House: Oversight Hearing titled “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.”

Oh, we don't have the ranking member yet.

She on her way. Okay.

Good morning, everyone. We're just waiting for the ranking member right now, and then we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you all for being here today.

Sa.

Sam.

The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will come to order. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses, and our guests in the audience in 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 the 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 3. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the congressman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, the congressman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, the congressman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, and the congressman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to hold an oversight hearing titled Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.

I now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement. Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries is holding a hearing on Restoring America's Seafood Competitiveness. We will be specifically focusing on how we can bolster both commercial and recreational fishing across the United States. Millions of Americans depend on fishing for their livelihoods and to connect with their communities. Both recreational and commercial fishing are tremendous economic drivers.

Ensuring access to our abundant fishery resources supports millions of jobs and generates millions of dollars in conservation investments through excise tax revenues. Our domestic seafood sector, including its role in our food supply chain and as a major part of our trade strategy, makes massive contributions to our economy. Enhancing the commercial sector can also serve important geopolitical goals, like countering the aggression of the Chinese Communist Party and Russia. In recent years, however, both our fishing sectors have faced tremendous challenges. Whether it is issues related to the science and data collection used to inform management decisions under the federal fisheries management system, regulatory challenges associated with implementation of the Endangered Species act and the Marine Mammal Protection act, or additional efforts to restrict access to our waters.

Fishing in the United States has become quite complicated, with our smaller, independent fishermen facing the most challenges. The good news is that President Trump is committed to addressing these issues. In April, he signed an executive order titled Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness, which is intended to reduce regulatory burdens and restrictions to ensure that the American fishing industry can thrive. President Trump's executive order directed the Secretary of Commerce to work with the eight regional fishery management councils to make the necessary changes to reduce regulatory burdens to adopt new technologies to improve management and work with stakeholders across this community. Today's hearing is intended as a signal to those stakeholders that Congress will support President Trump in these efforts and will work with this administration to develop the necessary approach to charge a better path forward.

We look forward to partnering with the Trump administration to carry out these shared goals. The United States has long served as the world's gold standard for fisheries management. The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act is a cooperative, stakeholder driven approach to fisheries management in the United States. This approach has long been supported and trusted by the many stakeholders in working with the eight fishery management councils, and yet challenges still persist. As the President's Executive Order states, one central challenge for both the recreational and commercial sectors has been the lack of adequate data to inform fisheries management decisions.

A lack of complete data can lead to shorter fishing seasons and more restrictions. That is why conducting thorough, complete stock assessments and fishery surveys to sustainably manage our federal fisheries is at the core of NOAA's mission. This work must not only continue, but it must be prioritized. A common theme throughout our WWF hearings on a variety of topics has been the need for certainty and stability for our industries and small businesses. Perhaps the biggest driver of economic instability has been the federal government's promulgation of overburdensome regulations within our jurisdiction.

The ambiguity and lack of clarity that environmental statutes like the Endangered Species Species act and the Marine Mammal Protection act are the main drivers in this area. Our fishermen and women simply do not know what the rules are going to be from administration to administration. That isn't fair to them, and such a situation undermines their ability to invest in their fleets and in infrastructure. As we have heard in recent months and years, both the commercial and recreational sectors have faced undue burdens under both the ESA and the mmpa. Reforming and modernizing these statutes will help reduce burdens, promote access to our marine resources, and provide certainty and clarity for the regulated community while at the same time protecting our fisheries and marine resources.

We can, in other words, continue to protect our marine and mammal species while also protecting our fishing industries. Above all, we must promote access to our fisheries while continuing to serve as good stewards of our resources. Today's hearing is a first step to lay out a vision for the future of federal fisheries management, one that embraces the cooperative approach between fisheries managers and stakeholders, demands better science and data, and embraces the role that technology can play in solving these issues. With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being here and the members for their interest in these important issues and and I yield back. I now recognize ranking member Hoyle for her opening statement.

Thank you. And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I know some of you traveled a long way from coast to coast. The American fishermen and fisherwomen fuel the economy and feed the world. Our fisheries are some of the best managed and most sustainable in the world.

Science based management led by members of the fishing industry in close collaboration with scientists, protect the balance of our ocean ecosystems and ensure that fishing can continue for generations to come. I appreciate that the Trump administration wants to support the competitiveness of our domestic seafood industry. Certainly it is an important part of the economy of my district. I hope to work with the administration and my colleagues and the majority to. Achieve that goal and but I don't.

See how the administration is going to succeed when it spent the last four months haphazardly cutting the funding and workers that our fisheries rely on. Fishing communities in my state and many fishing communities around the country have been thrown into chaos due to these DOGE cuts. You're not going to make our seafood industry more competitive by firing staff at noaa, canceling research, banning NOAA staff from traveling to meetings with or by instigating trade wars with erratic and unstrategic tariff policies. Over one third of the NOAA fisheries positions are now vacant. Fishery science centers across the country are bleeding talent and key NOAA fisheries staff have been fired.

For example, this spring, hatcheries that normally release millions of chinook salmon are in limbo because the single NOAA employee, Krista Finley, was abruptly terminated in February by doge. Her job was to ensure hatchery operations met federal standards under the ESA and provide permits to release them. Now NOAA isn't processing compliance reviews. The hatchery fish can't be released. And this isn't just a this year problem.

It hurts the long term future of west coast salmon runs. The Pacific Northwest needs a functioning federal partner that takes its responsibilities seriously. Meanwhile, the President's budget would eliminate or zero out over a dozen programs that support fisheries and coastal communities, including the Sea Grant. Oregon Sea Grant scientists provide resources that help fishermen sell more seafood, prevent and treat boating injuries and reduce plastic pollution. This program leverages $5 in additional funding and economic benefits for every federal dollar invested.

And that's a good return on investment. Certainly seems like worthy, a worthy and efficient investment to me. And yet the second hearing in a row, NOAA leadership has refused to appear in person to answer the committee's questions about their plans to eliminate the Sea Grant program. And many Others, I want to support our fisheries by investing in them and the tools they need to be sustainable and successful. That's something we should all be able to get behind.

And I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today. Thank you. And I yield back.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our witnesses. I'm looking forward to this conversation. I would love to have a serious bipartisan discussion on what's going on with our fisheries, what's going on with leveling the playing field for American fishers who we hold to very high standards, a serious discussion about IU fishing and any number of other really important issues. So I applaud you, Madam Chair, for having a hearing on this subject. But pretending that what's going on right now with NOAA and this administration, pretending that that's okay, pretending that this administration is somehow on the right track toward these statements about, you know, restoring seafood competitiveness is just deeply disingenuous, if not gaslighting.

