[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27678-27683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SHARK FINNING

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 189) expressing the sense of the 
Congress regarding the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice known as 
shark finning, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 189

       Whereas shark finning is the practice of removing the fins 
     of a shark and dumping its carcass back into the ocean;
       Whereas demand for shark fins is driving dramatic increases 
     in shark fishing and mortality around the world;
       Whereas the life history characteristics of sharks, 
     including slow growth, late sexual maturity, and the 
     production of few young, make them particularly vulnerable to 
     overfishing and necessitate careful management of shark 
     fisheries;
       Whereas shark finning is not prohibited in the waters of 
     the Pacific Ocean in which fisheries are managed by the 
     Federal Government;
       Whereas according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
     the number of sharks killed in Central Pacific Ocean and 
     Western Pacific Ocean fisheries rose from 2,289 in 1991 to 
     60,857 in 1998, an increase of over 2,500 percent, and 
     continues to rise unabated;
       Whereas of the 60,857 sharks landed in Central Pacific 
     Ocean and Western Pacific Ocean fisheries in 1998, 98.7 
     percent, or 60,085, were killed for their fins;
       Whereas shark fins comprise only between 1 percent and 5 
     percent of the weight of a shark, and shark finning results 
     in the unconscionable waste of 95 percent to 99 percent (by 
     weight) of a valuable public resource;
       Whereas the National Marine Fisheries Service has stated 
     that shark finning is wasteful, should be stopped, and is 
     contrary to United States fisheries conservation and 
     management policies;
       Whereas shark finning is prohibited in the United States 
     exclusive economic zone of the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of 
     Mexico, and the Caribbean;
       Whereas the practice of shark finning in the waters of the 
     United States in the Pacific Ocean is inconsistent with the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the 
     Federal Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, 
     Swordfish, and Sharks, and the shark finning prohibitions 
     that apply in State waters in the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific 
     Ocean;
       Whereas the United States is a global leader in shark 
     management, and the practice of shark finning in the waters 
     of the United States in the Pacific Ocean is inconsistent 
     with United States international obligations, including the 
     Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing of the Food and 
     Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the 
     International Plan of Action for Sharks of such organization, 
     and the United Nation's Agreement on Straddling Stocks and 
     Highly Migratory Species; and
       Whereas establishment of a prohibition on the practice of 
     shark finning in the Central Pacific Ocean and Western 
     Pacific Ocean would result in the immediate reduction of 
     waste and could reduce shark mortality by as much as 85 
     percent: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the practice of removing the fins of a shark and 
     dumping its carcass back into the ocean, commonly referred to 
     as shark finning, is a wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice 
     that could lead to overfishing of shark resources;
       (2) all Federal and State agencies and other management 
     entities that have jurisdiction over fisheries in waters of 
     the United States where the practice of shark finning is not 
     prohibited should promptly and permanently end that practice 
     in those waters; and
       (3) the Secretary of State should continue to strongly 
     advocate for the coordinated management of sharks and the 
     eventual elimination of shark finning in all other waters.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 189.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 189, authored by my friend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), expresses the sense of Congress that 
the practice of shark finning is wasteful and unsportsmanlike. In 
addition, it calls on the Western Pacific Regional

[[Page 27679]]

