House House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries (Begich): Legislative Hearing on: • H.R. 2406 (Rep. Bonamici), “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act of 2025” • H.R. 8401 (Rep. Begich), To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow the transport, purchase, and sale of pelts of, and handicrafts, garments, and art produced from, Southcentral and Southeast Alaska northern sea otters that are taken for subsistence purposes. • H.R. 8542 (Rep. Ezell), “Offshore Parity Act of 2026” • H.R. 8904 (Rep. Radewagen), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide for the regulation of fishing in marine national monuments.

The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will come to order. I apologize for being 35, 36 minutes late. We have been on the floor. We just had our first vote series of the day and we will be having another one starting at 4pm so we are going to try to get through this as quickly as we can because these are extremely important issues and bills that we want to be sure that we address. Good afternoon, everyone.

I want to welcome the members, witnesses and our guests in the audience for today's hearing. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rule 4F. Any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chair and ranking member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with committee rule 3o.

Without objection. So ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the congressman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection. So ordered.

We are here today to consider four legislative measures. HR 2406, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention improvement Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Bonamici of Oregon HR 8401, to amend the Marine Mammal Protection act of 1972 to allow the transport, purchase and sale of pelts of and handicrafts, garments and art produced from south central and Southeast Alaska's northern sea otters that are taken for subsistence purposes. Sponsored by Representative Begich of Alaska. HR 8542, offshore Paradiac 2020 26, sponsored by Representative Ezell of Mississippi and HR 8904 to amend the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act to provide for the regulation of fishing and marine national monuments. Sponsored by Representative Radawagon of American Samoa.

I now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a hearing on four bills that are focused on empowering the fishing sector and and our coastal communities, encouraging effective management of marine resources and restricting executive branch overreach. The bill at the heart of this hearing is sponsored by Representative Radawagan of American Samoa. Her bill states that within the boundaries of a marine national monument, fishing shall be regulated under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act, not the Antiquities Act. Multiple use is a cornerstone of how we manage and care for America's public lands and waters and Congress has typically established a high bar for precluding productive uses within broadly defined areas.

Relying upon the Antiquities act and with the mere stroke of a pen, however Presidents of both parties have locked up millions of acres, thereby bypassing local input and expertise and ignoring the actual intent of the law. Enacted to address the threat of grave robbers and other theft from archaeological sites, the Antiquities act authorized a President to take swift action to to protect historical sites and artifacts by designating national monuments, quote, confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected, end quote. We have wandered a long way from that objective, and our local communities, our states and our citizens have suffered the consequences. The Antiquities act has been used to unilaterally restrict large areas of federal lands, thereby preventing access to and use of literally millions of acres of all without going through the regular NEPA review process that is the hallmark of our environmental statutes across the West. This has locked up large swaths of land, discouraging energy production and research development, with devastating consequences for gateway communities and America's energy dominance.

Some of the gravest abuses of the Antiquities act have occurred in the marine waters of the U.S. the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ. Marine National Monuments in both the western Pacific and off the coast of New England have largely restricted commercial fishing access, undermining the America's seafood competitiveness and the coastal communities that depend on a thriving ocean economy. In the West Pacific, President George W. Bush designated the first marine national monuments, and President Obama dramatically expanded two of them by a combined 545 million acres, walling off some of the most abundant fishing grounds around Hawaii and American Samoa. Not only has this disadvantaged the economic viability of the commercial fleet that fish those waters, but has for the last two decades also significantly reduced American vessel presence in a geopolitically significant region. Massive marine protected areas at the edge of the US EEZ in the West Pacific put us at a strategic disadvantage to foreign adversaries.

In 2016, President Obama further designated the 3.1 million acre Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of New England, again eliminating sustainable commercial fishing within monument boundaries. The Antiquities act requires no public input and the best available science is not a prerequisite for resource management in those monuments. In fact, no scientific analysis is required at all, thereby turning the Antiquities act into a legacy building mechanism for vain presidents rather than a necessary environmental tool to be used to protect our beautiful resources. By contrast, fishing in nearly all of the US EEZ is regulated under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act. For 50 years, the act has propelled the United States to the forefront in terms of being the gold standard for fisheries management.

There seems to be broad bipartisan agreement on the effectiveness and sustainability of the Magnuson Stevens process. The ranking member of the committee is leading a resolution celebrating Magnuson's 50 year success in rebuilding fish stocks and reducing bycatch. And under President Trump's leadership, this American gold standard has been restored to several marine monuments. Importantly, HR8904 would provide durability to President Trump's common sense policy. I applaud Representative Radawagon for her leadership on this important issue.

It is about time that we use common sense and sound science in relation to our fisheries. And this bill does just that. Another bill we will be considering today is the Offshore Parity act which would give Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama control of nine miles off the coast of the Gulf of America consistent with the boundaries of state waters in the Gulf for Texas and Florida. And I appreciate Congressman Ezel's work on this particular bill. We will also consider legislation from Congressman Nick Beggage that seeks to address sea otter populations in Southeast Alaska.

And finally, we are also considering legislation from Congresswoman Bonamici that builds on work done in the National Defense Authorization act to address sexual harassment and sexual assault in NOAA's workforce. With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses for traveling all the way to Washington D.C. to discuss these important topics today. And I look forward to a robust conversation with that. I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for her opening statement. Thank you Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. This week is Ocean Week on Capitol Hill dedicated to celebrating ocean ecosystems and economies across the country and around the world. Thank you to all the fishermen, scientists and policy experts who traveled to D.C. this week to advocate for how Congress can better serve you. I'm proud to represent Oregon's 4th congressional district which includes over 250 miles of the Oregon coast. That's two thirds of our coast.

Our coastal communities support sustainable fisheries, world class research infrastructure and generation of families who depend on a healthy ocean. Specifically, the community of Newport is a hub for coastal research. We we now have Oregon State's Hatfield Marine Science center along with six state and federal agencies, including NOAA's Pacific Marine Operations Center. This is a special place that brings together researchers, fishermen and community members to work side by side to help make better decisions for our fisheries and the coast. It's a very important partnership and one of the richest ocean ecosystems in the world and I hope it can continue to for decades to come.

But today we're here to discuss four ocean related bills. First, HR8904amends the Magnuson Stevens act to allow commercial Fishing in Marine national monuments These monuments protect our most pristine ocean ecosystems, endangered species and cultural sites. The US has five marine national monuments designated under the Antiquities act, four of which are in the Pacific island regions. These are special places with significant cultural value for Native Hawaiian communities. I am concerned that opening these areas to fishing would unnecessarily degrade the ecosystem and increase the risk of deep sea mining development down the road.

However, I'm always willing to have conversations on how we can both feed the world, working with our commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, and also protect our special endangered species. I'd like to thank Dr. Freelander for traveling all the way here from Hawaii to share his firsthand knowledge of these marine monuments. HR 8542 undermines federal management in the Gulf by transferring coastal waters to state jurisdiction for Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. This opens the door to increased oil and gas development in a region already planned, plagued by state managed oil spills. Weakening federal oversight puts the Gulf ecosystem and coastal communities at serious risk of additional pollution.

HR8401amends the marine Mammal Protection act to allow the take of northern sea otters for pelts. While there are some parts of Alaska with an overabundance of otters and do want to work with those communities on takings, the species is still fragile and threatened across its range. I appreciate my colleagues interest in allowing flexibility for subsistence harvest which I generally support, but concerned this might not be the most effective way to go about this management problem. I've shared similar concerns about the overabundance of sea lions in my district and along the west coast. And we'll work with anyone who wants to address that very significant problem.

I think the path forward needs to be a long term management strategy developed in close collaboration and consultation with Alaskan Native communities. And lastly, I strongly support HR 2406. My friend and fellow Oregonian, Representative Bonamici. This bill strengthens NOAA's policy against sexual harassment and assault, providing vital protections for our federal workforce and fishery observers. This is a critical issue and I'm glad for the opportunity to discuss it in today's hearings.

Look forward to today's discussion and working together to ensure our oceans and coastal communities are resilient for generations to come. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Representative Hoyle. I now recognize Chairman Westerman for his opening statement.

Thank you Chair Hagerman for holding this hearing. And thank you to the witnesses that we'll hear today who have traveled to Washington to be with us. As Representative Hoyle mentioned, this does represent Capitol Hill Ocean Week, which gives us an opportunity to celebrate the United States role as the gold standard in fisheries management. The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act is one of the most consequential pieces of legislation that the natural resources on natural resources that has ever been signed into law. Over the last 50 years, we've rebuilt fish stocks.

We've empowered the coastal communities that rely on the water for commercial and recreational fishing. We have sustained a seafood sector that feeds the nation and the world. The United States has some of the most productive wild caught fisheries in the world, and no other nation manages its fisheries as sustainably or comprehensively as we do right here at home. We have reduced bycatch and interactions with protected species through collaboration while maintaining access to the resource. Despite the successful track record and broad bipartisan support for Magnus and Stevens, in recent decades we've seen a troubling departure from science and transparency.

We've also seen the seafood sector in the United States struggle with reduced access and rising prices. In the western Pacific and more recently off the coast of New England, presidents of both parties have unilaterally used the Antiquities act to designate large swaths of the ocean as marine monuments and ban commercial fishing access. No science, no transparency, no collaboration. Just political science and an agenda. This troubling practice undercuts the successful, transparent and rigorous process that exists under Magnuson Stevens.

