[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13014-13016]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   THE SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Shark 
Conservation Act of 2000, legislation that will significantly improve 
conservation and management of sharks worldwide, and establish a 
consistent national policy toward the practice of shark-finning. The 
bill would prohibit the practice of shark finning and transshipment of 
shark fins by U.S. vessels, set forth a process to encourage foreign 
governments to end this practice by their own fishing fleets, and 
authorize badly needed fisheries research on shark populations. I am 
pleased to be joined in this effort by the Ranking Member of the 
Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings.
  Mr. President, sharks are among the most biologically vulnerable 
species in the ocean. Their slow growth, late maturity and small number 
of offspring leave them exceptionally vulnerable to overfishing and 
slow to recover from depletion. At the same time, sharks, as top 
predators, are essential to maintaining the balance of life in the sea. 
While many of our other highly migratory species such as tunas and 
swordfish are subject to rigorous management regimes, sharks have 
largely been overlooked until recently.
  The bill first amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act to prohibit shark finning, which is the practice of 
removing a shark's fins and returning the remainder of the shark to 
sea, and provides a rebuttable presumption that shark fins found on 
board a U.S. vessel were taken by finning, thus closing the 
transshipment loophole. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
regulations in the Atlantic Ocean prohibit the practice of shark 
finning, but a nationwide prohibition does not currently exist. Shark 
fins comprise only a small percentage of the weight of the shark, and 
yet this is often the only portion of the shark retained. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act and international commitments discourage unnecessary waste 
of fish, and thus I believe this bill ensure our domestic regulations 
are consistent on this point. Another goal of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act--the minimization of bycatch and bycatch mortality--is an issue 
that I have been particularly committed to over the years. Because most 
of the sharks caught and finned are incidentally captured in fisheries 
targeting other species, I believe establishing a domestic ban will 
help us further reduce this type of shark mortality.
  Mr. President, this legislation would also direct the Secretary of 
Commerce to initiate negotiations with foreign countries in order to 
encourage those countries to adopt shark finning prohibitions similar 
to ours. The establishment of a prohibition of shark finning by United 
States fishermen, or in waters subject to our jurisdiction, will not 
reduce finning by international fishing fleets or transshipment or 
landing of fins taken by these fleets. At present, foreign fleets 
transship or land approximately 180 metric tons of shark fins annually 
through ports in the Pacific alone. The global shark fin trade involves 
at least 125 countries, and the demand for shark fins and other shark 
products has driven dramatic increases in shark fishing and shark 
mortality around the world.
  International measures are an absolutely critical component of 
achieving effective shark conservation. Under my legislation, the 
Secretary would be mandated to report to Congress on progress being 
made domestically and internationally to reduce shark finning. Further, 
this legislation will establish a procedure for determining whether 
governments have adopted shark conservation measures which are 
comparable to ours through import certification procedures for sharks 
or shark parts. Imports of sharks or shark parts from countries that do 
not meet these certification procedures are prohibited. I have also 
included provisions which would provide technical assistance to foreign 
nations in an attempt to promote compliance.
  Finally, my bill would authorize a Western Pacific longline fisheries 
cooperative research program to provide information for shark stock 
assessments, identify fishing gear and practices that prevent or 
minimize incidental catch of sharks and ensure maximum survivorship of 
released sharks, and provide data on the international shark fin trade.
  Mr. President, the United States is a global leader in fisheries 
conservation and management. I believe this legislation provides us the 
opportunity to further this role, and take the first step in addressing 
an international fisheries management issue. In addition, I believe the 
U.S. should continue to lead efforts at the United Nations and 
international conventions to achieve coordinated international 
management of sharks, including an international ban on shark-finning. 
I look forward to working with Committee members on this important 
legislation.

