U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–742—PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–1053 

MARINE WEALTH: PROMOTING CONSERVATION 

AND ADVANCING AMERICAN EXPORTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, 

CUSTOMS, AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 14, 2010 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, CUSTOMS, AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Subcommittee 

on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho ...................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Danson, Ted, board member, Oceana, Los Angeles, CA ....................................... 5 

Schorr, David, fellow, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC ............................. 7 

Moore, Rod, executive director, West Coast Seafood Processors, Portland, 

OR .......................................................................................................................... 10

Bastoni, Tom, vice president, scallop division, American Pride Seafoods, New 

Bedford, MA .......................................................................................................... 12 

Schwaab, Eric, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Catonsville, MD .................................................. 24 

Linscott, Mark, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Environment and 

Natural Resources, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 26

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Bastoni, Tom: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Crapo, Hon. Mike: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Danson, Ted: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Linscott, Mark: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Moore, Rod: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Schorr, David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Schwaab, Eric: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

(III) 

(1) 

MARINE WEALTH: PROMOTING 

CONSERVATION AND ADVANCING 

AMERICAN EXPORTS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE,

CUSTOMS, AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 3:17 p.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry, Cantwell, and Crapo. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Jayme White, Staff Director, Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness; and Rory Murphy, International Trade Analyst. Republican Staff: Staci Lancaster, Staff Director, Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, CUSTOMS, AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

Senator WYDEN. We are very appreciative of our guests. And my 

apologies that we had to move this back a little bit, but I think this 

is a particularly important hearing, and I am very pleased that we 

could have so many distinguished guests. 

There is something of an urban legend that has developed over 

the years about how economic growth and preservation of the environment will invariably be in conflict and about how trade agreements will encourage a race to the bottom, where the environment 

takes a back seat to commerce. 

Today’s hearing is going to demonstrate clearly that, in the case 

of fisheries, the opposite is the case. A healthy marine environment 

is the foundation of a vibrant seafood industry that sustains goodpaying jobs in a growing economy. 

Binding, enforceable trade agreements can be a powerful tool to 

promote marine conservation, because they can stop our trading 

partners from relying on poor environmental standards to achieve 

an unfair advantage in a tough competitive world marketplace. 

Now, this is not just my view. Here is what Mr. Danson from 

Oceana says in his written testimony. ‘‘There is an inextricable link 

between ocean conservation and global competitiveness. Reducing 

2 

subsidies is a necessary action to reduce global overfishing, and the 

WTO negotiations are our best chance.’’ 

Mr. Schorr backs this up, from the World Wildlife Fund, saying, 

‘‘Nothing has done more to refocus the trade and environment debate in a positive direction than the World Trade Organization 

fishery subsidies negotiations.’’ 

Right now, our country is proud to be a world leader in the fishing and seafood processing industries. We rank among the world’s 

top five exporters of seafood, and its largest importer. 

Today’s hearing is about understanding the challenges the U.S. 

seafood industry faces on the global stage and making sure that 

our government does all it can to maintain that status as a leader. 

The U.S. does not just talk about the importance of sustainable 

fishing practices and marine conservation. We are practicing what 

we preach. That means enforcing regulations and changing old, 

counterproductive, destructive habits. 

Our seafood industry is stronger because of it, and, certainly, 

there are opportunities for improvement. At the same time, our 

market is open. In my book, this is the way every country ought 

to run its seafood industry. 

Our foreign trading partners, on the other hand, often support 

practices that can cause long-term harm to marine habitat. Some 

of them, in fact, allow and encourage unfair and unsustainable 

fishing practices. 

In addition, our trading partners put up trade barriers that prevent sustainably caught U.S. seafood from reaching foreign consumers. These are practices that skew the playing field in a competitive marketplace. They skew the playing field against American 

fishers and give foreign competitors a huge advantage in an industry that depends on global trade. 

Forty percent of global fishery products are traded internationally, and seafood is more globally sourced than coffee, rice, and tea 

combined. 

Through today’s hearing, we want to highlight for the Obama administration that this committee sees harmful foreign trade barriers and practices that encourage overfishing as top priorities that 

need to be addressed. 

This is going to be a hearing that exposes how foreign trade barriers harm our country’s ability to create good-paying jobs. We intend to make it crystal clear that preserving the wealth of the 

world’s marine environment is of paramount importance. 

The U.S. seafood industry represents a major portion of our economy, employing over 1.5 million workers in the commercial sector 

alone. The commercial seafood industry has a significant presence 

in over 23 States and is an industry and, in fact, a way of life, a 

way of life that binds communities and stitches together the regions of our country. 

The seafood sector employs more people than the mining, oil, or, 

perhaps noteworthy for today, even the movie industry. The seafood our fishermen catch represents the only wild food we will eat 

on a commercial scale, from Pacific crab and salmon to New England lobster and scallops. 

In the Pacific Northwest, the seafood industry is a central part 

of our identity and the heritage of the region that Senator Crapo 

3 

and I are proud to represent. It is also a foundation of our economy 

because, without fish, there are no jobs. 

So for us, preserving the wealth of our oceans and rivers is an 

economic imperative as much as a moral one. 

Our committee, under the leadership of Chairman Max Baucus, 

expects to work closely with the Obama administration to take advantage of international trade negotiations as a forum to level the 

playing field for our seafood industry and promote marine conservation. 

We will encourage the administration to use the full force of our 

country to remove trade barriers facing American seafood and obtain enforceable commitments to prevent overfishing. 

Let me be clear. I do not want to see a trade agreement come 

before this committee that does not contain provisions to break 

down trade barriers to U.S. seafood and prevent overfishing. 

Before our government are opportunities to make significant 

progress on preserving the marine environment, while also promoting freer trade in seafood. We will hear from witnesses who will 

tell us how the government should identify and seize these opportunities, because doing so will create new jobs, while improving the 

health of our oceans and seafood crop there. 

That is what I would call a successful 21st-century international 

trade policy. 

I want to yield to my friend and long-time colleague, Senator 

Mike Crapo. We team up on many matters in a bipartisan way. 

This is another one. 

Senator Crapo, please proceed as you would like. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

I was going to note, too, that you and I have a very good personal 

relationship and work closely together on many different issues in 

a bipartisan fashion, and this is just one more opportunity for us 

to do so. 

I appreciate your being willing to hold this hearing to consider 

the relationship between promoting ocean conservation and improving U.S. fish and seafood producers’ ability to compete in global markets. 

I also want to thank each of our witnesses for being here today, 

and thank you for being with us to share your insight. 

With increasing strains on the world’s ocean fisheries, especially 

in light of the recent and tragic oil spill in the Gulf, the importance 

of this discussion is intensified. As we consider the impacts of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and foreign subsidies and 

export barriers on efforts to improve ocean health and global markets, I am interested in hearing our witnesses’ perspectives today 

on the best roles for the U.S. Government, the fishing industry, 

and the environmental conservation community in contributing to 

this effort. 

There are market-based certification approaches and eco-friendly 

seafood buying practices. The U.S. continues to pursue objectives in 

fisheries subsidies negotiations in the World Trade Organization 

4 

Doha Round, and efforts remain to reduce trade barriers in the 

global seafood market. 

It is essential to consider the most productive ways for each of 

these sectors to make progress in improving ocean and market conditions. 

Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, I am also interested in the role of 

aquaculture in meeting growing world demand for seafood and assisting with ocean conservation efforts. People who think of Idaho 

are oftentimes surprised to hear that Idaho is the national leader 

in trout production. In fact, 68 percent of the U.S. trout production 

is in Idaho. 

And, as pressure on our oceans and wild fish populations increases, it is essential to look at the function of farm-raised fish in 

helping to meet the global demand and relieve some of the stress 

on our oceans. 

The U.S. imports roughly 3 times more fish products than we export. While trade negotiators pursue the elimination of the most 

harmful fisheries subsidies through the WTO and Trans-Pacific 

Partnership negotiations, reducing tariffs on U.S. fish and seafood 

exports must remain a priority. 

The pending free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and 

Korea would help increase market access for U.S. seafood exports. 

For example, the U.S. International Trade Commission found that 

the U.S.-Korea FTA could result in an increase in U.S. seafood exports to Korea of up to $20 million. 

Through the United States-Colombia FTA and the U.S.-Panama 

FTA, U.S. seafood and fish products would gain immediate dutyfree access. 

The need for timely progress on these free trade agreements is 

long overdue. It is a collective responsibility that we have to ensure 

the health of our world’s oceans, to sustain a vigorous seafood and 

fish supply, to meet the needs of a growing population, and to improve market conditions for global competitiveness. 

And I go back to the beginning of your statement, Mr. Chairman, 

where often there is a perceived conflict between the economy and 

jobs, and conservation and the environment, and this is one area 

where I believe we can clearly show that the belief that they are 

in contradiction with each other is simply not accurate. 

Again, I welcome this discussion and appreciate the opportunity 

to be here with you today. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Crapo, thank you very much. And you 

are absolutely right, we have worked together on a lot of issues, 

and this is just a pleasure for me to be able to sit side-by-side and 

team up on this one. I think it is important for our region, and it 

is important for the country. 

We have an excellent first panel. Mr. Ted Danson is here. He is 

a board member of Oceana. And suffice it to say, he is a handson board member. He has 20 years of experience in this area, working for clean, healthy oceans. Mr. Danson, we are very pleased that 

you could be with us. 

Mr. David Schorr is here. He is a fellow with the World Wildlife 

Fund. He has been involved in the WTO negotiations on fishing 

subsidies for the last 9 years. 

5 

I am very pleased that we have a constituent from home here. 

