[House Report 112-656]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-656
======================================================================
BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012
_______
September 10, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2706]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2706) to prohibit the sale of billfish, 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 all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Billfish Conservation Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States carefully regulates its domestic
fisheries for billfish and participates in international
fishery management bodies in the Atlantic and Pacific.
(2) Global billfish populations have declined significantly,
however, because of overfishing primarily through retention of
bycatch by non-United States commercial fishing fleets.
(3) Ending the importation of foreign-caught billfish for
sale in the United States aligns with U.S. management measures
of billfish and protects the significant economic benefits to
the U.S. economy of recreational fishing and marine commerce
and the traditional cultural fisheries.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
The Congress enacts this Act pursuant to clause 3 of section 8 of
article I of the Constitution.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF BILLFISH.
(a) Prohibition.--No person shall offer for sale, sell, or have
custody, control, or possession of for purposes of offering for sale or
selling billfish or products containing billfish.
(b) Penalty.--For purposes of section 308(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1858(a)), a
violation of this section shall be treated as an act prohibited by
section 307 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1857).
(c) Exemptions for Traditional Fisheries and Markets.--
(1) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish caught by U.S.
vessels and landed in the State of Hawaii or Pacific Insular
Areas as defined in section 3(35) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(35)).
(2) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish landed by
foreign vessels in the Pacific Insular Areas when the foreign
caught billfish is exported to non-U.S. markets or retained
within the Pacific Insular Areas for local consumption.
(d) Billfish Defined.--In this section the term ``billfish''--
(1) means any fish of the species--
(A) Makaira nigricans (blue marlin);
(B) Kajikia audax (striped marlin);
(C) Istiompax indica (black marlin);
(D) Istiophorus platypterus (sailfish);
(E) Tetrapturus angustirostris (shortbill spearfish);
(F) Kajikia albida (white marlin);
(G) Tetrapturus georgii (roundscale spearfish);
(H) Tetrapturus belone (Mediterranean spearfish); and
(I) Tetrapturus pfluegeri (longbill spearfish); and
(2) does not include the species Xiphias gladius (swordfish).
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 2706, as ordered reported, is to
prohibit the sale of billfish.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 2706 would prohibit the sale of billfish or billfish
products or possession of billfish or products containing
billfish for the purposes of sale. The prohibition would not
apply to the State of Hawaii and Pacific Insular areas as long
as the billfish were only sold in Hawaii or a Pacific Insular
area. The bill would make these prohibitions subject to
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
penalties.
The bill defines billfish to mean: blue marlin, striped
marlin, black marlin, sailfish, shortbill spearfish, white
marlin, roundscale spearfish, Mediterranean spearfish, and
longbill spearfish. The definition of billfish for the purposes
of this bill does not include swordfish.
Highly migratory species like tunas, swordfish, spearfish,
and marlins are managed by a number of international treaties
that the United States has signed, ratified and implemented.
Domestic management of these fish on the Atlantic Coast are
managed through a fishery management plan developed by the
Secretary of Commerce that prohibits the possession or sale of
billfish other than swordfish.On the Pacific Coast, management
is through two fishery management plans promulgated under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: the
U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan developed by the Pacific Fishery Management
Council and the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region
Fishery Management Plan developed by the Western Pacific
Fishery Management Council. The fishery management plan in the
Western Pacific allows for the retention and sale of billfish.
A hearing on the legislation was held on June 19, 2012.
Testimony was given that indicated that billfish populations
have declined due to overfishing by non-U.S. commercial fishing
fleets and that the U.S. is the largest importer of billfish.
While the legislation would prohibit the possession or sale
of billfish or billfish products, concern was also heard that
this blanket prohibition might unnecessarily harm U.S.
fishermen. At the full Committee markup of H.R. 2706, an
amendment was offered to address this concern.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2706 was introduced on July 29, 2011, by Congressman
Jeff Miller (R-FL). The bill was referred to the House
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs. On June 19, 2012, the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on the
bill. On August 1, 2012, the Full Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
Oceans, and Insular Affairs was discharged by unanimous
consent. Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) offered an en bloc
amendment designated .001 to the bill; the amendment was
adopted by unanimous consent. The bill, as amended, was then
adopted and 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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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.R. 2706--Billfish Conservation Act of 2011
H.R. 2706 would prohibit individuals from selling or
possessing billfish (marlin and other species) or billfish
products in nearly all states and some territories of the
United States. Based on information provided by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), CBO estimates
that implementing the bill would have no significant impact on
the federal budget. Enacting the legislation could increase
revenues (from civil and criminal penalties) and associated
direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
However, CBO estimates that such increases would be negligible
and would offset each other in most years.
CBO expects that the bill would have a minimal impact on
NOAA's fishery management activities. Under current law, any
billfish caught in the Atlantic Ocean must be released. In
addition, billfish are rarely found in the Pacific Ocean off
the west coast of the continental United States. Hawaii and the
Pacific Insular Area would be exempt from complying with the
bill as long as billfish and billfish products from those areas
are sold there.
H.R. 2706 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
H.R. 2706 contains a private-sector mandate, as defined in
UMRA, by prohibiting the sale or possession of billfish or
products containing billfish. The cost of the mandate would be
the net income forgone as a result of the prohibition. Based on
information from industry experts, CBO estimates that the loss
of income may amount to tens of millions of dollars annually.
Consequently, the cost of the mandate would fall below the
annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($146 million in 2012, adjusted annually for
inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jeff LaFave
(for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-sector
impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of 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. Based on
information provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), CBO estimates that implementing the bill
would have no significant impact on the federal budget.
Enacting the legislation could increase revenues (from civil
and criminal penalties) and associated direct spending;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO
estimates that such increases would be negligible and would
offset each other in most years.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill, as ordered reported, is to prohibit the
sale of billfish.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
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.