[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 186 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9076-H9083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SHARK FIN SALES ELIMINATION ACT OF 2019

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 737) to prohibit the sale of shark fins, and for other 
purposes, as amended.

[[Page H9077]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 737

       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 Fin Sales Elimination 
     Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF SHARK FINS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in sections 3 and 4, 
     no person shall possess, offer for sale, sell, or purchase 
     any shark fin or product containing any shark fin.
       (b) Penalty.--For purposes of section 308(a) of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1858(a)), a violation of this section shall be treated 
     as an act prohibited by section 307 of that Act.

     SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR TRADITIONAL FISHERIES, EDUCATION, AND 
                   SCIENCE.

       Section 2 shall not apply with respect to possession of a 
     shark fin that was taken lawfully under a State, territorial, 
     or Federal license or permit to take or land sharks, if the 
     shark fin is separated from the shark in a manner consistent 
     with the license or permit and is--
       (1) destroyed or discarded upon separation;
       (2) used for noncommercial subsistence purposes in 
     accordance with State or territorial law;
       (3) used solely for display or research purposes by a 
     museum, college, or university, or by any other person under 
     a State or Federal permit to conduct noncommercial scientific 
     research; or
       (4) retained by the license or permit holder for a 
     noncommercial purpose.

     SEC. 4. EXEMPTION FOR DOGFISH.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be a violation of section 2 
     for any person to possess, offer for sale, sell, or purchase 
     any fresh or frozen raw fin or tail from any stock of the 
     species Mustelus canis (smooth dogfish) or Squalus acanthias 
     (spiny dogfish).
       (b) Report.--By not later than January 1, 2027, the 
     Secretary of Commerce should review the exemption in 
     subsection (a) and should prepare and submit to the Congress 
     a report that includes a recommendation on whether the 
     exemption should continue or be terminated. In preparing such 
     report and making such recommendation, the Secretary should 
     analyze factors including--
       (1) the economic viability of dogfish fisheries with and 
     without the continuation of the exemption;
       (2) the impact to ocean ecosystems of continuing or 
     terminating the exemption;
       (3) the impact on enforcement of the ban contained in 
     section 3 caused by the exemption; and
       (4) the impact of the exemption on shark conservation.

     SEC. 5. INCLUSION OF RAYS AND SKATES IN SEAFOOD TRACEABILITY 
                   PROGRAM.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall revise section 
     300.324 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, to include 
     rays and skates in the species and species groups specified 
     in subsection (a)(2) of such section.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Shark.--The term ``shark'' means any species of the 
     orders Pristiophoriformes, Squatiniformes, Squaliformes, 
     Hexanchiformes, Lamniformes, Carchariniformes, 
     Orectolobiformes, and Heterodontiformes.
       (2) Shark fin.--The term ``shark fin'' means the raw, 
     dried, or otherwise processed detached fin, or the raw, 
     dried, or otherwise processed detached tail, of a shark.

     SEC. 7. STATE AUTHORITY.

       Nothing in this Act affects any right of a State or 
     territory of the United States to adopt or enforce any 
     regulation or standard that is more stringent than a 
     regulation or standard in effect under this Act.

     SEC. 8. DETERMINATION OF BUDGET EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock) each will control 20 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would make it legal to possess, buy, or sell 
shark fins in the United States.
  Now, everyone knows sharks are in trouble. Around the globe, one-
quarter of sharks and their relatives are threatened with extinction. 
They are being caught and killed on average 30 percent faster than they 
can reproduce, in large part due to the demand for their fins to fuel 
the global shark fin trade. The fins from as many as 73 million sharks 
enter the shark fin trade every single year.
  As top predators in the oceans, they play a critical role in 
ecosystems impacting our fisheries, coral reefs, and tourism economies. 
The concern for declining shark populations and the impact of their 
loss and the impact that loss has on ecosystems and tourism alike has 
led to increased efforts to conserve sharks globally, including no-take 
marine reserves, species-specific fishing bans, and shark fin trade 
bans.
  While the United States has banned the practice of shark finning, we 
have not banned the buying and selling of shark fins, which means that 
we are still a part of the problem.
  States and the private sector are catching on. Already 12 States, 
three territories, 40 airlines, and 20 major international shipping 
companies and other corporations such as Amazon, Disney, Hilton, and 
Grubhub have all refused to partake in this trade that devastates shark 
populations around the world.
  And just this year Canada passed a similar bill, in large part thanks 
to our efforts here. That is the intention of this bill. When the 
United States steps up to lead, others will follow.
  H.R. 737 would build on the leadership of these States, territories, 
and companies by eliminating shark fin sales and possession in the 
United States.
  In addition to its 287 bipartisan cosponsors, this bill enjoys the 
support of recreational fishing interests, aquariums, over 150 
scientists, 150 chefs, over 300 dive businesses and over 130 
nonprofits. With this overwhelming support and at a time when so many 
shark populations are depleted, it is of utmost importance that we pass 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Congressman Sablan for his leadership 
and also Congressman McCaul for his leadership on this bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a bumper sticker bill that purports 
to save the sharks, but in reality would damage shark fisheries, 
destroy American jobs, and increase the threats to endangered species.
  Let's first define what we agree on. Killing a shark solely to take 
its fins is contemptible. It is immoral. Herman Melville called such 
wanton waste blasphemous.
  But let us be clear: This practice is already illegal under Federal 
law. It has been that way since 1993. American fishermen are not the 
villains in this story, they are the heroes who are adhering to 
rigorous regulations that require them to account for the full use of 
their catches.
  So what does this bill do? It does exactly what it purports to abhor. 
Proponents rightly denounce taking the fins and then throwing away the 
carcass, so they have come up with a bill that would take the carcass 
but throw away the fins. This bill makes it illegal to possess or 
purchase a shark fin. The fins are 50 percent of the value of the 
catch.
  If you force shark fishermen to waste literally 50 percent of the 
value of their catch, you remove their margin and destroy their 
enterprise. And this does little to stop the illegal trade of shark 
fins, since almost all of the demand is in east and Southeast Asia, and 
that market will simply apply upward pressure on the illegal taking of 
shark fins.
  The responsible management of our U.S. fisheries and the exemplary 
conduct of U.S. fishermen has resulted in a great success story. Since 
2000, the domestic shark population has been growing. The index of 
shark abundance in 2015 was the highest in its 29-year history.
  Now, if you force fishermen to throw away 50 percent of the value of 
each shark they catch, one of two things are going to happen. To stay 
in business, they will have to take more and more sharks to make up for 
their loss, or more likely for American fishermen, they will simply go 
out of business.