Rod Moore is the executive director of the West Coast Seafood 

Processors, and from the best hometown on the planet, Portland, 

OR. And, Rod, we are glad you are here. He is part of a fishing 

tradition that supports thousands of good-paying jobs in our State 

and in the Northwest, and we can provide a lot more if we level 

the playing field for U.S. seafood in global markets. 

We also want to recognize this afternoon that the seafood industry is as diverse as the regions of our country. Just as Mr. Moore 

comes to share the perspective of the West Coast fishermen, Mr. 

Tom Bastoni is here to discuss the concerns of New England. And 

I might note, having said hello to Mr. Bastoni, he will discuss those 

concerns with a distinctive New England vernacular. And we are 

glad that you are here. He is the vice president and general manager of the scallop division for the American Seafoods Group, and 

we are happy to have your input today. 

So I think we will begin with the viewpoints of you four. Then 

we are going to bring in the administration folks and start with 

some questions. 

So, Mr. Danson, welcome. We will make your prepared remarks 

a part of the formal hearing transcript in their entirety, and, if you 

could take maybe 5 minutes or thereabouts to kind of highlight 

some of your major concerns, that would be great. And I know you 

are going to get plenty of questions, too. 

STATEMENT OF TED DANSON, BOARD MEMBER, 

OCEANA, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you. I would like to thank both of you very 

much for including me. My name is Ted Danson. I am a long-time 

ocean advocate and member of the Board of Directors of Oceana. 

We are an international ocean conservation organization based in 

Washington, DC. 

I have been working, as you said, on ocean issues for more than 

20 years. My interest started when I was with my two children, 

who were 4 and 8, and we were taking a walk in Santa Monica on 

the beach there and about to go swimming when we ran into a sign 

that said ‘‘no swimming, water is polluted.’’ And my daughters 

asked me why, and I had no idea. How could something so vast, 

so large, have a problem? 

So I started asking questions, and one thing led to another. With 

a friend of mine who was an environmental lawyer, Bob Sulnick, 

we co-founded the American Oceans Campaign to clean up beaches 

and the ocean. And for 15 years, we worked to protect the oceans 

from oil drilling and other threats. 

But what I learned along the way is that overfishing, in addition 

to pollution, is a major problem facing our oceans. Most people 

think of pollution as the biggest problem, because that is what we 

are familiar with. But we often do not understand the harm that 

comes from overfishing, because it happens far away and below the 

surface, and we cannot see the destruction that is occurring. 

In order to expand the capacity of the American Oceans Campaign, we decided to join with Oceana, which has become the 

world’s largest organization focused solely on marine issues. And 

that is why I am particularly excited to be here today, because 

6 

there is an—you said this better than I did—inextricable link between ocean conservation and global competitiveness. 

We need to think about fish as a global commodity. The United 

States is now the world’s largest importer of seafood and ranks as 

one of the top five exporters. And at home, our commercial and recreational fisheries supply more than 2 million jobs. 

But the world’s fisheries are in trouble. According to the U.N. 

Food and Agricultural Organization, 80 percent of the world’s fisheries are now overexploited, fully exploited, significantly depleted, 

or recovering from overexploitation. And yet, despite international 

consensus about the depleted state of the oceans, many governments continue to provide major subsidies to their fishing sectors. 

Subsidies not only distort markets and support uneconomic activities, but are a major incentive promoting overfishing and other 

destructive fishing practices. These subsidies push fleets to fish 

longer, deeper, and farther away than would be economically viable. Many fleets continue to operate only with the support of government subsidies. 

To put it in an economic context, these overfishing subsidies are 

estimated to be approximately $20 billion a year. World fishing revenue is at about $80 billion to $100 billion annually. So that is approximately 25 percent of the entire fishing industry that is subsidized. 

To no surprise, some of the biggest fishing nations, like the European Union and Japan, are among the world’s top subsidizers. But 

the developing world is catching up. The 10 largest developing fishing nations, including countries such as China and Brazil, are estimated to provide subsidies nearly equal to those of their industrialized counterparts. 

Subsidies have also been connected to illegal, unreported, and 

unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing is a serious global problem 

that takes away billions of dollars in revenue each year from legitimate fishermen. 

For example, it has been more than 15 years since the United 

Nations General Assembly established an international moratorium banning the use of driftnets, 8 years since they were banned 

in the European Union. But Oceana documented hundreds of boats 

in the Mediterranean with illegal nets that have taken subsidies by 

European institutions to convert them to legal gear. 

In sum, the effects of fishing subsidies are so great that eliminating them is likely the single greatest action that can be taken 

to protect the world’s oceans. 

Nearly 10 years ago, world trade ministers recognized the importance of healthy fisheries to trade and development, and initiated 

negotiations on fisheries subsidies as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round. These negotiations are the first 

time that environmental concerns have led to the launch of a specific trade negotiation. 

The fisheries subsidies negotiations have made significant progress in the past few years, in considerable part, from the contributions of the United States. I have had the pleasure and good fortune to travel to Geneva twice to meet with ambassadors and delegations to the WTO, as well as Director-General Pascal Lamy. 

7 

I have heard a wide range of perspectives and views, all of which 

are very different, but still true. So I recognize the enormity of the 

task in front of you, but the stakes are high and so should be our 

expectations. The implications of the fisheries subsidies negotiations reach far beyond just trade. Reducing subsidies is a necessary 

action to reverse global overfishing, and the WTO negotiations are 

our best chance. 

And unlike many other international organizations, the WTO 

rules are legally binding and enforceable. That is why it is so important that we seize upon this opportunity. The world needs a 

fisheries subsidies agreement soon. We need the renewed leadership and commitment by Congress and the United States for the 

completion of the Doha Round and a strong fisheries subsidy agreement. 

To be effective, this agreement must include a broad prohibition 

of subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. I could 

say ocean protection is a moral issue, that it is about food and security and the environment. But it is also fundamentally about 

business and economics. It is quite simple. No fish, no fishermen, 

no future. 

The oceans are at a crossroads. One road leads to tremendously 

diminished marine life, the other leads to oceans again teeming 

with abundance. The United States can help choose the right one. 

Once again, thank you so much for your interest and your leadership and support on these issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Danson appears in the appendix.] 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Danson, thank you. We will have some 

questions in a moment. But I just want, before we move on, to commend you for a superb statement. 

I think what you and your colleagues are showing at Oceana is 

that addressing environmental concerns and growing the economy, 

those two concerns are not mutually exclusive. It is going to be possible to do both, and you lay that out very well, eloquently, in your 

statement. 

We will have some questions in a moment, but, again, our thanks 

to you for your leadership and for being here. 

Mr. Schorr, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHORR, FELLOW, 

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SCHORR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator. Good afternoon. My name is David Schorr, and I speak to you today on behalf 

of the World Wildlife Fund, known internationally by its panda 

logo and supported by more than 5 million members around the 

world. WWF pursues science-based, solutions-oriented conservation 

in over 100 countries. 

Mr. Chairman, WWF has long understood that sustainable trade 

is fundamental to the success of our environmental mission. That 

is certainly true when it comes to WWF’s work to achieve sustainable fisheries. 

To reverse the current crisis of overfishing, governments need to 

improve the way fisheries are managed and regulated. But improved regulations must go hand-in-hand with attention to underVerDate Nov 24 2008 21:04 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\67742.000 TIMD
8 

lying economic and commercial realities—realities, Mr. Chairman, 

that today are greatly affected by trade. 

Nearly 40 percent of fisheries products now enter international 

commerce. But unfortunately, the economics of fisheries trade are 

dangerously out of balance. We face price signals and production 

costs heavily skewed by subsidies. We face a world market infected 

by trade in illegally caught fish. And we face a lack of commercial 

transparency that isolates consumers from basic information about 

the fish we purchase and eat. 

To be blunt, Mr. Chairman, the context for trade today is a real 

part of the fisheries problem. But WWF feels that forward-looking 

trade policies can also be a real part of the solution, in several 

ways. 

I begin with fisheries subsidies, where so much has been accomplished, but so much remains to be done. As you know, Mr. Chairman, and as Mr. Danson has said, the negotiations towards innovative WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies have been underway in 

the Doha Round since 2001. 

With leadership from successive administrations and bipartisan 

support in Congress, the U.S. has played a critical role in launching these negotiations and in moving them towards a groundbreaking result. 

If the U.S. can close a strong WTO deal on fisheries subsidies, 

it will make a big difference for the international economics of fishing. And this is why heads of state, in 2002, at the World Summit 

on Sustainable Development, placed successful conclusion of the 

WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations among a handful of top priorities for establishing sustainable fisheries. 

But the talks are also helping transform the WTO and the international trade policy dialogue itself. 

When the WTO was born in 1994, the trade and environment debate was mainly dominated by mutual fears of environmentalists 

and trade policymakers. But nothing has done more to refocus the 

trade environment debate in a positive direction than dialogue on 

fisheries subsidies. 

Through a long process, negotiators in Geneva have reached a 

point that in 1994 would have been difficult to imagine. The fisheries talks are now explicitly aimed at achieving sustainable patterns of natural resource-based production, and negotiators have 

agreed, in principal, that, where resource management has a direct 

bearing on the terms of production and trade, it is proper and even 

necessary for basic international environmental norms to be included in the WTO rules themselves. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, the fisheries subsidies negotiations are 

helping change the substance and tone of trade diplomacy. But 

years of work will mean little if we do not ensure that the talks 

actually succeed. All along, they have proceeded at their own pace, 

with some of the hottest negotiations taking place precisely at low 

moments in the overall Doha Round. 