It also undermines the competitiveness of the domestic seafood sector by reducing access to fishery resources and raising prices for consumers. President Trump has rightly emphasized restoring America's seafood competitiveness and returned commercial fishing management in several marine monuments to the Magnuson Stevens process. Unfortunately, each change in administration since President Obama has drastically altered the fisheries management regime in these areas and Congress must act to provide certainty for the American fishing industry and the coastal communities that depend on it and the resource that we all appreciate. I do appreciate Representative Rodawagon for introducing her bill to clarify that Magnuson governs fishing within marine monuments, not the Antiquities act, and put an end to this regulatory whiplash. This action underscores President Trump's executive order Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness, signed last year.

The executive order is designed to reduce regulatory burdens, promote domestic harvest of seafood resources, and protect domestic seafood markets. I'm looking forward to today's discussion with witnesses about the steps we can take to continue to support our seafood sector and the communities that power it. Also want to briefly recognize the other bills that are on the agenda, whether it's empowering the states to manage marine resources in the Gulf of America, advancing the priorities of communities in Alaska or addressing sexual assault in NOAA's workforce. Today's discussion is timely. With that, I thank the members for their interest in this important issue.

And I thank the witnesses for spending time with us this afternoon. Madam Chair, you're back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize Ranking member Huffman for his opening statement. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, everyone.

It's been mentioned a couple times now that this is Capitol Hill Oceans Week. This is a time when people fly into the Capitol from all over the country to urge representatives in Congress to advance policies that improve the health of our ocean and support a sustainable blue economy. I suspect several of those folks are here with us in the room today. And I welcome you and thank you for being here. But this is a wide variety of communities, industries and sciences represented.

All of them understand that a thriving ocean is central to America's values. Our maritime heritage, strong economy and our food security. And certainly again, thanking all those folks for their commitment and their dedication to a better future. I want to remind us that we're celebrating America's 250th birthday this year. It's a time when we think about our past and also should be assessing our present and thinking really about our collective future.

And we should think about our oceans in that context. When the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, our fisheries, reefs and marine life were thriving. Fish populations were abundant, ecosystems and marine food webs were balanced. The ocean sustained indigenous people on this land since time immemorial and provided food resources and defense to the early colonies. The ocean was a huge part really of our national heritage and our founding story.

But now our oceans do face a long and troubling list of human caused threats. Pollution from oil spills and plastics drilling, our seabed mining, the seabed trawling, the ever present threat of marine heat waves, toxic algal blooms, reef bleaching, all due to climate change. These were unimaginable at the time of our nation's founding. But they are the challenges that we have to adapt to and face up to today. And it's up to us to decide whether we work together to restore our marine environments that have served us so well since our early days and sustained tribal and indigenous communities since time immemorial, or whether we allow them to be further degraded and allow marine protections to be rolled back for short term gains at the expense of future generations.

Unfortunately, the current administration's policies continue to sell out the ocean and the three majority led bills included in today's hearing double down on those efforts. To give away these federal trust resources owned by all Americans to a few special interests. With reduced federal protections and oversight, both HR 8904 and 8542 would allow our shared ocean resources and heritage to be privatized and sold off to the highest bidder. HR 8904 undermines permanent protection for marine monuments and would strain our most pristine ocean areas, disrupting marine food webs and damaging sensitive reef habitats. Fully protecting these areas has helped these habitats rebound beyond what even scientists imagined at the time.

The coral reefs exploded with productivity. The bird, crab and fish populations did the same. And we'll hear today that these areas need to be opened up now for fishing. But the reality is that commercial fisheries in the monument areas are already using their quotas. All this bill does is deliver on politics.

Frankly, a Project 2025 promise and carving up the Antiquities act is a slippery slope that can lead to more environmental destruction. Since the administration is carried currently mapping these same areas for Deep Sea Mining, HR 8542 chips away at federal management of oil, gas and fishery resources in the Gulf of Mexico without adequate guardrails, increasing the risk of weak oversight, oil spills and overfishing. It would redirect federal revenues to the states without a declared purpose and would also deprive the treasury of funds proposed for federal offshore management activities such as oil and gas and fisheries activities. The final Republican bill, H.R. 8401, Would amend the Marine Mammal Protection act to allow Alaska Native communities to take south central and southeast Alaska northern sea otters and sell the pelts for subsistence purposes.

Statewide, the northern sea otter population is not at carrying capacity and it is still listed as threatened. While I'm open to finding solutions to sea otter management in particular regions, this bill inappropriately shifts the response responsibility to subsistence harvest and disadvantages Alaska Native artisans who carefully process pelts into arts and handicrafts. The bill also circumvents the Indigenous Peoples Council for Marine Mammals. I'll end on a positive note. Representative Bonamici's bill, HR 2406, the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvement act, is a good bill.

It would bring meaningful changes long overdue, and I support it. With that I yield back. Thank you. I will now introduce our first panel and as is typical with legislative hearings, the bill sponsors are recognized for five minutes each to discuss their bills. Representative Bonamici, I understand that you need to leave at 3 o', clock, so we're gonna go ahead and recognize you first, you have five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair Hageman. And thank you Ranking Member Hoyle, as well as the committee members for holding this hearing and inviting me to speak in support of this important bipartisan bill. Yes, it is Capitol Hill Oceans Week and welcome to everyone who's here from across the country to talk about how we keep the ocean healthy and thriving. As the co chair of the bipartisan Oceans Caucus, these issues are really critical to our country and our economy.

No matter the industry, everyone deserves to work in a safe and welcoming workplace. Many employees at the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or noaa, work in remote locations and aboard research and survey vessels to conduct cutting edge scientific research and support US Fisheries. Several years ago, a fisheries biologist came to my office with a serious issue. She had experienced sexual harassment while conducting research on a ship owned by noaa. And she wasn't the only one.

After reporting the harassment, she was effectively grounded. Her her research was derailed and she was advised against going to sea for her own safety. Her colleagues and harasser knew that she had reported her experience and there seemed to be little investigation into her case and others. After hearing her story, I began to work with NOAA and after several months ended up meeting and working directly with then NOAA Administrator Dr. Catherine Sullivan, who took the issue seriously. With Dr. Sullivan's leadership, NOAA implemented new training requirements, made it easier to report sexual harassment and and changed their investigation protocol.

This led to a completed investigation into the cases that were brought to my attention and the NOAA employees were able to return to sea and resume their important research. I will note that every acting or confirmed NOAA administrator since Dr. Sullivan, including Dr. Jacobs, both when he was Acting Administrator and again in his current position as Administrator, expressed to me commitment to the policies that that keep their employees safe and free from abuse and harassment, no matter where they work. Although NOAA has taken steps to update their policies, threat to researchers are alarmingly persistent. Last year, a multi year study of the harassment of the North Pacific Ground Fish and Halibut Observer Program, which is the largest fisheries monitoring program in the US found that nearly one third of the 400 North Pacific observers experience experienced harassment or assault annually. Of these, only 45% of the observers who experienced victimization disclosed it.

Female observers were at least twice as likely to become targets as men. But there were lots of targets. We must do more to prevent harassment, to help survivors seek justice and to hold harassers accountable for their actions. My bipartisan bill will build on NOAA's progress by expanding coverage of NOAA's sexual harassment prevention and response policy to include individuals who are employees of contractors and are not currently covered. My bill will also direct NOAA to provide a clear and secure structure for anonymous reports of sexual harassment.

This will make it easier for survivors to identify safe reporting services without triggering an investigative process, if that is what the survivor prefers. The bill will also expand the information required in reports to Congress on sexual harassment and assault to include new covered employees and change of station or work location requests. Importantly, this bill will empower NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement to enforce a prohibition on assault, intimidation and interference with fisheries observers by review, removing restrictive stipulations that the acts be forcible in nature and occur on a vessel. NOAA has taken meaningful steps to to protect its researchers and contractors, and that should be recognized. This bill will strengthen those efforts and make needed improvements to prevent harassment, modernize reporting and hold harassers accountable.

To bring justice, we must do everything we can to create a work environment in which scientists and researchers can achieve the next generation of scientific advancements and discoveries without fear of sexual harassment, assault or retaliation. I will note that I'm on the Science Committee and the Education Committee and there's a lot of talk about getting more women into career careers in science. That's important, but it's equally important important that we keep them there. So thank you again for considering this important legislation and for inviting me to speak about its merits. I urge that you pass this bill on to the floor for a full vote and I yield back the balance of my time.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Ezel for five minutes. Thank you, Chair. I want to begin by thanking the committee and and the subcommittee for the opportunity to hold a hearing on my legislation, the Offshore Parity Act. I'm also grateful to my bipartisan co leads in this bill. Representatives Troy Carter, Clay Higgins, Shamari figures for their partnership on this important effort.

The Offshore Parity act is a straightforward bipartisan bill that addresses a longstanding inequity affecting Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. For decades, Texas and Florida have exercised jurisdiction out to nine nautical miles offshore, while the rest of the Gulf coast states have been limited to just three nautical miles. Our bill simply establishes equal treatment by extending the offshore boundaries of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama to nine nautical miles as well. This legislation is about fairness, but is also about ensuring that states that with a proven record of responsible coastal stewardship have the same opportunities to manage resources, support economic growth and make decisions closer to the communities that depend on these waters. Every day.

