[House Report 116-273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-273
======================================================================
SHARK FIN SALES ELIMINATION ACT OF 2019
_______
November 8, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 737]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 737) to prohibit the sale of shark fins, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 737 is to prohibit the domestic sale,
possession, and purchase of shark fins and products containing
shark fins.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Chondrichthyan fishes (sharks, rays, and chimaeras) face a
significantly higher extinction risk than most other
vertebrates.\1\ Globally, one-quarter of sharks and their
relatives are threatened with extinction, with large-bodied,
shallow-water species facing the highest risk.\2\ Sharks are
caught and killed, on average, 30 percent faster than they can
reproduce.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Nicholas K. Dulvy et al., Extinction Risk and Conservation of
the World's Sharks and Rays, at 1, eLife (Jan. 21, 2014), https://
elifesciences.org/articles/00590.
\2\Id.
\3\Boris Worm et al., Global Catches, Exploitation Rates, and
Rebuilding Options for Sharks, 40 Marine Pol'y 194, 198 (2013), https:/
/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharks are important to the ocean ecosystem and local
tourism economies. Shark tourism is a growing industry in the
United States. In 2016, shark diving in Florida resulted in
$221 million in direct expenditures and contributed to more
than 3,700 jobs.\4\ The concern for declining shark populations
and the impact this decline has on the ecosystem and tourism
industries has led to increased efforts to conserve sharks
globally, including through no-take marine reserves, species-
specific fishing bans, and shark fin trade bans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Anthony J. Fedler, Ph.D., Oceana, The Economic Impact of Shark
Diving in Florida 11 (2017), https://usa.oceana.org/sites/default/
files/economic_impact_of_shark_diving_in_florida_ report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest threat facing sharks is overfishing, which is
driven by the incidental catch of sharks, known as bycatch, and
the demand for their fins to fuel the global shark fin
trade.\5\ The fins of sharks and shark-like rays are used for
shark fin soup, a delicacy in some cuisines going back to the
Chinese Song Dynasty.\6\ Of the fourteen most common shark
species involved in the Hong Kong fin trade, more than 70
percent of the species are considered to be at high or very
high risk of extinction, such as the scalloped hammerhead and
oceanic whitetip.\7\ The fins from 26-73 million sharks make it
into the global shark fin trade each year.\8\ The global shark
fin trade is often unmonitored and unregulated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See Dulvy et al., supra note 1.
\6\See, e.g., Lauren Smith, Shark Fin Soup: A Dangerous Delicacy
for Humans and Sharks Alike, The Guardian (Mar. 10, 2016), https://
www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/mar/10/shark-fin-soup-a-
dangerous-delicacy-for-humans-and-sharks-alike.
\7\Patrick Mustain, Mariah Pfleger & Lora Snyder, Oceana, Shark Fin
Trade: Why It Should Be Banned In The United States 9 (2016), https://
usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/
shark_fin_ban_announcement_report_final_low-res.pdf.
\8\Shelley C. Clarke et al., Letter, Global Estimates of Shark
Catches Using Trade Records from Commercial Markets, 9(10) Ecology
Letters 1115 (2006), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/
j.1461-0248.2006.00968.x.
\9\See, e.g., Dulvy et al., supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address shark finning--the practice of removing a fin
and throwing the dead or dying shark back overboard to drown--
Congress passed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act\10\ (SFPA) in
2000 and then augmented it with the Shark Conservation Act
(SCA) of 2010.\11\ The SFPA banned shark finning.\12\ The SFPA
also imposed a fin-to-carcass ratio requirement, meaning that
the weight of landed fins on a vessel had to be within a
certain ratio of the weight of the rest of landed shark
carcasses on board in order to avoid a presumption that the
fins on board were detached from illegally discarded carcasses
rather than from the legally retained carcasses still on
board.\13\ However, enforcing the fin-to-carcass ratio was
difficult, and the SFPA allowed American vessels to deliver
shark fins to a foreign port for resale, so Congress passed the
SCA to make it illegal to remove any fins (including the tail)
from a shark at sea, transfer such a fin from one vessel to
another vessel, or land any fin that is not naturally attached
to the corresponding carcass.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Pub. L. No. 106-557, 114 Stat. 2772 (2000) (codified at 16
U.S.C. Sec. 1822 note).
\11\Pub. L. No. 111-348, tit. I, 124 Stat. 3668 (2011) (codified at
16 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 note).
\12\Pub. L. No. 106-557, Sec. 3, 114 Stat. 2772, 2772.
\13\Id.