Even in the last few months, the talks have been especially active. In May, for example, the United States tabled its most detailed and forward-looking proposal to date. 

Mr. Chairman, a strong outcome at the WTO is within reach. We 

can achieve a broad prohibition on the most harmful fisheries subVerDate Nov 24 2008 21:04 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\67742.000 TIMD
9 

sidies. We can make sure that those subsidies which remain are 

properly subject to environmental conditions and limits. And we 

can open the books on foreign subsidy practices by having strong 

reporting obligations that are enforceable under WTO law. 

But this will only be possible with continued U.S. leadership both 

down in the trenches and at the highest political levels. Mr. Chairman, WWF encourages the subcommittee to help ensure that a win 

on fisheries subsidies remains visibly on the short list of U.S. demands for the Doha Round. 

Mr. Chairman, a second critical factor affecting global fish markets is trade based on illegal fishing. According to various estimates, illegal fishing may account for nearly 20 percent of global 

catches. In some major commercial fisheries, it may be as high as 

30 percent. That is a lot of illegal trade, and it again calls for good 

trade policies to be part of the solution. 

As a starting place, Mr. Chairman, since 2006, U.S. law mandates certain trade measures against illegal fish products. But the 

2006 language has left some gaps and ambiguities that will require 

further regulation and additional legislation. 

From a trade perspective, it will be important for U.S. measures 

against illegal fishing to be predictable and fair. We need a process 

that takes the politics out of decisions on trade measures and that 

rests on good quality information about illegal fishing practices. 

Three central ideas can contribute to this: first, developing a ‘‘living list’’ of vessels, companies, and individuals who are involved in 

illegal fishing; second, creating an interagency fisheries enforcement program to develop and respond to information about illegal 

fishing; and, third, to establish an international cooperation and 

assistance program to build capacity abroad to fight the illegal fish 

trade. 

Fortunately, there is a bill currently before the Senate, bill S. 

2870, that addresses some of these issues. WWF would like to 

thank several members of this subcommittee, Senators Cantwell, 

Kerry, and Snowe, for cosponsoring S. 2870. 

S. 2870 will not only help make U.S. laws more effective, but will 

also reduce the likelihood that trade measures may lead to international disputes. 

Mr. Chairman, beyond our borders, the international community 

is also moving rapidly towards frequent use of trade measures 

against illegal fishing. U.S. trade will benefit if such measures are 

as harmonized and effective as possible. Mr. Chairman, this is one 

area that could be a very productive focus for regional trade discussions, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we should do much more to facilitate responsible fisheries trade. We need well-coordinated rules for tracking vessels and products as they move across the globe. We need 

to close loopholes in country of origin labeling laws. And we need 

fisheries trade facilitation built into our trade negotiations. This, 

again, could be an excellent focus for domestic legislation, as well 

as the TPP. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to thank you and the subcommittee for holding these hearings. Issues at the intersection of 

trade and environment require truly interdisciplinary policymaking, and your attention to these matters demonstrates your unVerDate Nov 24 2008 21:04 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\67742.000 TIMD
10 

derstanding and commitment to promoting international commerce 

that supports the ecosystems on which genuinely durable wealth 

depends. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schorr appears in the appendix.] 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Schorr, I thank you; a very good statement. 

We will have some questions in a moment. 

Mr. Rod Moore, from Portland, OR, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS, PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I start, I 

want to point out that, last night at dinner, I ate at a restaurant 

with its headquarters in Portland, but I had Idaho trout for dinner. 

Senator WYDEN. You will do well around here. 

Mr. MOORE. I try my best, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. For the 

record, my name is Rod Moore, and I serve as Executive Director 

of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. Our members 

harvest, process, distribute, and sell a variety of seafood products 

in regional, national, and international markets. 

I am also a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

but none of the testimony I am giving today is on behalf of the 

council nor does it necessarily reflect council policies or priorities. 

Although seafood products have their own unique market niches, 

most are essentially fungible. They can be substituted. Even when 

we sell fish in a regional market, the ready availability of substitute products, frozen or fresh, affects the profitability of seafood 

processors and, in turn, affects the amount of money that we can 

spend on raw product, i.e., the price paid to the individual fisherman for his labor and capital investment. 

So, while we compete on a number of levels—product characteristics, certification by international sustainability organizations, 

brand name—the most important consideration continues to be 

price: how much consumers are willing to pay for our products 

versus somebody else’s products. 

The U.S. seafood industry is largely unsubsidized. There are no 

price supports. There are no reference price levels. Seafood inspection necessary for international health certification is conducted by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service on a fee basis. We pay for 

it. 

The fisheries finance program, which helps provide money for 

vessels to be reconstructed—the loans made under that program 

are at above market rates and there is a fee attached, so it is not 

like anybody is getting a free ride. 

We are pretty much on our own in selling our products both at 

home and overseas, and, remarkably, we are pretty successful in 

doing that, which I think is a testimony to the hard work of U.S. 

fishermen and seafood processors in making available high quality 

products for the world market. And I think we have done an excellent job conserving and managing our resources, as well. 

Conservation comes at a cost. Sometimes one that is higher than 

is necessary or appropriate, but we have shouldered that burden 

and continued to produce seafood for the domestic and international markets. 

11 

Now, that is the good news. The bad news is that, because the 

seafood market is international and because seafood products are 

interchangeable, factors that affect the price of our products, but 

keep those of our competitors lower can have significantly chilling 

effects on our ability to compete. 

Now, focusing on the West Coast for a second, which is where all 

our members are from, one of the most frustrating issues we have 

had to deal with over the last 20 years is a highly discriminatory 

tariff on shrimp imposed by the European Union. Cold water 

shrimp, which most of you know as cocktail shrimp or salad 

shrimp—it is that tiny pink shrimp—comes in two varieties. There 

is Pandalus jordani, which we harvest on the West Coast, and 

there is Pandalus borealis, which they harvest on the East Coast. 

Pandalus borealis gets into the European market at a 6-percent 

duty, which is dropping to zero this year. Pandalus jordani gets 

into the European market at a 20-percent duty. The two are interchangeable in the market. And the reason for this primarily is 

that, although the duty on cold water shrimp was imposed by Europe several years ago to protect their own industry—which is understandable; over the years, the amount of shrimp harvested by 

the European fleets has declined—most of the shrimp is now coming from Canada, and the Canadian government has worked closely 

with their industry to get that tariff reduced. 

Unfortunately, we have not had as much cooperation and success 

with our government. So we are still going at 20 percent. 

In the last 2 years, the Oregon shrimp industry has achieved certification officially by the Marine Stewardship Council. We made 

changes to gear to reduce by-catch, carry Federal observers, stay 

out of areas of critical habitat. All of these things are done to promote conservation. But we still have to compete on price, and, until 

we can resolve that price issue, we have a real problem. 

Just the past 10 years, average annual landings in Oregon were 

22.4 million pounds, with an average annual value to the vessels 

of over $8 million and an average annual community impact of over 

$20 million. If we had the opportunity to fully and fairly compete 

in the European market, that value could increase substantially. 

And finally, a couple of words about the other issues that the 

committee has asked about. Subsidies: I agree with my colleagues 

to the right that, no, we should not be promoting subsidies that 

allow further harvest of species that are considered at risk. We 

would not do that in the United States, we do not do that in the 

United States, and it should not be happening overseas. 

I do want to disagree on one point, and I think this may be a 

matter of looking at the glass half full rather than half empty. 

The issue of the percentage of fisheries which are fully utilized 

and so forth—52 percent of the fisheries in the world are fully utilized. And, if you add the underutilized and partially utilized fisheries, that comes out to 72 percent. 

To my mind, a fully utilized fishery is something that you want. 

In fact, the National Standards Guidelines, National Standard No. 

1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, requires conservation and management measures to optimize yield for the benefit of the U.S. fishing 

industry. 

12 

So I kind of see that as a good thing, although I guess my colleagues look at it the other way. In fact, the Americanization that 

occurred on herring fisheries on the East Coast, pollock in Alaska, 

whiting on the West Coast, was done to fully utilize fisheries. 

And finally, regarding IUU fisheries, although they generally do 

not affect our fishermen on the West Coast, I do want to—there is 

something that obviously we should not tolerate, and the U.S. has 

been fully active in several international organizations in trying to 

stop those. 

And I would like to add a word of praise here for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. The European Union was about to implement some regulations to prevent the importation of IUU species, 

which is a good thing. Unfortunately, the way they were doing it 

would have required traceability of fish back to the individual vessel, which is almost impossible to do in the United States. And 

NMFS stepped in and said, ‘‘Look, fish in the U.S. are caught 

under sound conservation laws. If we certify them as such, you 

should be willing to accept that,’’ and they did. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. My written statement is in the record. I look forward to answering questions, and 

I appreciate, again, your having this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore appears in the appendix.] 

Senator WYDEN. It has been very helpful. We will have questions 

in a moment. 

Mr. Bastoni? 

STATEMENT OF TOM BASTONI, VICE PRESIDENT, SCALLOP 

DIVISION, AMERICAN PRIDE SEAFOODS, NEW BEDFORD, MA 

Mr. BASTONI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Crapo. My 

name is Tom Bastoni, and I am the general manager for the scallop 

division for American Seafoods Group, located in New Bedford, MA. 

As you might be able to tell, I am not a lobbyist or a spokesman. 

I am a guy who has spent the last 30 years working on the waterfront. I know how to procure, process, and sell scallops, and I have 

a good appreciation for how government can help or hurt our business. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you ideas about how 

trade policies impact us. American Seafoods is one of the Nation’s 

leading seafood companies, with sales of $500 million and over 

1,000 employees. We operate vessels off Alaska and process scallops and other fish in plants in Massachusetts. 

