[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.