[[Page H9078]]

  If it is the latter, we can expect an out-of-control explosion in 
shark populations with devastating consequences for endangered marine 
species, like the right whale. And in either case, American fishermen 
will suffer to the advantage of the unregulated illegal foreign fishing 
fleets.
  This is an example of two developments that we have had to watch on 
the Natural Resources Committee since the Democrats took control.
  The first is their tendency to cater to emotional pressure groups who 
have been successful at raising large sums of money by tugging at the 
heartstrings of gullible donors, but whose bromides end up doing 
enormous harm to the very populations they purport to protect. Indeed, 
the Wildlife Conservation Society recently submitted a letter warning 
of this signed by 60 of our Nation's leading scientific experts in 
shark science and fisheries.
  The second is the tendency to blame Americans first for the excesses 
and predations of bad foreign actors.

  Time and again, American fishermen, American growers, and American 
consumers have proven to be the law-abiding, conservation-minded, 
responsible practitioners of a sustainable practice. But the Democrats 
continue to impose punitive and destructive measures on them to atone 
for the irresponsible actions of foreign nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the measure, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note, that in California, 
where I authored a very similar ban on the possession, sale, and trade 
of shark fins, the sky has not fallen, the world has not ended. All of 
the calamities that my friend just predicted have not taken place, and 
guess what, there continues to be a sustainable shark fishery for the 
meat without contributing to the global shark fin trade that is driving 
the decimation of shark populations around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from The Northern 
Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), the author of this bill.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 737, the 
Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act.
  The act bans the buying and selling of shark fins in the United 
States, and this widely supported bipartisan bill has gathered 287 
cosponsors. A companion bill, S. 877, has been introduced in the Senate 
as well.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the largest number of cosponsors for any 
ocean conservation bill so far in this Congress, and I want to thank my 
good friend and the distinguished Member from Texas, the Honorable   
Michael McCaul who has worked tirelessly with me on the bill and brings 
with him the support of 68 Members from his side of the aisle.
  This bill has such strong support because it represents an effective 
way to remove the United States from the devastating global trade in 
shark fins at zero cost, and because it does so without stopping those 
who want to fish for sharks and use them for their meat.
  Mr. Speaker, sharks are absolutely critical to life in the ocean. As 
apex predators, they help maintain balance by keeping prey populations 
in check. They are also critical to the tourism economy off our coastal 
communities.
  In Florida alone, tourists who go diving to see sharks generate more 
than 200 times the value of the trade in shark fins for our entire 
country, 200 times the value.
  Despite their importance ecologically and economically, sharks are in 
serious trouble. Each year fins from up to 73 million sharks are sliced 
off and sold in a global marketplace. And largely due to this demand 
for fins, some shark species in the population have now declined by 
more than 90 percent.
  Our Nation has wisely banned the inhumane practice of finning sharks 
and throwing them back into the ocean to drown and die, yet we still 
allow fins to be bought and sold here. And many of the fins we are 
buying and selling come from countries that simply do not have the same 
level of protection the United States gives sharks.
  Now is the time for us to take the next step. Only by banning the 
shark fin trade once and for all within our borders can we ensure we 
are no longer supporting an unsustainable use of ocean resources. 
Recognizing this unsustainability, The Northern Mariana Islands, my 
home, was the first U.S. insular area to ban the trade of shark fins in 
2011.
  As an island culture 3,000-plus years old, the people of the Marianas 
understand and respect the important role that sharks play in 
maintaining the life of our oceans. And we are not alone. Twelve U.S. 
states and two territories have also passed their own shark fin bans.
  But this patchwork of State laws can be challenging to enforce, and 
so this is why we need a Federal ban on the shark fin trade in the 
United States, and that is why I am asking for your support today.
  A ban on the shark fin trade is supported by 45 domestic and 
international airlines, by 21 shipping companies, seven major 
corporations and more than 645 U.S. businesses and organizations.
  A 2016 national poll found four of five Americans supported a 
national ban on the buying and selling of shark fins. Hundreds of 
scientists, chefs, fishers, dive, and surf businesses have written to 
Congress requesting passage of a national shark fin ban.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for this House to act. Please join me by 
voting ``yes'' on this critical bill. Vote ``yes'' to conserve our 
oceans and the all-important sharks that live in those waters.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from California says that, well, California's 
ban hasn't resulted in any calamities. What he forgets is that 
virtually all shark fisheries in the United States are found in 
Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina. Banning shark finning in 
California is like banning buffalo hunting in Rhode Island; there just 
isn't any.
  My friend from the Marianas tells us that there are 73 million shark 
fins in the global market annually. That is a very misleading 
statement. It comes from a report published by Shelley Clarke. That 
report gives a range of between 26 and 73 million and makes no 
differentiation between legally and illegally obtained fins, which, 
unfortunately, is a defect in this bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, for a different opinion, however, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of this bill to help end the inhumane practice of 
shark finning. After a shark's fins are removed, these majestic 
creatures are thrown into the ocean to die, and multiple species face 
extinction.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Congressman Sablan, for his 
courageous leadership to introduce this bill, which I strongly support.
  The United States banned shark finning. Now we must end the shark fin 
trade. Major retailers, airliners, and shipping companies refuse to 
ship or sell shark fin products. And 12 states, including my home State 
of Texas have bans on shark fin trading. It is time for a Federal ban, 
Mr. Speaker.
  The United States led in ending the trade of trafficking ivory and 
rhino horns, and now we must lead in the shark fin trade itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to end and close with a personal thanks to my 
wife, Linda, who is an oceanographer who spent many years serving our 
country in Naval intelligence tracking Soviet submarines, and now she 
tracks sharks by tagging sharks and following them around the world as 
they exist.