Fisheries Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service and 
the State Department to take action to ban the practice in U.S. waters 
and to work for a global ban on the practice.
  The issue that we are talking about here, shark finning, may not be 
one that is familiar to all Members. I would just like to say a word 
about what this is, because, as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) so well points out in H. Con. Res. 189, it is a practice 
which I believe would be tasteless, at best, and perhaps many other 
things at worst.
  It is very simply this: Catching, through the process that we 
generally refer to as long lining, sharks, in this case in the western 
Pacific Ocean, bringing them alongside the boat and removing with a 
knife their fins, and then turning them loose to die. That is shark 
finning.
  Members of this House will remember that in the last reauthorization 
of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, now known as 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we added a new standard with the goal of 
reducing bycatch; that is, catching fish other than the targeted 
species in a fishery.
  In the meantime, shark finning has been discouraged and made illegal 
in the Atlantic Ocean, in the Caribbean and in the Gulf of Mexico, 
leaving only the American waters in the Pacific Northwest in our 
country where shark finning is permitted. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requires Fishery Management Councils to develop fishery management 
plans which are consistent with national standards, and I believe that 
a national standard has been set by outlawing this practice in the 
Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.
  The new national standard requires Councils to develop fishery 
management plans which minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, and 
to the extent that bycatch cannot be reduced, the mortality of such 
bycatch should be reduced.
  The practice of shark finning appears not only to encourage the 
retention of bycatch, but also encourages the mortality of the bycatch. 
In fact, information from the National Marine Fisheries Service 
suggests that while in 1991 only 3 percent of the sharks were retained, 
that is right, 3 percent of the sharks were retained, by 1998 60 
percent of the sharks brought to the boat were killed for their fins 
rather than being released. The only portion of the shark that is 
retained are the fins, which obviously are kept for economic reasons.
  This is a wasteful practice and should not be allowed. In addition, 
it is inconsistent with the rules governing the harvest of sharks on 
the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and, as I pointed out, in the 
Caribbean.
  Some have complained that this resolution undermines the authority of 
the regional fisheries councils. This is not true, at least in my 
opinion. This does nothing more than send a signal to the Western 
Pacific Council, a shot across the bow, if you will, as well as to 
others, that Congress does not like the practice of shark finning and 
that those management bodies that manage sharks should take action to 
prohibit it.
  The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held 
a hearing on this resolution on October 21, 1999, and heard testimony 
from a number of interested parties, including the Western Pacific 
Regional Fish Management Council. While the council did take action at 
their last meeting to reduce the overall retention of sharks in the 
longline fisheries, they took no action to reduce or eliminate the 
practice of shark finning.
  The full Committee on Resources passed this resolution with an 
amendment by voice vote on October 27 of this year.
  I believe Congress should continue to express our strong opposition 
to this practice and should pass this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and I concur 
in the remarks of the subcommittee chairman. We had a good hearing and 
all points of view were presented. I want to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) for bringing this matter to us in the form 
of a resolution.
  I support this resolution. In fact, I would support a lot more, to 
not just provide a sense of Congress, but to in fact act to prevent 
this outrageous type of activity that is taking place in our fisheries.
  What it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, as the chairman pointed out, is a 
practice of longlining and catching tuna and other types of valuable 
economic species of fish. At the same time there is some bycatch or 
incidental catch of sharks.
  The fact is that the economic value total of the shark is and could 
be quite significant, but the most valuable portion of it is, of 
course, the fins on that shark, which are often used for gourmet recipe 
of shark fin soup. As we know, as its popularity has grown, this 
particular practice of incidental bycatch, of stripping the fins off of 
the sharks to be used for this purpose, is increasingly taking place.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, it is ethically and morally wrong. I think many 
parts of the shark, including the skin, the liver for its oil and other 
qualities, and other materials that are present in the shark have some 
economic value. But to take out the most valued part, which are the 
fins, of course, that leaves a carcass of a large fish in the ocean to 
be wasted. I think this is an outrage, and I hope that we can change 
such practice with this resolution as the chairman said, a shot across 
the bow. I would hope that would be the case.
  I think that when we talk about the numbers here, it has been banned 
in the Atlantic Ocean but continues to persist in the Pacific Ocean. 
60,000 to 70,000 pacific sharks, and this number has risen over the 
years to the point where in the last 5 years it has grown 
exponentially, but risen to the point where nearly 70,000 animals are 
in fact mistreated in this manner, which is worth I guess a couple 
million dollars to those that are doing the shark finning. But I think 
that the destruction of that type of resource screams for some type of 
public policy action, and certainly this resolution is in step with 
that. I hope that it results in actions that correct this outrageous 
practice.
  I know the Western Fisheries Council had made a goal of reducing the 
number to 50,000. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that type of 
change of policy path by itself is not enough, because I think it 
misses the point as to what is taking place here with the destruction 
of these species. Some of the species are very common, like the blue 
shark, but there is indiscriminate treatment of these majestic fish and 
the sharks that we have in the ocean that are being treated in this 
way, and I think that the USA should be leading in terms of making the 
policy changes in the Pacific regarding this deplorable practice. 
Hopefully we could enlist other nations to follow us in terms of ending 
this improper practice and exploitation of this valued fish species, 
the shark. I urge Members to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution which urges the Western 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, and the State of Hawaii to ban shark finning in all Federal 
and State waters in the Pacific Ocean.
  Finning is a wasteful practice that is already prohibited in U.S. 
waters in the Atlantic, the Gulf and the Carribean, in part, because it 
leads to the overfishing of shark resources in those areas. It is time 
for that prohibition to be in effect nationwide.
  In addition, the U.S. has played a leadership role in promoting shark 
conservation efforts internationally. Our continued efforts in this 
arena will be hampered if this wasteful practice is allowed to continue 
in our own waters.
  This resolution does not override the authorities of the Western 
Pacific Fishery Management Council. It simply tells them that this 
Congress believes it is time for them to bring this wasteful practice 
to an end, and I support its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr.