You can't speak these things into action. You have to do actual policies that make them happen. And we are not on the right track in that regard. Let's be clear. President Trump's imperial edict on restoring American seafood competitiveness doesn't restore anything.

It certainly doesn't help American fishers. It dismantles the programs, the science and the safeguards that have made US Fisheries among the most sustainable in the world. You don't strengthen American fisheries by gutting the systems that keep populations sustainable. You don't support fishers by sidelining science based decisions, which everybody agrees is the core to maintaining a sustainable fishing economy. You don't support.

You don't help American fishers by ignoring illegal, unreported and unregulated or IUU fishing that floods our markets and sabotages their livelihoods. Now, I understand that in his imperial edict, President Trump said he wanted to crack down on IUU fishing, but in the same breath, he's dismantling the one program that we have to confront it, the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. Simp. He's absolutely crippling the one agency that we have to manage fisheries, who has a significant role in confronting IUU fishing. So there's an incredible disconnect between these catchy phrases and the title of this hearing and what's actually going on with the policies and actions of this administration.

President Trump and his doge cronies are thoughtlessly slashing budgets. They are firing seasoned scientists. They're pushing disruptive bureaucratic reshuffling schemes, including moving commercial fisheries regulation over to an agency that has zero experience and zero capacity to even deal with commercial fishing. They don't even know what it is at the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service. So that's the kind of thoughtlessness and recklessness that we're seeing right now.

And we sure ought to be talking about that instead of gaslighting and pretending that everything is on the right track. Science should be at the core of fisheries management. And that requires consistent investments in things like stock assessments, ecosystem monitoring, data collection. These are the tools that give us a clear picture of fish populations and how to manage them responsibly so that we don't crash them, so that we don't have to close fisheries, so that people can continue to be out on the water earning their living. And I represent a lot of those people on the water.

And I promise you they are not woke liberals. Most of them are not even Democrats. I fight for them because I believe in what they do. And many of them are telling you, Madam Chair, and they're telling this administration and raising alarms in every way they can that this stuff is not okay. What's going on with Doge, what's going on with Noah, Some of these wrong headed proposals, the notion that you can talk about confronting IUU fishing but then do things that absolutely cripple our ability to take it seriously.

So look, this should be a bipartisan subject. I have always approached this issue and I've been working on it for many, many years. I've always approached it in a bipartisan manner, whether that was working with the late Don Young or whether that was working with Garrett Graves or any number of my other colleagues. I will soon be reintroducing my bipartisan bill sustaining America's fisheries for the future. With Mr. Moylan as well as Mr. Case and others, we are attempting to reauthorize the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act and also modernize it.

Include some significant updates to our fisheries law to address new challenges facing the fishing community in the era of climate change, to support emerging technologies and do a lot more. I will also continue to work on and introduce legislation to seriously confront IUU phishing, which is going to require a lot more than lip service and gaslighting. Titles of hearings. Look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I hope they won't hold back because it's very important that we hear from people that know what they're talking about, that are not just some of the powerful industry insiders who are not interested in sustainable management, who are not interested in actually confronting IUU fishing. We need to hear from the other voices, and I hope we will today.

I yield back, Madam Chair. I will now introduce our panel of witnesses. Captain Rick Bellavence, the Chair of the Council Coordination Committee from North Kingstowne, Rhode Island. Ms. Martha Gaius, the Southeast Fisheries Policy Director at the American Sports Fishing Sports Fishing association in in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Jamie O', Connor, the Deputy Executive Director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council in Anchorage, Alaska.

Mr. Dustin Delano, the Chief Operating Officer of the New England Fishermen Stewardship association in South Portland, Maine. And Mr. Larson Hunter, the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Coastal Villages Region Fund from Scammon Bay, Alaska. Now, I want to remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone and 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 the five minutes, the light will turn red. And I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning. I now yield 30 seconds to Representative Magaziner to introduce his constituent, Mr. Belavance.

Well, thank you to the chair. And thank you to my friend and constituent, Rick Belavance. Captain Rick, for being here today. Rick is a born and raised Rhode Islander who has spent his entire life on the water. He started fishing in the Narragansett bay at age 10 on a 12 foot wooden skiff.

Today he is the captain, owner, operator of a charter boat, Priority 2, out of Point Judith, Rhode Island. He serves as president of the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat association, has been a member of the New England Fishery management council since 2016 and is chairman of the Council Coordinating Committee. Thank you, Rick, for making the trip down here and for advocating for the fishing industry in our state. And I'll yield back. Thank you.

I now recognize Mr. Belavance for five minutes.

Thank you, Chair Hageman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Rick Belavance, Chair of the Council Coordination Committee. The CCC is made up of the chairs, vice chairs and Executive Directors from each of the eight regional Fishery Management Councils. These councils manage commercial and recreational fisheries in federal waters and and ensure sustainable fishing practices. I own and operate a fishing business in Point Judith, Rhode island and have served on the New England Fishery Management Council for nearly nine years.

I'll be finishing my term and service as Council Chair this August. I'm honored to appear before you today to provide this testimony on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee, I'll discuss the importance of fishing to the United States, the unique role of particip public participation in fisheries management afforded by the Magnuson Stevens act, the current challenges that our fisheries face, and how the nation can work together to ensure prosperous and sustainable fisheries for decades to come. This includes our current work with NOAA to implement Executive Order 14276, Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness. Fishing supports over 2 million jobs in the United States and adds billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. In 2022, U.S. commercial and recreational fishing combined to generate $321 billion in sales, with an additional 150 billion in added value impacts in putting seafood on American tables.

The commercial fishing industry involves many more people than the brave fishing captains and crews who go to sea. There are vessel and gear manufacturers, processors, distributors, fishing families, and communities both large and small, including remote islands. The recreational sector includes private anglers for hire vessels and larger party charter operations that support significant tourism and outdoor recreational economies. Finally, subsistence fisheries is a way of life for many communities. Under the Magnuson Stephen act, councils use a public participatory process to manage fisheries, relying on NOAA science to develop regulations tailored to regional needs.

