[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 15042]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SHARK PROTECTION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 30, 2001

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Shark 
Protection Act of 2001.
  Last year Congress passed and President Clinton signed Public Law 
106-557, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. The goal of that law is to 
prohibit the activity known as shark finning--the catching of live 
sharks, removing their fins, and throwing the carcasses back into the 
water, retaining only the fins.
  The practice of shark finning had been prohibited in all U.S. waters 
except in the Pacific Ocean. Last year's bill prohibited in the U.S. 
Pacific removal of shark fins and discarding of the carcasses, having 
custody of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses on board a 
fishing vessel, and the landing of shark fins without the corresponding 
carcasses by any vessel.
  I had hoped to also prohibit vessels from being in U.S. waters with 
shark fins on board and the selling of shark fins without the 
corresponding carcasses in last year's bill, but that was not practical 
for two reasons. Article 17 of the United Nations Convention on the Law 
of the Sea grants all vessels a right of innocent passage through the 
territorial seas of other member states. A prohibition of the loading 
and unloading of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses is 
permissible under subsection (g) of Article 19 of the Convention, but 
it appears that any attempt to restrict passage of vessels solely 
transiting our waters would be in conflict with this international 
treaty to which the United States is a party.
  I believe Congress can, however, prohibit the offering for sale, 
selling, and purchasing in interstate or foreign commerce of shark fins 
without the corresponding carcasses anywhere within our national 
jurisdiction, and that is what this bill does. This might arguably be 
included as a prohibited act under Section 301(1)(G) [16 U.S.C. 
1857(1)(G)] of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, which makes it unlawful for any person to ``ship, transport, offer 
for sale, sell, purchase, import, export, or have custody, control, or 
possession of, any fish taken or retained . . .''. I am concerned that 
the definition of ``fish'' found at Section 3(12) of Magnuson-Stevens 
[16 U.S.C. 1802(12)] includes only whole fish (including sharks), but 
not parts of fish. The bill I am introducing today would clarify this 
point by prohibiting the selling of shark fins without carcasses.
  Mr. Speaker, the practice of shark finning is continuing to this day 
in the Pacific. Earlier this year, after passage of the Shark Finning 
Prohibition Act, a non-fishing vessel entered the port of American 
Samoa with shark fins on board. This ``cargo'' was not seized based on 
the ``innocent passage doctrine'' noted above. As long as shark fin 
soup is so popular in many parts of Asia that people are willing to pay 
$100 for a bowl of the soup, the problem will continue. We need an 
international ban on shark finning. Public Law 106-557 initiated a 
process to accomplish this, and I look forward to receiving from the 
Administration a report later this year on this important area, as 
required under that law.
  I want to do all I can to stop the wasteful practice of shark 
finning, and I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting this bill.

                          ____________________