We sell our products to retail stores, restaurants, and food service. Our sales are evenly divided between Asia, Europe, and the 

Americas. So the issues of trade are essential to us. 

Increasingly, Massachusetts seafood companies rely on exports 

for growth. One in every 10 Massachusetts seafood dollars is attributable to exports. From 2005 to 2009, seafood exports from the 

Commonwealth increased almost 25 percent to above $475 million. 

Lobsters and my product, scallops, account for more than half of 

these exports. 

The EU is our largest market, but it is at some risk. The EU recently announced that the U.S. must recognize their shellfish safety system is an equivalent to the U.S. system. Absent the U.S. declaration, the EU threatened to ban exports of all mollusks. 

13 

With the urging of Senators Kerry and Brown and Representatives Frank and Tierney, several U.S. agencies negotiated with the 

EU Commission. While the industry communicated with the European customers about the negative impact this ban would have had 

on customers, fortunately, through these combined efforts, scallops 

are not banned. 

However, the challenge remains, as oyster exports to the EU 

ceased as of July 1. Governments do not export, companies do, but 

governments create the environment for us to export. And we urge 

each agency to think about what they can do to help create more 

market opportunities. The agencies must commit resources to 

break down barriers if we are to have double the exports, as President Obama has urged. 

On the issue of IUU, the U.S. fisheries management is rigorous, 

transparent, and participatory, and it includes the views of conservation groups, academics, industry, and government. 

Because of this rigor, there are few allegations of significant IUU 

problems in U.S. waters. American Seafood’s Pacific operations, 

however, do face competitive challenges from foreign IUU whitefish 

sold into the European market. We urge the continued development of the unified U.S. Government approach to combating the 

IUU challenge. Seafood trades hit more than $200 billion annually, more so than 

nearly all other food products. While U.S. companies export nearly 

two-thirds of their products to the European Union and Asia, more 

than 80 percent of the seafood Americans enjoy is imported. 

Massachusetts has three of the Nation’s largest processors. These 

companies started out packing solely domestic product, but have 

increasingly turned to imported fish to keep their operation running and meet customers’ demands. 

It is estimated that more than 70 percent of the fish processed 

in Massachusetts’s major operation now comes from overseas. Twoway trade is important to us and our competitors. Exports and imports are linked. We cannot expect to achieve the goal of doubling 

exports if we do not show the same kind of respect to those who 

seek to export products to the United States. 

Senator Kerry talked about Bonnie and Clyde being asked why 

they robbed banks. The simple answer was because that is where 

the money is. U.S. seafood companies want to export, because that 

is where the market and opportunities are. 

The U.S. Government can help seafood exporters by, number one, 

working to reduce markets’ remaining seafood tariffs; number two, 

working across the government and collaboratively with industry to 

identify and eliminate regulatory barriers in target markets; and, 

number three, ensuring that our global trading partners see us as 

just that, partners in trading a good deal on both sides of the relationship. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to discuss these ideas 

with you, and it is in our country’s best interest to address any unnecessary or costly barriers to our ability to access and trade safe 

and wholesome seafood. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bastoni appears in the appendix.] 

14 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bastoni. And I will 

have some questions for you in a moment, as well. 

Let me just take a couple of minutes and start with you, Mr. 

Danson. As you know, you come to Washington, you have been 

doing this great work for Oceana, and there is lots on the agenda 

in Washington, DC. We are dealing with a host of issues, not much 

time to deal with all of them. 

What is your sense about, why the urgency in this area? Why is 

it so important for the World Trade Organization to act on these 

subsidies and do it quickly, in your view? 

Mr. DANSON. Well, whatever the agreement is about what the 

numbers are, our fisheries, the world’s fisheries are in trouble. 

Since 1988, world catch has gone down continuously. 

So we have an opportunity to have a large impact on the amount 

of fish taken out of our ocean. We have a chance to do something 

about illegal and unregulated fisheries, and it will be done in such 

a way that it has teeth, because a lot of what comes out of the 

United Nations or all the good rules and laws that are in place do 

not necessarily have teeth. 

Something that gets passed in this trade agreement would have 

consequences to the countries involved. So it would be a very effective way to deal with this. 

Since the trade round began, 8 to 10 years ago, the statistics of 

what is happening in our oceans have gotten worse. So for this to 

drag on any longer has an impact on our fisheries that may be irreversible. 

Senator WYDEN. So your sense, in summary, would be no time 

to wait; fisheries in peril. And the important thing for those of us 

in Congress and in the Obama administration is to make sure we 

get a strong agreement that can be enforced. 

Mr. DANSON. Yes. And that our trading partners around the 

world are listening to us, literally today, and reading the signals 

that we put out, that you put out by having this hearing, and that 

they hear we are very serious about making sure we first complete 

the round, but that fishing subsidies are a strong and big part of 

this trade agreement. 

They will take that as a signal. That is very important. When I 

was there, a lot of people, rightfully or wrongfully, said ‘‘We keep 

waiting to see the United States make a strong commitment.’’ And 

I am sure they say that a lot of times, but they are saying that 

they are waiting for the United States to commit to this. So this 

is a very powerful signal you are sending today. 

Senator WYDEN. Let us get into the jobs issue and, particularly, 

exports. This is something that we have zeroed in on, and I think 

you know, Mr. Moore, that, when I look at the Oregon economy, I 

am looking at every possible area from agriculture to manufacturing to technology, to find ways to make things, grow things, add 

value to them, and ship them somewhere. 

So it is very obvious that exports are a key part of this equation. 

And I would like, from a West Coast perspective and from an East 

Coast perspective, you to give us some sense of what the most urgent barriers are from this point on. I gather West Coast shrimp 

are still facing whopper tariffs in terms of getting them into Europe. 

15 

Mr. Bastoni, you have had the New England delegation really 

prosecuting the cause on tariffs, and I think we have made a little 

bit of headway; obviously, there is a long way to go, and you have 

also brought up the fact that there are some non-tariff barriers to 

getting your products in overseas. 

So use the remainder of my time, Mr. Moore and Mr. Bastoni, 

on this question of creating more good-paying jobs through exports. 

Mr. Moore, the biggest barriers that we need to break down. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And believe me, we all 

in the coast industry appreciate the efforts that you have made in 

trying to keep jobs on the Oregon coast. That’s important to all of 

us. 

In regard to the barriers, I think really the pink shrimp issue 

that I brought up, from an international perspective, is one of the 

top priorities. It has just been lagging for so long. 

I tried to do some quick calculations, based on some information 

that I got from my members, and, if we had had more markets and 

we didn’t have that 20-percent penalty in terms of a tariff—and if 

you looked at last year’s catches—we would have raised the exvessel value of those catches from $9.8 million to $38.4 million. 

We would raise the community impact value from close to 10— I am sorry—from $25 million to $96 million. So that is about $50– 

60 million that you are talking about for communities. 

Senator WYDEN. And tripling the growth in both sectors, right? 

Mr. MOORE. Absolutely. And these are conservative numbers, too. 

They gave me much more optimistic numbers, and I am trying to 

be a little conservative here. 

In terms of jobs, it does not sound like much, but it is at least 

432 jobs that would be created just by getting rid of this one tariff, 

and that is both on fishing boats and in processing plants. 

Senator WYDEN. We do want those 432 jobs, given the unemployment figures that just came out. 

Mr. MOORE. We would have loved them in Oregon, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Bastoni, jobs and exports. 

Mr. BASTONI. Mr. Chairman, as far as the exports, to start with, 

we need all government agencies from the exporters, importers, to 

work together in unison to achieve the goals of increasing the foreign trade. 

We have some major opportunities, our company does at the moment, with some large EU companies that want to not only take 

us through the EU in procuring all their American seafood, if you 

will, North American seafood, but also want us to travel along with 

them to 30 other countries in procuring seafood for them. 

Again, the only way we will be able to get this done is to work 

in unison all together from government agencies, again, to our customers, to our processers. We believe that with this opportunity, 

just in Massachusetts alone, putting a number on it—it is tough to 

put a number on it, but I would have to say that it would create 

between 300 and 400 jobs, also. 

So it is quite an undertaking. It is something we are looking forward to doing, but we just need to all get together on the same 

page on some of these issues that have come up in the past that 

have not been settled. 

16 

We settled the one on the bivalve, as I think you are aware of, 

with the help of everybody here. And we appreciate that, and now 

we just have to keep moving forward. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. And you make another important 

point, and I want to highlight it. It is a point Chairman Baucus 

makes frequently, and I very much share his view. And that is the 

question of getting these trade agencies to work in unison, because 

you get the sense that there is not exactly the best possible coordination between the various agencies. That is an area we are going 

to follow up on, and you can be certain that the chairman of the 

full committee feels very strongly about it. He mentions it often 

here. 

Senator Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also will start with you, Mr. Danson, and, again, welcome to 

the committee. You indicated in your testimony, if I recall correctly, 

that out of the approximately $80-billion to $100-billion industry, 

that the subsidy level worldwide is about $20 billion annually for 

fishing in the oceans. Is that correct? 

Mr. DANSON. For subsidies that increase catch, yes. The total is 

around $30 billion, but some of those are not bad subsidies that increase overfishing. 

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that clarification. And my understanding, also, is that the United States has very little subsidization, particularly in the area that increases catch. Is that correct 

and, if so, do you—— 

Mr. DANSON. That is my understanding, as well. But there is always room for improvement. 

Senator CRAPO. Understood. 

Mr. DANSON. Yes. We are the envy. 

