[House Report 108-327]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-327

======================================================================
 
     SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SANCTIONS ON NATIONS UNDERMINING 
  CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY 
                                SPECIES

                                _______
                                

  October 28, 2003.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                    [To accompany H. Con. Res. 268]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 268) expressing the sense 
of the Congress regarding the imposition of sanctions on 
nations that are undermining the effectiveness of conservation 
and management measures for Atlantic highly migratory species, 
including marlin, adopted by the International Commission for 
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and that are threatening the 
continued viability of United States commercial and 
recreational fisheries, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the 
concurrent resolution be agreed to.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H. Con. Res. 268 is to express the sense of 
the Congress regarding the imposition of sanctions on nations 
that are undermining the effectiveness of conservation and 
management measures for Atlantic highly migratory species, 
including marlin, adopted by the International Commission for 
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and that are threatening the 
continued viability of United States commercial and 
recreational fisheries.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Atlantic white marlin are large predatory fish of the open 
ocean. They are a highly migratory species and range thousands 
of miles annually throughout tropical, subtropical, and 
temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. They 
are typically solitary animals, but they will congregate in 
areas of high prey density which consists mostly of smaller 
fish species and squid. White marlin have little food value, 
but are prized as game fish, with a large, economically 
important sport fishery which is centered around the species. 
Due to their long-ranging migratory nature, regulation of this 
species is coordinated by the International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) who possess 
international management authority over blue and white marlin 
and all Atlantic tunas and tuna-like fishes for member nations. 
This group adopts binding recommendations to manage for the 
maximum sustainable catch of the fish populations under its 
purview.
    Atlantic marlin populations have declined throughout their 
range as a result of fishing activities. Harvests in the 
international longline fisheries are primarily incidental catch 
because white marlin are largely not a targeted species. Data 
show that white marlin are both overfished and are experiencing 
overfishing with current stocks at less than 15 percent of the 
MSY (maximum sustainable yield) and fishing pressure 
approximately seven times greater than the level expected to 
support the MSY.
    In the U.S., white marlin harvests are regulated by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in conjunction with 
ICCAT and consistent with ICCAT recommendations. Under current 
law in the United States, commercial vessels are prohibited 
from possessing, retaining or selling any billfish including 
marlin; however, some marlin are retained during recreational 
fishing. Other nations routinely catch and sell billfish 
including white marlin. The vast majority of Atlantic marlin 
catches (approximately 95 percent) stem from the harvest by 
vessels from other nations. Reported catches (landings plus 
dead discards) in U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries 
during 1999 and 2000 represented 5 and 4 percent, respectively, 
of the total international mortality. Worldwide, commercial 
fishing is responsible for over 99 percent of the current 
reported mortality with recreational tournament fishermen 
responsible for the comparatively small remainder. The white 
marlin was recently petitioned to be listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). After 
review, NMFS determined the listing was not warranted; however, 
the Atlantic white marlin would be placed on the ESA 
``candidate species'' list.
    There are currently 36 member nations in ICCAT. In 2000, 
the countries having the highest catches of white marlin in the 
Atlantic were Chinese Taipei (58% of total catch), European 
Community-Spain (17%), Japan (8%), EC-France/Spain (8%), and 
Venezuela (6%). ICCAT has instituted a number of resolutions to 
limit the harvest of white marlin, but overharvesting by ICCAT 
member countries remains an issue. In 1997, ICCAT adopted a 
binding resolution that stated that white and blue marlin 
landings would be 25 percent less than the 1996 levels. This 
limit was instituted in 1998 and extended until 2000. In 
aggregate, member countries met this goal, but not all 
countries have complied. In particular, Brazil, China, Cote 
D'Ivore, and Spain were not in compliance for white marlin in 
1999. In 1999, Brazil's allowable quota from ICCAT was 56.3 
metric tons, but instead harvested over 156 metric tons. In 
2000, ICCAT agreed upon an even more stringent standard in a 
binding resolution that reduced white marlin landings by 67 
percent of the 1999 levels. Data have not been compiled to 
determine landings subsequent to this resolution.
    In addition to non-compliance by ICCAT members, illegal, 
unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing by ICCAT member and 
non-member countries is of growing importance and is blamed for 
the overexploitation of several fish stocks. In some fisheries, 
it accounts for up to 30 percent of total catches. The current 
effect on white marlin stocks is likely significant, but 
unknown and not accounted for in current ICCAT stock 
assessments. ICCAT has adopted a series of resolutions to 
address IUU fishing by longline vessels. In 1998, a binding 
resolution was passed instructing member nations to compile 
data on longline vessels and their catches and to identify 
those vessels conducting IUU fishing. This resolution also 
required ICCAT to identify member nations not complying with 
these stipulations and to recommend trade restrictive measures 
against those nations. Subsequent resolutions have focused 
