[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 209 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H7115-H7118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRIFTNET MODERNIZATION AND BYCATCH REDUCTION ACT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 906) to improve the management of driftnet fishing.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 906
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 ``Driftnet Modernization and
Bycatch Reduction Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
Section 3(25) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(25)) is amended by
inserting ``, or with a mesh size of 14 inches or greater,''
after ``more''.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Section 206(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1826(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) within the exclusive economic zone, large-scale
driftnet fishing that deploys nets with large mesh sizes
causes significant entanglement and mortality of living
marine resources, including myriad protected species, despite
limitations on the lengths of such nets.''.
(b) Policy.--Section 206(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1826(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following--
``(4) prioritize the phase out of large-scale driftnet
fishing in the exclusive economic zone and promote the
development and adoption of alternative fishing methods and
gear types that minimize the incidental catch of living
marine resources.''.
SEC. 4. TRANSITION PROGRAM.
Section 206 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1826) is amended by adding at
the end the following--
``(i) Fishing Gear Transition Program.--
``(1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning on
the date of enactment of the Driftnet Modernization and
Bycatch Reduction Act, the Secretary shall conduct a
transition program to facilitate the phase-out of large-scale
driftnet fishing and adoption of alternative fishing
practices that minimize the incidental catch of living marine
resources, and shall award grants to eligible permit holders
who participate in the program.
``(2) Permissible uses.--Any permit holder receiving a
grant under paragraph (1) may use such funds only for the
purpose of covering--
``(A) any fee originally associated with a permit
authorizing participation in a large-scale driftnet fishery,
if such permit is surrendered for permanent revocation, and
such permit holder relinquishes any claim associated with the
permit;
``(B) a forfeiture of fishing gear associated with a permit
described in subparagraph (A); or
``(C) the purchase of alternative gear with minimal
incidental catch of living marine resources, if the fishery
participant is authorized to continue fishing using such
alternative gears.
``(3) Certification.--The Secretary shall certify that,
with respect to each participant in the program under this
subsection, any permit authorizing participation in a large-
scale driftnet fishery has been permanently revoked and that
no new permits will be issued to authorize such fishing.''.
SEC. 5. EXCEPTION.
Section 307(1)(M) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(M)) is
amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``,
unless such large-scale driftnet fishing--
``(i) deploys, within the exclusive economic zone, a net
with a total length of less than two and one-half kilometers
and a mesh size of 14 inches or greater; and
``(ii) is conducted within 5 years of the date of enactment
of the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act''.
SEC. 6. FEES.
(a) In General.--The North Pacific Fishery Management
Council may recommend, and the Secretary of Commerce may
approve, regulations necessary for the collection of fees
from charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers
who harvest Pacific halibut in International Pacific Halibut
Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A as those terms are
defined in part 300 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulations).
(b) Use of Fees.--Any fees collected under this section
shall be available, without appropriation or fiscal year
limitation, for the purposes of--
(1) financing administrative costs of the Recreational
Quota Entity program;
(2) the purchase of halibut quota shares in International
Pacific Halibut Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A by the
recreational quota entity authorized in part 679 of title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations);
(3) halibut conservation and research; and
(4) promotion of the halibut resource by the recreational
quota entity authorized in part 679 of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).
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.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
General Leave
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may 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 (Mr. Huffman)?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to speak in favor of the Driftnet
Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. This was sent to us by the
Senate on voice vote and sponsored by California Senator Dianne
Feinstein.
I applaud our colleagues in the Senate for sending us meaningful
bipartisan bills--for a change--that were overwhelmingly improved. I
hope my colleagues in the House will join me in this bipartisan effort
to conserve our oceans and wildlife.
I would also like to applaud the recreational fishing and
conservation community for their leadership on this bill.
Large-scale drift gillnets--or driftnets, as they are called--are
wasteful, and they are an outdated type of fishing gear. At 2
kilometers long, their purpose is to simply drift along through ocean
currents and catch whatever they may find in their long webbing.