Senator CRAPO. But of that $20 billion, the U.S. is a very, very 

small portion of it. 

Mr. DANSON. Yes, correct. 

Senator CRAPO. In your testimony, you also indicated that you 

had recommendations regarding the promotion of the sustainable 

trade of fish products by reducing subsidies and combatting illegal, 

unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in order to keep the fish 

from entering the marketplace, and you identified roles for the government to play in that context. 

Do you think there is a role for industry, as well, and what role 

can organizations like Oceana play in that context? 

Mr. DANSON. I think we are doing it. I think that this opportunity at the World Trade Organization, this round, getting fishing 

subsidies passed, is the biggest opportunity we have right now. 

Senator CRAPO. And the objective, if I understand it—I just want 

to make this clear—in the WTO negotiations, would be the complete elimination of subsidies. Is that correct? 

Mr. DANSON. Correct. Subsidies that increase catch. 

Senator CRAPO. Understood. 

Next, Mr. Schorr, I know that many industries employ verification processes to assure sustainable practices are being used. I 

know in the timber industry that we have in Idaho and Oregon, 

that they have a similar type of verification process in the sustainable forestry initiative. And I understand there is a similar certifiVerDate Nov 24 2008 21:04 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\67742.000 TIMD
17 

cation for sustainably caught fish through the Marine Stewardship 

Council. 

Is this type of an approach an effective part of the solution to try 

to help in educating consumers as to the fish that they are eating? 

Mr. SCHORR. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for that question. The Marine Stewardship Council has become one of the most 

successful certification and labeling organizations out there. WWF 

was very glad to help found that. 

And you asked Mr. Danson a moment ago how industry and nongovernmental organizations can get together, and I think the Marine Stewardship Council is really an example of how, when NGOs 

and industry really work together, you get something going. 

That organization was founded by Unilever and the World Wildlife Fund, looking together at how you could put environmental 

value and market value into one place. 

I also think that, when you talk about traceability and the need 

to inform ourselves, that is another place where public-private 

partnerships, industry and government really need to work together. 

We have canned tuna that comes into our market now, and the 

canned tuna industry can tell you not only which vessel a can came 

out of, but they often tell you which hold of a vessel the tuna in 

that can came out of. 

And the reason they do that is very simple. There are some fairly 

strict and good health regulations, and, to abide with those regulations, you have to know those kinds of things; and if, heaven forbid, 

there should be a problem and you have to yank some cans off your 

shelf, you would like to yank off as few cans as possible. 

Senator CRAPO. Understood. 

Mr. SCHORR. Well, I think that what we need to recognize is that 

we have the information technology now to track fish products 

down to a pretty basic level. What we need to do is, we need to get 

public money and private money, public rules and private practices 

lined up, so that what we are doing with that is not only worrying 

about histamine levels in tuna, but whether the fish was caught 

sustainably and legally. And I think that U.S. trade would benefit 

greatly from that, as well, because we are already world leaders 

both in our management practices and in our compliance with law. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

In the short time I have left, I think I will skip over to you, Mr. 

Bastoni, because my understanding is that your company is currently using a third-party assessment and a certification through 

the Marine Stewardship Council. Is that correct? 

Mr. BASTONI. We applied for it. We are going through the certification process now. Our company out west, with our pollock and 

whitefish boats, is MSC-certified. 

We are just getting the East Coast fisheries certified as we sit 

here, which should be implemented by December of 2010. So all 

products we handle will be MSC-certified through the company 

very shortly, and probably 80 percent of them are now. 

Senator CRAPO. And from your current experience and your expectations, do you expect that having this certification is something 

your customers will want to see and that will help you in your marketing? 

18 

Mr. BASTONI. More so in the EU than domestically. There isn’t 

as much of a demand domestically for the certification as there is 

in the EU. So I think it will bring a stronger export business. 

Senator CRAPO. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just one last question. 

Why would that be the case? Is that because the domestic consumers are not focused on it or not educated on it as well? 

Mr. BASTONI. They are not focused on it quite as much as what 

the EU is. So, domestically, there are some different certifications 

that they use. The major players, if you will, in the national accounts, certainly certify their own—come in with their own private 

audits and certify everything is done, and believe in the Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) program that we 

have, which is a great program that the government implemented 

maybe 20 years ago, whatever it has been. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Crapo. On a hectic, crowded 

schedule here in the U.S. Senate, colleagues are streaming in because of the importance of your views. And we are joined by Senator Cantwell, who is a very passionate advocate of all things Seattle, Mr. Bastoni, so you will be pleased to have her, and we welcome her. You didn’t get a chance, Senator Cantwell, to make an 

opening statement. So feel free to take the time for any opening 

comments and questions. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate you having this hearing and the witnesses 

being here, and it is good to join my Northwest colleagues and my 

colleague from Massachusetts to discuss these issues. 

Obviously, this is an important aspect to our economy. I noticed 

the other day, going through the Pike Place Market, that you could 

not find any geoduck, because it has struck such a price in the 

Asian markets that it is now all exported. 

But I think when it comes to non-shellfish seafood, we are in a 

different situation. I do not know. Maybe there are things to unfold 

with shellfish. But it seems to me that, at least in our State, the 

economic impact is something like $3.7 billion and over 70,000 people employed. 

But what strikes me is how much this is really a market of international trade. I think we import something like $900 million of 

seafood products and export $1.1 billion. 

So this price is really being determined—I mean, this really is 

an international market. And the reason I bring that up is because, 

are we not really focused on the subsidies and tariffs and trade 

barriers and illegal and unreported and unregulated markets, and 

do we not really have to correct this if we are going to have a positive impact on the U.S. economy, given that some of these foreign 

markets are subsidized or we have trade barriers preventing us access? 

So, Mr. Moore, if you had comments on that? 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator. I think you are correct. Obviously, we have on the West Coast a lot of fish that is sold overseas, 

and, as long as we can compete fairly in the market, we are happy 

to try to compete. 

You know yourself the quality of our West Coast seafood, and we 

are second to none in trying to get it over there. But you cannot 

19 

compete in a foreign market if you have a trade barrier, if you have 

other fish in that market that is subsidized, if there is illegal fishing happening that brings fish in at a lower price. 

All of these things are very important. None of us in the industry 

wants the government to be a sales agent for us. I have member 

companies who have sales staff that can sell oil to Saudi Arabia. 

But we want the chance to be able to compete, and that is where 

the U.S. Government can help to bring down the trade barriers, to 

level that playing field, and then let us go in there and compete 

along with our compatriots around the world. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Schorr or Mr. Moore, is the WTO part 

of this, as well, in finding solutions to making sure that illegal subsidies are reduced? 

Mr. MOORE. In my mind, absolutely. I will let Mr. Schorr answer. 

Mr. SCHORR. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely, we think the WTO 

is one of the places we have to look for this and, in fact, one of the 

outrageous things is that subsidies do continue to flow to pirate 

fishers—and it is a crazy thing, but there you have it. 

Senator CANTWELL. And why have we not seen cases yet filed 

with the WTO? 

Mr. SCHORR. That is a good question with a somewhat technical 

answer, but one of the things that is fundamentally innovative 

about the negotiations that are taking place at the WTO—up until 

now, under WTO rules, in order to win a case, you kind of have 

to provide that your ability to sell a fish into a foreign market has 

been monkeyed around with by a subsidy. 

But if your fundamental problem is that you could not fish the 

fish before you could sell it—that you could not compete for the 

production rather than for the market—it is a lot harder to win a 

WTO case. 

And one of the things that would be really innovative about the 

new WTO rules is they would look at production distortions, as 

well as just trade distortions. I think that is technically significant 

and, also, Senator, I think that is politically significant for this 

committee, because what it means is you are really expanding your 

constituency for free trade beyond the exporters and down to the 

producers, and I think that is something we all ought to think 

about. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, we are very familiar in the Northwest 

with WTO cases as they relate to how products are produced and 

how they are subsidized. So I hope that the industry will bring 

forth some of these issues, because I think having them addressed 

is what really will help us. 

Mr. Danson, am I correct that environmental groups are natural 

allies on these issues of reducing subsidies and tariffs? 

Mr. DANSON. Yes, absolutely, because by doing so, you protect 

the fisheries. You make sure that they remain healthy and, at the 

same time, you make it more economically viable for our fishermen 

and you ensure that the natural resource is around for generations 

instead of perhaps collapsing, which some scientists believe is possible if we keep going the way we are going. 

So, to reduce subsidies on this scale at the WTO, with the teeth 

of the organization to make it actually effective, is something that 

environmental organizations are working very hard for. 

20 

It is a win-win; environmental organizations and businesses are 

all on the same side. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. 

Senator Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee and someone on the Commerce Committee who has 

prosecuted cases of these kinds, and has been striking a reasonable 

balance for years. 

You are up. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks a lot 

for holding this very important hearing. I think it is the first time 

that I have been on the Finance Committee that we have had a 

hearing that has this interconnection. 

It is interesting, Senator Cantwell, you and I also are on the 

Commerce Committee. I had the pleasure for a number of years of 

chairing the Fisheries Subcommittee, which Senator Cantwell now 

chairs. And I think I have rewritten the Magnuson fisheries laws 

now three times from scratch, and we still face the same problem, 

and it is very, very frustrating. 

Quite simply put, there is too much money chasing too few fish. 

And on a global basis, there is an absence of science, including 

ours, for some of the decisions that are made, and there is a distinct lack of enforcement. 