\14\Pub. L. No. 111-348, Sec. 103(a)(1), 124 Stat. 3668, 3670
(codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1857).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although shark finning is illegal in U.S. waters, the
buying and selling of fins is still legal, which results in
enforcement and conservation challenges. The U.S. continues to
import shark fins from countries that do not have regulations
against shark finning. According to DNA tests and other genetic
forensics techniques, fins entering and leaving the U.S. may be
from sharks that are threatened with extinction.\15\ In
addition, the estimates of how many shark fins are entering and
leaving the U.S. varies greatly depending on the source. In
2007, other countries reported to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations that they exported more than
1,000 metric tons of shark fins to the U.S.,\16\ but NOAA
reported only 29 metric tons of shark fin imports.\17\ These
discrepancies make it difficult to monitor and enforce shark
fin imports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Debra L. Abercrombie, Shelley C. Clarke & Mahmood S. Shivji,
Global-Scale Genetic Identification of Hammerhead Sharks: Application
to Assessment of the International Fin Trade and Law Enforcement, 6(5)
Conservation Genetics 775 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-005-
9036-2; J.E. Magnussen et al., Genetic Tracking of Basking Shark
Products in International Trade, 10(2) Animal Conservation 199 (2007),
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00088.x; Mahmood S. Shivji et
al., Genetic Profiling Reveals Illegal International Trade in Fins of
the Great White Shark, Carcharodon Carcharias, 6(6) Conservation
Genetics 1035 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-005-9082-9.
\16\Felix Dent & Shelley Clarke, Food & Agric. Org. of the United
Nations, FAO Fisheries & Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 590, State of
the Global Market for Shark Products 185 (2015), http://www.fao.org/3/
a-i4795e.pdf.
\17\Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric
Admin., 2011 Shark Finning Report To Congress 29 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these issues and to further conserve sharks,
twelve states and three territories passed laws banning the
trade of shark fins, including: Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
California, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New York,
Massachusetts, Texas, Rhode Island, Nevada, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. In
addition, more than forty airlines, including all three of
China's state-owned airlines; twenty major international
shipping companies, including UPS; and other corporations such
as Amazon, Disney, Hilton, and GrubHub, all have policies in
place to not allow the trade of shark fins.
However, shark fins are now being imported and exported out
of states with fin trade bans, in potential violation of state
laws. Although the state of Texas ended the trade of shark fins
in 2016, the National Marine Fisheries Service's Fisheries
Statistics and Economics Division database on foreign trade
indicates that in 2017, $473,000 worth of shark fins were
exported from customs districts in Texas to Mexico.\18\ In
2017, $528,000 worth of shark fins entered through customs
districts in California from New Zealand.\19\ H.R. 737 seeks to
address these challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., Fisheries Stats. & Econ. Division
(no longer available). This statistic has since been replaced on the
division's website with a dramatically lower number, without
explanation.
\19\Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., Fisheries Stats. & Econ.
Division, https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=213 (follow ``Annual
Trade Data'' hyperlink; then follow ``Trade through All U.S. Customs
Districts'' hyperlink; then search within 2017 for Trade Type:
``IMPORTS'' and Products type: ``Shark'') (last visited Oct. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 737 was introduced on January 23, 2019, by
Representative Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-CNMI). The
bill was referred solely to the Committee on Natural Resources,
and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans,
and Wildlife. On March 26, 2019, the Subcommittee held a
hearing on the bill. On September 18, 2019, the Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee
was discharged by unanimous consent. Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL)
offered and withdrew an amendment in the nature of a
substitute. No additional amendments were offered, and the bill
was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a roll call vote of 16 yeas and 13 nays,\20\
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL), an original cosponsor of H.R. 737,
requested, after the closing of the vote, that the record reflect that
had he been present he would have voted in favor of ordering the bill
favorably reported.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARINGS
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H.Res. 6 of the 116th
Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or consider
H.R. 737: legislative hearing by the Subcommittee on Water,
Oceans, and Wildlife held on March 26, 2019.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 2. Prohibits the domestic sale of shark fins and
creates a violation penalty under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Section 3. Exempts possession of shark fins taken lawfully
under a state, territory, or federal license or permit that
meets certain requirements.
Section 4. Exempts dogfish species and requires that the
Secretary of Commerce report by 2027 on whether this exemption
should be continued or terminated.
Section 5. Defines shark and shark fin.
Section 6. Clarifies that states and territories may adopt
or enforce more stringent regulations or standards.
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 AND CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 27, 2019.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 737, the Shark Fin
Sales Elimination Act of 2019.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 737 would prohibit the sale, possession, and purchase
of shark fins and products containing shark fins. Violators of
this prohibition would be subject to a civil penalty pursuant
to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. The bill also would allow for the lawful possession of
shark fins obtained via a state, territorial, or federal
license or permit if the shark fin is used for noncommercial
purposes, or used for display or research purposes by a museum,
college, university, or any permitted researcher. The
prohibition in the bill would not apply to Mustelus canis
(smooth dogfish) or Squalus acanthias (spiny dogfish).
Because H.R. 737 would prohibit the sale and purchase of
shark fins, CBO estimates that revenues from customs duties
collected on imported shark fin products would decline. CBO
also estimates that penalty collections resulting from
violations of the bill's prohibitions would increase revenues.