                              {time}  1415

  As she told me when she returned from Guadeloupe Island, on the very 
same boat that Peter Benchley went out on as he saw the majestic great 
white shark, in his words, he says that the greatest regret of his life 
was writing the book ``Jaws.''
  I thank Delegate Sablan, and I thank my wife, Linda, for great 
testimony before this committee. I stand in strong support, and I hope 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us on this momentous 
day.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, just another shout-out to Congressman 
McCaul and his wife, who was a fantastic witness at the hearing we had 
on this bill at the Natural Resources Committee, and also for the 
leadership of the State of Texas and so many other States, territories, 
and leaders in the

[[Page H9079]]

private sector who understand we have to end this terribly wasteful and 
cruel global shark fin trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, down in South Carolina's Lowcountry, we 
all understand the importance of a healthy ocean and healthy 
coastlines, and sharks are a part of that story. Unfortunately, many 
populations of sharks have severely declined due to the demand for 
their fins. In South Carolina, we have not imported or exported any 
shark fins in recent years, and a large number of constituents have 
contacted me in support of this legislation.
  Support for this ban is growing across the country. Twelve U.S. 
States already have shark fin bans. Private companies are also refusing 
to ship or sell shark fin products.
  Just earlier this year, Canada became the first G20 country to ban 
the shark fin trade. The United States has already banned the act of 
shark finning, but we continue to import fins from countries that don't 
have their own finning bans.
  Disturbingly, in the United States, our own government data shows 
that less than 20 percent of our U.S. shark stocks are sustainably 
managed. It is time for the United States to end its role in the shark 
fin trade and stop contributing to the decline of our shark 
populations.
  I am grateful to Delegate Sablan and Chairman Grijalva from the 
Natural Resources Committee for their leadership on this issue. Also, I 
thank Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member McCaul for his 
leadership.
  Ending the shark fin trade will require a death by a thousand cuts, 
and we have the opportunity to make a big cut right now. Let's pass the 
Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas compared banning 
shark fins to banning ivory. Of course, the difference is that the U.S. 
was a major consumer of ivory. It is 1 percent of the entire global 
shark fin market.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to be upfront. I have caught dozens of sharks in 
my life. I have released every single one of them intact. I have never 
gone shark fishing. It was unintentional catch. I have never eaten a 
shark, never had shark fin soup, nor have I any intention or desire to 
have any of this. But I do represent a State that does have a shark 
industry that sustainably harvests those.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is our obligation to actually go to 
scientists and to go to fisheries managers to get their opinion on what 
it is that we ought to be doing here.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from our Democratic 
Governor's administration where they talk about this bill.

         State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
                                    Baton Rouge, LA, July 7, 2017.
     Re Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017, S. 793, H.R. 
         1456.

     Mr. Acy Cooper,
     President, Louisiana Shrimp Association,
     Grand Isle, Louisiana.
       Acy: As requested by you on June 7, 2017, the department 
     has reviewed the text of Senate bill 793 and House Resolution 
     1456, also known as the ``Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 
     2017'' and the ``Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2017'', 
     respectively. The bills, in their current form, would place 
     unnecessary economic burdens on Louisiana shark fishermen. As 
     long as responsible management is in place, which is 
     currently the case for sharks in the Gulf of Mexico, there is 
     no need for this legislation.
       The purpose of these bills as stated by the authors is to 
     ``curtail the act of `finning' sharks while reducing the U.S. 
     contribution to the global shark fin market.'' The practice 
     of shark finning is already illegal in the United States and 
     Louisiana and has been since the 2000s. All sharks landed in 
     Louisiana must have their fins naturally attached until 
     landed. Once a shark is landed in Louisiana, these fins may 
     then be removed and processed separately.
       Information available on NOAA's National Marine Fisheries 
     Service commercial statistics website shows that in 2015, 
     17,059 kilograms (37,530 pounds) of shark fins were exported 
     from the United States to other countries while 24,016 
     kilograms (52,835 pounds) of shark fins were imported from 
     other countries. The total estimated global shark fin trade, 
     was an estimated 17,500 metric tons (according to a 2015 
     F.A.O. report on the state of the global market for shark 
     products). These U.S. total imports and exports amount to 
     less than 1% of shark fins traded globally. This bill will 
     likely have little impact on the global trade in shark fins, 
     especially the illegal trade of shark fins. The majority of 
     shark fin exports do not move through the United States. The 
     majority of fins exported from the United States, in the 
     past, moved through California to the Hong Kong Market. 
     However, since the California ban on shark fins in 2015, the 
     shark fin trade now mainly flows through Mexico and Canada in 
     North America. These bills will do little to reduce global 
     trade or curtail illegal practices on the high seas, but will 
     economically impact responsible U.S. fishermen. Data for 2016 
     were not yet available.
       Sharks are indeed a vital part of the marine ecosystem, 
     however those sharks harvested in the United States, along 
     with their fins, are sustainably harvested in accordance with 
     regulations and quotas established by the NOAA Fisheries 
     Highly Migratory Species Division and the State of Louisiana. 
     By eliminating a domestic market for legally harvested fins, 
     this legislation will only have adverse impacts on Louisiana 
     fishermen who legally harvest sharks and their fins as well 
     as the coastal fishing communities where they live. These 
     bills will create unnecessary regulatory waste of legally 
     harvested shark parts by not allowing fishermen to sell fins 
     from a legally harvestable shark species. These bills ban one 
     part, the most valuable part, of an otherwise legally 
     harvestable animal creating a situation in which an entire 
     fishery would effectively be shut down. They will either not 
     affect global shark fin markets, or at worst, will encourage 
     further development of unregulated harvest to replace the 
     regulated US landings.
       The shark fishery is an important winter fishery in 
     Louisiana as it provides a critical seasonal source of income 
     to a number of commercial fishermen until other fisheries 
     open later in the year.
       Possible alternative measures to allow the legal shark 
     fishery of the U.S. to continue to harvest and sell legally 
     obtained fins while working to reduce illegal finning 
     practices:
       1) Legislation mandating tracking and traceability of 
     legally harvested fins as opposed to an outright ban.
       2) Provide for tracking and traceability measures of 
     imported and exported fins to determine legal origin of those 
     fins originating from or entering into the U.S.
       3) Prohibit the importation or exportation of shark fins 
     that can't be verified to have come from legally landed 
     sharks.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jack Montoucet,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. They say: ``As long as responsible 
management is in place, which is currently the case for sharks in the 
Gulf of Mexico, there is no need for this legislation.''
  They say: ``The practice of shark finning is already illegal in the 
United States and Louisiana and has been since the 2000s.''
  ``These bills will create unnecessary regulatory waste of legally 
harvested shark parts by not allowing fishermen to sell fins from a 
legally harvestable shark species.''
  These bills ``will either not affect global shark fin markets, or at 
worst, will encourage further development of unregulated harvest to 
replace the regulated U.S. landings.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a National Geographic article 
from this year that has quotes from the Mote Marine Laboratory in 
Florida.