[[Page 27680]]

Cunningham), who brought this issue to our attention and who told us 
inasmuch as shark finning had already been outlawed, if you will, in 
the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, it made no sense to 
permit the practice to continue in the western Pacific. I thank the 
gentleman for his great effort in bringing this to our attention and 
making sure that we address the problem.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Chairman Saxton) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Vento). I would also like to thank them for their support, both 
Republicans and Democrats alike. This is an issue on which we can come 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduced H. Con. Res. 189 to send a clear message 
that shark finning is wasteful and unsportsmanlike. The destructive 
practice of shark finning in the American waters off the central and 
western Pacific must stop.
  Mr. Speaker, years ago this country destroyed buffalo herds only for 
the hides of those buffalo and left the meat to rot in the sun. What a 
waste of a resource. They nearly decimated the herds for the Native 
Americans. The same thing is done today with elephant tusks. To just 
shoot an elephant and take the tusk and leave the meat rotting is 
wrong. Or whether it is a seal pup for its hide, to take the hide and 
let the carcass sit there in the snow is wrong. Shark finning is a 
practice of removing shark fins and discarding the carcass into the 
sea.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a sportsman. I love to hunt and fish, but it is 
under a managed system to make sure that our resources are here for our 
children and their children and our grandchildren down the line.
  I am also a diver, and I am not necessarily fond of sharks. I have 
had a couple of occasions where I wished they had not have been so 
close around. But they have been part of our ecosystem for millions of 
years, and I think we need to manage that resource so that they are not 
depleted. They went from taking 2,300 to nearly 61,000 sharks in very 
short order. I think we ought to stop and take a look.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) covered much of this 
material, so I will submit a lot of it for the Record. But the action 
that WestPac took was merely to cut from 60,000 to 50,000 the number of 
sharks from finning.

                              {time}  1445

  Yet, Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of those sharks are finned and just 
dumped back into the water, some alive, left to drown, and some dead. 
In any regard, it is inhumane, it is cruel, and it is wasteful.
  The United States has emerged as a global leader in shark fisheries 
management. Yet, as Ms. Sonya Fordham of the Center for Marine 
Conservation notes, ``Our inability to address an egregious finning 
problem within our own waters threatens to undermine the U.S. role in 
these important international initiatives.''
  I would also like to thank a gentlewoman who came all the way from 
Hawaii, Ms. Brooke Burns, a young 21-year-old from the series of 
Baywatch. She, I think, articulated in a most professional way the 
support of the American people in why this practice should not 
continue.
  This spring, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and myself 
plan to introduce legislation. And if Members can imagine, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), if he 
will join us, on a bill together on this floor, that will be a day. I 
would say to my friend, we plan this spring, under the Magnuson Act, to 
have legal and binding law to act accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record correspondence regarding this 
matter:


                                      Ocean Wildlife Campaign,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Cunningham: We are writing to express 
     serious concern regarding the management and health of shark 
     populations in U.S. Pacific waters, specifically in areas 
     under the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional 
     Fishery Management Council (WESPAC). Driven by the 
     international demand for shark fin soup, the practice of 
     shark finning--cutting of a shark's fins and discarding its 
     carcass back into the ocean--is a rapidly growing problem 
     that is directly responsible for huge increases in the number 
     of sharks killed annually and appalling waste of this 
     nation's living marine resources. The National Marine 
     Fisheries Service has prohibited shark finning in the U.S. 
     Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. It is time to ban 
     finning in the Pacific.
       Between 1991 and 1998, the number of sharks ``retained'' by 
     the Hawaii-based swordfish and tuna longline fleet jumped 
     from 2,289 to 60,857 annually. In 1998, over 98 percent of 
     these sharks were killed for their fins to meet the demand 
     for shark fin soup. Because shark fins typically comprise 
     only one to five percent of a shark's bodyweight, 95 to 99 
     percent of the shark is going to waste. Sharks are 
     particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their 
     ``life history characteristics''--slow growth, late sexual 
     maturity, and the production of few young. Once depleted, a 
     population may take decades to recover.
       The National Marine Fisheries Service, conservationists, 
     fishermen, scientists, and the public have pressured WESPAC 
     to end the practice of shark finning. Nevertheless, WESPAC 
     and the State of Hawaii recently failed to take action to end 
     or control finning.
       This issue of shark finning is characterized by a dangerous 
     lack of management, rampant waste, and egregious 
     inconsistencies with U.S. domestic and international policy 
     stances. It is the most visible symptom of a larger problem: 
     a lack of comprehensive management for sharks in U.S. Pacific 
     waters. The history of poorly or unmanaged shark fisheries 
     around the world is unequivocal: rapid decline followed by 
     collapse. Sharks are not managed in U.S. Central and Western 
     Pacific waters, and with increased fishing pressure there may 
     be rapidly growing problems.
       We urge your office to take whatever action is necessary to 
     immediately end the destructive practice of shark finning in 
     U.S. waters and encourage WESPAC to develop a comprehensive 
     fishery management plan for sharks that will, among other 
     things:
       1. Immediately prohibit the finning of sharks;
       2. Immediately reduce shark mortality levels by requiring 
     the live release of all bycatch or ``incidentally caught'' 
     animals brought to the boat alive;
       3. Immediately reduce the bycatch of sharks;
       4. Prevent overfishing by quickly establishing 
     precautionary commercial and recreational quotas for sharks 
     until a final comprehensive management plan is adopted that 
     ensures the future health of the population. Given the 
     dramatic increase in the number of sharks killed in the 
     Hawaiian longline fishery, WESPAC should cap shark mortality 
     at 1994 levels as a minimum interim action, pending the 
     outcome of new population assessment.
       Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
     David Wilmot, Ph.D.,
                                          Ocean Wildlife Campaign.
     Carl Safina, Ph.D.,
                                         National Audubon Society.
     Lisa Speer,
                                Natural Resources Defense Council.
     Tom Grasso,
                                              World Wildlife Fund.
     Sonja Fordham,
                                   Center for Marine Conservation.
     Ken Hinman,
                       National Coalition for Marine Conservation.
     Ellen Pikitch, Ph.D.,
     Wildlife Conservation Society.
                                  ____



