[House Report 106-650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-650
======================================================================
SHARK FINNING PROHIBITION ACT
_______
June 6, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union 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.R. 3535]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3535) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act to eliminate the wasteful and
unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Shark Finning Prohibition Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to eliminate the wasteful and
unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning and to reduce the high
mortality levels associated with shark finning in waters of the United
States.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON REMOVING SHARK FIN AND DISCARDING SHARK CARCASS
AT SEA.
Section 307 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (O) by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark
(including the tail) and discard the carcass of the
shark at sea;
``(ii) to have custody, control, or possession of any
such fin aboard a fishing vessel without the
corresponding carcass; or
``(iii) to land any such fin without the
corresponding carcass;''.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 3535 is to amend the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act to eliminate the
wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice of 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 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 Sea; however, 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.
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 3 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, and by 1998, it is estimated that over 98 percent of
these sharks were killed for their fins. While the Hawaiian
longline fleet produces between 66,000-88,000 pounds of shark
fins per year, this amount represents approximately one percent
of the worldwide production of shark fins.
Blue sharks
The blue shark is one of the most common and widely
distributed pelagic sharks of all the shark species and they
are highly migratory. They are found throughout the tropical,
sub-tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Indian Oceans, and the Mediterranean Sea.
While most shark species have slow growth rates, mature
late and produce small litters, blue sharks are one of the most
prolific sharks. The litter size of blue sharks varies with the
average litter consisting of between 20 and 40 pups; however,
some litter sizes have reached as many as 135 pups. While the
blue shark matures faster and produces more offspring than
other sharks, sharks in general do not produce offspring at the
replacement rates of most fish species.
The blue shark is the primary shark affected by finning in
the Western Pacific Ocean. The sharks are caught as a bycatch
in the longline fisheries, which primarily target tuna and
swordfish. The fins of sharks only account for one to five
percent of the total body weight, which results in 95 to
99percent of the carcass being wasted. 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; however, 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. The last stock assessment of blue sharks was
completed in 1991 and at that time the stock in the North
Pacific was estimated to range between 52 million and 67
million animals.
Federal fisheries conservation and management and Hawaii State law
Fisheries in United States waters are primarily managed
through federal legislation known as the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Magnuson-Stevens
Act). The Magnuson-Stevens Act delegates management of fishery
resources in the Pacific Ocean seaward of the States of Hawaii,
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
insular areas of the United States in the Pacific Ocean area to
the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The Magnuson-Stevens 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 as a result of bycatch in longline fisheries, the
increased retention and increased mortality of sharks has
caused concern among fisheries managers and conservation
organizations.
While the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council has been debating the issue of shark finning and
whether to create a fishery management plan for a directed
shark fishery, the National Marine Fisheries Service has
written to the Council on several occasions urging the Council
to address the issue of finning immediately.
Following the hearing on a resolution which condemned the
practice of shark finning as wasteful and unsportsmanlike (H.
Con. Res. 189), the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
at its February/March meeting took action to restrict the
longline fleet to one shark per trip limit for all non-blue
shark species, to require that all non-blue sharks be landed
whole, and to cap the blue shark quota at 50,000 animals per
year. In May, the Council passed additional measures under the
pelagic management plan, which includes coastal sharks, that
bans demersal longline gear.
In addition, the State of Hawaii passed legislation that is
awaiting signature by the Governor which would prohibit the
harvest of shark fins in territorial waters of the State or the
landing of shark fins unless the shark is landed whole.
Penalties in the bill include: seizure and forfeiture of shark
fins, commercial marine licenses, vessel and fishing equipment;
and an administrative fine of not less than $5,000 and not more
than $15,000. Changes have been made to the Hawaii longline
trip report forms requiring fishermen to report shark fins sold
to dealers.
Committee Action
H.R. 3535 was introduced on January 27, 2000, by
Congressman Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham (R-CA). The bill was
referred to the Committee on Resources, and within the
Committee to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans. On April 13, 2000, the Subcommittee held a
hearing on the bill, where testimony was heard from the
Honorable Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, U.S. House of
Representatives; Ms. Penelope Dalton, Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service; Mr. James D.
Cook, Chairman, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council; Mr. Frederick M. O'Regan, President, International
Fund For Animal Welfare; and Mr. William Aila, Harbor Master,
Waianae Small Boat Harbor. On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee
met to mark up the bill. Congressman Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS)
offered an amendment to prohibit the removal of any shark fins
and discarding the carcass at sea and the custody, control,
possession or landing of shark fins without the corresponding
carcass. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as
amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the Full
Committee by voice vote. On May 24, 2000, the Full Resources
Committee met to consider the bill. There were no further
amendments and the bill was ordered 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 tax
expenditures. The bill would increase revenues by a
``negligible amount.''
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:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3535, the Shark
Finning Prohibition Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis (for federal costs), and Natalie Tawil (for the private-
sector impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3535--Shark Finning Prohibition Act
H.R. 3535 would make it unlawful to remove any of the fins
of a shark and then discard the carcass of the fish at sea.
Persons who violate this prohibition would be liable for a
civil penalty. CBO expects that this new penalty would increase
federal revenues, but by a negligible amount. Because the bill
would affect governmental receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures
would apply.
H.R. 3535 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The
bill would impose new private-sector mandates, but CBO estimate
that the total direct costs of the mandates would fall well
below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($109 million in
2000, adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the first five
years that the mandates are in effect.
Under current law, shark finning is banned in the U.S.
waters of the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, but not
in the Central and Western Pacific. H.R. 3535 would impose new
federal mandates on the private sector by making it illegal to
remove any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) and
discard the carcass of the shark at sea, and to bring fins to
port without the corresponding carcass. H.R. 3535 also would
impose a new mandate on the private sector by effectively
prohibiting the transshipment of fins--the transfer of fins
from foreign vessels outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
to U.S.-based vessels for export from the United States or the
landing of fins by foreign vessels in U.S. ports.
According to estimates by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the total value of shark fins harvested by fishermen
on U.S. vessels and landed in the Central and Western Pacific
(Hawaii, Guam, and American Samoa) in 1998 was about $1.4
million. The National Marine Fisheries Service also estimates
that the total value of shark fins transshipped through Hawaii,
Guam, and American Samoa did not exceed $3.9 million at the
point of first sales transactions in 1998. The value to the
U.S. private sector of those transshipments is substantially
less than that initial sales value of the transshipped fins.
Thus, CBO estimates that the total direct costs of the
mandates, measured as lost net income, would fall well below
the annual threshold established in UMRA ($109 million in 2000,
adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the first five years
that the mandates are in effect.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis
(for federal costs), and Natalie Tawil (for the private-sector
impact). The 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 Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 307 OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
ACT
SEC. 307. PROHIBITED ACTS.
It is unlawful--
(1) for any person--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(N) to strip pollock of its roe and discard
the flesh of the pollock; [or]
(O) to knowingly and willfully fail to
disclose, or to falsely disclose, any financial
interest as required under section 302(j), or
to knowingly vote on a Council decision in
violation of section 302(j)(7)(A)[.]; or
(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark
(including the tail) and discard the carcass of
the shark at sea;
(ii) to have custody, control, or possession
of any such fin aboard a fishing vessel without
the corresponding carcass; or
(iii) to land any such fin without the
corresponding carcass;
* * * * * * *