   Shark Fin Is Banned in 12 U.S. States--But It's Still on the Menu


  Shark fin bans, intended to reduce instances of shark finning, are 
   difficult to enforce, leading some to question if they're worth it

                    (By Rachel Fobar, Jan. 16, 2019)

       But that would be against state law. California is one of 
     12 states that bans the sale of shark fins--measures to help 
     prevent further declines of shark populations and to deter 
     finning, which has been illegal in U.S. waters since 2000. 
     Although demand for shark fins for soup is greatest in Asian 
     countries, there's significant demand for them in the United 
     States too.
       A man who identified himself as the China Gate Restaurant 
     owner's brother says the online listing is a mistake and 
     denies that the restaurant serves the dish.
       Finning involves slicing fins off live sharks and tossing 
     the wounded animals overboard, where they sink to the bottom 
     and, unable to swim and pass water over their gills, 
     suffocate, die of blood loss, or get eaten by other 
     predators.
       ``It's without doubt, the worst act of animal cruelty I've 
     ever seen,'' says celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay in his 
     television documentary on the shark fishing industry.
       Every year, the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington, 
     D.C.-based nonprofit that supports a national ban on shark 
     fin, updates its list of restaurants that serve shark fin 
     soup and notifies the relevant state enforcement agencies.
       But so far, according to the institute, the bans haven't 
     stopped restaurants in at least 10 of the 12 states.

[[Page H9080]]