Mississippi's Gulf coast thrives on commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, energy production, and the many jobs and businesses that depend on healthy coastal waters. Ensuring parity for state management throughout the Gulf is a worthy endeavor because our Gulf states know our fisheries, energy resources and coastal economies better than anyone. And for those who may be wondering about the scale of existing oil and gas activity in the 3 to 9 nautical mile area, the data tells an important story. Industry interest has declined significantly over the past decade, with fewer than 20 bids received on tracks in this area and none in the most recent lease sale. At the same time, bringing these waters under state jurisdiction could create new opportunities for innovation and economic growth.

For example, Texas has already explored opportunities for carbon capture and storage projects within its state waters. The Offshore Parity act would ensure Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama have the same ability to pursue emerging opportunities while responsibly managing our resources. The current disparity is rooted in decisions made more than 70 years ago, and it's time to recognize federal law to reflect the realities of today's Gulf coast and provide equal treatment for all Gulf coast states. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and discussing how this common sense legislation can strengthen coastal economies, improve resource management, and ensure that Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama are afforded the same opportunities already enjoyed by Texas and Florida. Thank you.

And I yield back. Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member for an introduction that we should have done a few minutes ago.

Thank you. I retroactively want to ask unanimous consent that representative from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, be retroactively allowed to sit on the dais and participate in today's hearing. Denied. Just kidding. So ordered.

So ordered. I now recognize Representative Begich for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. In southeast Alaska, we are living through a quiet crisis that almost no one in the lower 48 is aware of. A century ago, the northern sea otter was hunted nearly to extinction.

But today, after decades of protection, the population across southeast and south central Alaska has roared back. And then some, by most counts, now have tens of thousands of sea otters. And their numbers continue to climb. That sounds like a conservation success story. And in many ways, it is.

But a single sea otter eats roughly a quarter of its body weight every single day. And what it eats are the very resources that our coastal communities depend on. Dungeness crab, sea cucumbers, geoducks, clams and urchins are the backbone of our dive fisheries and our emerging mariculture industry. Community after community, our fishermen and shellfish farmers are watching otters strip the resource bare before anyone can harvest it. For generations, Alaskan Native hunters have harvested sea otters for subsistence and crafted them into handicrafts and clothing.

But federal law ties their hands. The Marine Mammal Protection act permits the harvest, yet it chokes off the market, limiting what can be sold, entangling harvesters, and red tape over whether a product is significantly altered or traditional enough to be lawful. When there is no outlet for the harvest, there is little incentive to harvest and the population grows unchecked. HR8401 is my effort to begin fixing that, to support Alaska Native artisans, strengthen our coastal economies, and give Alaskans a real sustainable tool to bring this population back into balance. I've been listening closely to Alaskans on this, to Alaskan Native organizations, to our fishermen, to our coastal communities, and that conversation is very much ongoing.

That is how good legislation comes together. You bring forward an idea, you hear from the people it affects, and you refine it. I look forward to continuing to work with this subcommittee and with stakeholders back home to shape this bill as it moves through the process. Thank you. And I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Begich. And I also want to note that Congresswoman Radawagon is unable to be here today due to commitments in American Samoa. But we appreciate her leadership on her important legislation. And I also ask that her prepared statement be entered into the record without objection. So ordered.

I want to thank the members for your testimony. And I will now introduce our second panel, which is Dr. Timothy Petty, the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and atmosphere at the U.S. department of Commerce and Deputy Administrator of the national oceanic and Atmospheric administration in Washington, D.C. under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. You've been here before, so you know the gig. And that is. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone.

We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow. And at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red. And I will ask you to please complete your statement.

Welcome, Dr. Petty. Thank you for being here. And we look forward to your.

Chairwoman Hagerman. Thank you. Ranking Member Hoyle as well as Ranking Member Huffman. Pleasure to be here along with the other members as well, McDowell. And thank you for your time today.

I look forward to the continual opportunities to interact. A lot of these bills have already been referenced, so I'll reference them more in my text. But under this administration, NOAA is focused on supporting American fishermen, strengthening coastal economies, advancing science based fishery management, and ensuring our policies that are balanced on conservation as well as economic opportunity. We appreciate this Subcommittee's continual engagement in all of these important issues and these pieces of legislation. I'd like to first discuss H.R.

8904 Legislation related to the management and fishing in marine national monuments. NOAA supports this legislation. NOAA believes fishery management should continue to be carried out through the transparent science based process established under the Magnuson Stevens Act. We have already taken action to rescind regulations in conformity with the President's proclamation of unleashing American commercial fishery in the Atlantic, which removed the prohibition on commercial fishing within the Northeast Canyons and Seamount Marine National Monument set in place by a prior proclamation pursuant of the Antiquities Act. The Magnuson Stevens act was made the United States a global leader in sustainable fisheries management and together with the Endangered Species act and the Marine Mammal Protection act and other applicable authorities, it provides enforceable adaptive science based mechanisms sufficient to assure the proper care and management of of monument resources.

The Regional Fishery Management Council plays a critical role in that process by bringing together scientific expertise, stakeholder input and regional knowledge to develop fishery management measures tailored to local conditions. This Administration remains committed to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining strong science based management to ensure a thriving ocean economy. Turning to HR 8542, the Offshore Parity act of 2026, this legislation would align states jurisdictional boundaries for submerged lands and Gulf fishery resources out to three marine leagues for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, consistent with the existing boundaries already in place for Texas and Florida. This bill would also make significant changes to offshore resource development as well as management and would expand the current fishery management authorities held by those three states under the Magnuson Stevens Act. NOAA looks forward to continuing to work with the Committee and affected states on implementation and consideration of the associated legislation.

And the third and final one that I want to address is finally like the addressed in HR 2406, the NOAA Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention improvement Act of 2025. Preventing and responding to sexual assault and sexual harassment remains a high priority for NOAA and I am proud to say that NOAA supports this bill in already undertaking many of the provisions set set forth in this pieces of legislation. Every individual serving aboard NOAA's vessels deserve a safe and professional workplace to voluntarily comply with the Safer Sea Act. NOAA has already taken substantial steps in these areas, including issuing an updated SASH Prevention and response policy of 2025, installing cameras in berthing passenger areas across the NOAA fleet, establishing SHPS Master Key protocols and requiring SAS training for all newly commissioned NOAA corps officers and professional meritors before they report to operational assignments. NOAA continues to be committed to ensuring survivor privacy, which may in some cases necessitate limiting the information available to be provided in mandatory reports.

Vessel owned, operated or contracted by NOAA are often small and crewed by small numbers of personnel, and sharing vessel name, date and location in external reporting may impact survivor privacy. We have in the remaining committed to the efficiency collaboration with the federal agency partners such as the US Coast Guard, as well as Inspector General. We appreciate the committee's attention to these issues and look forward to continued collaboration. Thank you, Dr. Petty.

And we are now going to recognize the members each for five minutes of questioning. I'm going to begin with myself, and I think that it's very important that we clarify for the record what is the relationship between the Magnuson Stevens and the Antiquities Act. So I'm going to address that with you. What are the. First of all, what are the hallmarks of effective fishery management?

Yeah, Chairwoman, great question right off the bat. And so the Magnuson Stevens act is really the global gold standard of fishery management. We look forward to continual the interaction. This is our 50th year of the Magnuson Stevens and the importance of recovery and fish management has really become legendary across the world in how we actually manage and recover our. Our species that we've had impacted on.

That comes from science, it comes from research, it comes from the ability to understand the quantity and the quality of the fish and the fish habitat and the species out there and the importance of managing those fish management areas. So one of the things in reading and preparing for this hearing, we talk about sustainability, we talk about transparency, best available science, public input, et cetera. How do those principles factor into the Antiquities act process, in contrast? Yeah, so the MSA and the Antiquities act have very different purposes from each other. The Antiquities act is done via Presidential proclamation at the President's discretion, whereas the Magnuson Stevens act is a council driven fishery management process that takes scientific research and availability into that equation and then utilizing the public and the community in collaboration with the councils as well as within state and federal agencies to work together.

So the two are very different from one another. So it's kind of a NEPA for the oceans. Yes, exactly. Whereas the Antiquities act is an executive order for the oceans. It is.

Okay, so the one involves communities and the affected fishermen and the people who are concerned about the environment and the fisheries. It takes into consideration all of that, that being the Magnuson Stevenson Act. And the Antiquities act allows a president for example, President Obama to simply designate 500 million acres is essentially off limits. Is that a fair description? Yes, Chairman, it would be okay.

I know that we have a lot of things that we're trying to get through today. I have other questions that I may submit to you in writing. But what I would like to do is I would like to make sure that we can get to the other members to ask you questions as well. So I'm going to yield back and I'm going to recognize Representative Hoyle for her questioning today. Thanks, Madam Chair.

And thank you, Dr. Petty, for being here. Your agency recently provided committee staff with a list of all the outstanding fishery disaster funding, the vast majority of which is owned by tribal and fishing communities across California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. Congress provided 300 million in funding for fishery disaster relief in December of 2024. Since this administration took office, there has been zero actual progress in getting money out the door.