[[Page 13015]]

  Thank you Mr. President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 2832. A bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


            the magnuson-stevens reauthorization act of 2000

  Ms. SNOWE. I rise today to introduce a bill that will reauthorize the 
most important Federal fisheries management law, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In 1996, Congress last 
reauthorized this law through enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries 
Act (SFA). The SFA contained the most substantial improvements to 
fisheries conservation since the original passage of the Magnuson Act 
in 1976.
  The SFA made wholesale changes in fisheries management. For the first 
time, it required the regional fishery management councils and the 
Secretary of Commerce to prevent and end overfishing, reduce bycatch, 
protect essential fish habitat, and consider fishing communities in the 
regulatory decision-making process. These provisions of the SFA have 
presented a great challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service 
the regional councils, and the fishermen who are regulated under this 
law. While the goals and intent of the SFA were certainly laudable, 
four years later, we still have a significant amount of work to do in 
that regard.
  Therefore, today, Mr. President, I introduce the Magnuson-Stevens 
Reauthorization Act of 2000 with several very specific goals in mind. 
First and foremost, this bill provides for a major increase in funding. 
While the demands on fisheries managers at the local and federal levels 
have increased exponentially, funding has essentially remained level. 
One of the most serious problems in fisheries management is a lack of 
basic information on the resource. This bill, through increased funding 
and the establishment of two programs, will go a long way toward 
filling existing critical gaps in our information databases. For the 
past several years, Senators Kerry, Gregg, and I have worked to 
establish a cooperative research program in New England fisheries. This 
program, which requires federal and local scientists to partner with 
commercial fishermen in the gathering and development of fisheries 
data, has proven quite successful. Therefore, this bill would establish 
a National Cooperative Research and Management program to be 
administered by the agency in conjunction with the regional councils 
and local fishermen. In addition, the bill also establishes a National 
Cooperative Enforcement program. This too is based on existing programs 
in several states, where state marine law enforcement officers are 
deputized by their federal counterparts to help enforce conservation 
and management provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other marine 
related laws. Lack of enforcement of fisheries laws has been a constant 
problem for fishermen and fisheries managers.
  This bill also addresses one of the most serious and emotional 
questions in fisheries management--individual fishing quotas (IFQs). 
The SFA included a five year moratorium on new IFQ programs and 
required the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the issue. The 
NAS report issued a series of recommendations on IFQs. The first 
recommendation was for Congress to lift the existing moratorium on new 
IFQ programs and authorize the councils to design and implement new 
IFQs. The moratorium is set to expire on October 1, 2000.
  This recommendation has received a lot of publicity. However, the NAS 
report contained a number of other recommendations to Congress that 
were to be considered in conjunction with the authorization of any new 
IFQ programs. These recommendations concern substantive issues, yet 
they have not received the level of attention that they fully deserve. 
For instance, the NAS recommended that Congress should encourage cost 
recovery and extraction of profits from new IFQ programs through fees, 
annual taxes, and zero-revenue auctions. The NAS also recommended that 
the Act be amended to allow the public to capture windfall gains 
generated from the initial allocation of IFQs. Additional 
recommendations include requiring accumulation limits and determining 
rules for foreign ownership.
  Mr. President, the NAS report contains important recommendations that 
should be thoroughly examined by Congress and the public. I understand 
that in some regions of the country, both commercial and recreational 
fishermen want to immediately move to the design and implementation of 
new IFQ programs. However, it is clear that many of the important 
questions associated with any new IFQ program have not been fully 
considered and immediate implementation of such programs could have 
deleterious affects on fisheries and fishing communities. For that 
reason, the bill I introduce today contains a three year extension of 
the existing moratorium.
  This provision simply recognizes that fisheries conservation and 
management must be approached from a long-term perspective. Widespread 
implementation of IFQ programs will drastically alter the face of 
fishing communities and the way we pursue fisheries conservation 
measures. If IFQs are indeed the answer that many of their advocates 
claim, then surely IFQs will still be a viable option in three years. 
But, a short-term extension of the moratorium, as this bill proposes, 
will force the Congress and fishing communities to consider the many 
other necessary questions related to IFQs. The NAS report recommended 
Congress provide guidance on these issues because they are clearly 
questions of national concern, and I suggest that we follow that 
course.
  Mr. President, this bill provides a number of other improvements, 
including increased flexibility to the agency to reaffirm the original 
intent of Congress that there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' solution to 
fisheries management. Moreover, the bill would provide for an expanded 
national observer program to help collect critical information. It is 
widely recognized that we need to increase our use of observers to gain 
data on species composition, age structure, and bycatch. The bill also 
establishes a pilot program to help fisheries managers begin the move 
toward ecosystem-based management. While it is clear that we do not 
currently have sufficient information of resources to make a full shift 
to ecosystem-based management, it is equally clear that we need to move 
in this direction and a pilot program can illustrate for us how to do 
this.
  Finally, I would like to say that this bill represents a significant 
amount of work by the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Over the 
past year, the Subcommittee held six hearings in various parts of the 
country on the Magnuson Stevens Act. We begin the process in 
Washington, DC, and then visited fishing communities in New England, 
The Gulf of Mexico, the North Pacific and the Pacific. In this bill, I 
have tried to incorporate many of the suggestions we heard from those 
men and women who fish for a living and who are most affected by the 
law and its regulations. I view this bill as a basis from which I 
intend to work with other members of the Subcommittee so that the 
Commerce Committee can consider it in executive session in July. I look 
forward to providing our fishing communities with a bill that will 
improve lives in a meaningful way.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 2833. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
improve the enforcement capabilities of the Federal Election 
Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


      Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 Amendments Legislation

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Today the Senate passed, and sent to the 
President for signature, the most significant campaign finance reform 
in the last 2 decades--the so-called section 527 reform. Clearly, our 
campaign finance system is in need of further comprehensive reform. The 
McCain-Feingold legislation, I believe, is still the

[[Page 13016]]

most comprehensive and necessary reform that we could pass in the 106th 
Congress.
  In the meantime, however, we must also strengthen the abilities of 
the agency charged with enforcing the laws on the books today--and that 
is the Federal Election Commission. For that reason, I am today 
introducing legislation to improve the enforcement capabilities of the 
Federal Election Commission.
  Created in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the primary purpose of 
the Federal Election Commission is to ensure the integrity of federal 
elections by overseeing federal election disclosure requirements and 
enforcing the federal campaign finance laws.
  Regardless of the views of my colleagues with regard to the need for 
campaign finance reform, it cannot be argued that Congress intended 
that this enforcement agency be nothing more than a paper tiger. And 
yet, that is precisely what many view it to be. The legislation I am 
introducing today is intended to put some teeth into this enforcement 
body.
  As a long time supporter of comprehensive campaign finance reform, I 
am not suggesting that my proposal is in any way a substitute for the 
McCain-Feingold bill or any other comprehensive reform. But sadly, it 
is clear that a minority in this body will once again prevent a 
majority of both houses of Congress from enacting meaningful reform 
this year.
  As has been the case for the last several congresses, the 106th 
Congress will likely come to a close without enacting comprehensive 
campaign finance reform. In light of that reality, it is all the more 
important that we ensure that the campaign finance laws that are 
currently on the books are vigorously enforced. And that requires an 
agency that is fully armed with all the enforcement tools we can give 
it.
  The legislation I am proposing today would give the Federal Election 
Commission the tools it needs to ensure compliance with the law. 
Specifically, this legislation would give the Commission the authority 
to conduct random audits and investigations to ensure voluntary 
compliance with the act. The potential of a random audit is a well-
recognized deterrent to potential violators and an authority given to 
many federal enforcement agencies.
  Secondly, this legislation would grant the Commission the authority 
to seek injunctive relief in the event that certain statutory 
conditions are met, including:
  that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of the act is 
occurring or about to occur;
  that the failure to act expeditiously will result in irreparable 
harm;
  that expeditious action will not cause undue harm or prejudice; and
  that the best interest of the public would be served by the issuance 
of an injunction.
  Finally, this legislation would increase the penalties for knowing 
and willful violations of the act from $10,000 to $15,000 or an amount 
equal to 300 percent. In order to ensure that the Commission has 
sufficient resources to carry out its statutory responsibilities, my 
legislation provides for an authorization of appropriations for FY 2001 
at the full amount requested by the Commission, or nearly $41 million.
  Enhanced enforcement authority is not a substitute for comprehensive 
reform. But passage of this legislation should be something every 
member of this body can support. Not to do so only confirms the 
critics' views that this agency is a toothless tiger.
  I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this 
legislation.

                          ____________________