       During the past two years, at least five bills relating to 
     the country's shark fin trade have been introduced in the 
     U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. All five died 
     before becoming laws, leaving the fate of sharks in the U.S. 
     uncertain.
       Many countries don't regulate shark finning, says Peter 
     Knights, CEO of WildAid, an environmental group that strives 
     to reduce consumption of wildlife products. What this means, 
     activists say, is that Americans could be getting their fins 
     from countries that catch and mutilate sharks, diminishing 
     their already dwindling global populations.
       Because of overfishing and the demand for shark fin for 
     soup, more than a quarter of the world's sharks, rays, and 
     chimaeras (a cartilaginous fish also known as ghost sharks) 
     are considered to be threatened. In a 2012 study, researchers 
     found the DNA of eight different sharks, including the 
     endangered scalloped hammerhead, as well as vulnerable 
     species like the shortfin mako and the spiny dogfish, in soup 
     samples collected from around the U.S.
       Shark fin soup has long been a status dish in Asian 
     countries, notably China, where its use can be traced back to 
     an emperor from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) who is thought to 
     have invented the dish to show off his power and wealth. 
     Shark fin eventually became exalted as one of the four 
     treasures of Chinese cuisine, along with abalone, sea 
     cucumber, and fish maw (swim bladders).
       Today, it's a luxury dish served at weddings as a sign of 
     respect for guests. Preparation of the soup involves boiling 
     the fins and scraping off the skin and meat, leaving behind 
     softened protein fiber, which is sometimes shredded before it 
     goes into the soup.
       What is a luxury to some is a headache to understaffed 
     enforcement agencies in the U.S. states that ban shark fin. 
     They say that cases against shark fin vendors in those states 
     can be hard to make. Because the shark fin trade tends to go 
     underground, it has been compared to the illicit drug trade.
       ``I know it's going on, I know it's out there,'' says San 
     Francisco marine warden William O'Brien. ``But it's a very 
     private matter--it's not the kind of thing that, you know, 
     people are selling to the public.''
       In addition, according to several law enforcement agents, 
     fines and jail sentences for violating the shark fin ban are 
     generally light and have little deterrent effect.
       Knights says a U.S. ban on sales of shark fin would be a 
     significant step forward because it would send the message 
     that selling and consuming shark fin isn't acceptable 
     anymore. The sale of shark fin, he says, ``continues to 
     increase the sort of pressure on sharks worldwide.''
       But, argues Robert Hueter, director of the Center for Shark 
     Research at Mote Marine Laboratory, in Sarasota, Florida, 
     given how difficult it is for some states to enforce their 
     shark fin bans, a nationwide ban would just drive the shark 
     fin market underground--as it's done in San Francisco.
       California has about a third of the country's Asian 
     population and is one of the largest consumers of shark fin 
     outside Asia.
       When the shark fin ban passed in California in 2011, San 
     Francisco marine warden William O'Brien says he was ``charged 
     up.'' He'd been keeping a list of restaurants to inspect once 
     the ban went into force.
       Almost immediately, he and his team received a tip about a 
     supplier, and they confiscated more than 2,000 pounds of 
     shark fin from a warehouse near San Francisco Bay. He 
     estimates that the haul was worth at least $500,000. The 
     accused, Michael Kwong, a shark fin wholesaler and vocal 
     opponent of the shark fin ban who said his family had been in 
     the business for four generations, pleaded no contest to 
     violating the shark fin ban. According to court records, he 
     spent 30 days in jail, paid a court fine, and received three 
     years' probation.
       Since then, O'Brien says, the leads have dried up. He 
     suspects restaurants and market owners are now storing their 
     shark fin supplies off premises--perhaps in their homes, 
     which would be off-limits to law enforcement without a search 
     warrant.
       ``Essentially, the market has gone so far underground that 
     it requires more specialization than I have to dig it up,'' 
     O'Brien says.
       O'Brien's overall responsibilities include monitoring for 
     illegal ivory, the pet trade, and illegal animal products in 
     medication, and he must also check hunting and fishing 
     licenses almost daily. He reckons that in any given month, 
     he's able to devote only about two days to shark fin.
        ``It would be great if I was like, the shark fin guy, and 
     that was all I did,'' O'Brien laments.
       A complicating factor is that a restauranteur accused of 
     selling shark fin soup may claim it's imitation or made from 
     a species of shark exempt from the ban. Spiny and smooth 
     dogfish sharks, for example, are exempt in New York State. 
     It's possible to identify a species from a freshly cut fin, 
     but once a fin is dried or absorbed in soup, the only way to 
     prove it's a species in violation of the law is through DNA 
     testing.
       To ascertain whether a crime has been committed, 
     authorities must establish whether the DNA in a seized sample 
     of soup is actually that of a shark. The specimens Ashley 
     Spicer tests and analyzes as a part of her work in the 
     Wildlife Forensics Lab at the California Department of Fish 
     and Wildlife vary from suspected shark fin soup in plastic 
     to-go containers to frozen fins in vacuum-sealed packaging.
       Spicer examined California's 2018 shark cases--all four of 
     them. Only two of those cases were specifically shark fin; 
     the others were a shark attack case and a poaching case. In 
     all, the two shark fin cases she handled in 2018 involved 
     about 20 different shark fins.
       Low test numbers don't necessarily represent every 
     California shark fin case that comes to the attention of 
     authorities. If, for example, a case elicits an immediate 
     confession on the part of the accused, authorities may decide 
     that testing isn't necessary.
       DNA testing proved successful in a recent case in Plano, 
     Texas, one of the states where shark fin is banned. Mike 
     Stephens, a game warden with the Texas Parks and Wildlife 
     Department, went into a local dim sum restaurant--in 
     uniform--with a colleague and asked for the ``special'' menu. 
     And there it was: shark fin soup.
       To assure them the shark fin was real, not imitation, the 
     restaurant owner's wife led the wardens to a walk-in freezer 
     where they found about six bags of shark fins. Stephens 
     assumes that the owner, Qi Zhou, and his wife didn't realize 
     the real reason behind the wardens' visit until it was too 
     late. Before they left, Stephens says, Zhou's wife told them 
     they weren't the only ones selling shark fin. The supermarket 
     next door was offering it too, she said.
       Sure enough, when the wardens went to the supermarket, Tao 
     Marketplace, to investigate, they found nearly 40 shark 
     carcasses, the tail fins removed, on display in the fresh 
     fish aisle and in storage.
       Wearing rubber gloves so as not to contaminate the 
     evidence, they sealed the fins from both places in separate 
     containers and overnighted them to a lab in North Carolina 
     for DNA testing.
       The case against the supermarket is still pending, but the 
     restaurant owner was found guilty of selling shark fin and 
     paid a fine: one dollar. The court also ordered Zhou to make 
     a donation to the Animal Welfare Institute, which totaled 
     less than a thousand dollars, Stephens says.
       According to the institute, in Texas and most other states, 
     prison sentences for shark fin transgressions are rare and 
     usually don't exceed six months for a first offense. Fines 
     are usually less than a thousand dollars. By contrast, a 
     single pound of dried shark fin can sell for $400, and shark 
     fin soup can command anywhere from $50 to $200.
        ``It's tough to get jail time on wildlife cases,'' says 
     Jesse Paluch, a captain with the New York State Department of 
     Environmental Conservation's Bureau of Environmental Crimes 
     Investigation unit. In New York, he says, judges and 
     prosecutors ``see so much crime, so wildlife crime is a 
     little bit lower on the spectrum.''
       In October 1988, when Robert Hueter was getting his start 
     at the Mote Marine Laboratory, he heard from a colleague that 
     a group of fishermen off the Florida Panhandle had been 
     caught harpooning bottlenose dolphins, whose meat and blood 
     they used to bait sharks. Killing bottlenose dolphins was and 
     still is illegal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972. When the fishermen caught sharks, they sliced off their 
     fins and threw the mutilated animals, still alive, back into 
     the water.
       This is sick, Hueter says he thought at the time. He'd 
     never heard of shark finning, so he contacted Nelson Bryant, 
     a reporter he knew at The New York Times, who wrote a 
     pioneering story about the practice. Today, shark finning is 
     the subject of documentaries, public protests, and Facebook 
     posts.
       Hueter says the fishermen were handed minor fines for 
     killing the dolphins--and no penalty for finning the sharks. 
     ``There was no crime in what they'd done with the sharks,'' 
     he says.
       Since then, Hueter has been an advocate for sharks. Which 
     is why, he says, he's against a national shark fin ban.
       ``The folks that are pushing the fin ban campaign want to 
     simplify it to this very simple message--that if we ban the 
     fin trade in the United States, we save sharks all around the 
     world,'' Heuter says. ``That is so simplistic and so wrong.''
       He says that of course he's against finning and overfishing 
     but that cutting the fins off a legally caught dead shark 
     isn't cruel, and banning a specific dish won't stop shark 
     finning because shark finning is already illegal in U.S. 
     waters. But, he says, a ban will ensure that fins from dead 
     sharks are wasted.
        ``It would cause [fishermen] to have to throw the fins 
     into the dumpster. It goes totally against our doctrine of 
     full utilization of fishery products--that when we harvest 
     fishes from the sea, we don't want to throw stuff away. We 
     want to use absolutely everything we can.''
       David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist with Simon 
     Fraser University, in Vancouver, Canada, and the man behind 
     the popular Twitter account @whysharksmatter, says it's 
     unreasonable for people to criticize using shark fins for 
     soup when they may eat shark meat in other forms.
        ``There are people who are outraged at the idea of 
     consuming a bowl of shark fin soup who are not outraged at 
     the idea of eating a mako shark steak on the grill,'' he 
     says. ``From my perspective, as a shark conservation 
     biologist, either way you've got a dead shark. Shark fin soup 
     has sort of become this boogie man of ocean conservation.''
       As an alternative to a national ban, in 2018 Hueter helped 
     draft the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, which 
     Representative Daniel Webster, a Florida Republican, says he 
     plans to reintroduce this session. This bill, Hueter says, 
     would allow imports