                               Center For Marine Conservation,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Cunningham: On behalf of the Center for 
     Marine Conservation (CMC), I am writing to express our grave 
     concern for Pacific sharks, specifically those under the 
     jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 
     Management Council (WESPAC). High demand for shark fin soup 
     has driven a dramatic surge in shark finning (the practice of 
     slicing off a shark's valuable fins and discarding the body 
     at sea) by the Hawaiian longline fleet. This appalling waste 
     of America's public marine resources is tied to alarming yet 
     unrestricted increases in mortality of some of the ocean's 
     most biologically vulnerable fish.
       Shark conservation has long been a key element of CMC's 
     fisheries program due in large part to the life history 
     characteristics that leave sharks exceptionally susceptible 
     to overfishing. In general, sharks grow slowly, mature late 
     and produce a small number of young. Once depleted, shark 
     populations often require decades to recover. In the U.S. 
     Atlantic, for example, several overfished shark stocks will 
     require four decades to rebuild to healthy levels, even with 
     strict fishing controls. Indeed, nearly every large scale

[[Page 27681]]

     shark fishery this century has ended in collapse.
       Off Hawaii, the number of sharks killed and brought to the 
     dock (landed) has increased by more than 2500 percent, 
     skyrocketing from just 2,289 sharks in 1991 to 60,857 sharks 
     in 1998. In 1998, over 98 percent of these sharks were killed 
     solely for their fins. Considering that shark fins typically 
     comprise only one to five percent of a shark's bodyweight, 95 
     to 99 percent of the shark is going to waste.
       CMC has been calling upon Western Pacific fishery managers 
     to restrict shark fisheries and ban finning for more than 5 
     years. More recently, similar demands have been made by many 
     other national conservation organizations as well as local 
     Hawaiian environmental and fishing groups, international 
     scientific societies, concerned citizens, and several 
     Department of Commerce high-ranking officials. A recent poll 
     by Seaweb found that finning was among the ocean issues most 
     disturbing to the American public. Nevertheless, WESPAC and 
     the State of Hawaii have yet to take action to control 
     finning or limit shark mortality.
       Shark finning in particular runs counter not only to the 
     will of the American public, to which these resources belong, 
     but also to U.S. domestic and international policy as 
     expressed in:
       the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA);
       the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Sharks of the 
     Atlantic Ocean; the United Nations Food and Agricultural 
     Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; 
     and
       the FAO International Plan of Action for Sharks.
       In addition, as you are likely aware, California is just 
     one of many coastal states to ban finning within their 
     waters.
       In the U.S. Atlantic, the lucrative market for shark fins 
     drove an intense fishery that led to severe depletion of 
     several shark populations within less than 10 years. Citing 
     ``universal and strong support'' for a ban on finning on 
     behalf of the non-fishing American public, the National 
     Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) banned the practice in U.S. 
     Atlantic in 1993, stating that:
       NMFS believes that finning is wasteful of valuable shark 
     resources and poses a threat to attaining the conservation 
     objectives of fishery management under the Magnuson Act.
       This year, NMFS expanded the existing finning ban from the 
     39 regulated species to all sharks in the Atlantic while 
     Department of Commerce officials have repeatedly, yet 
     unsuccessfully, called upon WESPAC to halt finning.
       In recent years, the United States has emerged as a world 
     leader in crafting and promoting landmark, international 
     agreements pertaining to sharks and continues to lead efforts 
     to raise global awareness of their plight and special 
     management needs. Yet, our inability to address an egregious 
     finning problem within our own waters threatens to undermine 
     the U.S. role in these important international initiatives.
       CMC asks for your assistance in ensuring an immediate end 
     to the wasteful practice of finning, accompanied by a 
     requirement that all incidentally-caught sharks brought to 
     the boat alive be released alive. In addition, a 
     comprehensive Pacific shark management plan that prevents 
     overfishing and reduces bycatch is absolutely crucial to 
     safeguarding these especially vulnerable animals; 
     precautionary catch limits in the Western Pacific (no higher 
     than 1994 mortality levels) are needed until such a plan is 
     complete.
       Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Sonja V. Fordham,
     Fisheries Project Manager.
                                  ____

