Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a bill that will very effectively put most swordfish boats on the West Coast out of business. I believe it is yet another battle on a multifront war by the far-left Democrats against America's working class.

The swordfish boats on the West Coast harvest a Pacific fishery that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has classified as ``underutilized.'' There is no shortage of swordfish thanks to the responsible management of this fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The principal means of harvesting swordfish is the drift gillnet, which has been a target of environmental extremists for years. Despite their lurid tales of indiscriminate catches of other species, particularly endangered species, this is, in fact, a very rare occurrence.

With respect to endangered species, the National Marine Fisheries Service reported: ``It is NMFS' biological opinion that the proposed action of continued management of the drift gillnet fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these seven endangered species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any ESA-listed designated critical habitat.''

So here we have an industry that some of the hardest working men and women in America depend upon to feed their families--and, by the way, feed ours, as well--in an underutilized fishery by means of drift gillnets that have an extremely low incidence of inadvertent bycatch.

So what does Congress propose to do for these families? Commend them for their hard work? Thank them for the contribution they make to America's food supply and to the American economy? Well, no, not exactly. Instead, Congress proposes to shut them down.

Those aren't my words. When Gary Burke, one of the swordfishermen threatened by this bill came before our subcommittee, he said: ``I want to be very clear regarding the impacts of this legislation on the driftnet gill fleet. It will shut us down.''

And for what possible reason?

The fishery is sound; the industry is responsible; incidental takes are extremely rare. Why would anyone want to decimate these families and American consumers as well? Just for the hell of it seems to be the only logical explanation.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has been lauded by conservationists for many decades. It has stood the test of time and proven itself to be a program that works.

The Regional Fishery Management Council process works because it is collaborative, and it involves the parties with a direct stake in keeping the fishery healthy.

This legislation is a ham-handed, iron-fisted, top-down diktat that goes against everything that Magnuson-Stevens stands for.

Now, we just heard: Don't worry. There is an alternative that will work just fine. It is the deep-set buoy gear.

And, yes, it is sometimes used to supplement the drift gillnets, but it is not economically viable by itself.

As the actual swordfishermen explained, the costs of running a fishing vessel--fuel, debt service, and labor--often means a very tight profit margin. To make a trip viable, the boat must achieve enough of a catch to at least offset its costs.

The alternative this bill would force on them simply doesn't catch nearly as many fish and certainly not enough to make the trip profitable. Reduce the catch below the break-even mark--as this bill surely does--and there is no catch because the boat can't go out.

How do we know that? Because the very fishermen who use the deep-set buoy gear have told us so. They state in a letter to the committee: ``Our concern is based on the fact that while there is potential for alternative gear to be used in this industry, currently there is no existing gear that can be substituted for the drift gillnet and still allow fishermen to earn a living.''

Those are the people who use that equipment.

So let me repeat that: Our fishermen will not be able to earn a living using this experimental gear. The majority knows this; it is just they don't care.

This legislation does nothing to improve fisheries management but, instead, does great harm in two respects: It takes away the earnings of American fishermen, and it raises the price of seafood for American families.

Again, don't take my word for it, or even the fishermen whose livelihoods are being cast aside. The Natural Resources Committee received testimony from NOAA which stressed to our members that this bill ``does not reflect the progress made to date in minimizing bycatch in the U.S. West Coast drift gillnet fishery. Based on the best available science and 26 years of observer data, bycatch of threatened or endangered protected species is a rare event.''

Now let's talk about the unintended consequences of putting the American West Coast swordfish industry out of business.

It doesn't protect the fishery because the fishery isn't endangered. It doesn't protect other species because incidental taking of those species is rare.

The ultimate irony is that this bill doesn't even stop the use of drift gillnets except, of course, for Americans. This bill will effectively remove West Coast swordfish from the market, but it doesn't remove the market demand.

So what happens? Consumer prices will go up and the market will meet that demand by shifting to swordfish caught by foreign fleets where they are not strictly regulated and where they will enjoy an enormous competitive advantage by being unrestricted in their use of the very same drift gillnets that Americans--and only Americans--are forbidden from using.