[[Page H9081]]

     only from countries that prohibit finning and promote shark 
     conservation.
       But Susan Millward, director of the marine animal program 
     at the Animal Welfare Institute, says a blanket ban is still 
     the best answer.
       ``Even if you have a sustainable shark fin trade, there's 
     still going to be a trade in shark finning,'' she says. 
     ``There's always going to be people who want to flout it.''
       Chinese basketball star Yao Ming pushes a white ceramic cup 
     of shark fin soup across a table. In an aquarium tank to his 
     right, a bleeding computer-generated shark sinks to the 
     bottom. ``Remember,'' he says, staring into the camera lens, 
     ``when the buying stops, the killing can too.''
       Since 2011, consumption of shark fin soup in China has 
     fallen by about 80 percent, both because of national bans on 
     serving shark fin at government banquets and the effect of 
     celebrity-backed awareness campaigns such as Yao Ming's, seen 
     by millions of Chinese.
       According to a 2018 WildAid report, when WildAid began its 
     Chinese anti-shark fin campaign in 2006, 75 percent of 
     consumers didn't realize the soup they were eating was made 
     from shark, and many who did know mistakenly thought that 
     sharks' fins grew back after they were cut off.
       Many conservationists believe that similar awareness-
     raising efforts in the U.S. would curb demand. People 
     generally don't give much thought to what they're eating, 
     Millward says. ``It's just a lack of connecting the dots with 
     where this product came from, how it started with a live 
     animal and how much suffering was endured to reach this 
     finished product . . . These animals are dying painfully, and 
     their whole ecosystems are being affected--for what?''
       Her question begs another: Why shark fin? It's widely known 
     that the fin adds no taste or health benefits to shark fin 
     soup; rather, it gives the soup a crystalline, noodle-like 
     texture, which can be replicated almost indistinguishably 
     with mung bean paste or melon. What's more, because shark 
     fins are cartilage and rigid protein fibers, they need to be 
     cooked for hours, even a full day, to soften them enough to 
     be edible. ``If you cook my belt for 24 hours, it would be 
     edible too,'' Knights says.
       Ironically, as conservationists, chefs, and even consumers 
     themselves acknowledge, the flavor of shark fin soup--a dish 
     that has ignited international controversy, spurred people to 
     write countless letters to the United States Congress, and 
     led to a massive awareness campaign--comes not from the fins 
     but from the chicken broth used as the soup's base.