The money is there and NOAA already approved the spending plans. Yet west coast and Alaska fishing communities are being told to just keep waiting on omb and these families are waiting for relief for disasters to happen five years ago. So do you believe OMB possesses the legal authority to indefinitely withhold congressionally appropr agency approved disaster relief funds, which again were voted on and approved in a bipartisan way? And what specific administrative or legal levers is NOAA pulling right now to force OMB to release this funding? And what can I tell my constituents who are depending on this ranking member?

Thank you so much for that question. And I totally understand how important the disaster funds are that impact each of these areas and communities. What I would love to be able to do is come back and interact with you on every one of the specific areas that you have an interest in, talk and work through with your staff on them. The administration is literally working through each one of those. They're in different stages and phases.

And if you would allow us to actually come back and interact with you a little bit longer with you and your members, we can be smaller, more specific on the ones that you want to bring up and discuss with us. Great, I would love to work with you on that. And I am specifically concerned about the ones affecting the central and south coast of Oregon. But just also as ranking member of this committee, I'm concerned about all of these grants and what can we do to help expedite this as it's already been approved. So moving on, as I mentioned earlier, in my district, you may be aware, we host NOAA's Marine Operations center, right.

The Pacific or the MOCP. So community of Newport is proud to host the NOAA fleet. It is something we have great pride in. And as we get closer to the expiration of NOAA's current lease, it's my hope and expectation that NOAA will provide a full, fair and transparent consideration to Newport's application for a lease renewal. We have the partnership with Oregon State University's Hatfield Science Center.

We have a unique ocean ecosystem that you cannot find in the state up north from us, and very few places on the earth other than Alaska. So I would ask you, number one, have you had an opportunity to visit Newport? Because I would like to personally invite you to show you what we are doing there and the partnerships. We've spoken with oyster farmers, commercial fishermen throughout the Pacific Northwest, and they rely on the research that happens there, so we could meet with them and then also just ask you at this point in time where we can't even get disaster relief out the door, where we're counting every penny, we want to attack waste, fraud and abuse. We've cut, like, gutted the staff in federal agencies, including noaa, where you have people doing multiple jobs.

Do we have the money to move that NOAA facility to a different state, go through the process to hire new people? I mean, it's not easy to get people to come work for the federal government right now, as I am sure you are aware. It seems to me that that would be a unnecessary waste of money. And so I'd like to know your position on that. Yeah, thank you again.

Newport is a known port to me, even in my time as staff working on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The work that we've done with U.S. army Corps of Engineers in buttressing up and really working in a diligent way. It's a fantastic harbor there. And so I really appreciate the work that goes in there. In the area of the fisheries aspect, we continue to go through a process of really looking at all of the facilities holistically, how those work.

I'd love to actually take you up on your offer and come out and get some time with you and tour the facility and look at all the requirements there that the GSA and the others are looking at holistically with facility use. Great. Let's do it as soon as possible. Thank you. Pleasure.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Ezell for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Chair. In Mississippi, we know the value of our coastal waters. Our coast supports world class recreational and commercial fishing, a thriving seafood industry, tourism, shipbuilding, energy production, and countless small businesses that keep our Coastal economy moving. We also have a strong track record of managing our resources responsibly and ensuring they remain available for future generations.

That's why many of us believe it's time for Mississippi to be treated the same as Texas and Florida when it comes to offshore boundaries. Dr. Petty, I greatly enjoyed our conversation with you this morning and our discussion about ensuring future generations can enjoy the same life on the water. Mississippi has a strong track record of responsible fisheries management. If we were granted the same nine nautical mile boundary as Texas and Florida, how could greater state oversight help improve access to the fish stocks and marine resources while continuing to support sustainable fisheries management?

Congressman, thank you. Each one of those areas that you highlighted are incredibly important. One of the things I want to start off with is that NOAA fisheries, when I was going through our process in reviewing your legislation, was the complementary aspect of working not only with your state, but with all three states. This is a partnership with federal NOAA fisheries as well as the state's fishery communities as well as the state's Department of Fisheries. And it's a premier relationship that is already existing.

We work really well already with both. Texas and as well as Florida, who. Actually go out the nine miles. And that interaction, the Magnuson Stevens Acts, will continue in the area of endangered species as well as MMPA and all the critical species. But that region also then becomes the responsibility and management of the state.

But those relationships I think we can continue in partnership. We look forward to working with you on this piece of legislation and making sure that we have that continual connection on our relationship as we go forward with this piece of legislation. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Petty.

I yield back. Wonderful. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member Huffman for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Dr.

Petty, again, welcome. I'm going to start with a couple of questions of local concern involving fishery disasters. The 2024 salmon disasters in California were recognized, approved, everything seemed to be on track, but we're still not seeing the funds that we're waiting for from the federal government and we can't get a straight answer. Can you tell me when we can expect NOAA to allocate assistance for these disasters? Yeah, as I was just interacting with Congresswoman Hoyer would love to be able to come up and specifically talk through that.

We have a number of already ex disaster documents already moving through in that process to getting out the door. And then we have different phases that go through its normal process that even every administration goes through. We can walk through those. I have done the walk through I, I am under. I understand the spaghetti mess, that is the way.

Right. But this is 2024. Everything was cleared, approved. We're just waiting for the money. What's the hold up?

Just literally where the finance aspect and the process with the administrations, that's literally where it's at. Who do we talk to? Is it omb? Where, where is this money and why is it not being released? Because this is really impacting communities and, and fishermen.

This is a big deal. This money was needed two years ago. Right, and we understand that. And so on this specific one, let me literally get back to you and your staff this week on just exactly what. I would really appreciate that give you an update exactly what's going on.

Not on explanations of process or anything, but this money needs to be released now. Thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that. You bet. Now, it's also been more than a year since NOAA allocated disaster funding for the red sea urchin fishery.

That was hit hard back in 2018 and my constituents are facing economic hardship from that as well. Again, this, this was needed a long time ago. What specific bureaucratic hurdle is currently holding up release of the red sea urchin disaster funds? Actually, we, I was just reviewing that document even this past week and so as we get those processed and work through again. Let me get back to your staff on that step again.

The spaghetti map on where it's at will update you on those areas for the, the red sea urchin. Can you get us a concrete calendar date for when that money is finally going to be released? Wow. Between you and me, I'd love to be able to. I mean, I'm not going to press you for it in this moment, but can we just get that like when you get back to me?

Yeah, let's. Let's see if we can actually put dates and at least some frames around that. I really appreciate that. Yes, sir, I understand. Let's go to Hawaii and westpac.

Oh, you mean not physically? No. Well, I would love to go to Hawaii. The executive director of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council misspent nearly a million dollars in taxpayer dollars from the Sustainable Fisheries Fund while using her position to lobby against marine monument designations for decades. NOAA has known about these compliance failures for a long time.

And so I want to just ask you about where this stands. Have you successfully recovered all of the nearly $1 million in misspent taxpayer funds from the council? Reagan? Actually, we were just working through that process. Now there is a already recoverable resources coming in with a projected area of that Money being in a process to be worked through.

So again, let me figure out where and what that is at and where that number is so that I can just give. Has any of it been recovered? There has been already. There's been some restoring taking place. And you will get me a full accounting of that.

That is our absolute goal. I mean, it's by law. Yeah, I appreciate that to do that. And we are following through. And like you said, it's been multiple years.

And just one quick question on that. There hasn't been any kind of a settlement where a reduced value was accepted in final resolution or anything like that, has there? I've not seen anything with regard to settlement. There's actually multiple councils that we're actually working through as well. Thank you.

One last question while I still have time. Want to ask you about the Fishermen in residence program. I'm not criticizing the concept of a fisherman in residence. It sounds like a great concept. I'm not criticizing the qualifications of the person who is currently the fisherman in residence.

But this is someone who continues to be paid as chairman and chief strategist of an outside industry organization that lobbies your agency and works on issues where we need to make sure that federal ethics laws and conflicts of interest laws are being applied. And so can you just tell me, has this individual been recused from things? I've been asking for this conflict of interest accounting for a long time and it's been months and we haven't gotten any response. Can you get us a full response so that we can understand whether the rules are being honored? We applied those for sure.

We have a whole ethics office that reviews any of his participation in activities. And so let me look to see if that's proprietary with the lawyers, the ethics office, and again, get back to your staff on that request. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

The chair. You made it. The chair now recognizes Representative Malloy from Utah for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr.

Petty, thank you for being here. I apologize that I have to run in and out, but you'll be happy to know the reason I'm not here is because we're marking up the. The Interior Appropriations Bill. Hopefully we can get everything done in regular order the way we're supposed to. I represent Utah, so not a lot of offshore economy in my state.

However, we do have a long history of national monument designations. And you mentioned in your testimony that the Magnuson Stevens act is. Is the envy of the world and it's a good tool for managing fisheries. And would you just explain the difference between when we're following the Magnuson Stevens act, which passed Congress and has public buy in and when something is designated by a President and there's not a lot of public buy in and not a lot of participation. Congresswoman, it's good to see you.