                                             American Sportfishing


                                                  Association,

                               Alexandria, VA, September 23, 1999.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Cunningham: On behalf of the nearly 500 
     members of the American Sportfishing Association, I wish to 
     express my strong support for your resolution to ban the 
     wasteful practice of shark finning. I commend your initiative 
     in tackling this important, yet easily dismissed issue.
       For far too long, we have neglected to take action to stop 
     this most unsportsmanlike fishing activity. We now know that 
     the best shark is not a dead shark; that these oft maligned 
     fish play critical roles in preserving balance in the marine 
     ecosystem. Healthy shark populations help maintain robust 
     fisheries. Your effort to ban finning will not only benefit 
     depressed shark populations, but many other species of 
     commercially and recreationally important fish.
       Thank you for your leadership in this area.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mike Hayden,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____



                                         The Cousteau Society,

                                  Chesapeake, VA, October 8, 1999.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: The Cousteau Society, on behalf of its 
     150,000 members, strongly supports H. Con. Res. 189, 
     expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the wasteful 
     and unsportsmanlike practice known as shark finning.
       The Cousteau Society's own lengthy expedition to film the 
     white shark in Australia confirmed vividly how little is 
     known about even this well-publicized species; even less data 
     are available for the hundreds of shark species that have not 
     caught public or commercial attention. Whenever enough 
     information is gathered about a given kind of shark to 
     confirm a judgment on its status, that judgment is almost 
     inevitably that the species is over-fished and must be 
     protected to survive. Lack of information is obviously no 
     good reason to delay conservation.
       The Cousteau Society fully endorses your recommendation to 
     the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, the State of 
     Hawaii and the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban 
     finning in the central and western Pacific Ocean. 
     Conservation must not wait for perfect science nor unanimous 
     agreement. Please hold absolutely firm in insisting on an end 
     to this destructive practice.
           Yours truly,
     Clark Lee S. Merriam.
                                  ____