The only large-scale driftnet fishery in the country today is the
West Coast swordfish fishery, where these driftnets are used to catch
swordfish and other commercially valuable species such as thresher,
mako shark, and opah.
But a 2-kilometer-long net in the ocean catches far more than these
target species. Driftnets are indiscriminate. They catch sea turtles,
bottlenose dolphins, and short-finned pilot whales.
During the committee hearing on this bill, my Republican colleague,
Garret Graves, joked that California is finally catching up with his
State of Louisiana because they ended driftnet fishing in 1995, to
which I say: Good for Louisiana. Elsewhere around the world,
[[Page H7116]]
driftnets have been banned due to the high rate of bycatch.
This important legislation would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act to direct the Secretary of Commerce to
conduct a transition program to phase out the use of these large-scale
driftnets and to facilitate the adoption of alternative fishing gear.
This transition program is supported by key stakeholders. A majority
of active permit holders submitted their intent to participate in the
program, and a nonprofit has invested $1 million to help these
fishermen transition.
It is important to note that there really are great alternatives to
drift gillnets, like deep-set buoys, which have a lower bycatch rate
and can actually fetch higher market rates for fishermen.
This bill would also prohibit the use of large-scale driftnet fishing
by all U.S. vessels within the U.S. exclusive economic zone within 5
years.
Let's join the rest of the world and end the use of drift gillnets.
The Senate passed this bill in July, and I urge my colleagues in the
House to do the same now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a bill that will very
effectively put most swordfish boats on the West Coast out of business.
I believe it is yet another battle on a multifront war by the far-left
Democrats against America's working class.
The swordfish boats on the West Coast harvest a Pacific fishery that
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has classified as
``underutilized.'' There is no shortage of swordfish thanks to the
responsible management of this fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The principal means of harvesting swordfish is the drift gillnet,
which has been a target of environmental extremists for years. Despite
their lurid tales of indiscriminate catches of other species,
particularly endangered species, this is, in fact, a very rare
occurrence.
With respect to endangered species, the National Marine Fisheries
Service reported: ``It is NMFS' biological opinion that the proposed
action of continued management of the drift gillnet fishery is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these seven endangered
species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any ESA-listed
designated critical habitat.''
So here we have an industry that some of the hardest working men and
women in America depend upon to feed their families--and, by the way,
feed ours, as well--in an underutilized fishery by means of drift
gillnets that have an extremely low incidence of inadvertent bycatch.
So what does Congress propose to do for these families? Commend them
for their hard work? Thank them for the contribution they make to
America's food supply and to the American economy? Well, no, not
exactly. Instead, Congress proposes to shut them down.
Those aren't my words. When Gary Burke, one of the swordfishermen
threatened by this bill came before our subcommittee, he said: ``I want
to be very clear regarding the impacts of this legislation on the
driftnet gill fleet. It will shut us down.''
And for what possible reason?
The fishery is sound; the industry is responsible; incidental takes
are extremely rare. Why would anyone want to decimate these families
and American consumers as well? Just for the hell of it seems to be the
only logical explanation.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has been
lauded by conservationists for many decades. It has stood the test of
time and proven itself to be a program that works.
The Regional Fishery Management Council process works because it is
collaborative, and it involves the parties with a direct stake in
keeping the fishery healthy.
This legislation is a ham-handed, iron-fisted, top-down diktat that
goes against everything that Magnuson-Stevens stands for.
Now, we just heard: Don't worry. There is an alternative that will
work just fine. It is the deep-set buoy gear.
And, yes, it is sometimes used to supplement the drift gillnets, but
it is not economically viable by itself.
As the actual swordfishermen explained, the costs of running a
fishing vessel--fuel, debt service, and labor--often means a very tight
profit margin. To make a trip viable, the boat must achieve enough of a
catch to at least offset its costs.
The alternative this bill would force on them simply doesn't catch
nearly as many fish and certainly not enough to make the trip
profitable. Reduce the catch below the break-even mark--as this bill
surely does--and there is no catch because the boat can't go out.