We still need to catch up soon here on a lot of different issues and Understood. So it is important and your state actually has a number of like monument designation areas. And so the two with the Antiquities act is a sole responsibility by a President who designates objects and or land in areas and deems them important and significant. Where the Magnuson State Stevens in the oceans has over that a unique capability because there's water and ocean on top of and so the designation of the object is separate because there is no designation in objects within the water column systems. Right.

And so there is the good news is that the Magnuson Stevens actually applies to monuments, which is under the Antiquities act. And that's the part that is transparent. There's science applied to the Magnuson Stevens that applies to those actions where in the antiquities you're looking at a specific area, a specific object or a specific land. And those are the uniquenesses that can actually be designated by a President. Yeah.

So the experience we've had in Utah is that even though the Presidential Proclamation power in the Antiquities act was intended to allow administrations to move quickly to protect discrete objects of scientific interest, what's been happening is that it's used to designate large swaths of land and override land management decisions that require more input and are more flexible. And you know, you just said when the Antiquities act is used in the ocean, the Magnuson Stephen act still applies. Would it be fair to say that you could do good management without the underlying Presidential Proclamation designation on behalf of. NOAA and the Magnuson Stevens? That's the powerfulness of what Congress deemed in the Magnuson Stevens act is that management responsibility and it does apply to both the areas of monuments.

So what I'm getting at is when Congress does our job and we pass bills and agencies follow those directives from Congress, they do an adequate job of managing. We don't need presidents to come in, lay another designation over it and make a unilateral decision without broad buy in, do you think that's fair? Yes. Thank you. With that I'm going to yield back.

I feel like I've made my point and I have to hurry back for a vote. So thank you. Good seeing you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. And the chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Petty, thanks for being here on behalf of NOAA. You know, in Florida, we have 1350 miles of coastline, second most of any state in the nation after Alaska. And recreational fishing is a very popular thing among Floridians and tourists alike.

We have grouper, mahi mahi and red snapper. And, you know, the Gulf, it's been pretty smooth with the red snapper season. Usually we have an extended season, but you have to get pretty far out there to really fish for red snapper. So less access for a lot of Floridians on their boats out there. And so.

But then you look at the Atlantic, South Atlantic season, and it's been a huge disappointment in the past. Right? It's been one to two days. People go nuts for like 24 hours. And it's unsafe.

And we've. And so I was proud to file the bipartisan Red Snapper act with Representative Rutherford out of Jacksonville because I have heard countless stories of an undercount of the red snapper and the South Atlantic by numerous fishermen that I trust. And we still have to get the science right. And so that's why this bill was requiring a reliable and accurate data to be put together in a study that was supposed to be completed. I believe the status was supposed to be.

Was supposed to be done in fall 2025. So it'd be great to know about the status of the study that was supposed to be out last year and anything you could impart to the committee. Yeah, thank you, Congressman. I appreciate it. The importance of what we were even trying to do just even a few weeks ago with the red snapper in the South Atlantic with looking at an exempted fishing permit process for.

For the South Atlantic red snapper. And that now has gone into adjudication. We're going to get to that. But before did we get the study out? Actually, that's my question.

And so the study is ongoing in a process. And part of the purpose of even your next question is that idea that we have done a lot of work in the study in the Gulf that we think we can apply to the South. And as the states helped you with that, I know the state of Florida aggressively wants to be able to get. You the information that you need. Need from the state.

Sovereign water. We are working hard with them. We've been on phone calls quite a bit even in these last several weeks on interaction with the discussion. Yes, sir. And now we'll get to this season.

So I appreciate Noah working with Florida on the 39 day season. I can't say that I know the sweet spot, but that was at least better than one or two days. And I do think splitting it up into two seasons made people feel a little more like it wasn't going to be taxing the existing populations. Two month May 22nd to 20th and then a few different time periods in, in October. But we saw just recently the May 21st ruling by the U. S. District Court in D.C. issuing an injunction, pausing that season immediately.

So what is the status of those proceedings right now and what's NOAA doing to address the court's concerns that we could get to a resolution on this? Well, first of all, and I, I'm, I know you appreciate this. Is that it? Because it is in the courts, that's that process that is actually over with the Department of Justice now. We're interacting with them on any questions that they may have Technically.

What technical questions that have, have you had to provide answers to? About none yet. They're still working through the procedural process is where that is at. We look forward to, you know, any support that we can provide to them, but as long as it's there, that's where that location is. Our goal at NOAA was to not only provide additional fishing capacity for the recreational fishers, but then our goal was to also have management tools at that same time that would give us the data sets that we were really looking for.

So do you think this core decision could pause the entire season for 2026? I am not a lawyer and so I don't. It's not looking good though. Right? Well, I would love to see us there.

I mean, my goal is actually as the signatory for the, the EFP was to move that forward for the purpose of, for us at NOAA to work with the science management capability. Just because we have had such really good results in the Gulf, we want to transfer what that knowledge and what we have learned. I think through a long process in the Gulf and working with the council and working with the fishermen and fishing community, we wanted to apply that in South Atlantic as well. Well, there's bipartisan support for getting the study done right and to get a reasonable season for red snapper in the South Atlantic again. I appreciate that.

Thank you, sir, very much. We want to get it right and I appreciate that. Thank you. And the chair now recognizes Mr. McDowell for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

And thank you, Dr. Petty, for being here today in North Carolina. We love the last name Petty for different reasons, but I've Got to tell you, this has been a challenging committee to sit through because there's been a lot of talk about fishing and fish and it makes me want to not be here and be on the water. Were eating a number of the fish that Mr. Soto just referenced. But for decades in the United States we've been the global leader on sustainable fisheries management.

And our fishermen operate under strict quotas that they have the monitoring requirements and conservation measures that are developed by scientists and regional, regional fishery management councils and former President Biden blocked large tracks of our ocean without the input of local communities or Congress. And this bypasses the management system that we created here in Congress. And we need to restore the management to the experts who can make evidence based decisions that impact all of us. And so my question for you is the Magnuson Stevens Act. It helps rebuild fish stocks while supporting commercial recreational fishing opportunities.

Would you agree that the Magnuson Stevens act has been one of the most successful fisheries management laws in the world?

Congressman, thank you actually for being here for this whole hearing. I know you've heard a lot of good discussion on this already, but yes, absolutely sir. And can you explain how decisions made through regional fishery management councils differ from decisions that are made through a Presidential Proclamation? Significant differences in that. There's a whole process.

There's a transparency process. There's meetings and committees and subcommittees and openness and transparency as well as the complete review of the science based research that that is applied, reviewed and given to all the communities for them to look at and then to give feedback. So you have all of this feedback that comes in and out before any future decisions are made by the council. How much stakeholder input is typically involved in a Presidential Proclamation? Oh, I've not worked in the White House and so I don't know that full process at all.

But I would probably wager there's a lot more process that takes place being in those meetings year over year with council and those council members as well as all the communities that come in and give testimony and input on a constant basis. Should fishing closures in your opinion, be based on fishery science or Presidential Proclamation? I would always go with the science on these areas and the transparency and the accountability that comes from it. Who bears the economic burden when productive fishing grounds are closed, particularly in coastal communities and in our U.S. territories that depend on fishing jobs and the seafood production? Well, sir, your state very clearly the economic impact the communities along not only the shores, but the, the processors,.

The. Wholesalers, retailers, the industry, the restaurants and every family that wants to put Seafood on their family's table is impacted significantly. In your opinion, would HR8904 help ensure that fisheries decisions go through a transparent and public process? Because of what Congress has already written in the Magnuson Stevens act, the 50 year record of the value of how long and how effective this gold standard has set, that's a pretty hard track to get off of. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

I'll yield back balance my time. Thank you. Dr. Petty. I want to thank you for being here today and sharing your expertise and knowledge with all of us.

And I also want to thank the members for participating and discussing their bills as well. Well as engaging with issues that are very important to actually working through these bills. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witness, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. But I'm going to move on to the next panel. And while the clerk is resetting the table, I will introduce the witnesses for this group.

Retired United States Air Force Brigadier Joe Spraggins, Executive Director of Mississippi Department of Marine Resources from Bililoxi, Mississippi, Mississippi. Mr. William Gibbons Fly, Executive Director of the American Tuna Boat association for Manapolis, Maryland. Dr. Allen Freelander, retired Chief Scientist of National Geographic Pristine Seas from Honolulu, Hawaii. And Captain Marty Scanlon, President of the Blue Water Fishermen's association from Hapag, New York. So, under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statements will appear in the hearing record.

To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone and we use timing lights as you've already heard. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have one minute remaining, the. Light will turn yellow. And at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red.

And I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all of the witnesses to testify before member questioning begins. I now recognize recognize Representative Ezell to introduce Brigadier General Spraggins. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, General, for being here today.

I'm pleased to announce that Mississippi's own General Joe Spraggins here today. General Spraggins brings a wealth of experience and knowledge when it comes to fisheries management, coastal resources, protecting natural assets that make our Gulf coast so special. Through his leadership at the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, he has worked closely with the community, industry and stakeholders that depend on a healthy and productive coastal waters. As we all know, thriving coastal economies rely on thriving waters. I look forward to hearing General Spraggins today discuss why Offshore Parity act is so important for Mississippi.

