010, and $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2011 and 2012.''.
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES AGREEMENT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``International Fisheries
Agreement Clarification Act''.
SEC. 202. INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENT.
Consistent with the intent of provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act relating
to international agreements, the Secretary of Commerce and
the New England Fishery Management Council may, for the
purpose of rebuilding those portions of fish stocks covered
by the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing
Understanding on the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) take into account the Understanding and decisions made
under that Understanding in the application of section
304(e)(4)(A)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4)(A)(i));
(2) consider decisions made under that Understanding as
``management measures under an international agreement'' that
``dictate otherwise'' for purposes of section
304(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4)(A)(ii); and
(3) establish catch levels for those portions of fish
stocks within their respective geographic areas covered by
the Understanding on the date of enactment of this Act that
exceed the catch levels otherwise required under the
Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan if--
(A) overfishing is ended immediately;
(B) the fishing mortality level ensures rebuilding within a
time period for rebuilding specified taking into account the
Understanding pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection; and
(C) such catch levels are consistent with that
Understanding.
SEC. 203. APPLICATION WITH OTHER LAWS.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to amend the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1851 et seq.) or to limit or otherwise alter the
authority of the Secretary of Commerce under that Act
concerning other species.
[[Page H8791]]
SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
section 202 shall apply with respect to fishing years
beginning after April 30, 2010.
(b) Special Rule.--Section 202(3)(B) shall only apply with
respect to fishing years beginning after April 30, 2012.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE WESTERN AND CENTRAL
PACIFIC FISHERIES CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION
ACT.
Section 503 of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6902) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Management Council and'' in subsection
(a) and inserting ``Management Council, and one of whom shall
be the chairman or a member of'';
(2) by striking subsection (c)(1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Employment status.--Individuals serving as such
Commissioners, other than officers or employees of the United
States Government, shall not be considered Federal employees
except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims
liability as provided in chapter 81 of title 5, United States
Code, and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) shall not be considered Federal employees except for
the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability
as provided in chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, and
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.''.
SEC. 302. PACIFIC WHITING ACT OF 2006.
(a) Scientific Experts.--Section 605(a)(1) of the Pacific
Whiting Act of 2006 (16 U.S.C. 7004(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``at least 6 but not more than 12'' inserting ``no
more than 2''.
(b) Employment Status.--Section 609(a) of the Pacific
Whiting Act of 2006 (16 U.S.C. 7008(a)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) Employment Status.--Individuals appointed under
section 603, 604, 605, or 606 of this title, other than
officers or employees of the United States Government, shall
not be considered to be Federal employees while performing
such service, except for purposes of injury compensation or
tort claims liability as provided in chapter 81 of title 5,
United States Code, and chapter 171 of title 28, United
States Code.''.
SEC. 303. REPLACEMENT VESSEL.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Commerce may promulgate regulations that allow for the
replacement or rebuilding of a vessel qualified under
subsections (a)(7) and (g)(1)(A) of section 219 of the
Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 188 Stat. 886-891).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.
General Leave
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative 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 Guam?
There was no objection.
{time} 1020
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
81, the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. This bill, which I first
introduced more than 3 years ago, reconfirms the original intent of
Congress to prevent shark finning by prohibiting the removal of fins at
sea, and the possession, transference, or landing of fins which are not
naturally attached to the corresponding carcass. This critical
conservation measure and enforcement mechanism will help to end the
wasteful and abusive practice of shark finning and make us a world
leader in shark conservation.
Yesterday, the Senate amended my bill to clarify that certain fish
stocks in New England are considered to be managed under an
international agreement for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. The bill was also amended to make
technical corrections to two international fishery implementation acts
to allow proper participation by stakeholders on the respective
advisory bodies. Amendments were also made to clarify that the
Secretary of Commerce can issue regulations to allow for the
replacement of corroding vessels in the non-pollock groundfish fishery.
In addition, the Senate inserted language to exempt one particular
fishery from the new requirement to land sharks with their fins
naturally attached. While I am not supportive of this particular
exemption, I do think it is important to note that this fishery
represents less than 1 percent of all the shark fishing in the United
States, and that the restrictions on shark finning currently in the law
will still apply to them.
Putting an end to shark finning is imperative to the conservation of
these important and iconic species. With that, I ask Members on both
sides to support its passage.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much
time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this legislation takes H.R. 81, the Shark Conservation
Act of 2010, which passed this House in March of last year, and adds
several other fisheries provisions, all of which I support. My
colleague has adequately explained and described what is in this small
fisheries package, and I do not object to this legislation. Action by
this House will clear these measures for the President. I urge
adoption.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 81, the
Shark Conservation Act of 2009. First, I want to commend the chief
sponsor, the Chairwoman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, and my good friend, Ms. Madeleine
Bordallo of Guam, for her leadership on this important issue. I also
want to commend Chairman Nick Rahall and members of the Committee on
Natural Resources for their strong support of this bipartisan
legislation.