                                                   Western Pacific


                                          Fisheries Coalition,

                                   Kailua, HI, September 30, 1999.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Congressman Cunningham. First let me thank you for 
     introducing H. Con. Res. 189 and for taking an interest in 
     the blatant waste of one of our natural resources here in the 
     Western Pacific. The Shark Finning issue here has brought a 
     new awareness to the problem not only in the Western Pacific 
     region, but on a global scale. We have been involved in 
     fisheries management here in Hawaii for over 15 years and 
     have represented, on some Council issues, more than 18,000 
     Hawaiian fishermen and concerned individuals. I have been a 
     commercial and recreational fisherman and hunter for over 40 
     years, but I've never seen such irresponsible actions by 
     fishermen, much less Federal fishery managers, who continue 
     to be proponents for shark finning.
       The NMFS has already implemented a ``full utilization'' 
     plan in the Atlantic and the Gulf, has justified the record 
     and the basis for it. The Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 
     FMO and Final Regulations, 15 CFR Part 902, published May 28, 
     1999, in vol. 64 Federal Register, pp. 29090 et seq. NMFS' 
     response to public comments on proposed regulations to 
     implement Atlantic HMS FMP (at pp. 29108-09):
     Anti-Finning of Sharks
       Comment 1: NMFS should implement the proposed total 
     prohibition on finning. Response: NMFS agrees. Extending the 
     prohibition on finning to all species of sharks will greatly 
     enhance enforcement and contribute to rebuilding or 
     maintenance of all shark species.
       Comment 2: NMFS should not extend the prohibition on 
     finning sharks because it disadvantages U.S. fishermen 
     relative to foreign competitors and NMFS should allow a 
     tolerance for blue shark fins to be landed. Response: NMFS 
     disagrees. Finning of sharks within the Federal management 
     unit has been prohibited since the original shark FMP was 
     implemented in 1993 due to excessive waste associated with 
     this practice. NMFS extends the prohibition on finning to all 
     sharks to enhance enforcement and facilitate stock rebuilding 
     and maintenance.
       In a June 21, 1999 letter to the Chairman of the Western 
     Pacific Council, Mr. Terry Garcia directs the Council to 
     ``take immediate action to ban the practice of shark 
     finning''. In the letter, Mr. Garcia points out that the US 
     has been a leading proponent of international shark 
     conservation measures at the United Nations FAO meetings this 
     year. He goes on to say that ``The US position during 
     development of the International Plan of Action for the 
     Conservation and Management of Sharks was that the FAO should 
     affirmatively address this issue, even to the extent of 
     putting in place a global ban on shark finning''. Mr. 
     Garcia's letter concludes by saying that ``The Council should 
     amend the Western Pacific Pelagic Fishery Management Plan to 
     require full utilization of all sharks harvested in this 
     fishery''.
       NMFS and the Department of Commerce's position is clear. Is 
     finning any less of a waste in the Pacific as opposed to the 
     Gulf or Atlantic? The Council unfortunately has known about 
     this problem since 1993 and have repeatedly been told to stop 
     finning by NMFS as early as 1995, without any action being 
     taken. Now the Council, as a result of your resolution, is 
     trying to justify their position in Congress by claiming that 
     NMFS has not given them the funding to gather the necessary 
     information nor has NMFS supplied the Council with the 
     necessary data that would allow them to take action. 
     Obviously these excuses are merely a way to shift the 
     responsibility of the Council to NMFS.
       NMFS has been very consistent in their position that shark 
     finning is a ``waste'' issue and not a biological one. The 
     Council has gone so far as to ask NMFS to define ``waste'' 
     even though the Council Chairman has at one point himself, 
     called shark finning a ``wasteful practice''. If people are

[[Page 27682]]

     going to try and confuse the issue of finning over the 
     definition of waste, we've all digressed to the point where 
     our fisheries are in serious trouble. Look at the history of 
     the fisheries that have collapsed. Have they collapsed 
     because people called for more management? Have they 
     collapsed because people called for a precautionary approach 
     and a reduction of waste? Or have they collapsed because 
     people used excuses like, we don't have enough data yet, we 
     don't have the enforcement, it's a complex issue or many 
     others that all had one thing in common, they all lead to 
     overfishing. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said during a 
     Hearing on Pornography . . . ``I don't know the definition of 
     pornography, but I know it when I see it''. I suspect his 
     opinion of waste might go along these same lines.
       In a recent response from the NMFS Honolulu Lab, Dr. 
     Michael Laurs indicated that they HAVE NOT even begun a 
     biological assessment of blue sharks and will not have any 
     preliminary information until Spring 2000. Based on this 
     information we are very concerned that no one seems to 
     actually know the status of these stocks. The Council's 
     claims that Japanese Data has been used by the Council to 
     determine that the stocks are healthy is somewhat disturbing 
     as the United States could not depend on Japanese data with 
     regard to High Seas Driftnetting or Whaling, which in both 
     cases the Japanese data once again claimed that these 
     practices were not threatening the stocks.
       I've asked the State Representative, who introduced our 
     Shark finning legislation here in Hawaii last year, to 
     forward you all the testimony his committees received in 
     support of a ban which clearly shows the widespread support 
     this issue had here in the Islands. Native Hawaiians have 
     written in protest, testified and have written letters 
     calling for a halt to finning. Charter Boat Captains in 
     Hawaii, Commercial fishermen in Hawaii (both native and non-
     native) have supported a ban and they in fact catch sharks. 
     Recreational fishermen, conservationists, scientists, State 
     politicians and some of the Hawaii Congressional Delegation 
     in Washington have supported a ban on finning, as well as the 
     State of Hawaii.
       Please don't let people confuse this issue as this isn't 
     about a biological assessment or cruel practice, it is all 
     about waste. Releasing the sharks that are caught as 
     incidental catch alive or fully utilizing the shark, would 
     not increase by-catch as much as it would reduce waste and 
     by-catch mortality.
       Once again thank you for your support and if there is 
     anything we can do to support your initiative, please don't 
     hesitate to contact us.
       Best personal regards,
     Bob Endreson.
                                  ____

                                                  State of Hawai'i


                                   Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

                                    Honolulu, HI, October 8, 1999.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.

     Re: Support for H. Con. Res. 189 on Shark Finning.