How do we know that? Because the very fishermen who use the deep-set
buoy gear have told us so. They state in a letter to the committee:
``Our concern is based on the fact that while there is potential for
alternative gear to be used in this industry, currently there is no
existing gear that can be substituted for the drift gillnet and still
allow fishermen to earn a living.''
Those are the people who use that equipment.
So let me repeat that: Our fishermen will not be able to earn a
living using this experimental gear. The majority knows this; it is
just they don't care.
This legislation does nothing to improve fisheries management but,
instead, does great harm in two respects: It takes away the earnings of
American fishermen, and it raises the price of seafood for American
families.
Again, don't take my word for it, or even the fishermen whose
livelihoods are being cast aside. The Natural Resources Committee
received testimony from NOAA which stressed to our members that this
bill ``does not reflect the progress made to date in minimizing bycatch
in the U.S. West Coast drift gillnet fishery. Based on the best
available science and 26 years of observer data, bycatch of threatened
or endangered protected species is a rare event.''
Now let's talk about the unintended consequences of putting the
American West Coast swordfish industry out of business.
It doesn't protect the fishery because the fishery isn't endangered.
It doesn't protect other species because incidental taking of those
species is rare.
The ultimate irony is that this bill doesn't even stop the use of
drift gillnets except, of course, for Americans. This bill will
effectively remove West Coast swordfish from the market, but it doesn't
remove the market demand.
So what happens? Consumer prices will go up and the market will meet
that demand by shifting to swordfish caught by foreign fleets where
they are not strictly regulated and where they will enjoy an enormous
competitive advantage by being unrestricted in their use of the very
same drift gillnets that Americans--and only Americans--are forbidden
from using.
Again, that is not my conclusion. That is the conclusion of NOAA
itself, which told our committee: ``NOAA is concerned that shifting to
alternative gears that are not economically viable could decrease U.S.
swordfish harvest and reduce the U.S. West Coast large mesh drift
gillnet fishery's competitiveness against foreign fisheries with less
restrictive environmental regulations during the phaseout.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this cruel and ill-conceived
measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, for those folks who had the word ``diktat''
on their bingo card, you are a big winner today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that, but when he
describes this bill as extreme, overreaching, and draconian, he left
out the fact that 28 of the 31 fishermen in this particular fishery
have already agreed to participate in the transition program that this
bill provides. My hope is that the three holdouts will take advantage
of the transition assistance being offered and join the rest of their
peers.
Also, when my colleague mentions far-left Democrats driving this
bill, he forgets to mention the long list of Republicans in both the
House and Senate who are supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Case).
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of the State with one of
the largest exclusive economic zones in our country and as the
Representative of the State that sits in the middle of the Pacific
where we are seeing increasing
[[Page H7117]]
overfishing, including the use of these techniques throughout our
Pacific, I rise in very strong support of the Driftnet Modernization
and Bycatch Reduction Act. This bipartisan legislation is necessary to
transition fairly an important West Coast fishery away from the use of
large mesh driftnets.
I want to commend, in addition to Senator Feinstein and the
Republican cosponsors, Congressman Lieu on our side for his work on the
bill in the House.
Yes, this fishery is small, with less than 20 participants, but it is
one of the most destructive. The use of mile-long driftnets results in
over 70 species caught in volume as bycatch.
The problems with this practice are nothing new. Beginning in the
1980s, Congress and the Republican and first Bush administration
recognized its destruction and worked together to reform the practice,
culminating with the near complete global moratorium on the practice.
Today, the large mesh driftnets that continue to be used in Federal
waters along the West Coast are the last of their kind in the Nation.
This bill closes that loophole and phases out the practice.
{time} 0930
Fortunately, new fishing technology has been developed that catches
swordfish at a profitable level without the huge levels of bycatch
associated with driftnets. That is good for fishermen, good for
consumers, and good for the marine environment.