The collaborative approach has rebuilt many depleted stocks while reducing bycatch. In 2023, 94% of U.S. stocks with known status were not overfished and 82% of stocks were not subject to overfishing. Councils are also finding ways to help industry efficiently harvest over longer seasons, adopt gear innovations, use more electronic technologies for reporting and monitoring, and increasing safety at sea. We continue to address the differences with what fishermen see on the water and what science says can be caught sustainably through cooperative research. I have personally participated in cooperative research projects, and it's harder to argue against the science when I am part of the collection efforts.

When scientists share a day on the water with fishermen, the things we both learn are priceless. The United States is the gold standard for fisheries management, but domestic fisheries face several challenges. Variability in data across regions, particularly in recreational fisheries, limits understanding of fish populations. Ecosystem changes, such as warming waters in the Mid Atlantic and New England, have shifted stock distributions, making some species inaccessible to fishermen. Additionally, NOAA budget cuts and staffing reductions have hindered fish surveys, stock assessments, and have resulted in prolonged delays in the publications of regulations that allow fishermen to fish.

Cancelled or scaled back stock assessments threaten economically important fisheries like groundfish, monkfish, and scallops in New England. Proposed cuts could further erode NOAA's ability to provide critical science for management decisions. These uncertainties often lead to cautious catch limits, reducing harvest limits for both commercial and recreational fisheries. Funding uncertainties also affect public meetings and limit stakeholder participation and transparency. The Council's work to ensure prosperous and sustainable fisheries directly aligns with the stated goal of EO 14276 to promote the productive harvest of our seafood resources.

NOAA Fisheries has asked that all Councils submit recommendations to reduce burdens on domestic fishing and increase production and to commit to a work plan and schedule for implementation. To ensure these actions are prioritized. The Councils, with the input of technical staff, advisors and the public, are now redirecting efforts to update and add to recommendations we made in 2020. Despite NOAA stretch resources, the Councils are committed to balancing conservation with productive harvest of US Seafood by continuing collaboration, leveraging science and engaging stakeholders. The Councils individually and and working through the ccc, aim to increase fishing opportunities while ensuring that essential ongoing work of keeping fishing operating is not compromised.

Thank you. I can take your questions. Thank you, Mr. Bellaventz. I now recognize Ms. Gaius for five minutes. Chair Hageman, ranking Member Hoyle, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak today on behalf of the American Sport Fishing association regarding Restoring American seafood competitiveness.

In 2023, 57.7 million people went fishing in the United States. Recreational fishing supports more than 1 million jobs and contributes more than $230 billion to the economy. For Americans, fishing is more than a pastime. It's a cultural and economic engine rooted in conservation. The recreational fishing community contributes $2 billion annually towards conservation through license fees, excise taxes and and direct support.

No other user group contributes nearly as much towards ensuring our nation's fisheries and waterways are healthy and accessible to the public. While much of the President's Executive order on Restoring American Seafood competitiveness pertains to commercial fishing and seafood trade, many of the policies and priorities apply to United States marine fisheries more broadly, including recreational fisheries. Recreational fishing is also a significant source of seafood for millions of Americans who consume their own catch. My testimony today will focus on challenges faced by the recreational fishing community, particularly in the Southeast, and opportunities to address them. One of the biggest challenges we face is management based on inaccurate and uncertain recreational catch and effort estimates from mrip, which is the federal recreational data collection system.

Originally designed for estimating long term trends, it is currently used to enforce strict harvest limits based on inflated and uncertain estimates that have error margins so high that NOAA warns against using them. Despite the lack of confidence in these estimates, they are all too often used to close or restrict fisheries to the detriment of not only anglers but the businesses that support them. In response, several states have stepped up with state run data programs that are designed to deliver more accurate and timely recreational catch information that is trusted by anglers. Many of these programs are NOAA certified and are being used to inform federal assessments and management. One example where we have seen success in this regard is with golf red snapper where state led data collection has enabled state led management of the private recreational component of the fishery.

This allows management to not only be based on more reliable catch information but also tailored to local needs. In contrast, red snapper in the South Atlantic is a significant challenge. Despite being a rebuilding success story, anglers and scientists agree this fishery is more abundant than ever. Yet the recreational season was reduced to a single day last year and the outlook for this year is uncertain. On top of this extremely limited harvest access, NOAA has proposed rulemaking known as Amendment 59 that would create a large seasonal area closure off the east coast of Florida that would close fishing for 55 species to prevent anglers from interacting with red snapper while they fish for other species.

NOAA's proposal is based on flawed and highly uncertain estimates of red snapper that are caught and released by recreational anglers. At the same time, NOAA acknowledges that Atlantic red snapper is no longer overfished and and that it should no longer be considered to be undergoing overfishing. While ASA welcomes this recognition from noaa, the proposed closure will call irreparable harm to coastal economies with little benefit to anglers. To that end, ASA supports the Red Snapper act, which would pause harmful closures until better data like the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count is incorporated into the ongoing stock assessment. With Amendment 59 imminent, a growing red snapper stock and new data feeding into a new stock assessment, Atlantic red snapper anglers are wondering whether they can expect to have reasonable access to harvest.

Increasingly, South Atlantic states are expressing interest in bringing the Gulf red snapper model of state data collection and management to the South Atlantic. Before the Gulf states were delegated authority to manage Gulf red snapper, they were able to test state management for two years via exempted fishing permits or EFPs. President Trump's executive order calls for expanding EFP programs to promote fishing opportunities. As in the Gulf, EFPs to test state management in the South Atlantic could be a game changer. ASA supports consideration of this approach, which could provide a major breakthrough if adequate quota is allocated to the South Atlantic states.

The Last issue I will touch on today is shark depredation, which is where sharks eat hooked fish before fishermen can land them. Depredation is becoming more common and these interactions are not only frustrating, but can impact survival and sustainability of target species. ASA supports the Shark act which would create a task force to bring scientists, managers and anglers together to find practical science based solutions to address this issue. We thank Congressman Whitman, Webster and Soto for their leadership on this legislation which notably has already passed in the House. We look forward to introduction and passage in the Senate.

Thank you for the opportunity today to share perspectives from the recreational fishing industry. And as always, we are committed to working with the committee to continue strengthening the management and conservation of our nation's natural resources. Thank you for your helpful testimony, Ms. Gaius and I now yield 30 seconds to Representative Begich to introduce his constituent, Ms. O'. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's my Honor to introduce Ms. Jamie O', Connor, a fifth generation commercial fisherman from Bristol Bay region of Alaska and the Deputy Executive Director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. Jamie has worked every summer since age 12 on her family's salmon boat and today she leads advocacy on behalf of small boat fishermen and fish dependent communities across our state. Ms. O' Connor brings a unique, grounded perspective to this hearing. She understands firsthand how fisheries policy affects not just harvesters, but the fabric of coastal Alaska from infrastructure to market access to generational continuity. Her voice is especially important at a time when small independent fishermen are facing mounting uncertainty.