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. In fact, the director of shark research for 
that institute says, ``The folks that are pushing the fin ban campaign 
want to simplify it to this very simple message that if we ban the fin 
trade in the United States, we save sharks all around the world. That 
is so simplistic and so wrong.
  It would cause fishermen ``to have to throw fins into the dumpster. 
It goes totally against our doctrine of full utilization of fishery 
products, that when we harvest fishes from the sea, we don't want to 
throw stuff away. We want to use absolutely everything we can.''
  David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist with Simon Fraser 
University, also talks about how this is a flawed approach. He lays out 
an alternative, which my friend from Florida, Congressman Webster, and 
the Mote Marine Laboratory director of the shark institute there have 
advocated for as well.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this body who supports the concept of 
shark finning. But let's be clear on that. No one here supports this 
concept of finning a shark and just letting the rest of it drop to the 
bottom and die. No one does. But we have to understand that our entire 
fisheries management practice, the State of Louisiana having one of the 
largest commercial fisheries in the Nation, that this is part of the 
overall consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Veasey). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. This is part of the overall consideration. 
Yet this bill attempts to gut legally sustainable shark harvesting that 
is part of the overall fisheries management process and doesn't take 
into consideration what impact that will have.
  In closing, this bill is not the right approach. I agree with the 
objective, but all we are doing here is pushing illegally harvested 
species to other countries, as opposed to truly stopping the problem. 
There are successful efforts out there that are demonstrated to work, 
whereas this simply, again, promotes illegal harvesting.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, if this is a question that requires us to 
listen to the experts and the scientists about how to end the global 
shark fin trade, then it is not much of a debate, because over 150 
scientists are on record supporting this bill. The same consensus 
exists among leaders at aquariums, academic institutions, and other 
places.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
and his leadership and our friend from the Northern Mariana Islands for 
moving this legislation forward.
  This is about leadership in terms of ending the global practice. My 
colleague from Louisiana understates the power that the United States 
has in terms of getting our policies right. Yes, we have outlawed shark 
finning in 2010, but the international traffic continues, and we need 
to take this next step.
  This is a progression of efforts to try to deal with animal welfare. 
This is one of the first arguments we hear whether it is illegal 
poaching, the ivory trade, or other endangered species, we have been 
able to set the table on a global stage to be able to change the 
dynamics, to change the economics, and to change public perception.
  Sharks are declining globally. There may be a species or two here or 
there, but, overall, this apex predator species--so important for the 
health of the ecosystem--is in peril, and the practice of shark finning 
is part of this.
  Mr. Speaker, you have heard about de-finning while they are still 
alive and discarding them back in the water which is a very common 
practice. We know that my State of Oregon is one where people stepped 
up and ended this barbaric practice. We have mobilized voting 
initiatives where we deal with problems of trafficking with exotic 
species. It has proven that our action in 2010 prohibiting the taking 
of fins was not enough as long as this global trade continues 
unchecked. There still is a market for the fins in the United States 
and around the world, and it is fueled by imports sourced from all over 
the world, including locations with no ban. We are one of the top 15 
shark fin importing nations.
  Who knew?
  As a result, it is highly likely that shark fins sold in the United 
States came from sharks that have been brutally finned.
  I am pleased that we are taking action to do the right thing and ban 
the trade of shark fins. I hope the Senate takes this bill up quickly 
and passes it so we can get it enacted into law. This is one of the 
things we could actually agree with. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the 
bipartisan support evidenced here today.
  But I hope that we can continue forward with an animal welfare 
agenda. There is a series of bills on a bipartisan basis, for example, 
the PREPARED Act, to help animals during natural disasters, the 
Wildlife Conservation and Anti-Trafficking Act to combat wildlife 
trafficking, and the SAFE Act to prevent horse slaughter.
  We have these bipartisan pieces of legislation with major sources of 
cosponsors. They are teed up and ready to go. I hope this passes today 
with overwhelming support, and it is one more step as we implement an 
animal welfare agenda that is one of the areas where we can work 
together on a bipartisan basis to make the world a little better.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the letter signed by 
150 scientists in support of this bill. We ought to point out that only 
10 of those 150 scientists actually are scientists with expertise in 
shark fisheries. But every one of the scientists who signed the 
Wildlife Conservation Society letter in opposition to this bill is 
recognized as an active professional shark researcher and expert in the 
field.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Webster).
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McClintock for 
yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 737, the Shark Fin Sales 
Elimination Act. As a Floridian and member of the House Natural 
Resources Committee, promoting shark conservation has long been a 
priority of mine. I am glad to see sharks receiving national attention.
  Sharks play a crucial role in our ocean's ecosystem, and yet, they 
face a

[[Page H9082]]

grave threat: shark finning, a cruel practice of capturing sharks, 
clipping their fins, and casting the rest of it to a slow death in the 
ocean. This practice is cruel and inhumane.
  I was a member of the legislature almost 30 years ago when Florida 
was one of the first States to ban shark finning. Since then, finning 
has become completely illegal in the United States.
  Unfortunately, finning still occurs in unregulated waters around our 
globe. H.R. 737 will do nothing to protect sharks from being finned in 
those areas. Instead, it would require American fishermen who legally 
and responsibly land sharks to destroy or discard their fins, leading 
to terrible waste.
  Many scientists, conservationists, and commercial fishermen have 
vocally opposed this bill and have said it will not advance shark 
restoration or stop the practice of finning.
  This bill would have a devastating effect on responsible American 
fishermen, including many in my own district in Florida who have made 
sacrifices to conserve and rebuild our shark populations.
  I offer a separate bill, an alternative, H.R. 788, one that has been 
sponsored and supported by Senator Rubio in the Senate and is probably 
the key bill there for this particular issue. Instead of banning the 
sale of humanely sourced shark fins, my bill would encourage bad actors 
in the shark fin market to create science-based management systems for 
shark conservation.