What expanded offshore boundaries could mean for our State and and how the legislation can help our support our coastal economy for years to come. General, I know my colleagues will have some questions for you and I appreciate you taking the time for being here today. And Chair, I yield back you and. I now recognize Brigadier General Spraggins for five minutes.

Good evening, Chairman Hageman and Rankin, member Hull and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to be here today and testify on behalf of the Gulf of America state agencies. I'm Joe Spraggin, Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources and I appear today in support of the Offshore Parity act which would establish a 9 mile, 9 nautical mile boundary for all states in the Gulf of America and alleviate the historically disparity that has established long ago. For my testimony today, I will address three reasons why this act should be supported. Consistency across all Gulf states, increased access for state shrimp fleets and regulatory alignment for the fisheries monitoring and management. As far as consistency goes, while the fisheries resources of Gulf of America are shared resources that are managed by both state and federal entities, it is important to note that the boundaries between state and federal waters is not consistent across the states, as you have been told.

Florida and Texas benefit from a bill passed in the 1950s and have state jurisdiction out to nine nautical miles, while the central states, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana have jurisdiction to three nautical miles. A closer look at that, there's around 1631 miles of shoreline on the coastline and about 70% of that are already out to nine nautical miles. The disparity is in justification can cause and the jurisdiction can cause confusion with anglers because whenever they come into the waters and if they're in one state and then go to the next state and the state boundaries are different, it's hard to be able to find out exactly what the rules are at that time. The confusion can cause people to have a chance to be able to get a ticket or a citation that would not be warranted because they did not understand the boundaries themselves. Coupled with the confusion between the states and disparity between species.

Destination reef fish in the Gulf are now nine miles for all five states. And we have been able to manage that, to be able to understand exactly the size, the limits and what we do with the specifications for each. But when you get to seeing fish like king mackerels, a cobia or Spanish mackerel sharks, Mac, whatever, then that changes because that is not nine nautical miles for three states. And so it causes a disparity of what can be done. And additional recreational anglers have trouble too, because when they come in from a down from a vacation or whatever and then they turn around and they don't know which state boundaries what and so they have problems being able to understand.

Also enhancement of state shrimp fleet. Our fleets have dropped. In 2004 five timeframe we had 800 shrimpers that would go out on the first day. This year we had 22. That is because of a lot of things.

It's because of imports, it's because of other things that are happening. But it's also because we don't have enough capability to be able to go to the areas our local shrimpers need to be able to go out to the nine miles so they can be able to shrimp and not have to have a federal permit to do this. This will help both in our economy and also with what we do as far as being able to get Gulf of America shrimp on our tables. Monitoring and management. We have been able to manage it up to nine miles with the reef fish.

We don't think we'll have any problem managing it up to the nine miles with all fisheries. And because of that we have a new program as Ms. Creel that has just been certified and there will be three states, Mississippi, Louisiana, Annale, Alabama, all on the same program and they've all been certified. So we will be able to manage this and we will be able to take care of what we need to do. I think that fishery dependent programs will thrive very much with this. And because of being able to get to the nine miles and being able to get the smaller fisheries to be able to do that, especially with our charter for hire and our shrimpers, it would make a lot of difference.

As mentioned earlier in my testimony, Texas, Florida, Gulf coast have nine miles and extending territorial waters to Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana would provide consistency to the state fisheries management and provide flexibility needed to ensure our state fisheries. Chairman Hageman, I thank you for the opportunity to be able to address this committee today and welcome any questions. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Gibbons fly for five minutes of testimony. Thank you.

Chair Hagerman, Ranking Member Hoyle, Distinguished members of this committee, I'm here today to testify in Strong support of HR8904 introduced by Representative Radwagon. This common sense piece of legislation will ensure that the authority for fisheries management in waters under US jurisdiction, including inside marine national monuments, remains governed by the rigorous science based and participatory fisheries management system established by Congress pursuant to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act and other related statutes. Madam Chair, the United States has the most robust and comprehensive fisheries management system anywhere in the world. The Magnuson Stevens act establishes an inclusive science based process with participation of officials from the Federal government, state and territorial governments, scientists, academics and a wide range of private sector stakeholders, all to ensure that US Fisheries are conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner. And yet, in recent years we've seen a disturbing trend to toss this entire congressionally mandated system aside and and close vast waters under U.S. jurisdiction to commercial fishing.

In these cases, the Antiquities act has been used to circumvent and override the rigorous process established under Magnuson Stevens, with little thought to the economic consequences to an important sector of the U.S. economy, the economies of our U.S. territories, domestic and regional food security, and yes, even U.S. national security. This is important, Madam Chairman, because our industry is struggling to survive and with it, so is the tuna dependent economy of American Samoa. In just the past few years, the US tuna purse seine fleet has been reduced from 34 vessels to just 15 vessels operating today. The remaining vessels supply most of the tuna being processed in American Samoa and otherwise support the local economy there. Madam Chair, my written testimony highlights several important issues that it is simply not possible to address.

In this short oral statement, with the remaining time available, I will focus on the economic impact of the Pacific Marine Monuments on the fishing industry in both Hawaii and American Samoa. The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was established in 2009 and expanded in 2014 to include the entire use around Wake Island, Johnson Atoll and Jarvis Island. Within two years of the expansion of the monument, one of the two canneries operating in American Samoa at the time closed, resulting in the loss of 800 jobs. Moreover, Jarvis island shares an extensive maritime boundary with the Republic of Kiribati. Excluded from the USCEZ around Jarvis Island, US vessels must pay $12,000 per vessel per day for access to the Kiribati EEZ, which is just across an imaginary line in the ocean from where they are prohibited from operating in the US eez.

For the Hawaii based Longline Fleet, the closure of the USCEZ around Johnston Atoll, along with the closure of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, has resulted in a cumulative loss of an area accounting for approximately 22% of historical catch. Because these monuments are established under the Antiquities act, the process is exempt not only from the requirements of Magnus and Stevens, but also the requirements of the Administrative Procedures act, the National Environmental Policy act and other legislation, all of which are established by Congress to ensure fair, transparent and most importantly, science based decision making for the management of our nation's fisheries. My written testimony also highlights the importance of the US Persein fleet as a critical counterbalance to China's growing influence in the region, and I refer Committee members to my testimony for more on that subject. In summary, Madam Chair, the use of the Antiquities act to circumvent the provisions of the Magnuson Stevens act erodes the economic viability of our commercial fishing industry, jeopardizes domestic and regional food security and in the Pacific opens the door for China to continue to increase its influence and presence across the region. HR8904 is vital to ensuring that fisheries management in waters under US Jurisdiction is governed as Congress has intended under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens act and related statutes.

I urge this committee to support this legislation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We appreciate your knowledge and expertise. This needs to be fixed.

I now recognize Dr. Friedlander for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Dr. Alan Friedlander. I'm a marine ecologist and fishery scientist with more than 40 years of experience studying marine ecosystems throughout the Pacific and around the world.

I recently retired as Chief Scientist from National Geographic Pristine Seas Program where I led expeditions to some of the most remote and least disturbed ocean ecosystems on Earth. I'm currently affiliate researcher at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology at the University of Hawaii. I'm one of only a small handful of scientists who have conducted research across all of the Pacific marine national monuments, and these experiences have convinced me that they represent some of the most extraordinary and intact marine ecosystems remaining anywhere on Earth. I'm here today because these places are unlike anywhere else under US Jurisdiction and are the crown jewels of America's marine protected areas. Having worked throughout the world's oceans, I can say these places are increasingly rare and among a few places left where marine ecosystems still function free from human disturbance.

In a world where human impacts reach nearly every corner of the ocean, these monuments remain among the last wild places left on Earth. They are places where sharks still dominate, coral reefs remain largely intact and natural ecological processes continue to function much like they once did in the past. When I first dove in these remote locations, it felt like traveling back in time. They provide the few remaining examples of what a healthy ocean actually looks like and represent a priceless natural legacy of for all the American people. The proposal before the committee would open these protected waters to commercial fishing.

Supporters of the proposal have suggested that access to these waters is necessary for the Hawaii based longline fleet and the American Samoa based purse fishery. The evidence does not support this claim. Simple fact is the Hawaii long line fleet has operated successfully before these monuments were expanded and continue to do so today. The fleet is consistently harvested at allowable catch limits without access to these waters. And they were never historically fished in the past.

The simple fact is these fisheries prospered without access to these waters in the past and they do not need them today. What is at stake is not the future of the fisheries, but the future of some of the last wild ocean ecosystems under US Stewardship. The question before us is not whether these fisheries can survive without these protected areas. The question is whether we are willing to compromise some of the last intact marine ecosystems under U.S. jurisdiction for what accounts to a relatively small amount and unnecessary expansion of fishing opportunities. What concerns me most is that people often assume because these areas are so vast and so healthy, they are immune to harm.

The opposite is true. These ecosystems function because of the delicate ecological connection that remains intact. Tuna supports seabirds by driving prey to the surface. Seabirds transport marine nutrients back to the islands and coral reefs. Sharks help regulate the ecosystem offshore waters.