I'm glad the committee will have the benefit of her insight today. I now recognize Ms. O' Connor for five minutes. Thank you Chair Hagman, Ranking Member Hoyle, Ranking Member Huffin and members of the subcommittee. And thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak to you today. And thank you Congressman Begich for your warm welcome.

My name is Jamie o' Connor and I am first a fifth generation salmon fisherman from ECOCK beach in Bristol Bay, Alaska. I also serve as the Deputy Executive Director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council or amcc. A fisherman founded and fisherman run organization committed to ensuring Alaska's marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them thrive for generations. Today I speak not only for myself, but for over 1,000 small boat fishermen across the country. As a founding member organization of the Fishing Communities Coalition, I speak on behalf of rural coastal communities that rely on healthy oceans.

And our message is simple. The future of America's seafood industry depends on a fully funded and fully staffed noaa. Fishing is more than a job. It's a way of life. It's Also a small business, a science based profession and a deeply rooted cultural identity.

I fished on our family crew every summer since I was 12. I learned how to work, how to pay for university and later bought a small home. Fishing is my American dream. But today that dream is harder to hold onto. In recent years, Alaska lost 1.8 billion in seafood revenue.

Profitability dropped by half, nearly 7,000 fishing related jobs disappeared. And now NOAA faces the most severe budget and staffing cuts in its history, compromising the systems our industry relies on. Let me be clear. This isn't red tape. It's the foundation of our food supply economy and the stability of our communities.

NOAA's budget underpins virtually every part of the US seafood supply supply chain. Cuts aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. They are delayed surveys, outdated stock assessments, long waits for permits, loans and disaster relief, weakened enforcement and failure to modernize. Without timely science and vigorous oversight, we can't make good decisions and we risk losing one of the last wild protein industries on earth. Our working waterfronts continue to fall into disrepair.

Nationwide. Processing plants, cold storage, boatyards and fuel docks form the physical and economic backbone of US Seafood. When neglected, the community declines. In many coastal towns, fishing is the only economic engine. Without it, families move away, unemployment rises, food insecurity increases, and generations of local knowledge is lost.

We must treat working waterfronts as national strategic assets. I urge Congress to prioritize infrastructure projects that restore and expand waterfront economies through port and community development as well as public works programs. We also rely on other agencies. The Coast Guard is our lifeline at sea. NIOSH oversees critical safety training in one of America's most hazardous professions.

The National Weather Service is responsible for the timely forecasts we use to make daily safety decisions. Decisions. In fact, the cost of weather disasters we aren't prepared for far exceeds the cost of fully funding NOAA under investment in these systems risks lives as well as billions of dollars of property and critical infrastructure. The USDA should also treat seafood as a core pillar of the American food system. I urge Congress to support the creation of a USDA Office of Seafood and to ensure that seafood is fully integrated into USDA grant and loan opportunities as well as nutrition and federal purchase programs.

The vast majority of US fishing vessels are independent family owned small businesses. We are not asking for a handout. We are asking for a fair shot alongside the rest of America's food producers. We are business owners, laborers and marine stewards. And right now, many of us are working hard just to hold on.

I see potential in the recent executive orders to restore America's seafood competitiveness, increasing U.S. consumption of American seafood, investing in infrastructure, and streamlining regulatory barriers are all promising steps. But streamlining can't mean cutting corners. Deregulation and efficiency done right are thoughtful, strategic, and inclusive. Together, we can build a system that works for fish, for business and the country. But without a fully resourced noaa, these investments won't reach our decks, your dinner plates, or the American economy.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Ms. O'. Connor. And I now yield 30 seconds to Representative golden to introduce his constituent, Mr. Delano.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Delano is technically not a constituent of mine, but my wife hails from the region that he calls home. And you know, there is no daylight between the fishermen that I represent in my congressional district and the fishermen in the rest of the state and their, you know, the job they do is so important to the entire state that I really think of myself as a representative to every one of them and I care about their communities and what they do. Dustin has 20 plus years of fishing experience, but in his family alone, he has four generations of fishing knowledge standing behind him. Dustin is the real deal.

He knows his trade and he loves it. But he has also put a lot of time into learning the regulatory and political process that affects his own and other fishing families and communities. And he's made a big decision to join NEFSA to bring his expertise to bear for the good of the fishing communities all over Maine, New England, and I think I can say even for fishing communities all around the country. So thanks for being here, Mr. Delano, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you.

I now recognize Mr. Delano for five minutes.

Chair Hageman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Dustin Delano. I'm the Chief Operating Officer of the New England Fishermen Stewardship association and a fourth generation lobster fisherman from Friendship, Maine. I started going out lobstering with my father as soon as I learned to walk. By the time I could fish commercially, I knew it wasn't just a job, it was a way of life.

I spent over 20 years learning not only the skills of the trade, but the values that define Maine's coastal communities. After a decade participating in the regulatory processes in Maine, I saw how disconnected policy had become from reality. That's why I stepped back from full time fishing to help lead naphsa, which now represents thousands of fishermen, dealers, processors, and communities across New England. I Our mission is to bring Fisherman's knowledge directly to the policymakers shaping our future. Before I go any further, I want to ask you all something and I want you to really think about it.

What's the one thing in your life that gives you purpose? Not a favorite food, not a favorite vacation spot, but the thing that defines who you are. Maybe it's your family, maybe it's your work. Maybe it's something passed down through generations, a tradition that shaped your identity. Now imagine waking up every day knowing that the very thing that defines you, your livelihood, your heritage, your future, is constantly at risk.

Not because you've done anything wrong, not because the resource is gone, but because layer after layer of regulation has been stacked so high that and so fast, you can no longer see a clear path forward. That's the reality for many American fishermen today. Everything fishing is, you know, fishing isn't just what we do, it's who we are. But that identity is being regulated to the brink. Every new rule, every flawed quota, every rushed mandate sends the message that our way of life is completely expendable.

President Trump's EO was an important step. It prioritizes American harvested seafood, reduces regulatory burdens, and it supports cooperative science. That kind of leadership is what we need. One of the most urgent issues is the crisis in the ground fishery caused by over regulation and flawed quota systems. Fishermen are expected to base their livelihoods on stock assessments from a single federal vessel, the Bigelow, which consistently underreports stock levels.