And particular countries, and this is true after all these years of 

hue and cry about this issue, there just is not enforcement. I was 

in South Africa not so long ago on foreign relations business. I remember seeing a bunch of Japanese fishing boats up in dry dock 

down in Capetown, an example of sort of the distance that people 

will travel and the extent to which they fish. 

But the problem is, a lot of those boats are fishing still with drift 

nets, which have been banned, and we still have ghost fishing in 

the oceans that occurs because drift nets would break away, but 

they continue to fish and go up and down with the weight of the 

fish in them. 

And I think, out of the world’s 18 largest fisheries, almost every 

single one of them is in extremis today. So this is a very complicated, difficult issue. If we think Doha has been tough because 

of agriculture subsidies, this is an agricultural subsidy. 

Fishermen are farmers. They farm the ocean, and they have had 

hardly any of the kind of sustenance that we have provided to our 

land-based farmers in parts of this country when there is a drought 

or when there is a hurricane or any other upset to their crops. But 

our fishermen sustain consistent upsets to their crops, without a 

lot of support and help. 

And I think a lot of us who represent fishery States are kind of 

fed up with it and want to get our fair share of some of the help 

that our fishing people need. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. It is 

timely, it is important. Massachusetts is the third-largest seafoodoriented economy in the country. We employ over 3,300 people in 

that sector, and sales generated from commercial fishing in Massachusetts accounted for about $4.4 billion last year. So it is not insignificant to us. 

21 

We also have had a vibrant culture, as Tom Bastoni knows better 

than anybody, built on the hard values of work and family and 

community. Many people have heard of our fishing communities, 

New Bedford, Gloucester, where they are principally concentrated, 

but they are scattered around our coastline. 

So, Mr. Bastoni, I appreciate you coming down here. As the general manager of a scallop division of the American Seafoods Group, 

you and I have worked on these issues. We particularly had to 

overcome a challenge to our scallop exports in Europe, and I hope 

you have—I was not here, and I apologize. I was chairing a Foreign 

Relations Committee hearing on Afghanistan. But I take it you 

probably highlighted the case. 

Mr. BASTONI. I did, Senator, and I want to thank you again and 

thank your office and everybody who worked with us. It is quite a 

success story to be able to put everything together, get everybody 

to pull in the same direction in the EU, in France, with our ambassador in France; we had meetings in Brussels. We were all in Brussels, Belgium for a show and got it done, and, again, I thank you 

for the help. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I am delighted, and I thank you for your 

leadership. And I also want to thank—I also want to thank the 

folks at the USTR and the USDA, who joined in that effort, because they provided some excellent advocacy in Europe with respect to it. 

I would just say, in closing, in terms of an opening statement, 

that we have three of the country’s largest seafood processors, 

American Pride Seafoods in New Bedford, Fishery Products International in Danvers, and Gorton’s in Gloucester. And while they all 

started out mostly packing domestic product, they increasingly 

have to turn to imported product to keep the operations running 

and in order to meet the customer demand. 

And it is estimated that more than 70 percent of the fish processed in those plants now comes from overseas, where, also, I have 

to add, unfortunately, they are overfishing. 

So we have this link between exports and imports and we are 

really going to have to partner in an effective way. Ted and I are 

old friends and we have been around this for a while, and I appreciate his continued advocacy. 

I might just ask him, and I do not know if you testified about 

this at all, but, when you get rid of the subsidies, you are, obviously, having a major impact on the social fabric and political fabric of these communities. 

And I wonder if, in the course of your experience in this, you 

have come up with some magic formula for how you think we can 

sell to people that they can embrace this without major social disruption and/or political impact that somehow breaks through here. 

Is it a matter of putting alternative money on the table? Is it just 

something we all have to bite the bullet and endure? What is the 

answer to that? 

Mr. DANSON. I am not an expert in that area at all, I am sorry. 

I think that—if countries have enough money to spend money on 

subsidizing, then they should, by all means, make sure that the 

people who are no longer able to fish transition in some way that 

allows them to keep making a living. 

22 

All we care about is that subsidies that increase catch, that keep 

threatening to overfish the world’s fisheries are taken away. Switch 

the subsidies to not increasing capacity to taking care of villages 

and towns and people, great; it should be done that way. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Schorr, do you feel that there is a sufficient 

level now of cooperation between the various entities of government 

that have jurisdiction here, that need to coordinate in here? We are 

Commerce Committee, we are Finance Committee, Trade, but we 

are also Foreign Relations Committee and International Policy and 

Relations, and so forth. 

Is that coordination taking place sufficiently? Is there a focus on 

it? 

Mr. SCHORR. Thank you, Senator. That is a great question, and 

it lets me thank you now that you are present, as I did while you 

and Senator Cantwell were not present, for your activities on fisheries, including pointing out your co-sponsorship, along with Senator Snowe, who is also a member of the subcommittee, of the 

International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act, which is 

looking at updating the 2006 rules on how we keep illegal fish out 

of our own market. 

And one of the reasons I pointed that out is that I think that precisely the kind of integration that you are talking about is critical. 

It is critically important that there are people on this committee 

like yourself who are thinking about these things, and it is critically important that we get interagency discussion going. 

I think, in the case of subsidies, we have seen very good interagency work and, in fact, I mentioned in my remarks that the U.S. 

has just now tabled a paper showing real leadership at the WTO. 

And one of the things that was remarkable about that paper was 

the interagency process that went into formulating it. It was a serious paper. 

I am not as confident that I can say that with respect to other 

aspects of our fisheries—diplomacy, I think there may be room for 

improvement there. 

And one thing on trade specifically is a tool that is out there to 

help you do that. It is an executive order that was signed by President Clinton, Executive Order 13141, if my memory serves, which 

is about getting interagency review of the environmental aspects of 

trade policy. 

And what that thing is really for, if it is used correctly, is to get 

agencies and stakeholders into a room together, and that is what 

we need to do. 

Senator KERRY. I do not know where my time is. But what is 

more important, enforcement of the trade laws or enforcement of 

the fisheries law? 

Mr. SCHORR. I think I will just answer fisheries laws, since that 

is my job. But, look, I think that the point is that when we get to 

illegal fishing and even when we get to supporting certification of 

proper fishing, there is no real difference between those two things. 

We have to get out there and realize that it is a matter of competitiveness to enforce our fisheries laws. They are trade laws. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I would just say to all of you, and I think 

my colleagues share this belief very deeply, every restaurant that 

opens that wants to be a fish food purveyor represents a challenge. 

23 

And the population of this planet—I was reading an article just the 

other day, I was struck by it, in the context mostly of terrorism, 

mostly in terms of under-educated, uneducated, completely unemployed growing populations of religious extremists that grow in certain parts of the world. 

Eighty percent of the world’s growth in the next 4 years, when 

the population will go from 6 billion to 9 billion-plus, is going to 

occur in 24 countries. And, if all these countries keep going out and 

doing what they are doing today, there is not going to be much 

ocean ecosystem left, in the absence of enforcement. 

And the enforcement people are chicken-hearted, frankly, and 

they will not do the enforcement, because of the politics of it. And 

so we are caught in a vicious cycle of a downward spiral with respect to that system, and we all better be wary of it, because we 

are going to be the folks who preside over the demise of that system at its current rate. And I do not know how to put it more 

bluntly. That is the path we are on, and I hope we can get our act 

together. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Kerry. And I would just say 

what really undergirds Senator Kerry’s very constructive comments 

is that putting fish subsidies and trade barriers to seafood on the 

same plane as other agriculture is something that ought to be a 

priority for the future. 

There are WTO rules for egg subsidies that, in fact, change behavior across the globe. We do not have them for fisheries, and we 

are going to insist on that kind of approach. 

So thank you, Senator Kerry. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

What I think we will do is bring up now our—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Chairman, could I just—I had one more 

question, if I could. 

Senator WYDEN. Sure. 

Senator CANTWELL. Just to follow up on this, because Mr. 

Moore’s testimony does indicate that on a particular topic—the Pacific coldwater shrimp—we are not doing enough, or the government. Where do you think the system is broken as it relates to the 

tariff imposed by the European Union? 

Mr. MOORE. You know, Senator, I do—the shrimp fleet on the 

West Coast, as you now, is fairly small. We are a fairly small industry, and I think when you get into international negotiations of 

trade barriers and so forth, the small guys fall out and there just 

has not been the coordination that Mr. Bastoni talked about in 

terms of the scallop fishery with the U.S. Trade Rep, with the various agencies. 

We have had some help from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service trade office. But for the most part, every time we try to 

bring this issue forward, it is, ‘‘We realize you have a problem. We 

will think about it.’’ But when it comes down to negotiations on tariffs and stuff, we are small fry, no pun intended. 

Senator CANTWELL. So do you think that there is a way to address that? 

Mr. MOORE. I think there is. I think that if there were a commitment by the Federal agencies involved in trade and tariff negotiations, similar to what was talked about earlier, an interagency 

24 

committee working together to look—and not just for the shrimp 

industry, but for every small business, for every small industry. 

If they had a place to go and say, ‘‘Look, we have a problem’’— 

it is the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. 

If they had a place to go and say, ‘‘Can you help us out with this?’’ 

and we had somebody, whether it is in USTR or whether it is in 

Commerce, wherever it may be, who could carry that forward and 

try to help people out and give them the wherewithal to move forward, that is the sort of thing I would like to see happen, yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, we will work on that. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Danson, Mr. Moore knows this well because of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, but we in the 

Northwest really do focus on management plans, on basic science, 

and on caps. That is the focus of what we have been able to achieve 

in the Northwest. 

What do you think the next steps are in bringing the world’s 

fisheries under more sustainable management? 