All West Coast States have already acted to prohibit this type of
fishing from their shores and their oceans. It is time we, at the
Federal level, act to do the same to ensure the sustainability of this
fishery and the sustainability of the bycatch fisheries. Transitioning
away from large-mesh driftnets is supported by recreational fishermen,
conservation groups, seafood purveyors, and consumers, and it just
makes sense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan, bicameral bill.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
the California fishermen who participated in the experimental
technology demonstration project expressing their concerns with the
bill.
May 6, 2019.
Re: H.R. 1979--Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction
Act
Hon. Ted Lieu,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lieu: We are participants in the
experimental Deep-Set Buoy Gear (``DSBG'') fishery off the
California Coast. A majority of us participate in, or have
participated in, the drift gillnet fishery. We are writing to
express our concerns regarding H.R. 1979, the Driftnet
Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. H.R. 1979 includes
language which will phase-out the use of drift gillnets
(``DGN'') to harvest swordfish and require the ``. . .
adoption of alternative fishing practices that minimize the
incidental catch of living marine resources''. Our concern is
based on the fact that while there is potential for
alternative gear to be used in this fishery, currently there
is no existing gear that can be substituted for the DGN gear
and still allow fishermen to earn a living.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (``PFMC'') is
currently working towards authorizing Deep-Set Buoy Gear
(``DSBG''), a swordfish gear type that was developed to
provide west coast fishers with an additional gear option for
use during periods of reduced landings. DSBG has been allowed
to operate under an Exempted Fishing Permit (``EFP'') since
2015. As noted in the initial EFP application DSBG was
designed to ``. . . provide fishers with a complementary gear
type that can be used in conjunction with harpooning . . . .
and also compliment ongoing DGN activities.''
Participants in the initial EFP had extensive experience
targeting swordfish with DGN and harpoon gears and
participated in the research trials so that they could expand
domestic fishery options for the West Coast. This continues
to be a priority for managers and the fishing community, as
current restrictions limit summertime harvest off California
waters, forcing markets to import swordfish even when the
resource is available in local waters. The coupling of DSBG,
harpoon and DGN techniques provides the tools needed to
capitalize on this federal resource throughout the entire
fishery season. This is critical given that different gear
types have different seasons in which they work optimally.
Because DSBG landings peak in the months prior to that of
the DGN fishery, our community has largely supported the
advent and trial of new techniques, as they have the
potential to augment and revitalize our declining fishery.
Now that H.R. 1979 proposes to phase out DGN and replace it
with DSBG, we are concerned that this will further impact the
viability of west coast swordfish operations all together. We
are certain that the DGN market share will be filled with
additional unregulated foreign-caught swordfish. As shown in
2018, increases in unregulated imports drives market price
down, reduces domestic profitability and deters participation
our US fisheries. Collectively, we feel that H.R. 1979 will
negatively impact local livelihoods, increase our reliance
upon foreign fleets and decrease the productivity and of our
west coast fishery.
We are also concerned over the proposed transition of the
traditional DGN fleet to a future DSBG fishery. Some of the
DGN vessels are larger than those currently used in the DSBG
fishery and many of them only fish for swordfish during the
fall window in which DGN works optimally. We are troubled
that the proposed transition will create an inequity among
the fleet and negatively impact fishing operations and
profitability. We feel that H.R. 1979 is premature and should
be contemplated only after it is demonstrated that DSBG can
be profitable for the entire DGN community. Until then, we
hope to continue to provide domestic west coast swordfish
caught using highly regulated techniques that continue to
operate in full federal and state compliance.
Sincerely,
Chugey Sepulveda, PhD, EFP Lead, Pfleger Institute of
Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA; Donald Krebbs,
F/V Goldcoast, San Diego, CA; Ben Stephens, F/V Tres
Mujeres, Vista, CA; Freddie Hepp, F/V Plumeria, Santa
Barbara, CA; William Sutton, F/V Aurelia, Ojai, CA;
Nathan Perez, F/V Bear Flag II, Newport Beach, CA; Jack
Stephens, F/V DEA, Vista, CA; Kelly Fukushima, F/V
Three Boys, San Diego, CA.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I implore the majority to consider the damage that it
will do with this bill. The West Coast swordfish fishery is healthy
and, indeed, underutilized. The drift gillnet results in very little
incidental take of other species. To put a number on it, in 17 years,
only 10 whales interacted with these nets, and 4 of them were released
alive. Six of them were killed.