However, based on information from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and from states that ban the
possession of shark fins, CBO estimates that the net effect of
those revenue changes would not be significant in any year or
over the 2020-2029 period.
H.R. 737 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by prohibiting the
sale of shark fins or products containing shark fins or the
possession of shark fins for noncommercial purposes unless
those fins were taken under a state, territorial, or federal
license or permit. The cost of the mandates would include any
loss of income from the sale of shark fins and products
containing shark fins and the cost to obtain a license or
permit for noncommercial takings.
Based on information from NOAA about the value of shark
fins landed in the United States, CBO estimates that the loss
of income would total less than $3 million annually.
Additionally, CBO estimates that the cost of obtaining a permit
for the possession of shark fins for noncommercial purposes
would be minimal and apply to a limited number of entities. CBO
estimates that the cost of the mandates would fall well below
the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($164 million in 2019, adjusted annually for
inflation).
H.R. 737 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
On May 23, 2019, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
877, the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2019, as ordered
reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on April 3, 2019. The two pieces of legislation
are similar, and CBO's estimates of their budgetary effects are
the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese
(for federal costs) and Lilia Ledezma (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and
objectives of this bill are to prohibit the domestic sale,
possession, and purchase of shark fins and products containing
shark fins.
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.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
H.R. 737 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by prohibiting the
sale of shark fins or products containing shark fins or the
possession of shark fins for noncommercial purposes unless
those fins were taken under a state, territorial, or federal
license or permit. The cost of the mandates would include any
loss of income from the sale of shark fins and products
containing shark fins and the cost to obtain a license or
permit for noncommercial takings.
Based on information from NOAA about the value of shark
fins landed in the United States, CBO estimates that the loss
of income would total less than $3 million annually.
Additionally, CBO estimates that the cost of obtaining a permit
for the possession of shark fins for noncommercial purposes
would be minimal and apply to a limited number of entities. CBO
estimates that the cost of the mandates would fall well below
the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($164 million in 2019, adjusted annually for
inflation).
H.R. 737 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
program.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 737 bans the possession or purchase of shark fins in
an attempt to stop the practice of killing sharks solely for
their fins. This practice is contemptible because of the
obvious wanton waste of a valuable resource. But this practice
is already illegal under U.S. law. Shark fishing is highly
regulated to assure sustainable shark fisheries, and shark
fishermen must already account for both the fins and the
carcass of every shark landed. This bill actually mandates the
shark fin be thrown away, which is the most valuable part of
the shark. How ironic that it mandates what it purports to
abhor: the deliberate wastage of our shark resources. It does
nothing to enhance conservation and a great deal of harm to
American shark fishermen.
According to testimony provided by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration last Congress on identical
legislation: ``We cannot support the Shark Fin Sale Elimination
Act because the bill's negative impact on U.S. fishermen would
outweigh its minimal benefit to shark conservation . . . This
would hurt U.S. fishermen who currently harvest and sell sharks
and shark fins in a sustainable manner under strict federal
management''.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Written testimony of Alan Risenhoover, Director of the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, to the House
Committee on Natural Resources, April 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation is opposed by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission,\2\ the State of Louisiana,\3\ commercial
fishing groups, and a number of scientists including the
Director of Mote Laboratory's Center for Shark Research.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Politico: Florida wildlife officials won't support federal shark
fin ban, Bruce Ritchie, July 10, 2017.
\3\Jack Montoucet, Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries for the State of Louisiana, letter to Mr. Acy Cooper,
President of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, July 7, 2017.
\4\Dr. Robert Hueter, Mote Laboratory, to Congressman Daniel
Webster, April 21, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of this legislation argue that it ``unfairly
[punishes] highly regulated American fishermen'' and ``rewards
bad actors in other nations by taking sustainably sourced U.S.
shark fins out of the global market.''\5\ Further, a
requirement to discard shark fins before processing the shark
for sale violates the ``full use'' directive in the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' International
Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\U.S. Shark Fishermen and Dealers Support H.R. 5248, ``The
Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act of 2018.''
\6\FAO International Plan of Action for Conservation & Management
of Sharks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the contrary, Congressman Webster (R-FL) has introduced
H.R. 788, which improves international shark fisheries
management by allowing imports only from countries with
conservation management laws and enforcement measures
comparable to the U.S. Unfortunately, Democrats refused to
include Congressman Webster's bill in this hearing and instead
insisted on hearing only H.R. 737, despite opposition from
stakeholders and top scientists in the field.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Dr. Robert Hueter, Mote Laboratory, to Congressman Daniel
Webster, April 21, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 737 is a misguided, albeit transparent, attempt by
Oceana to put American fishermen out of business. Many experts
in the field of shark management and biology have affirmed that
this legislation would do nothing to improve U.S. or
international shark populations. As such, we oppose this
legislation.
Tom McClintock.
Daniel Webster (FL).
[all]