Mr. DANSON. Let me just say that, not being an expert, let us 

go with what is on the table right now. What we are trying to do 

here is to make sure that we cut subsidies on a worldwide level. 

That would be a huge step. 

Clearly, you would need to then go in and make sure that there 

are management systems in place, but getting boats off the water, 

stop subsidizing, is the most important thing we could do right 

now. It is the biggest chance to implement something that has 

teeth that would make a big, big difference. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Let us do this. Let us bring up the administration witnesses and keep our current guests a little bit longer. I 

know Mr. Danson has a tight time schedule. But that way, we can 

get a bit of a conversation going. 

We have Mr. Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at NOAA; and Dr. Mark Linscott, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Environment and Natural Resources, Office of the 

U.S. Trade Representative. 

We will make your prepared remarks a part of the hearing 

record in their entirety. Let us begin with you, Mr. Schwaab, and 

then you, Mr. Linscott, and we will have time for a few questions 

before I know Mr. Danson has to head out the door. 

Mr. Schwaab? Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC SCHWAAB, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION, CATONSVILLE, MD 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Eric Schwaab. I am the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at NOAA. 

As has already been said, this hearing recognizes the inescapable 

connections between healthy ocean ecosystems and sustainable economic growth. In the United States, we work with our fishing industry to achieve high performance standards, both to maintain the 

health of our environment and to protect our people and coastal 

communities. 

25 

To ensure a level playing field for U.S. fishermen relative to foreign competition, we must continue to work to achieve higher levels 

of environmental performance from other nations. 

There are numerous venues in which NOAA engages in fishery 

management and trade issues. We are actively involved in various 

regional fishery management organizations, which oversee management of highly migratory and trans-boundary fish stocks, as well 

as other international organizations, such as the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. We also are 

engaged bilaterally with individual nations. 

Finally, we work closely with the USTR and the State Department as marine issues intersect with international trade agreements. Trade is an important avenue to help achieve global, sustainable fisheries and to ensure continued opportunity for the U.S. 

fishing industry. 

Through these international venues, we seek improved performance in a number of key areas, including ensuring science-based 

management decisions; reducing by-catch of marine mammals, turtles, and other protected species; promoting use of fishing gear that 

is less harmful to habitat; and combating illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing, which is often referred to as IUU. 

I would like to focus in more detail for a moment on IUU fishing. IUU fishing by foreign or flagless vessels generates between $10 

billion and $23 billion in gross revenue each year. This illegal fishing impedes the success of fishery management, degrades the 

world’s marine ecosystems, undermines the U.S. fishing industry, 

and negatively affects the American seafood consumer. Through a 

variety of international treaties, as well as domestic law, we can 

identify and penalize IUU vessels and the nations that provide 

flags to those vessels. 

Last year, under new authority, we identified six nations whose 

fishing vessels had been engaged in IUU fishing. The goal of this 

process is, first, to work cooperatively with these identified nations 

so that they will take appropriate corrective action. However, if 

they fail to act, we can prohibit imports of fisheries products from 

these nations. 

Enforcement is an important component of our effort. Since over 

80 percent of seafood purchased by U.S. consumers is imported, ensuring that illegally caught fish do not enter the U.S. market helps 

maintain, again, a level playing field for the U.S. fishermen. 

Many of the fisheries products with the highest value and, thus, 

most likely to be harvested and traded illegally, such as blue fin 

tuna and Patagonian toothfish, are controlled by way of multilateral catch documentation programs that track fish from origin to 

market. In recent years, NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement has 

been able to identify and terminate a number of multi-milliondollar operations engaged in trafficking IUU fish. 

Finally, you asked us to discuss new opportunities to level the 

playing field for U.S. fisherman and achieve greater international 

cooperation. Allow me to highlight four. 

First, cooperative assistance. One important avenue for international improvement is through international assistance. NOAA 

training and assistance programs help improve the science and 

26 

management capabilities of other nations, allowing them to meet 

standards similar to those required of the U.S. fishing industry. 

Secondly, aquaculture. The United States has a large seafood trade deficit, importing about $10 billion more than it exports. Additional domestic aquaculture opportunity will reduce the Nation’s 

dependence on imports. 

Related is the National Export Initiative. NOAA will be working 

with the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration on the President’s National Export Initiative, which aims to 

help double U.S. exports within 5 years and support several million 

American jobs. We will work together to explore how the fishing industry may benefit from this effort. Both sustainably managed domestic fisheries and increased aquaculture will improve domestic 

job opportunities. 

Finally, the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act. A bill currently before Congress, S. 2870, which is supported by several members of this subcommittee, as has already 

been noted, would greatly enhance NOAA’s ability to combat IUU 

fishing and prevent illegal fish products from entering the United 

States. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the United States sets forth a model 

approach to domestic fisheries management and actively engages 

in the international realm to achieve sustainable global fish stocks. 

At the same time, we must continue and enhance efforts to remove 

distortions in global seafood markets to ensure fair market access 

for U.S. fishermen and healthy, sustainable fisheries worldwide. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwaab appears in the appendix.] 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much. 

Let us now hear from Mr. Linscott. 

STATEMENT OF MARK LINSCOTT, ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE 

REPRESENTATIVE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LINSCOTT. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for convening this 

hearing today. I am Mark Linscott. I am the Assistant U.S. Trade 

Representative for Environment and Natural Resources. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the efforts 

of the USTR in protecting and conserving the world’s marine resources. Our trade policies can advance key environmental objectives globally, and we have increasingly sought opportunities to 

harness our trade relationships to achieve some of these aims. 

From our efforts to address illegal logging to our focus on marine 

conservation issues, we are pressing ahead with robust trade and 

environment agenda. 

As you heard from the previous panel, the state of the world’s 

fisheries is grim. Contributing to this crisis are highly subsidized 

global fishing fleets which can rove in what were once impossibleto-reach places. 

Such subsidies lead to overexploitation of fish populations and 

undermine fisheries management schemes. They adversely affect 

coastal communities. 

27 

Today, I will focus my remarks on U.S. efforts in the fisheries 

subsidies negotiations in the World Trade Organization’s Doha development round and, also, highlight how we can use the recently 

launched Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, or TPP, to advance our interests in protecting global marine resources. 

The United States has long identified fisheries subsidies as a key 

area in which trade liberalization can improve the state of the 

world’s oceans, fisheries, and fishing communities. Since 2001, 

when the negotiations started up, USTR has pursued an ambitious 

result, including a prohibition of the most harmful subsidies, and 

enforcement through WTO dispute settlement. 

The Doha mandate reflects an acknowledgement that subsidies 

that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity distort trade and 

provide an unfair advantage in the global marketplace. 

We have come a long way since the early days when some foreign 

delegations even questioned whether there was a specific negotiating mandate. In 2005, WTO trade ministers at the Hong Kong 

Ministerial agreed that the negotiations should strengthen discipline on subsidies in the fisheries sector, including through prohibitions of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to 

overcapacity and overfishing. 

With our most recent proposal submitted in May, we renewed 

our support for a strong prohibition on subsidies, particularly for 

over-fished and over-exploited fish stocks, and we sought to clarify 

the scope of exceptions to the prohibition on subsidies. 

We also clarified certain definitions, such as the circumstances 

for identifying stocks that are in such a poor state that there 

should be no latitude for further subsidization. 

Our proposal aims to prevent the creation of unintended loopholes and stresses that no member shall cause or perpetuate harm 

through the use of any subsidy to the relevant fish stocks. 

My written statement for the record contains more details on the 

proposal, which received significant positive feedback when we presented it in Geneva in May. Throughout these negotiations, we 

have coordinated closely with experts in other agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of Commerce’s 

International Trade Administration, and the Department of State. 

We have also worked closely with our official advisors on the Trade 

and Environment Policy Advisory Committee, TEPAC. In fact, 

Oceana is a member of TEPAC. 

We have the prospect to further our effort to address the state 

of the world’s fisheries through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 

which is a potential platform for economic integration across the 

Asia-Pacific region. The United States is negotiating with an initial 

group of seven countries—Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, 

Australia, Peru, and Vietnam—to craft a high-standard 21stcentury agreement, one that reflects U.S. priorities and values. 

Six of the eight TPP partners have major fishing interests. 

Therefore, a robust package of marine conservation measures 

would be a strong complement to our efforts on fisheries subsidies 

in the Doha Round. There was significant interest in the second negotiating round in San Francisco in June in considering 21stcentury issues, issues such as oceans and marine governance, wildlife trade, and illegal logging. 

28 

We will continue to discuss these ideas with Congress, key stakeholder groups, and other U.S. Government agencies as the TPP negotiations move forward. 

On oceans and marine governance, a few of the ideas percolating 

and still in the early stages of development include addressing 

harmful subsidies, combating illegal fishing and improving fisheries management, ensuring safety of seafood imports and exports, 

and improving compliance with domestic and international programs and agreements. 

In concluding, again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to outline USTR’s efforts to advance trade negotiations in a 

way that can help to conserve one of the world’s most critical natural resources. These negotiations can help to level the playing 

field for our Nation’s fishermen, processors, and exporters, and 

will, additionally, reduce distortions in global seafood markets. 

We recognize that USTR has the responsibility and capacity to 

make a difference on this issue. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Linscott appears in the appendix.] 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Linscott. Here is the bottom 

line, to me. If you listen to the talk from Geneva at the World 

Trade Organization, you get the sense that either the Doha Round 

is dead or simply awaits the resolution of a couple of remaining 

issues, and then you are going to have an agreement. 

Mr. Linscott, here is a question for you. Can you pledge to this 

subcommittee that the United States will not agree to conclude the 

Doha Round without strong measures on fishing subsidies? 

