[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.

                          ____________________