That leads to quota cuts that put fishermen out of business. That's why we need industry vessels participating in research. I've worked on the Maine Lobster Bentless Trap Survey myself. A successful collaboration between lobstermen and scientists. It builds trust with fishermen and gives us real world data.

Currently, a pilot program is in the works for industry vessels to do ground fish surveys. The project, if funded, would essentially extend the NEMAP survey into federal waters and adjust sampling based on real world conditions like tides and moon phases. Another major challenge is the North Atlantic right Whale regulations. No one questions the need to protect the species. Fishermen have made enormous sacrifices to help.

We've modified our gear, reduced our lines, increased trawl lengths to reduce entanglements and. But these changes come at a cost, financially and physically. The longer trawls we now use create dangerous working conditions. The weak links in our ropes can snap under tension, sometimes in our faces, creating serious safety risks. One of the most damaging changes has been the thousand square mile closure off of Maine's coast, an area I fished.

For years, it was closed to meet whale protection goals. But by the time it reopens, the lobsters have moved offshore into places we can't access and the winter conditions make gear shifting nearly impossible. We're shut out during the most productive season, left chasing what's already gone. We need a real solution. We need real solutions.

Solutions that protect whales and fishermen. One promising tool is non invasive whale tagging, which has been successful in the Southern hemisphere. With real time location data, we could avoid conflict zones more accurately instead of relying on broad closures that don't reflect reality. Fortunately, Maine is developing a strong congressionally funded whale risk assessment model. But unless the current regulatory process is extended, these restrictions will return before the science is ready.

Lastly, I want to quickly mention the gray zone near Machias Seal Island, a territorial disputed area where US fishermen face strict regulations, while in some cases Canadian vessels operate freely. It's not just unfair, it's unsustainable. Our fishermen are paying, are playing by strict U.S. rules while Canadian caught seafood enters our markets unchecked. We need to move toward co management at the very least, but ideally assert full US sovereignty and resolve this dispute with Canada. We're not asking for a free pass.

We're asking for fairness. Because when regulation erases your ability to fish, to plan, to provide, you're not just losing your job, you're losing your identity, your future and your community. And that's a loss this country cannot afford. I'm proud of my heritage and I want future generations to have the chance to fish these waters, earn a living and keep our coastal culture alive. Thank you.

Very powerful testimony. Thank you for that. I now yield 30 seconds to Representative Begich to introduce his constituents. Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to introduce fellow Alaskan and someone whose leadership is deeply rooted in one of the most fisheries dependent regions in the country, Mr. Larson Hunter. Mr. Hunter is the chairman of the Coastal Villages Region Fund, the largest of Alaska's community development quota groups, representing more than 9,000 residents across 20 villages in western Alaska. He also serves as the city manager of Scammon Bay, a remote community near the mouth of the Yukon River. Mr. Hunter's personal journey from growing up in a subsistence household in Scammon Bay to leading one of the most important economic development institutions in our state is a powerful example of what fisheries based opportunity can mean for rural Alaska. His testimony reflects the on the ground reality of our communities that commercial fishing is not just an industry, but a pathway to self determination and stability.

I'm grateful that he's here today to share that perspective. Thank you for making the long trip from Alaska. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Hunter for five minutes. Congressman Biggich, thank you for that.

Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to discuss the Presidential Executive order restoring American Seafood Competitiveness. I am the City Manager of Scammon bay, Alaska, population 660. I'm also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Coastal Villages Region Fund. I'm here today on behalf of cbrf. CBRF is a non profit that participates in Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program or cdq which is part of the Magnuson Stevens Act.

We serve more than 9,000 people in 20 communities. CBRF owns and operates vessels in the Bering Sea, pollock, cod and crab fisheries. Our annual revenue ranges from 70 to 90 million which funds jobs, benefits and programs that we create in our communities. CDQ creates opportunities that would not otherwise exist. My life story is a testament to that.

I grew up poor in Western Alaska. There aren't many jobs and there are times we didn't have a lot to eat. I've always looked forward to school in the fall because they served us breakfast and lunch. When I was 12, our toilet had broke and we could not afford a new one. I emptied the honey bucket for a few years until I got a job after high school and the first thing I bought was a honey book.

I mean first thing I bought was a toilet. Soon after I received CBRF scholarship and went to college for an IT degree. That turned into a full time job and several promotions at cbrf. I eventually became the quota manager. Then I moved back to Scammon Bay to start a family.

My wife and I agreed that we would raise our kids in the village with subsistence hunting and gathering and living by the seasons. It's full of challenges but very rewarding. I also wanted to help CDQ do more for others. So I ran for Seaver board seat in 2016 and today I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve as the chairman. When CDQ first started in the early 90s, we had one staffer renting space in the city of Scammon Bay.

By 2004, my internship started there and 13 CBRF employees were in our region helping residents across access benefits and programs. Today we have more than 100 people working full time jobs in our communities. We've paid them over $4 million in wages last year. To put this into perspective, that's 100 families that are not on public assistance without CDQ. The alternative in our region is usually food stamps.

Many of our communities, many of our employees, work at Our mechanic welder shops repairing outboards, ATVs and snow machines that people use for subsistence. Before CBRF opened up these shops, you had to fix your broken machines by yourself or send it back to Anchorage, which few could afford. Some of our residents work out on the Bering Sea vessels, including some newer hires that have come through our maritime training program. Other CDQ groups have similar stories. Together we create and support thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in wages that weren't there before and won't be there if we're gone.

Commercial fishing in the Bering Sea, especially for Alaska pollock, funds all of this. Beyond CDQ, there are over 140 coastal communities in Alaska alone that are seafood dependent. This includes America's largest seafood ports like Dutch harbor and Kodiak and many smaller communities around the state. There are about 48,000 directed seafood jobs in Alaska and seafood sector is our state's largest employer. Naturally, commercial fishing supports more than a million jobs, mostly in coastal and awful rural communities.

Commercial fishing and processing is a major part of rural tax base in Alaska too. Several boroughs in Alaska depend on fish taxes for majority of their revenue. Alaska accounts for 60% of America's domestic harvest and 70% that is exported. We are unusually dependent on world markets, which is why trade provisions in the recent executive order are important.

A seafood executive order comes at a critical time. Alaska Seafood is struggling to compete against non market economies like China and Russia. The Russians are massively subsidizing new fishing fleets. They even require their fishing companies to buy these new vessels if they want quota. As a result, the Russian pollock harvest has increased from 1.75 million tons to 2.46 million tons since2021 while the US harvest level remains steady and sustainable.