Again, that is not my conclusion. That is the conclusion of NOAA itself, which told our committee: ``NOAA is concerned that shifting to alternative gears that are not economically viable could decrease U.S. swordfish harvest and reduce the U.S.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the California fishermen who participated in the experimental technology demonstration project expressing their concerns with the bill. May 6, 2019. Re: H.R. 1979--Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act Hon. Ted Lieu, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Lieu: We are participants in the experimental Deep-Set Buoy Gear (``DSBG'') fishery off the California Coast. A majority of us participate in, or have participated in, the drift gillnet fishery. We are writing to express our concerns regarding H.R. 1979, the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. H.R. 1979 includes language which will phase-out the use of drift gillnets (``DGN'') to harvest swordfish and require the ``. . . adoption of alternative fishing practices that minimize the incidental catch of living marine resources''. Our concern is based on the fact that while there is potential for alternative gear to be used in this fishery, currently there is no existing gear that can be substituted for the DGN gear and still allow fishermen to earn a living.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council (``PFMC'') is currently working towards authorizing Deep-Set Buoy Gear (``DSBG''), a swordfish gear type that was developed to provide west coast fishers with an additional gear option for use during periods of reduced landings. DSBG has been allowed to operate under an Exempted Fishing Permit (``EFP'') since 2015. As noted in the initial EFP application DSBG was designed to ``. . . provide fishers with a complementary gear type that can be used in conjunction with harpooning . . . . and also compliment ongoing DGN activities.''

Participants in the initial EFP had extensive experience targeting swordfish with DGN and harpoon gears and participated in the research trials so that they could expand domestic fishery options for the West Coast. This continues to be a priority for managers and the fishing community, as current restrictions limit summertime harvest off California waters, forcing markets to import swordfish even when the resource is available in local waters. The coupling of DSBG, harpoon and DGN techniques provides the tools needed to capitalize on this federal resource throughout the entire fishery season. This is critical given that different gear types have different seasons in which they work optimally.

Because DSBG landings peak in the months prior to that of the DGN fishery, our community has largely supported the advent and trial of new techniques, as they have the potential to augment and revitalize our declining fishery. Now that H.R. 1979 proposes to phase out DGN and replace it with DSBG, we are concerned that this will further impact the viability of west coast swordfish operations all together. We are certain that the DGN market share will be filled with additional unregulated foreign-caught swordfish. As shown in 2018, increases in unregulated imports drives market price down, reduces domestic profitability and deters participation our US fisheries. Collectively, we feel that H.R. 1979 will negatively impact local livelihoods, increase our reliance upon foreign fleets and decrease the productivity and of our west coast fishery.

We are also concerned over the proposed transition of the traditional DGN fleet to a future DSBG fishery. Some of the DGN vessels are larger than those currently used in the DSBG fishery and many of them only fish for swordfish during the fall window in which DGN works optimally. We are troubled that the proposed transition will create an inequity among the fleet and negatively impact fishing operations and profitability. We feel that H.R. 1979 is premature and should be contemplated only after it is demonstrated that DSBG can be profitable for the entire DGN community. Until then, we hope to continue to provide domestic west coast swordfish caught using highly regulated techniques that continue to operate in full federal and state compliance. Sincerely, Chugey Sepulveda, PhD, EFP Lead, Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA; Donald Krebbs, F/V Goldcoast, San Diego, CA; Ben Stephens, F/V Tres Mujeres, Vista, CA; Freddie Hepp, F/V Plumeria, Santa Barbara, CA; William Sutton, F/V Aurelia, Ojai, CA; Nathan Perez, F/V Bear Flag II, Newport Beach, CA; Jack Stephens, F/V DEA, Vista, CA; Kelly Fukushima, F/V Three Boys, San Diego, CA.

Mr. Speaker, I implore the majority to consider the damage that it will do with this bill. The West Coast swordfish fishery is healthy and, indeed, underutilized. The drift gillnet results in very little incidental take of other species. To put a number on it, in 17 years, only 10 whales interacted with these nets, and 4 of them were released alive. Six of them were killed.

Now, to put that in perspective--6 in 17 years--roughly 80 whales are killed by ships off the California coast every year. Six were killed by driftnets in 17 years; 80 are killed by ship collisions every year.

Does my friend see the difference?

Banning the nets will reduce the catch below the level that is economically viable. It will shut down the industry. The result will be devastating to the families that run these businesses. It will be harmful to the consumer who will pay higher prices for this product, and it will encourage increased use of driftnets in foreign waters to fill the shortage caused by banning them in our own.

Why in God's name would anyone want to do that?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source