Coral reefs and island ecosystems all are interconnected. Remove key species and these relationships begin to unravel. Even relatively small amounts of fishing can have an outsized impact on these places that have remained largely undisturbed. The scientific literature is clear that fishing affects not only target species, but also sharks, seabirds, turtles and other wildlife through bycatch and ecological disruption. These monuments are valuable because they are among the last places on Earth where ocean ecosystems still function in something close to a natural state.

Once these qualities are diminished, they cannot simply be restored. As a scientist, I view these places as irreplaceable living laboratories that help us understand and restore ocean ecosystems elsewhere. Future generations deserve to inherit at least a few places in the ocean that remain truly wild. We have already transformed much of the world's ocean environment. We should not be dismantling protection for some of the last places.

This show us what healthy oceans look like. I respectfully urge the committee to reject efforts to open these monuments to commercial fishing and maintain the protections that have safeguarded these globally significant ecosystems. Future generations will not judge us by how many fish we caught in the last wild places in the Pacific. They would judge us by whether we have the wisdom and foresight to protect them. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And the chair now recognizes Captain Scanlon for five minutes of testimony. Good afternoon. Chairman Hagman, Ranking Member Hoyle. Distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for having Me, I am Marty Scanlon, captain of the 43 foot pelagic long line vessel provider too.

I fish for highly migratory swordfish and tunas. I began polarity long line fishing 40 years ago and I've had the privilege of serving long line fishermen throughout the Atlantic and Gulf of America. I have fished in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument area long before it was established. After it was established and reopened to fishing and I plan to fish there again this year. It has been an important part of my seasonal fishing strategy which extends from the monument area south to offshore of the Carolinas.

I have for decades contributed substantially to the science and management of our fishery and the species we catch. I am deeply committed to achieving the goal of of our fisheries being the most sustainable of its kind in the world. As you well know, President Obama established a monument in September 2016 and prohibited pelagic long fishing in the north. In the monument, President Trump reopened the monument in June 2020. But before our fisher was able to get back on his feet, President Biden reversed President Trump's proclamation in October 2021.

After another more than four years of closure, President Trump restored fisheries access to the monument in February. We need this bill to stop the counterproductive game of ping pong and the lawsuits that come with that and to give us more stability and certainty in our businesses. The monument represents one of the most productive fishing grounds for our fleet, where some vessels had previously derived as much as 30% of their annual revenue. Loss of access to this air and other productive areas, coupled with cheap, often illegal imports have had a devastating impact on our fishery, our fishermen and their families, the shoreside businesses that purchase and process our catch and supply and service our vessels and on our fishing communities. At the time President Biden had last closed, excuse me, the monument in 2021, there were 284 Atlantic Pelagic Long Line permits on file.

Today, maybe 62 of our vessels are still fishing. Closing the monument to our fishery does not advance conservation. In fact, it undermines it. Our gear is set at a maximum depth of 20 to 30 meters. The canyon sections of the monument extends from depths of 200 meters to thousands of meters, while the top of the seamounts range in depths from 1000 to 2000 meters.

Consequently, this fishery has zero impact on the monument's benic ecosystem, including deep sea corals. Should deep sea corals be protected? Yes, of course. And they are already at are. Under the Magnuson Stevens Act, a fishery targets highly migratory fish that travel rapidly and wildly throughout the Atlantic and are caught in the fisheries of dozens of other nations.

They do not reside within the monument boundaries. Given their dynamic life history, the monument simply does not contribute to the conservation of these species. But should these valuable fish stocks be sustainably managed? Yes, of course. And they are already through an intensive science based management regime, both internationally through ICAT and domestically under Magnus and Stevens Act.

A fishery also interacts with protected species such as sea turtles and marine mammals. These species are highly migratory, passing in and out of the monuments artificial boundaries at different times of the year. Should these species be protected? Of course, they already are. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection act and of course Magnuson Stevens Act.

Our fisheries highly accountable for its target catch and bycatch to 100% vessel monitoring systems and 100% video camera coverage. In addition to human observer coverage. Our strategy has minimized bycatch to the use of large circle hooks, weak hooks, monofilament leaders, innovative and life saving gear configurations and cooperative bycatch hotspot avoided measures. And extremely effective. None of these conservation practices are a result of the Antiquities Act.

What is the result of the Antiquities Acts is the perverse reality that it has served to actually undermine conservation and promote illegal fishing. The monument's biological irrelevant boundaries force us to fish where and when we cannot avoid interacting with protected species. And the loss of access to these productive grounds has contributed to our fishery being unable to catch 80% of our ICAP baseline quota of swordfish. Such uncaught quota increases demand in the US market for unsustainable imports and it will be reallocated to ICAT to other fishing nations, including those associated with IUU fishing and the use of forced labor and substandard conservation practices. America's fishery conservation and management regime is the global gold standard thanks to Magnus and Stevens.

We applaud the authors of this bill and recognize this and that the Antiquities act has served to seriously undermine this achievement. Thank you. I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony and the information that you're providing today. I am now going to recogn the witnesses, or excuse me, the members for five minutes of questioning. And I am going to begin with myself.

I'm going to start with Mr. Gibbons fly. There is a map behind me and it actually was provided in your testimony. And it shows the boundaries of marine national monuments in the West Pacific. We have heard from one witness today that vast unilateral open ocean marine protected areas are essential for ocean ecosystems. Can you explain the ecological significance of the outer boundaries of the monument areas in the Pacific remote islands.

Yes, thank you for that question. You'll notice on that map that in some of those areas there are yellow areas with a smaller orange area, and then in others, it's the entire eez is the orange area. That's the difference between the original monument designation, which went out to 50 miles, and I'm speaking in particular on the Pacific remote islands, the original boundaries went out to 50 miles. And when I hear Dr. Friedman and others talk about the need to protect these resources, I hear them talk about coral reefs and nesting habitat and unique endemic marine habitats, all of which occur within 50 nautical miles. When you're banning commercial fishing from 50 to 200 miles, there's very, you're, you're putting, you know, very significant strain on the fishing industry, putting people out of business, harming the economy of American Samoa with very little, very little conservation benefit.

And our organization and the other fishing organizations have been fine with the restrictions out to 50 miles, but beyond that, the restrictions beyond that point just don't make sense. Okay. Okay. We have also heard testimony that fisheries management cannot account for ecosystem management. And I was surprised to hear that Magnuson Stevens does not have a mechanism to manage commercial fishing impacts to sensitive ecosystems, that it must be done through the Antiquities Act.

Is that accurate? Well, I was as flabbergasted as you to hear that, to hear that assertion because it runs contrary to everything I know about the Magnuson act and related institutes, and that's based on 40 years of involvement both inside and outside of government, dealing with marine fisheries issues. The ecosystem approach is fundamental to the Magnuson Act. These councils review these ecosystem approaches, ecosystem impacts, as part of all of their transparency and due process before they adopt conservation and management measures. So, no, I would not agree with that.

I would not agree with that statement. Well, again, when I was questioning the NOAA representative today, I talked about, about the fact that Magnuson Stevens sounds a lot like nepa, whereas the Antiquities act sounds a lot like an executive order. One gets a scientific analysis and the other one does not. And I think that it's important to keep those things in mind. Dr. Friedlander also completely dismissed the economic impacts to the tuna fleet out of American Samoa.

What have been the economic impacts of these decisions to the folks on American Samoa? Yes. Well, first of all, the economy of American Samoa is overwhelmingly dependent on the tuna industry. The tuna cannery there and the support industries support 80% of the private sector employment in the economy.

And as I mentioned in my testimony, at least my written testimony, within two years of the expansion of the monument in Jarvis island to completely close the US eez, the impact on the US Fleet was significant enough that the one of two canneries in American Samoa closed its doors for good with the loss of 800 jobs.

The fact that the US fleet has been reduced from 34 vessels to 15 vessels today is a very clear testimony to the impact of these issues on the US Fleet and the ability of the US Fleet to provide the resources to the canneries and American Samoa to support the American economy. So I could go on, but I. Will stop there and I understand that. I do want to turn to Captain Scanlon very quickly. The committee conducted robust oversight of presidential abuses of the Antiquities Act.

In 2015, when the Obama administration floated the proposal for what became the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Marine Monument, witnesses were very concerned about the lack of public input and transparency in the process. And those concerns have been borne out, haven't they? At the time the then subcommittee ranking member Huffman stated his prediction that was, quote, whether this goes the way of the Antiquities act or under the Sanctuaries act or whatever, nobody is going to be blindsided. Nobody's going to blindside you with some permanent. There's going to be a very open, deliberative and inclusive process that unfolds on anything that happens in the area.

End quote. Having been involved in the Atlantic pelagic long line fishery before and after the monument designation, can you describe how the process to establish the monument and enact a permanent federal fishery closure has actually played out over the last 11 years?

It has affected fishermen in dramatic ways. I mean, when we go to an area there, we need to plan ahead of time on, you know, where and when we're going to fish there. When you. The biggest thing that we have is it challenges our ability to avoid unwanted interactions on protected species. It's just counter to what they're trying to tell us that they're doing.

It's, you know, we have a protocol in which we, number one and number two tools in our toolbox as far as fisheries is concerned is a communication protocol in which we identify what we're interacting with and we communicate that throughout the fleet. After that, we take and we create a means to avoid those interactions. One of those means is to avoid them is by moving the actual facts of the matter is because they didn't do the closure with the Antiquities act on science, the area that they protecting against marine mammals actually increases our take on those species because it forces us to fish in Areas that we have a higher rate of interactions. Government is always trying to fix its last solution. Excuse me.