                              {time}  1430

  My bill requires any nation seeking to export shark, ray, or skate to 
the United States to first be certified by NOAA that it has 
conservation policies in place that rise to the standards of U.S. 
fishermen and that forbid nations to practice shark finning.
  The U.S. plays an important role on the world stage in fishing 
management and conservation. H.R. 737 would remove the U.S. from the 
shark fin market; it would silence the leading voice in shark 
conservation--my bill would amplify it--and ensure no finned shark fins 
enter into the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make the best choice for 
sustaining shark populations long-term and oppose this deeply flawed 
bill before us today.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Webster for his engagement on this issue. I 
think his intentions are noble. I think he wants to help end the global 
shark fin trade. Unfortunately, though, his bill just won't work.
  We did incorporate some of that bill, the part, frankly, that would 
not cost a lot of money. By doing so, we added skates and rays to the 
seafood import monitoring program. That is a good suggestion, because 
skates and rays are also not doing well globally, and they deserve our 
attention.
  But the rest of the bill is expensive, cumbersome, and, frankly, it 
is just not going to work. It would require a complicated, expensive 
certification scheme that might sound good on paper, but we know the 
real world that we live in.
  In the marine fisheries management in the United States right now, we 
are years, and sometimes decades, behind having the resources we need 
for adequate and timely stock assessments, even for the fisheries that 
we are already trying to manage right now.
  So the idea that we would somehow be able to do this, be able to 
afford it, and also do it in a way that we could comply with in this 
country so we could hold other countries around the world to that 
standard, if we are unable to do all of that stuff, then requiring 
other countries to meet that standard would trigger a WTO violation and 
we would do nothing to help end the global shark fin trade.
  Again, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue. I know 
that Florida has been said to be the heart of the opposition to this 
bill, but we should note that 19 members of the Florida delegation 
support this bill, including 6 Republicans in the Florida delegation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear: Killing a shark for its fin while 
throwing away the rest of the carcass is contemptible; it is immoral; 
it is wrong; and it has been illegal and banned in the United States 
since 1993. American fishermen don't do this. American fishermen are 
the good guys in this story.
  This bill does something very different. It requires American 
fishermen to throw away the fins when they kill a shark. That is just 
as wasteful, just as despicable, and it is not going to stop foreign 
bad actors. It will kill American fishing. It will destroy the 
livelihoods of Americans who have followed the law and who are 
responsibly accounting for their entire catch. It is not going to help 
our domestic shark populations. They are doing quite fine.
  NOAA currently manages 42 shark species, along with the commercial 
and recreational shark fisheries. None of these 42 species in the 
Atlantic are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. As 
I pointed out earlier, the most recent results of the NOAA fisheries' 
longest running shark survey show our domestic populations increasing, 
with scientists capturing and tagging more than ever before.
  It is a shame that we are here to blame American fishermen, who are 
following all of the laws and doing everything right.
  And remember this: Under H.R. 737, sharks can still be legally caught 
in U.S. waters; however, they will be forced to cut off the fins and 
throw them into the garbage. Ask yourself: Is this right?
  Congress has long supported the full utilization of landed seafood in 
order to obtain the maximum economic value of our limited marine 
resources, all consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This 
legislation will result in little more than wasted resources.
  The administration opposes this legislation. It writes:

       We cannot support the Shark Fin Sale Elimination Act 
     because of the bill's negative impact on U.S. fishermen that 
     would outweigh its minimal benefit to shark conservation. 
     This would hurt U.S. fishermen who currently harvest and sell 
     sharks and shark fins in a sustainable manner under strict 
     Federal management.

  Industry opposes this legislation. They write:

       H.R. 737 would effectively put an end to all shark fishing. 
     The revenue realized from fin sales can comprise up to 50 
     percent of a large coastal shark's value. Requiring the 
     discard or destruction of shark fins is also wasteful, both 
     as a food resource and an economic resource that helps 
     sustain rural coastal fishing communities here in America. It 
     has long been the policy of Congress to encourage full 
     utilization of land and catch in order to obtain the maximum 
     economic value of our limited marine resources.

  And, finally, scientists oppose this legislation. Two of the leading 
scientists in the field write:

       If the shark fin trade in the United States were completely 
     eliminated, the direct impact on reducing global shark 
     mortality would likely be insignificant. The elimination of 
     United States-supplied fins in world markets would open the 
     door to increased market share for illegal, unreported, and 
     unregulated fishing nations not practicing sustainable shark 
     fishing, including those that have not yet prohibited 
     finning.

  This legislation follows a familiar theme we hear from the other 
side: Blame Americans first for the world's problems. This legislation 
is the definition of a solution in search of a problem.

  I am sorry that some of my Republican colleagues have been convinced 
to support this legislation, but I hope that today's debate has shined 
a bit of truth on the issue.
  Let me just quote from the humane society quickly. Their reasoning 
for this legislation is that: ``The United States has a robust market 
for shark fins, many of which likely were obtained through finning.''
  Let me state again, ``likely were obtained.'' This is the science and 
data that we are using to support this legislation, ``likely were 
obtained.'' Mind you, we make up less than 1 percent of the global 
market.
  Shark finning will continue across the rest of the globe, and it will 
continue to focus on the market in South and Southeast Asia. We will 
have lost our ability to have managed our resources and support our 
local fishing industries.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this misguided and 
misconceived legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I agree with my friend: We should listen to the 
scientists--not the two who my friend

[[Page H9083]]

cited in his closing arguments, but how about the over 150 who are on 
record in support of this bill? We should listen to them.
  We should listen to the many States and territories and other 
nations, including, recently, Canada, our neighbor to the north.
  We should listen to the many corporate leaders around the world, all 
of whom have reached the inevitable conclusion that, if you are serious 
about ending this wasteful and inhumane and horrific practice of shark 
finning, then you have to tackle the shark fin trade; you have to ban 
the possession and sale of shark fins, because, if you don't, we know 
here in the United States we have banned the practice of shark finning 
for years, and yet we have continued to be part of and contributed to 
the global shark fin trade because we don't ban the possession and 
trade and sale of the fin itself.
  That is what this bill does.
  And in terms of U.S. fishermen who are, as my friend says, following 
the laws and doing everything right, well, the good news is they are 
going to be just fine under this law. We know that because, in States 
like California, Oregon, Texas, and other places, folks who want to 
continue fishing for shark meat have been able to do so, even though 
those States have passed bans just like this on the possession, trade, 
and sale of shark fins.
  This is a good bill. It is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. It is a 
bill that includes support from 19 members of the Florida delegation, 
including 6 Republicans from that delegation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 737, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. 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, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________