Mr. LINSCOTT. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for that question. 

I am the assistant trade rep for environment and natural resources. So I am very enthusiastic for that suggestion you make 

that we will not conclude a Doha package without a strong agreement on fisheries. 

Certainly, there is a lot of enthusiasm and sensitivity to the 

needs of this negotiation in this administration, and that is with 

Ambassador Kirk and our deputies and Ambassador Punke in Geneva. 

So I can say with some high degree of confidence that I do not 

envision a Doha package that would not include a strong agreement on fisheries subsidies. 

Senator WYDEN. I am glad to hear that, because I think that the 

ball is in the office you are from. The ball is in their court, and I 

think it is extremely important. 

One of the reasons why I wanted to send the message today, and 

have Mr. Danson and others who have been involved in this cause, 

is we are going to push and push and push until this is included 

in this Doha Round because, when you look at these debates and 

you follow the discussion about what issues are pending, fishing 

does not come up very often. 

It is not your fault there are a lot of other issues, as well, but 

it has to get in this agreement. So that is the first thing. 

Second, when you get it in, what will you commit this afternoon 

to do to make sure it is enforced? Because what we have heard 

29 

from colleagues is, in the past, you make a little bit of headway in 

an area and you do not get the enforcement that is necessary. 

What can the office commit this afternoon to do in terms of increased enforcement? 

Mr. LINSCOTT. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for that question, 

as well. I just want to note, in terms of the importance of this negotiation, that the roles of stakeholders and, most importantly, 

Oceana and WWF in terms of raising the profile of this negotiation 

has been essential with respect to a natural resource that is a migratory one and, in many respects, outside of national boundaries. 

With respect to the prospect of having a concluded agreement, a 

strong concluded agreement, I expect that that agreement would be 

subject to the same priority that the administration places on enforcement of our trade agreements, as is true of any other agreement. 

There is real commitment by this administration to ensure that 

we are enforcing our trade agreements. 

Senator Cantwell has left, but she made reference to a very recent, very good outcome which reflects our enforcement efforts in 

terms of a recent WTO case. 

Senator WYDEN. I am going to let Mr. Danson conclude with a 

comment. I just want you to know, though, that I very much expect 

beefed-up enforcement, because again and again, we are told we 

have had breakthroughs in the trade area. 

Secretary Geithner, who is, of course, from Treasury, sat where 

you all are a couple of weeks ago. We talked about a really outlandish Chinese protectionist trade policy, which, in effect, locks 

our high technology goods out of China. This is something they are 

pursuing, called indigenous innovation. 

Secretary Geithner said that they were looking at a bold way to 

prevent this, and I made the point that this was promised to the 

Congress 10 years ago, this was promised to the Congress and the 

administration. 

So we very much need beefed-up enforcement in this area. 

Mr. Danson, you have to head for the door, but I thought I would 

let you go with just one question. And that is, are you satisfied 

with what USTR has said today with respect to subsidies, that they 

are expecting to insist that a reduction in these fisheries subsidies 

be part of the Doha Round? Are you satisfied with what you have 

heard this afternoon? 

Mr. DANSON. Yes. And I think it sends a very strong message. 

One of the things that struck me today that I learned for the first 

time was how important what you are doing today is to our trading 

partners in Geneva, that they are listening and taking this as a 

signal to how America is going to react. 

So for you just to reiterate that and for you to say what you said 

is incredibly important and will make a huge difference, I think, 

to moving this forward. 

So thank you, thank you, thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. You are on a tight schedule. And travel safely, 

and we look forward to following up with you and the good work 

that Oceana is doing. 

Mr. DANSON. Thank you so much. 

30 

Senator WYDEN. Let me keep our other witnesses, though, just 

for a couple of additional minutes. 

One other question for you, Mr. Linscott. President Clinton 

issued an executive order requiring the environmental review process to take place during trade negotiations. 

What has your office been able to do with the Clinton executive 

order? What have you all accomplished with that? 

Mr. LINSCOTT. Well, in fact, USTR does lead an interagency process to conduct environmental reviews of all of our trade negotiations, whether it is a multilateral trade negotiating round or a free 

trade agreement. 

In fact, we have recently started the process for the environmental review of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We 

have published a Federal Register notice to get comments on the 

scoping of this review in terms of what relevant issues should be 

considered in terms of potential environmental impact, and we are 

working very closely with quite a strong interagency team—EPA, 

the Department of Interior, NOAA, Department of State, Council 

on Environmental Quality, et cetera. 

I would point to—perhaps I shouldn’t, but I will—a comment in 

Mr. Schorr’s testimony—and Mr. Schorr and I agree on so many 

things, certainly, with respect to the fisheries subsidies negotiations—but a reference to environmental reviews as being, at times, 

rote or checking a box, and that has not been the case. 

It is truly a robust interagency process, a real effort among all 

of the agencies to bring to the table issues potentially of concern 

and to study quite methodically the potential impacts of a future 

trade agreement with respect to those potential environmental concerns. 

That does not mean that we cannot renew our efforts and reinvigorate our efforts, and we certainly plan to do that with respect 

to TPP. But I am confident that we do have a strong program of 

environmental reviews, and that will continue. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. One other question for you, Mr. 

Schwaab, with respect to this whole question of illegal and unreported fishing. 

I am glad that we have had colleagues and witnesses talk repeatedly about this this afternoon, because I think this is an area of 

natural resources policy that has not gotten sufficient attention. 

One area that we had a real breakthrough in in the last Congress—I was the Senate sponsor of the legislation to amend the 

Lacey Act to crack down very aggressively against illegal logging. 

And we were able to put together a coalition of timber industry 

folks, environmental people, and pass a very strong measure that 

I think is going to make a huge difference both in terms of the environment and protecting family-wage jobs. 

So I look forward to working with you on it. And could you 

sketch out for me the next actions that are ahead for the Obama 

administration in combating illegal and unreported fishing practices in this area? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just note, we 

continue to work on a number of fronts and in a number of different ways, some of which I have noted in my oral testimony, and 

31 

a little more detail is provided in my written testimony. But let me 

just highlight a couple of additional points. 

Obviously, one of the key opportunities where we are focused 

right now is in interaction with the various regional fishery management organizations with which we engage and using those organizations as a venue from which to establish effective catch-andtrade tracking mechanisms. 

And the most effective, by the way, of these are the systems that 

are established electronically. And then our enforcement officers 

can use those tracking mechanisms as a way to investigate, identify, and terminate illegal movement of some of these IUU products. 

I would just note, for example, in 2009—and this actually crosses 

over into another area of interest of ours, which is capacitybuilding with some of our foreign partners and interested countries. But in 2009, agents from our Northeast division traveled to 

Tanzania to assist in the investigation of a foreign fishing vessel 

suspected of exploiting IUU tuna from South Africa to the United 

States. 

Our agents served as technical advisors to the Tanzanian authorities, who ultimately prepared a case against the vessel operator. And these same agents also assisted Mozambican authorities 

to investigate a fishing vessel operating in Mozambican waters 

without a permit. Ultimately, officials seized and successfully prosecuted a case related to shark, shark fin, and shark tail with an 

estimated value of $5 million. 

There are a number of other examples, Mr. Chairman, that I 

would share with you to note what I think is a significant activity. 

But obviously, there remains much to be done in this arena. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. We have been at it for almost 2 

hours. I think it has been an exceptionally helpful hearing. 

Mr. Linscott, I am appreciative that you are intending to get a 

commitment on fish subsidies at the World Trade Organization. 

And let me just give you something to take back to Geneva. No fish 

subsidies agreement, you will have my opposition. Congress, in my 

view, is not going to accept it, and all you have to do is look at this 

committee and get a sense of how powerful this issue is. 

Senator Snowe, Senator Crapo, Senator Kerry, Senator Cantwell, 

Senator Menendez, Senator Schumer, Senator Nelson, we essentially ring the oceans if you look at where we are placed. So we feel 

very, very strongly, and I think, when you look at this debate and 

the discussion that we have been having over the last 2 hours, 

right at the center of the challenging debate with respect to the 

economy and the environment is to show that economic growth, 

which we so desperately need in our country, particularly in our 

State, where so many folks are hurting, is not only not incompatible with environmental protection, but the two go hand in hand. 

Oregon has had a lot of elected officials, Democrats and Republicans alike, who have maintained this. It arguably started with 

our former great Governor Tom McCall, who was a Republican, 

constantly driving home this message years and years ago that you 

can have economic growth and protect your treasures. 

That is what we are going to insist on, and the best way to drive 

home that case, the best way to drive it home right now, is to make 

32 

sure that, in this Doha agreement, you finally bury these fish subsidies that are so damaging to both our economy and the environment. 

So, you all have been very patient. We have a lot of work to do, 

and we look forward to doing it. 

With that, the Subcommittee on Trade is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:01 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


67742001.eps
34 


67742.002
35 


67742.003
36 


67742.004
37 


67742.005
38 


67742.006
39 


67742.007
40 


67742.008
41 


67742.009
42 


67742.010
43 


67742.011
44 


67742.012
45 


67742.013
46 


67742.014
47 


67742.015
48 


67742.016
49 


67742.017
50 


67742.018
51 


67742.019
52 


67742.020
53 


67742.021
54 


67742.022
55 


67742.023
56 


67742.024
57 


67742.025
58 


67742.026
59 


67742.027
60 


67742.028
61 


67742.029
62 


67742.030
63 


67742.031
64 


67742.032
65 


67742.033
66 


67742.034
67 


67742.035
68 


67742.036
69 

Æ 


67742037.eps