The government is always trying to fix its last solution. What they're doing is just the opposite of what they're trying to tell you. As far as transparency goes, as far as transparency goes, it really was just a dog and pony show. I was at every one of those meetings. I was at the town hall meeting in Providence, Rhode island when they rolled it out.

And there was a person from the Clinton administration that was working in the Obama administration. He made it clear to us and there was a bunch of people in the room. There was over 100 people there. And he said, listen. He says you're lucky that he said under Bush they closed us without any transparency at all.

He says, you're lucky that we're even listening to you people and we're meeting with you. And that was their attitude throughout the process. It was repeated to me in the Eisenhower Building by Sohlweber, co chair of ceq. And he looked at all of us after we spent the time to go to Washington and to speak to them and said that basically told us we don't have to listen to anything you have to say. Well, I do appreciate your testimony and I understand your frustration.

I have a few other people I want to get to before we close the hearing today. I'm going to recognize the ranking member Hoyle for five minutes of questioning. Thank you. Dr. Friedlander, based on your research, how do marine protected areas serve as an ecological and economic insurance policy for communities and cultural traditions that rely on them? And then also could you briefly bring up and discuss the spillover effect and why protections inside marine national monuments sustain commercial fishing outside the boundaries.

Thank you for that question, ranking member. Yes. You know, we talked about the Magus and Stevens act and the monument and the monuments and they are not mutually exclusive. They're actually complementary to one another. Magnuson does a great job of managing fisheries.

These monuments protect ecosystems in a much better way. And as we found in Papanamu Kulkea, after it was expanded in north previously national monument, now sanctuary, the Hawaii long line catch increased by over 50%. So when you have protected areas, fish biomass builds up with inside those protected areas. These bigger fish tend to reproduce more and they can spill out to the fished areas and benefit the fisheries. So if you think of it as a bank account, the protected areas are managing the principal and then we're harvesting the interest on that so they you can have both.

We can have effective fisheries management and marine conservation As I said in my statements, they. These are unique places, most unique places on earth that I've ever seen. Been to a lot of them. And so I think we can. The fisheries have been doing well despite and maybe because of these protected areas being created.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for your answer and I yield back. Thank you. The chair, they have called for votes, but we have some time remaining.

I'm going to try to get through these last two. I will now recognize Mr. Ezell for five minutes of questioning. I've only got two questions. General Spraggins, thank you again for coming. Can you talk just a little bit about what offshore parity would mean for Mississippi's Gulf coast and how giving our state the same nine mile boundary as Texas and Florida could help strengthen our coastal economy and the industries that depend on these waters?

Yes, sir. And thank you, sir, for inviting me. And it would help us to be able to equalize ourselves with the other two states with Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana all being able to go to nine miles. That means that our local fishermen could be able to do that. And when I'm talking to that is our state for charter, that they would be able to go out to nine miles as they are in Texas and Florida also that it would be for our shrimpers, which are very important to us because as it stands now, when the shrimp move south of the islands and move to that point, they get further than the three miles.

And that means that our local fishermen are not able to go out and be able to catch the brown shrimp and white shrimp that they would need to be able to bring back to the economy there. This would allow us to be able to have shrimp and fish and on the docks with us almost year round and instead of having to wait to be able to get it from brought from another place. And it also could help us to be able to take what we've been pushing hard and that's buy American and that's to buy and to bring seafood back to American again. And so we can put it back on our our menus and be able to put it in our markets and be able to go back. And at that point we would be able to help the economy and the local states and also be able to keep our fishermen to where they cannot have to decide whether they're in Alabama or Louisiana, Florida or Texas.

They can say that, you know, or Mrs. They know where they're at and they know they have the nine miles there. Thank you. Mississippi's demonstrated that we can responsibly manage our marine resources. While supporting economic growth.

How would extending the State's jurisdiction to 9 nautical miles help ensure decisions that are made closer to people who work on the water, make a living from the gulf and enjoy it every day? Yes, sir. It would be, once again, it would take that disparity away of what you can catch and where you can catch it. And we've been able to manage the nine miles with no problem as far as reef fish. And so being able to manage the other resources, I think would be very easy for us to do.

And with Ms. Krill coming in and that, we will be able to manage all species and not just the reef fish species. So this will help us a whole lot to be able to do that. That has been certified. So we're in the process of finishing it now, and it will definitely be in effect within the next year.

The local economy needs this. The local fishermen need this. As I told you, we had around 800 that were coming out to first day of shrimp season in the 20045 time frame. With the cost of fuel, with the cost of being able to operate a boat and being able to do it, and the price of imports, which we need to get under control some way somehow, that's what's causing us to have this. And being able to get these shrimpers and being able to get that fish, that resource on the market at a local market and not have to wait for it to be processed through the whole United States, that would be a big impact for us, and it would be a big impact for the whole gulf.

Thank you, general. Thank you for coming. I yield back, Chair. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr.

Downing from Montana for five minutes. Well, thank you, madam chair, and thank you to our witnesses. From being here, my district of eastern Montana, I don't think you could be much farther away from an ocean, but. So we're pretty far away from our country's ocean fisheries. We love our trout fishing, but a little different.

But however, you know, much like the fishermen on the coasts, Montana farmers and ranchers also face the misapplication of federal conservation laws, such as flawed listings under the endangered species act that restrain ranchers ability to protect livestock from grizzly bears, gray wolves, et cetera. But I want to start with captain Scanlon, and I'd like to discuss the negative economic impact of federal mismanagement. So how did the Biden administration's restrictions for the northeast canyons and seamounts national monument hurt the competitiveness of swordfish and tuna fishing on the east coast?

Well, that area right up in there is prime, is prime fishing. It's prime swordfish grounds for us. And we, as you, as I noted there, we're not catching 80% of our quota. That's given to us by ICAT as it is. So we need to be able.

We have multiple closures throughout the country. We're dealing with them on an ongoing basis, but by keeping those areas closed to us, we don't have access to the very swordfish that we're being given credit to catch. The problem is that under Magnuson Stevens, even though we're only catching 80% of our quota and we only get 8.1% of the overall international quota, we. We're still on the Magnus and accountable to maintain 100% sustainability of that entire stock. So we at U.S. fishermen, we have to maintain sustainability throughout the world, even though we only got 8.1%.

So we're being forced not to be able to fish in highly concentrated areas of those swordfish by, you know, by political means. It really undermines our effort. I mean, where are we going to catch the swordfish if you can't catch it where they're at? Right. How do you catch them?

Were fishermen provided an opportunity to raise these concerns to the Biden administration before they issued the restrictions in 2021? Yes, we were, but like I said, it was basically a dog and pony show. They stood right there and told us right to our face that, you know, we're having these meetings just so that they could say that they had these meetings. They had no intention of listening to what we. To our input, not one single bit.

And they made it clear to us that's how insulting it was. Sounds frustrating. Moving on. The Antiquities act was originally codified to provide a pathway to protect specific heritage sites on federal lands, particularly those of archaeological or tribal importance. So, given this original intent, can you elaborate on why the Antiquities act is an ineffective framework for ocean fishery management?

Well, the problem we have with the Antiquities act is good conservation is supposed to be the coexistence of man and his environment. It's not supposed to be the elimination or extinction of either or. So when you bypass the science, the real science, and you lean towards political science, you undermine the challenges that go with that. By contracting our planet, an ever expanding planet, and the demands on our planet, by blindly closing that in, large blocks like that, without scientific input, you actually, you're creating more of a problem than you're solving because you're making the planet smaller and you're just passing on all those problems somewhere else. Well, thank You.

I appreciate those answers. I'm going to move on to Mr. Gibbons. Fly. In your testimony, you highlighted the increasing role of China in the South Pacific fishing industry. Can you expand on how China is using investments into the fisheries sectors of Pacific island nations to grow their influence over that region?

Yes. Thank you very much for that question. China has long understood that engagement with the Pacific islands on oceans and fisheries issues is the single most important vector for establishing commercial and political ties. They have been expanding their influence across the Pacific by investing in shoreside facilities, building wharfs. Just one example.

I don't want to take too much time, but they'll build a wharf, they'll lend the money, the country can't repay it, and the Chinese will say, oh, don't worry, we'll just take the wharf back and they'll have possession of a port that just happens to be the size that fits one of their largest warships. Right. And they're doing that across the Pacific, in the Solomon Islands, in Kiribati and other, in other places. And it's a dangerous situation. It is, and it's concerning.

I appreciate those answers. You know, effective management of natural resources, whether they be fisheries, coal, critical minerals, is the bedrock of economic competitiveness. And I just want to thank all the witnesses. And Chair Hageman, thank you so much for hosting this hearing. And on that I yield back.

Thank you. The Road and Belt initiative, we've been studying that for quite some time with China. It is concerning. I really do want to thank all of you witnesses for being here today and the valuable testimony and information that you have provided. I also want to thank the members for their participation.

The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the committee must submit such questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5pm Eastern on Monday, June 8, and the hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. If there is no further business. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.