Also, the United States remains the single most expensive place to build new large fishing vessels. It costs about three times more to build new vessels here than it does overseas. We compete in global markets against fishing companies with significantly lower capital costs. Hopefully Congress and the President can address some of these issues through legislation and trade policies at levels that levels the playing field for US Producers. Second, the economic health and the fisheries of our coastal communities depends on it.

Madam Chair, members of this committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. I hope my story will offer a new and unique perspective on these issues and I'll answer any questions you have for me. Thank you very much. I want to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony and I am now going to recognize the members for five minutes each for questions. I'm going to begin with myself, Mr. Hunter, very interesting information that you have provided in your testimony.

You state that given the challenges that the seafood industry in Alaska is facing, President Trump's executive order comes at a critical time. Broadly, can you share your perspective on how the executive order can help the seafood industry in Alaska? Madam Chair, I believe the term equally fair trade will open the door to making things fairer for us. We've got a large concern with what the Russians are doing. My understanding is they're increasing their fleet.

They play by different rules than we do. We're heavily regulated. We've got rules we need to follow. If we could level the playing field, I think being competitive with Russia down the road in the future is in our best interest. What other factors should Congress be looking at to further encourage fishing and seafood in the United States?

Can you repeat the question, please? Sure. Are there other factors or ideas that Congress should be looking to to help your industry? Well, we've got many challenges, and one of the biggest challenges we have is bycatch in our region. You know, it's an ongoing issue.

We struggle locally with the salmon issue. And I think Congress, if they were able to fund more into research into what the causes are, I think that would be a great impact to our region. Okay. Mr. Delano, I agree with you about overregulation in this country, and not only does it affect your industry, it affects many industries across the board. But I do know that the fishing and lobstering industry have been hit especially hard.

The lack of adequate data is directly linked to how many fish or how much seafood, how many lobster you can catch. And this executive order from Mr. Trump makes it clear that no one needs to reprioritize the critical work, such as stock assessment. What can NOAA do differently under this administration to ensure that, first of all, the data is, in fact, collected and that it is accurate and reliable?

Thank you for the question. I believe, you know, some of this has been mentioned, that it's important that we continue the work that needs to be done to assure that fisheries are permitted, and that is through surveys that are existing and continuing those time series. It's important to have the funding to do that. But I think that the root of a majority of our problems comes from the way that the data is collected, and that could be very much improved by involving industry in the data collection methods. Fishermen know how to catch fish very well.

Scientists know how to handle the information and to develop conclusions about what's going on. They need to work together. That is how we move forward until we do that, our fishing industry is going to continue to be crippled. Well, I don't think that you can actually discuss the future of the right whale without discussing the impact of the offshore wind farms. Yet our federal regulatory agencies have turned a blind eye and refused to address that issue.

But this is one area that I believe that we need to collect additional data. Mr. Delano, would you agree with that? I agree 100%. Okay. What is your, what would you recommend in terms of what we can do to actually assess the right whale situation and make sure that we can protect it?

I think it is important to look into non invasive tagging. As I mentioned in my testimony, there have been examples with southern right whales where they've actually discovered calving grounds as a result and they've discovered areas where they didn't know they were. We've had observations of right whales in Europe and we've had right whales that have disappeared for a number of years that we thought, you know, may have died, that have actually just this year some showed up that hadn't been seen in a long time. And the last time they were, were seen they were injured. And so there's some, there's a disconnect.

There's something going on. If we're going to, if we're going to come up with draconian measures, we need the hard facts of where these whales are. I agree with you. I think we need additional data. Mr. Belavance, the Magnuson Stevens act requires each regional Fishery Management Council to submit multi year research priorities to noaa.

The act also directs the Secretary of Commerce to publish multi year research priorities that reflect the Council's input. Given your experience with the Council system, how important is this process and are there areas of improvement?

Thank you, Madam Chair for the question. Well, first, I think our research priorities are very important. I think the Council's put a lot of time into developing them and offering them to NOAA as guidance for what would help us do our job as managers. So anytime there's a compromise to the, the level of research that can be accomplished throughout any given year, it's going to impact our decision making process. So I think it's extremely important.

Thank you. I yield back. I'm out of time and so I am going to call. The chair recognizes Mr. Huffman for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Want to talk about the Magnuson Stevens Act? I think most our witnesses would agree that the Magnuson Stevens act remains the bedrock of sustainable fisheries management. That it has been a success by almost any analysis and that it's critically important. But I want to talk about how the promise of this law and this framework is actually holding up in practice where it's being stretched thin, where some critical gaps jeopardize the viability of fishing communities. And so Ms. O', Connor, you come from a family with deep roots in Bristol Bay.

Your voice represents a sector that has certainly been the backbone of coastal communities, small fishing families and businesses, but a sector that too often gets drowned out sometimes in Washington by big lobbyists and imported cities seafood interests. But I know that your family probably and the folks you fish with do not depend on foreign fish processors. You don't commingle your catch with fish caught from bad actors in Asia. You are not part of this opaque seafood supply chain that is really the heart of the problem on IUU fishing. So I definitely want to ask you a little about that, but I want to start with National Standard 2 of the MSA which simply so important, why does it matter for the long term health and productivity of fisheries?

Thank you for the question and I appreciate your leadership on this bill and in this issue. I think the legislation and the opportunity to revisit it is an important opportunity to strengthen the backbone of our coastal economies. And we strongly support provisions that prioritize healthy habitat, foster participation for place based harvesters and advance climate ready fisheries, reduce bycatch and require tribal representation in the North Pacific Management Council. We prioritize in our work the well being of coastal communities and marine ecosystems. And to your question, we must have the best available science, but not only that, we must be consistent improving it and improving the science that we are relying on for our decision making.

So I appreciate the work that you're doing to integrate that ability to adapt and grow our capacity for that in. Your bill and to level the playing field between our great American fishers and some of the bad actors overseas that are engaged in slave labor and all kinds of terrible environmental practices and other other things. Why is it important that we have transparency in the seafood supply chain even if it's inconvenient for some big powerful interest who might kind of be co mingled into that less than transparent supply chain that might save money by maybe mixing their catch with the catch from some of these Russian oligarchs? I agree with the chair when she talked about how we've got to confront the Russian oligarchs that are in the fishing industry, what they're doing to pollock and other species, the Chinese Communist Party, which is a big bad actor in this IUU fishing space. But sometimes the transparency of our supply chain can be inconvenient for some big American interests.