mainly on Japan and Chinese Taipei to discourage transactions 
with vessels conducting IUU fishing and to establish lists of 
vessels to be scrapped or reregistered from ``flag of 
convenience'' nations to Chinese Taipei.
    While ICCAT has recognized these problems, some have 
questioned the effectiveness of the ICCAT resolutions. 
Following the 1997 resolution limiting white marlin harvest, 
the stocks have continued to decline and it is estimated that 
the more stringent restrictions adopted in 2000 will not allow 
biomass levels to rebound. ICCAT resolutions pertaining to IUU 
fishing may also be ineffective. Although some progress has 
been made, these practices continue and countries and vessels 
skirt existing resolutions and ignore international pressure. 
As an example, the White Marlin Status Review Team (SRT) that 
reviewed the ESA petition to list the white marlin as 
endangered or threatened concluded that ``Current ICCAT 
management measures are not sufficient to prevent stock 
decline, and the SRT is concerned about ICCAT's resolve to 
adopt further, effective management measures to protect white 
marlin. * * *'' The U.S. has implemented domestic management 
measures to comply with ICCAT resolutions on whitemarlin; 
however, as noted above, the U.S. impact on the rebuilding of this 
species is minimal without the cooperation of other nations.
    Since 90 to 95 percent of the fish harvested worldwide are 
taken within countries' Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ's) or 
territorial waters, compliance with international conservation 
and management measures are left to member states. Non-
compliance by non-member nations cannot be restricted or 
stopped by international management bodies without the use of 
international pressure or trade sanctions by those nations that 
are the major markets for fish and fish products.
    In addition to problems of non-compliance within countries' 
EEZs, IUU fishing undermines the conservation and management 
measures taken by these international management bodies. 
Several international fisheries management bodies have taken 
measures to provide importing nations with the ability to track 
fish products that are caught legally. Those fish products 
caught outside of the legal framework can be identified and 
blocked from importation or seized and destroyed. With 
effective certification systems, those fish products not 
certified can be traced back to the country of origin and 
possibly to the vessel.
    The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine 
Living Resources (CCAMLR) recently instituted a catch 
documentation scheme to track shipments of Patagonian 
toothfish, also known and marketed as Chilean sea bass, to 
minimize the impact of IUU fishing on the resource. The U.S. 
has published a final rule to implement this certification 
system within the U.S.
    In addition, ICCAT has begun the development of a vessel by 
vessel certification system to allow importing nations to 
certify that their imports are caught in compliance with 
international harvesting rules. As one of the major importing 
nations of ICCAT harvested fish products, the U.S. has been one 
of the leaders in developing this system.
    ICCAT has also passed a number of resolutions encouraging 
member nations to take unilateral trade actions against those 
nations--both member and non-member nations--which are out of 
compliance with international management measures.
    Section 8 of the Fishermen's Protection Act of 1967, 
commonly known as the Pelly Amendment, allows the U.S. to take 
unilateral trade actions when ``nationals of a foreign country, 
directly or indirectly, are conducting fishing operations in a 
manner or under circumstances which diminish the effectiveness 
of an international fishery conservation program.'' The Pelly 
Amendment is a two-step process which requires a certification 
of non-compliance by the Secretary of Commerce followed by a 
discretionary trade restriction determination made by the 
President.
    The Pelly Amendment certification has been made 36 times 
since 1974 with trade sanctions invoked only 4 times. Questions 
have been raised about the effectiveness of the Pelly Amendment 
sanctions and whether a World Trade Organization challenge 
against a Pelly Amendment sanction would be upheld.
    Since the U.S. is a major player in the estimated $59.4 
billion (2001 figure) international seafood trade market, 
importing approximately $18.5 billion of edible and nonedible 
fishery products and second only to Japan in the value of 
imported fishery products, any U.S. trade sanctions against 
nations which are not in compliance with international 
management regulations can be very effective. Unilateral trade 
measures by other major importing nations in combination with 
certification systems by the international fishery management 
bodies could bring compliance rapidly.
    H. Con. Res. 268 expresses the Sense of Congress that 
sanctions should be imposed on nations that undermine the 
effectiveness of conservation and management measures for 
Atlantic marlin adopted by ICCAT. It recommends that the 
President direct the U.S. Commissioners of ICCAT to: encourage 
countries to end illegal, unregulated, and unreported, fishing 
and non-ICCAT compliant fishing practices; use all appropriate 
and available mechanisms to ensure compliance with ICCAT 
recommendations; encourage ICCAT to use enforceable measures 
against nations that undermine ICCAT conservation 
recommendations; and subject nations whose vessels do not 
adhere to ICCAT conservation recommendations to import 
embargos.
    H. Con. Res. 268 was introduced because the implementation 
of the ICCAT resolutions has not been sufficient to curb 
biomass declines and member and non-member nations continue to 
be non-compliant and practice IUU fishing activities.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H. Con. Res. 268 was introduced on July 25, 2003, by 
Congressman Jim Saxton (R-NJ). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On 
September 11, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
bill. On September 24, 2003, the Full Resources Committee met 
to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Fisheries 
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans was discharged from further 
consideration of the resolution by unanimous consent. No 
amendments were offered, and the resolution was then ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous 
consent.