       Dear Congressman Cunningham: I am writing to thank you for 
     introducing H. Con. Res. 189 to stop the wasteful practice of 
     shark finning in the Central, South, and West Pacific. The 
     Administration of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), 
     acting consistently with Board of Trustees policies and 
     views, supports H. Con. Res. 189. We would also like to 
     suggest some amendments to strengthen the arguments already 
     made in H. Con. Res. 189. OHA is a quasi-state agency tasked 
     with working toward the betterment of Native Hawaiians, by 
     advocating for the recognition and continuation of Hawaiian 
     culture and identity.
       As you are no doubt aware, there has been considerable 
     outcry among the Native Hawaiian population, as well as the 
     population at large in Hawaii, about the practice of shark 
     finning. This public disdain for this wasteful fishing 
     practice was most recently debated both in our State 
     legislature and at a meeting of the Western Pacific Regional 
     Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC).
     Cultural Significance
       Because Hawaiian culture is integrally tied to the health, 
     abundance, and access to indigenous natural resources, 
     Hawaiians have always striven to play a stewardship role by 
     sound management and protection of the natural environment on 
     which the culture relies. Unfortunately, Hawaii is constantly 
     endangered by the imposition of Western beliefs, customs, 
     religions, and economic desires that do not necessary hold 
     similar views about the importance of the natural 
     environment. Taking a small portion of a shark or any animal 
     and wasting the remainder clearly runs counter to Hawaiian 
     stewardship views. Traditional use of sharks in Hawaiian 
     culture meant whole utilization of the animal.
       Equally as important to Hawaiians is the cultural and 
     spiritual significance of the shark itself. Many Hawaiian 
     families hold the shark in special esteem as the physical 
     manifestation (called Kinolau) of their family guardian 
     (aumakua), who was also regarded as a family ancestor. There 
     are many other kinolau in Hawaiian culture, including the 
     owl, lizard, dog, rocks, and clouds. Imagine the uproar that 
     would arise if the Spotted Owl were to be taken, even as 
     ``bycatch,'' for its wings. The intensity of feeling about 
     shark finning among Hawaiians is a hundred-fold magnified 
     because of the special spiritual significance of the shark. 
     To hurt or destroy the shark wantonly and intentionally is 
     for many families equivalent to desecrating one's own 
     ancestors and heritage. As forcefully stated by respected 
     Hawaiian cultural practitioner and member of WFRFMC's Native 
     and Indigenous Rights Advisory Panel Charles Kauluwehi 
     Maxwell Sr. at a recent WPRFMC meeting, the practice of shark 
     finning is ``very offensive'' to Hawaiians.
       OHA believes that shark finning should not be allowed to 
     continue, and that the U.S. government should not allow 
     landings of shark fins unless it is taken from a shark landed 
     whole.
     Suggested Amendments to Bill
       We feel that H. Con. Res. 189 can be strengthened by 
     including language to express the culturally offensive nature 
     of shark finning, as described above. Therefore, we suggest 
     inserting the following language or similar:
       ``. . . Whereas shark finning in the Western Pacific occurs 
     in and around the waters of Hawaii, among other U.S. Pacific 
     holdings;
       Whereas the indigenous Native Hawaiian people regard sharks 
     highly as being culturally and spiritually important to their 
     heritage;
       Whereas wasteful use of a culturally significant animal 
     such as the shark is offensive to Native Hawaiians; . . .''
     The Council's Role
       In an interview with a reporter during the WPRFMC meeting 
     several months ago, Council Chair James D. Cook stated that 
     environmentalists' concerns and native Hawaiians' cultural 
     concerns should not influence decisions made by the Council 
     on decisions about shark finning. OHA feels that Mr. Cook's 
     culturally insensitive comment warrants attention and 
     clarification about WPRFMC's position on cultural issues. 
     Perhaps WPRFMC's duties and responsibilities towards 
     indigenous peoples and their cultural/traditional fishing 
     practices under the Magnuson-Stevens Act needs to be 
     reassessed.
       As the full name of the Magnuson-Stevens Act indicates, its 
     objective is to conserve and manage fisheries. Moreover, the 
     Act clearly places importance on cultural considerations. 
     Section 104-297 of the Act states the following regarding 
     community development programs:
       ``. . . the Western Pacific Council shall base such 
     criteria on traditional fishing practices in or dependence on 
     the fishery, the cultural and social framework relevant to 
     the fishery, and economic barriers to access to the 
     fishery,'' and
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Western Pacific Council shall take into account traditional 
     indigenous fishing practices in preparing any fishery 
     management plan.''
       OHA feels that Mr. Cook's comment then begs the question of 
     what the Council's priorities are in managing fisheries, and 
     specifically if it is truly taking cultural considerations 
     into account.
       We hope that you will consider this need to scrutinize 
     WPRFMC's priorities and culturally sensitive issues like 
     shark finning when you introduce legislation to amend the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Act later this year.
       If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate 
     to contact Sebastian Aloot, Hawaiian Rights Officer, or Nami 
     Ohtomo, Natural Resources Policy Analyst, at 594-1755.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Randall Ogata,
                                                    Administrator.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the committee members, and the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for expediting this to the floor.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Resources 
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Saxton and the Ranking Democrat Mr. 
Faleomavaega for their work on this resolution. Indeed, H. Con. Res. 
189 is important because it has helped elevate the awareness of shark 
finning practices in the Pacific. I'm sure that many Americans have 
been moved, as I have, by television images showing workers aboard 
fishing vessels, both foreign and domestic, slicing off the fins of 
caught sharks and throwing the carcasses back into the ocean. It's easy 
to understand why we are moved by these pictures. They are very 
powerful and appeal to our sense of human decency and respect for ``not 
wasting our kill.''
  The resolution before us however, does not take any comprehensive 
approach to end the practice of shark finning. Though it presents us 
with statistical data showing us the enormous increase of shark finning 
activity in the Pacific over the past eight years, it neglects to 
address the volume of U.S. imports which helps to support the demand 
for shark finning to occur. If we want this resolution to offer