This piece of legislation underscores the need for the U.S. to
maintain its leadership role in conserving sharks and the marine
ecosystems of which they are an important part. The increasing amount
of shark finning has taken an adverse impact on our efforts and
warrants continued efforts from Congress to reverse these unwanted
trends. Economic profits have fueled high demands for shark fins and
have led to the exploitation of our marine ecosystem. Exploiters remove
only shark fins and dump carcasses at sea. It is Congress'
responsibility to maintain prohibition of shark finning in order to
preserve the conservation of sharks and their corresponding ecosystems.
Congress enacted the Shark Finning Prohibition of 2000, to prohibit
fishermen from removing the fins of sharks and discarding the carcasses
at sea, and prevent the transportation of shark fins without the
corresponding carcasses. Effective enforcement of these prohibitions
are found wanting.
In 2008, the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals held that the shark
finning prohibitions and related implementing regulations promulgated
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) do not apply to certain
vessels even though they are performing fishing-related activities.
According to the court ruling, the statutory definition of ``fishing
vessel'' did not offer fair notice to the fishermen engaging in the at-
sea purchase and transfer of shark fins that would render the fishermen
subject to the shark finning laws. In effect, the court ruled that the
application of the prohibition laws under the Shark Finning Prohibition
of 2008 Act violates due process.
The bill before us today, H.R. 81, remedies the problem presented by
the 2008 court ruling. The proposed language clarifies that all
vessels, not just fishing vessels, are prohibited from having custody,
control, or possession of shark fins without the corresponding carcass,
thereby eliminating the unexpected loophole related to the transport of
shark fins. n addition, the proposed bill would strengthen the capacity
of our Federal Government to better monitor and enforce existing laws.
Madam Speaker, it is necessary that we pass this legislation
immediately given the devastation confronting our national marine
ecosystems. Sharks play an integral role in our ecosystem and it is our
responsibility to ensure that they are protected. The future of our
ecosystem is in our hands and we need to do all that we can for the
sake of our natural resources and for our future generations.
I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 81.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for
H.R. 81, the Shark Conservation Act.
I want to thank Congresswoman Bordallo for introducing this
legislation of which I am a cosponsor.
Shark populations in our world's oceans are dying.
We need to act, and we need to act now.
Sharks are at the top of the global marine food chain. Sharks have
roamed our oceans since before the time of dinosaurs, but now their
populations are being threatened by overfishing around the globe.
Shark-finning takes a tremendous toll on shark populations.
An estimated 73 million sharks are killed every year to support the
global shark fin trade.
We must act decisively today to help protect these magnificent
creatures.
[[Page H8792]]
The Shark Conservation Act would end the practice of shark finning in
U.S. waters.
However, domestic protections alone will not save sharks.
We need further safeguards to keep marine ecosystems and top predator
populations healthy. The Shark Conservation Act will bolster the U.S.'s
position when negotiating for increased international fishery
protections.
Healthy shark populations in our waters can help drive our economy
and make our seas thrive.
This bill is not just about preserving a species, but about
preserving an ecosystem, an economy, and a sustainable future.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 81.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate
Amendment to H.R. 81, The Shark Conservation Act of 2010. I am pleased
that the Senate has taken up and passed this bill with so little time
left in the 111th Congress, and I urge my colleagues to follow suit and
vote ``yes'' to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 81 so that we can send
this important piece of legislation to the President's desk.
This bill seeks to adopt important and necessary conservation
measures for sharks. Specifically, and perhaps most importantly, the
bill amends the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to
prohibit shark-finning. Shark-finning is the removal of any fins of a
shark (including the tail), and discarding the carcass of the shark at
sea. The practice has egregious effects on shark populations worldwide
and the fins remain in high demand for use in ``shark fin soup''--an
Asian delicacy. It is estimated that 73 million sharks are killed each
year as a result of shark-finning. In short, this practice takes a
tremendous toll on shark populations.
In addition, many shark species are threatened or endangered, making
the conservation measures set forth by this bill timely and necessary.
Sharks are one of the top predators in our oceans, and a loss in their
population would lead to permanent and detrimental effects on the
entire marine environment. The loss of top predators in the marine
environment upsets the balance of our oceans, causing severe and
sometimes irreversible consequences.
We take so much from our ocean, and yet give nothing back. Protecting
and conserving its depleting resources should be a top priority because
before long there will be nothing left to take.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Senate
Amendment to H.R. 81.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge all Members to
support this bill.
In our last business before the House for the Natural Resources
Committee this year, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Washington for his cooperation in this bill, and for all of the
opportunities that we have had to work together in this Congress.
Moreover, I wish him good luck as the new chairman of the committee
next year, and look forward to working with him in the next capacity.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 81.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________