Why is that important to tackle from your perspective? I think, as most of us have spoken to here, transparency is key due to the fact that uncertainty is our number one barrier to doing our work. And so in the case of Russia, for instance, not only are they flooding global markets with hatchery produced salmon, it is also often mislabeled. And so we are operating in the best faith that we can as small businesses to compete in a vast global market. And we need your help to do that.

All right, appreciate that. Captain Belavance, I really appreciated your testimony because you're a fisherman and you're a policymaker and a regulator and there's this interesting kind of love, hate relationship, I think, between folks who make their living on the water. You heard a little bit of that coming through from Mr. Delano, this strong libertarian thread. But also a need for good regulation, good science based regulation to prevent us from going back to the Wild west where we were crashing fisheries and closing fisheries and to make sure we've learned from those days. How do you go about making regulation and considering regional circumstances and science and stakeholder input to get it right?

Thank you. Thank you for the question. It's a good one. So it's a complicated process, right? I think when we go about making regulations, we have a lot of meetings similar to this where we have stakeholder engagement.

We rely on a lot of science from NOAA fisheries to help us kind of characterize the resources and then try to do our best to afford fishermen the biggest opportunities they can get while also trying to preserve fisher for the future. It's a. It's a delicate balance. It doesn't always go the way managers want it or the fishermen want it, but it's the best system in the world, in my opinion. Thanks for your indulgence, Mr.

Chair. Yield back.

Thank the gentleman. I will recognize myself for five minutes. Thank our panelists for joining us today. Ms. Gaius, I want to start with you. You spoke about shark depredation.

It's become a massive problem for anybody that pursues fish, whether it's commercial or recreational. We know a lot of their catch is lost, unfortunately, to sharks that are uninvited. Guests are being conditioned, I think, to boats and fishermen. You talk about the massive impact that it has on those fisheries. You spoke about 77% of folks in the fisheries have been affected in one way or other by shark depredation.

I hear it on a daily basis from our commercial and Recreational fishermen. It does have an impact. The scary thing about shark depredation is this as we manage fisheries, and there's been a lot of talk about managing fisheries on good science. I'm 100% in agreement. My minor is fishery science.

I worked as a commercial fisherman and recreational fisherman growing up. My son is a commercial fisherman. Science is key, but what we're missing in the science is when a shark eats a fish that a fisherman tries to catch and it doesn't get it, but the shark gets it, does that get, does that get counted in how we manage fisheries? Ms. Gaius? I don't think it's getting counted in very many, although this is just, this is a discussion that's coming up.

More and more people are concerned about this because as you've said, it's a growing issue. You hear about it almost every day. I hear about it almost every day. It seems like it's affecting everyone, whether you're fishing inshore, offshore, recreational, commercial. It's interesting because when we talk about managing fisheries, we talk about mortality and mortality either happens naturally.

A fish grows to an old age and dies, something else in the ocean eats it. That prey, predator relationship, or a human catches it, whatever that measure of mortality is, how we manage fisheries. But when we have an imbalanced view of mortality, when sharks are eating fish that are easily targeted, I would argue that shark is not going to eat that fish if it gets its own fair chance to switch, swim away. But when a fisherman has it either in a net or on a fishing rod, it's easy prey for the shark. And then as we are calculating how much mortality happens from fishermen, and you say, oh, the fisherman caught one tuna fish today, but the fisherman had to hook 20 tuna in order to bring one tuna to the boat because the other 19 were eaten by sharks.

I would argue we're creating a great imbalance in the system. That's not reflected in good science. It's not reflecting really what needs to happen in the system as far as how we manage the fishery. So I just wanted to get a little more of your perspective on how to, how do we, how do we get to the root of that problem and make sure that there is that balance between sharks in the environment. I have nothing against sharks, but I want to make sure too that that somebody that goes out there to fish, that we get to, we get to get a few of the fish to the boat and, you know, the sharks can get one or two, but there's an imbalance there.

So. Yeah, thank you for the question and thank you for your leadership on the shark tact, because I think that gets to this very issue. What that would do would bring together all the people that need to get together to collaborate on this. Managers, scientists, stakeholders, fishermen, you know, potentially can inform the process. You know, we need to tell fishermen how to handle the situation.

We need to understand exactly what's happening. And if there are circumstances where we can avoid it, we need to look at technology. I think it's going to take. You know, it is a complicated issue that probably is a complicated solution. So the shark doc helps get the right to get people together, put their heads together on this.

Yeah, get. Get some experts together. We talk about science. Let's. Let's base it on science.

How do we properly manage all the different interests there? Mr. Delano, I appreciate your efforts in the commercial fishery side. As I said, my son's a commercial fisherman. I grew up commercial fishing, worked in seafood safety for two decades. So to me, it's.

It's a. It's a family issue. It's a family business. But it's also an issue that's important not only for the district that I represent, but it's an important issue for our nation, important issue for local coastal economies. Let me ask you, as you.

As we look at cooperative fisheries research, a great example is Virginia Institute of Marine Science. They do cooperative research in the sea scallop industry. They put observers on boats. They watch what fishermen do. They gather the data about what's happening there.

They gather the data, too, about what's happening, happening in the environment that support scallops. And as a result of that, we've had an incredibly successful management of the scallop industry. Because. Because the scientists are actually working shoulder to shoulder with the fishermen. They're gathering the data.

They're using observational data from fishermen to validate the decisions that they make. Give us your perspective on how you see the benefit of these cooperative research efforts to make sure that scientists are there, shoulder to shoulder with fishermen. They're on the water observing what's going on. Yeah, thank you.

I can't preach enough. The need for better data collection and collaboration between scientists and fishermen. I think that's extremely important. And, you know, I certainly, in my testimony, was not trying to take a shot at regulators because, you know, they're held to a standard and they only have what they have for information. But we can always do better, and we need to do better before it's too late.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Delano. Now we'll go to Mr. Magaziner,. Thank you to the chair and again to our witnesses. In Rhode island, the fishing industry creates thousands of jobs, generates hundreds of millions of dollars of economic value.

And it's good to see with Rick Bellavo leading the Council Coordinating Committee, Bellavance, excuse me, leading the Council Coordinating Committee, that Rhode island has a rightful leadership role nationally on fisheries issues. But make no mistake, we are in a moment of crisis right now when it comes to fisheries management because of the Trump administration's gutting of NOAA over the last four months. And to be clear, Elon Musk doesn't know anything about the fishing industry. The 20 year olds that he hired to go through and fire thousands of federal workers don't come from a fishing industry background. They had no idea what they're doing.

