[House Report 106-428]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-428
======================================================================
SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING SHARK FINNING
_______
November 1, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H. Con. Res. 189]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 189) expressing the sense
of the Congress regarding the wasteful and unsportsmanlike
practice known as shark finning, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line numbers
of the introduced bill) is as follows:
Page 3, beginning at line 8, amend paragraph (2) to read as
follows:
(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
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H. Con. Res. 189 is to express the sense of
the Congress regarding the wasteful and unsportsmanlike
practice known as shark finning.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Sharks are harvested in many parts of the world in directed
fisheries; however, in the United States waters, they are
primarily caught as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries such
as the swordfish and tuna fisheries. In some fisheries, the
shark is landed and both the flesh of the shark and the fins
are sold for food purposes. In fisheries where the shark's fin
is the primary product from the animal, the fins are removed at
sea and often are dried before they are landed.
Shark finning is currently prohibited in fisheries of the
United States in waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico,
and the Caribbean Ocean; the practice is not illegal in the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Shark finning is a practice
where the fins of a shark are removed and retained while a
portion or all of the carcass is then discarded back into the
ocean. Fins account for between one and five percent of the
total weight of a shark.
The fins of sharks are the primary ingredient in shark-fin
soup. The increasing popularity of shark-fin soup in Asia has
increased the practice of shark finning in Hawaii. In fact, in
1991, the percentage of sharks retained by the longline
fisheries for finning was approximately three percent. By 1998,
that percentage had grown to 60 percent. Between 1991 and 1998,
the number of sharks retained by the Hawaii-based swordfish and
tuna longline fishery had increased from 2,289 to 60,857
annually. In 1998, over 98 percent of these sharks were killed
for their fins. The Hawaiian longline fleet produces between
66,000-88,000 pounds of shark fins per year. This is
approximately one percent of the worldwide production of shark
fins.
The blue shark is the primary shark affected by finning in
the Western Pacific Ocean. Of the approximately 100,000 sharks
that are caught off Hawaii, 90 to 95 percent of these sharks
are blue sharks. The population of blue sharks is unknown in
the Pacific Ocean, but the Honolulu Laboratory of the National
Marine Fisheries Service is working on a comprehensive stock
assessment of blue sharks that is expected to be completed in
May of 2000.
Fisheries in United States waters are primarily managed
through federal legislation known as the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act delegates management of
fishery resources in the Pacific Ocean seaward of the State of
Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the other insular areas of the United States in the Pacific
Ocean area to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
requires that fishery management plans must be consistent with
the national standards for fishery conservation and management.
Included in these national standards is a requirement that
``Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent
practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch
cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.''
Since the primary source of shark fins is a result of bycatch
in longline fisheries, the increased retention and increased
mortality of sharks has caused concern among fisheries managers
and environmental organizations.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has written to the
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council on several
occasions urging the Council to stop the practice of shark
finning which is prohibited in all other U.S. waters. While the
Council has repeatedly rejected this recommendation, it did
meet during the week of October 18, 1999. At that time, the
members of the Council debated the issue of shark finning and
they agreed to reduce from 60,000 to 50,000 the number of
sharks killed by the Hawaii longline fleet. The Committee
believes that this measure is inadequate and that the Council
must stop this wasteful practice.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H. Con. Res. 189 was introduced on September 27, 1999, by
Congressman Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-CA) and now has 11 co-
sponsors. H. Con. Res. 189 was referred to the Committee on
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On October 21,
1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. Testimony
was heard from Congressman Cunningham; Dr. Andrew Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce; Mr. James D. Cook,
Chairman, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council;
Mr. Russell Dunn, Assistant Director, Ocean Wildlife Campaign;
Dr. Robert E. Hueter, Senior Scientist and Director, Center for
Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory; and Ms. Brooke Burns,
Actress, Baywatch Hawaii. Each witness, except for the Chairman
of the Western Pacific Regional Fishing Management Council,
testified in strong support of the resolution. In fact, the
Administration witness stated that ``NOAA believes that shark
finning is wasteful and that shark finning should be prohibited
in all U.S. waters.''
On October 27, 1999, the Full Committee met to consider H.
Con. Res. 189. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans was discharged from further consideration
of the measure by unanimous consent. Delegate Eni Faleomavaega
(D-AS) offered an amendment that expanded the coverage of the
resolution by directing all federal and state agencies, and
other management entities (including the Western Pacific
Regional Fishing Management Council) with jurisdiction over
those areas where shark finning now occurs to promptly and
permanently end that practice. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote. The resolution, as amended, was then favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
H. Con. Res. 189--Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the
wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice known as shark finning
H. Con. Res. 189 would express the sense of the Congress
that federal, state, and regional agencies should prohibit the
practice of shark finning in federal and state waters in the
Pacific Ocean and elsewhere. Shark finning is the practice of
removing a shark's fins and dumping the carcass into the water.
CBO estimates that H. Con. Res. 189 would have no impact on the
federal budget. The legislation would not affect direct
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would
not apply.
Ths staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.