            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. H. Con. Res. 268 is merely 
a bill expressing a sense of Congress regarding the imposition 
of sanctions on nations that are undermining the effectiveness 
of conservation and management measures for Atlantic highly 
migratory species.
    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. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does 
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not 
apply.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. The Committee 
has determined that H. Con. Res. 268 entails no cost to the 
federal government and therefore, no cost estimate was 
requested from the Congressional Budget Office.

                    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.

                        COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                  Washington, DC, October 27, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Pombo: I am writing concerning H. Con. Res. 
268, regarding the imposition of sanctions on nations that are 
undermining the effectiveness of conservation and management 
measures for Atlantic highly migratory species, including 
marlin, which was marked up by the Committee on Resources on 
September 24, 2003.
    As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
jurisdiction over matters concerning trade. H. Con. Res. 268, 
as reported by the Committee on Resources, contains language 
which suggests imposing new trade sanctions on marlin, and thus 
falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
    However, because the Committee on Resources has been 
willing to make changes to the relevant provisions so that new 
sanctions are not authorized, the Committee on Ways and Means 
will forgo action on this bill in order to expedite this 
legislation for floor consideration. This is being done with 
the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the 
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its 
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
    I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
this understanding with respect to H. Con. Res. 268, and would 
ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
included in your committee report.
            Best regards,
                                               Bill Thomas,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                  Washington, DC, October 28, 2003.
Hon. Bill Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H. 
Con. Res. 268, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding 
the imposition of sanctions on nations that are undermining the 
effectiveness of conservation and management measures for 
Atlantic highly migratory species, including marlin, adopted by 
the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 
Tunas and that are threatening the continued viability of 
United States commercial and recreational fisheries.
    I recognize the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional 
interest in the bill and appreciate your willingness to develop 
appropriate language for consideration by the House of 
Representatives later this week. I agree that by allowing the 
reviewed bill to be scheduled, the Ways and Means Committee 
does not relinquish any jurisdiction over the bill or similar 
legislation. I would also support your request to be named a 
conferee on the H. Con. Res. 268, if one should become 
necessary. Finally, I will include your letter and my response 
in the Committee on Resources' bill report on H. Con. Res. 268, 
which will be filed on October 28, 2003.
    Thank you again for your cooperation, and I look forward to 
working with you again.
            Sincerely,
                                          Richard W. Pombo,
                                                          Chairman.

                                