Now, to put that in perspective--6 in 17 years--roughly 80 whales are
killed by ships off the California coast every year. Six were killed by
driftnets in 17 years; 80 are killed by ship collisions every year.
Does my friend see the difference?
Banning the nets will reduce the catch below the level that is
economically viable. It will shut down the industry. The result will be
devastating to the families that run these businesses. It will be
harmful to the consumer who will pay higher prices for this product,
and it will encourage increased use of driftnets in foreign waters to
fill the shortage caused by banning them in our own.
Why in God's name would anyone want to do that?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised the issue of foreign fleets
using these drift gillnets a couple of times now. Let me briefly speak
to that, and I will close.
Of course, we need to do something about those bad practices by
foreign fleets, but in order to do that, in order to restrict the
importation of seafood that is caught through unsustainable practices
by foreign fleets, we have to hold our own fleets to this higher
standard of sustainability and bycatch reduction. That is what this
bill and other efforts in this area are all about.
Mr. Speaker, this is a solidly bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, bipartisan,
bicameral legislation that would phase out the use of large mesh drift
gillnets off the coast of California.
Currently, the use of gillnets with a total length of two and one-
half kilometers or more is prohibited in U.S. waters. However, off the
coast of California, we have seen that drift gillnet fishing gear
within the legal federal limit is still having an adverse impact on our
Pacific wildlife. While these mile-long gillnets are designed to catch
swordfish and thresher sharks, the large mesh net frequently captures
many other marine animals as bycatch, injuring or killing them in the
process.
The practice of drift gillnet fishing is an antiquated method for
catching swordfish and
[[Page H7118]]
thresher sharks, and is already banned in many states, including
Washington and Oregon. It is time to adopt new fishing technology in
order to set a path toward more sustainable fishing. This bill would
direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a transition program to
phase-out large mesh drift gillnet and promote the adoption of
alternative fishing practices to minimize the bycatch of marine
species.
Bycatch is a lingering problem in fisheries management, and such
waste is especially pervasive in driftnet fisheries. We have the prime
opportunity today to provide a solution that would improve fishery
resource management and provide the swordfish fishery participants the
needed support to transition to more selective and sustainable fishing
gear. It is a win-win situation.
On July 22, 2020, the Senate passed S. 906 by unanimous consent.
There is broad support for this legislation, including endorsements
from the American Sportfishing Association, The Pew Charitable Trusts,
Humane Society Legislative Fund, Oceana, Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership, and the National Marine Manufacturers
Association. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I urge my colleagues in
the House to join us in passing this commonsense legislation today. I
would like to thank Chairman Grijalva, Congressman Huffman, and Senator
Feinstein for their leadership on this issue as well as House and
Senate committee staff for their hard work. I look forward to the
enactment of this bill.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 906, the
Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. I would like to start
out by thanking Senators Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan, Dianne
Feinstein, and Shelley Capito, along with Congressman Ted Lieu, and
everyone who was involved in this legislation. Their passion for our
fisheries is truly admirable.
This bill includes a Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) provision that
is crucial to the charter fishing industry. Under the provision, an RQE
would be allowed to purchase and hold a limited amount of halibut quota
shares to augment the amount of halibut available to charters. For
years, charter anglers have faced stringent restrictions as catch
limits have been reduced and this provision would allow fishing
charters to compete on a larger scale.
Charter fishing in Alaska is world renown and is a driving force for
tourism in many towns. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity
to spend a day in Seward this past summer meeting with halibut charters
and hearing directly from the people in the industry. I'd also note we
had a great time catching some Alaska fish.
While this bill may not be perfect, I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting this bipartisan legislation because of the importance of
the RQE provision to my home state of Alaska. This is a self-funding
solution that will have a positive impact for the charter fishing
industry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 906.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion
will be postponed.
____________________