[Senate Report 115-160]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 224
115th Congress } { REPORT
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-160
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN MARINE FISH
CONSERVATION STATUTES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 396
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 19, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
69-010 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred fifteenth congress
first session
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARGARETWOODHASSAN,NewHampshire
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Calendar No. 224
115th Congress } { REPORT
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-160
======================================================================
A BILL TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN MARINE FISH CONSERVATION
STATUTES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
September 19, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thune, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 396]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 396) to make technical
amendments to certain marine fish conservation statutes, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the
bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 396, a bill to make technical amendments
to certain marine fish conservation statutes, is to make
technical amendments that would clarify an exemption in the
Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (Act of 2012)\1\ and clarify
the authority of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under
the Shark Conservation Act of 2010(Act of 2010)\2\.
Background and Needs
Billfish Conservation Act of 2012
More than 2 decades ago, the United States banned the
commercial sale and harvest of Atlantic-caught billfish
(marlin, sailfish, and spearfish) in order to maximize
recreational opportunities for these relatively rare fish.
Catch-and-release recreational angling for billfish generates
many millions of dollars in economic benefits to the U.S.
economy each year.\3\ On October 5, 2012, President Obama
signed into law the Act of 2012, effectively banning the
importation of billfish into the continental United States.\4\
In the Act of 2012, the term ``billfish'' is defined to mean
blue marlin, striped marlin, black marlin, sailfish, shortbill
spearfish, white marlin, roundscale spearfish, Mediterranean
spearfish, and longbill spearfish, but excludes swordfish. The
legislation was in response to declining billfish populations
due to overfishing by non-U.S. commercial fishing fleets. In an
effort to conserve billfish, the Act of 2012 prohibits the sale
of billfish, as defined, except in the State of Hawaii, in
order to respect traditional fisheries.\5\
While it has been almost 5 years since enactment, the
rulemaking required to implement the Act of 2012 has not been
completed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The reason for the delay is that a drafting
error in the Act of 2012 may actually continue to allow
billfish caught in other parts of the world to be shipped into
the United States via Hawaii's traditional fishing
exemption.\6\
Shark Conservation Act of 2010
In January 2011, the Act of 2010 was signed into law. The
Act of 2010 amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium
Protection Act\7\ and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act\8\ (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to improve the
conservation of sharks. The Act of 2010 directs the Secretary
to urge international fishery management organizations to adopt
shark conservation measures and requires the Secretary to list
a nation in the biennial report on international compliance if
the nation's fishing vessels are, or have been, engaged in
fishing activities that target or incidentally catch sharks in
waters beyond their jurisdiction. Among other things,
provisions of the Act of 2010 prohibits any person from
removing any of the fins of a shark at sea, possessing shark
fins on board a fishing vessel unless they are naturally
attached to the corresponding carcass, or transferring or
landing shark fins.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1827a
\2\P.L. 111-348, 124 Stat. 3668.
\3\Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, ``Billfish Conservation
Act of 2012 Passes the House of Representatives,'' press release,
September 12, 2012, at http://sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/
billfish-conservation-act-of-2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives.
\4\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1827a
\5\Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, ``Billfish Conservation
Act of 2012 Becomes Law,'' press release, October 16, 2012, at http://
sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/billfish-conservation-act-of-
2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives.
\6\American Sportfishing Association, ``Senators Weigh in on
Billfish Conservation Act,'' press release, February 17, 2017, at
http://asafishing.org/senators-weigh-billfish-conservation-act.
\7\P.L. 102-582, 106 Stat. 4900.
\8\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1801
\9\P.L. 111-348, 124 Stat. 3668.
\10\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1852
\11\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1852(a)(3)
\12\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1854(g)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Provisions
If enacted, S. 396 would do the following:
Close the exemption loophole in the Act of
2012 by specifying that billfish can only be landed and
retained in Hawaii, thus ensuring billfish are not
routed through Hawaii and sold to the U.S. mainland.
Remove an expired offset in the Act of 2010
and replace that section with language affirming that
the Act of 2010 would not alter or diminish the
authority of the Secretary under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.\10\
Legislative History
S. 396 was introduced in the Senate on February 15, 2017,
by Senator Nelson and is cosponsored by Senators Rubio, Moran,
and Manchin. On May 18, 2017, the Committee met in open
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 396 be
reported favorably without amendment.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 396--A bill to make technical amendments to certain marine fish
conservation statutes, and for other purposes
S. 396 would amend the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 to
prevent the transfer and sale of billfish caught and landed by
U.S. vessels in Hawaii or the Pacific Insular Areas to the
mainland United States. Under current law, billfish caught and
landed in Hawaii or the Pacific Insular Areas by U.S. vessels
can be sold locally or transported and sold in the mainland
United States. The bill also would amend the Shark Conservation
Act of 2010 to affirm that the Secretary of Commerce has the
authority to regulate shark fishing under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 396 would increase
revenues from civil penalties resulting from violations of the
prohibition on selling billfish to the mainland United States;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, based on
information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), CBO estimates that the increased
revenues would not be significant in any year and over the
2018-2027 period. Enacting the bill would not affect direct
spending.
CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
S. 396 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect
the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
The prohibitions in S. 396 would impose a private-sector
mandate, as defined by UMRA. Based on information from NOAA
about the value of billfish landed in Hawaii and the Pacific
Insular Areas, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would
total a few million dollars or less and would fall well below
the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($156 million, adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jacob Fabian
(for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for private-sector mandates).
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
S. 396, as reported, would not create any new programs or
impose any new regulatory requirements, and therefore would not
subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations.
economic impact
S. 396 is not expected to have a negative impact on the
Nation's economy.
privacy
The reported bill would have no impact on the personal
privacy of individuals.
paperwork
S. 396 would not increase paperwork requirements for either
the private sector or public sector.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Billfish Conservation Act of 2012
This section would clarify that an exemption provided for
certain traditional fisheries and markets applies to billfish
landed and retained locally.
Section 2. Shark Conservation Act of 2010
This section would amend section 104 of the Act of 2010 by
deleting an expired offset and replacing it with a rule of
construction, which would ensure that the Act of 2010 would not
alter or diminish the authority of the Secretary to conserve
and manage highly migratory fish species\11\ and Atlantic
highly migratory species\12\ under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, 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 material is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM PROTECTION
ACT AND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO
IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS
[Public Law 111-348; 124 Stat. 3668]
[SEC. 104. OFFSET OF IMPLEMENTATION COST.
[Section 308(a) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of
1986 (16 U.S.C. 4107(a)) is amended by striking ``2012.'' and
inserting ``2010, and $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2011
and 2012.''.]
SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title
shall be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in
any way the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish
such conservation and management measures as the Secretary
considers necessary and appropriate under sections 302(a)(3)
and 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 1854(g)).
BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012
[Public Law 112-183; 126 Stat. 1422]
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF BILLFISH.
[16 U.S.C. 1827a]
(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 US fishing vessels and landed and retained 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 fishing vessels in the Pacific Insular Areas
when the foreign caught billfish is exported to non-US
markets or retained within Hawaii and 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).
[all]