[[Page 27683]]

meaningful and substantive changes in the treatment of sharks, this 
resolution should address a ban on importation.
  Moreover, the authority of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 
Management Council--which is the federally recognized regional council 
responsible for developing management plans for fisheries for the 
exclusive economic zones of the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific 
territories--will be usurped with the passage of this resolution. These 
regional councils are in place to develop sound and responsible fishery 
management plans while being mindful of the unique circumstances of the 
presiding region. I am concerned that passing this resolution sets a 
precedent which can call in to question the integrity and authority of 
all federally mandated regional fishery management councils in the U.S.
  Mr. Speaker, the practice of shark finning is unfortunate. We should 
not, however, avert the authorities of regional councils in lieu of our 
unwillingness to address this issue in a comprehensive manner.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 189, relating to the practice of shark finning.
  There is no question that the practice is wasteful of a resource and 
should be discontinued. This issue has been on the agenda of the 
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC), which is 
responsible for managing our Western Pacific fisheries resources. 
WESPAC has been studying this issue, and I encourage them to continue 
to do so in order to compile the necessary data to take definitive 
action. In that regard, I would note that the Council has requested 
additional funds from NMFS during the past three years to do so, and as 
evidenced by our endorsement of this resolution today, there is a 
critical need for NMFS to comply with the request. I want to work 
closely with Representatives Eni Faleomavaega, Jim Saxton, Wayne 
Gilchrest, George Miller, Don Young and the Appropriations Committee to 
make sure there is adequate federal support for the broad and extensive 
responsibilities for which WESPAC is charged. The fisheries of the 
Western Pacific economic zones for which WESPAC is responsible 
comprises approximately forty-eight percent of the entire area NMFS 
regulates, but WESPAC receives only twelve percent of the total funding 
all the commissions receive. We must make certain that we give the 
Commission the tools, resources and support they need in order to 
credibly discharge their formidable responsibilities.
  Secondly, I would like to point out that even with enactment of this 
resolution or additional legislation amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
to ban shark finning, this is an international problem, and follow-up 
action must be initiated and undertaken in order to effectively end the 
practice internationally. Far more fins are unloaded in California 
ports, Hong Kong and other sites than in Hawaii, and the issue of 
transshipping of fins must also be addressed. If we are serious about 
ending finning, we need to act on several fronts.
  By citing the waste inherent in finning, the resolution raises the 
issue of full utilization of the products harvested from sharks. Fins 
should not be the only part of animal used and we need to develop 
refined products and markets in order to more fully make good use of 
shark parts. The resolution cites the waste inherent in finning, and 
yet there is an implicit level of utilization in other marine products. 
For example, to what extent is taking solely roe from fish or sea 
urchins wasteful? NMFS should address these utilization issues as it 
undertakes regulatory actions impacting shark catches.
  The last matter I would like to raise is that of compensation for 
lost income which will be sustained by Hawaii fishermen and industry. 
Shark fins generate significant revenue, and traditionally most of its 
goes directly to the crews of the fishing fleet. The resolution does 
not address lost compensation for crews, but I am pointing out the 
issue to indicate the complexity of the issue, and equity in addressing 
the economic consequences of fisheries regulatory decisions, based on 
precedents set by previous NMFS actions and decisions.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, as well as 
addressing the underlying and associated issues it raises.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 
189, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as 
amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________