And they fired 2,000 out of the 12,000 employees at NOAA. Nearly 20% of the staff gutted. A third of the positions at NOAA Fisheries are vacant right now because of those cuts. And so when I hear Chairwoman Hegeman and her opening statement and my Republican colleagues talking about the importance of data, well, if you don't have people collecting the data, where's the data coming from? Like, you need people at NOAA who can actually process the data that is coming in, collect it in partnership with the fishing industry, process it and make good, informed decisions.

Because if you don't have good data, it is the fishing industry itself, the men and women who make their livelihood from the fishing industry who are hurt. If you don't have accurate data, you could have an undercount. And so the quotas are lower than they should be and people are not allowed to fish as much as they should be allowed to, so they don't make the money they should be able to make. If you have poor data, maybe you could have an overcount and that hurts the long term sustainability of the fishing industry. If you want good data, you need the staff at NOAA to help collect and analyze and process the data.

And it's not just noaa, by the way. The University of Rhode island in my district has a tremendous research arm devoted specifically to this. And they have had to lay people off because of grants being canceled for, again, no good reason. So one area where when I sent the ccc, the Council Coordinating Committee, a letter earlier this month, I asked for feedback on what the impact of these NOAA cuts would be. And they responded in no uncertain terms that these assessments that study the health of fish populations are the foundation of how NOAA and the councils manage fisheries.

And without good Scientific data, the councils are forced to proceed with caution, which means lower catch limits. It hurts the industry to have a gutted NOAA workforce. That means less money for fishermen. It means higher prices for consumers as well if you are underfishing because there isn't adequate stock data. So I'd like to ask Rick to weigh in on this.

I mean, what. What are the consequences of, you know, NOAA staff being decimated and the impact on stock assessments and ultimately on the industry as a whole?

Thank you, Congressman magazine. I appreciate the question. So, I mean, I think you touched on it pretty eloquently in your opening statement there. I think it was. Our job as managers is to try to use the information that we have to craft regulations in accordance with all the different laws that impact fishing regulations.

Anytime there's a compromise to the quality of the data that we use to make those decisions or the personnel that we need to promulgate those regulations, publish them in the Federal Register and so on, it's just more difficult for us to do our job. I think you mentioned that we typically try to put an uncertainty buffer in the quotas to compensate for some of that uncertainties that we have. And that directly impacts the fiscal fishing community by allowing less fish to be taken out of the water. So super important, and I just highlight this once again. The President's proposed budget cuts NOAA by 30%.

30% For NOAA fisheries and a 74% cut to NOAA research. And where is the administration? They have not produced anyone from noaa, despite an invitation from the majority. They have not produced anyone for this hearing. They have not produced anyone for our previous hearing on this topic.

Why won't they come and defend what they are doing and the impact that it is having on fishermen in Rhode island and across the country? And I yield back. I thank the gentleman. And now I go to Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here today and giving us this information.

You know, I grew up on Mississippi Gulf coast, and that's been a big part of my life. Our seeded food industry has been plagued by dominating imports, burdensome rules and regulations. Imported shrimp accounts for 90% of the shrimp that are consumed in the United States a lot, which comes from a lot of these bad actors, as we all well know, which, you know, don't go by the rules that we go by. And so we got to get a hold of that. Our seafood industry cannot compete with the low pricing and transportation costs of some of these foreign competitors.

When I go back home to the Gulf and I order seafood. That's the last thing that I want to eat is something imported from China. I want to eat locally caught seafood from small business owners and I know and trust and enjoy the whole environment. I've introduced the Safer Shrimp Imports act alongside Senator Hyde Smith to require the FDA to significantly increase testing of imported shrimp and publicly report inspection results, giving consumers more confidence in the safety on what's on their plates. Our local Gulf coast shrimpers are playing by the rules while farm producers are flooding the market with unsafe, low quality products.

Building off that concept, I was pleased to see the President's EO that restores the American seafood industry finally lifting some of these burdens that's been placed on the fishermen by giving some real meaning to locally caught. I'm proud to be working on the Biltex to codify parts of the EO as we speak. Putting American seafood means first means restoring jobs, national food security and increased health of all Americans. Part of President Trump's yield directs agencies to immediately consider suspending, revising or rescinding regulations that overly burden Americans commercial fishermen, aquaculture and fish processing industries in the fishery specific level. I fished the Gulf coast my entire life and as so many of my friends and I'm glad to see some, some of these issues are being addressed.

Ms. Gaius, I understand the EO is focused more on commercial fishing, but there are aspects to apply to recreational fishing as well. As you mentioned in your testimony, how important is it that we continue this discussion and codify President Trump's eo? Well, thank you for the question. Yeah, as I mentioned, I think there are a lot of things in that EO that apply to the recreational fishery. Improving data, you know, decreasing unnecessary regulations, improving access.

And then the provision in the, in the executive order about exempted fishing permits, as I mentioned, I think is going to be could be critical for improving the situation for Atlantic red snapper similar to what we had in the Gulf. Gosh, it's been several years ago now under the first Trump administration. You know, the Mississippi Gulf coast is home to some of the, if not the best, some of the best recreational fishing in the country. Sportsmen in Gulfport have access to incredible stock of tuna, snapper, mackerel and grouper. In previous years, high recreational fishermen have had their ability and responsibly and sustainably harvest fish challenged by federal management.

National Marine Fisheries Service. Can you detail some of the challenges that the recreational fisherman has faced in the Gulf along with the Gulf Coast? Sure. I'll talk about golf red snapper for A minute, because that was a really big challenge for us. But we've managed to turn that around.

So we were in a situation where we had a season that was just a handful of days and you know, we got to a breaking point where it was just too difficult. And really the Gulf State stepped up, they put their heads together, they came up with data collection systems to help improve the information that was feeding into management. And then ultimately we're able to use that information to inform state led management where they are setting seasons that fit the needs of their state. And so that's been a really big deal for us, for our community. Very good.

You mentioned in your testimony that state management for red snapper recreational fishery has been a game changer, just like you were just saying. Can you talk about that work that took place in the zoom by the state management? Yeah. In the Gulf, as I said, the states developed their own data collection systems. And then after that, actually there was some Senate language in one of the budgets that directed NOAA to create an opportunity for states to get exempted fishing permits to test management, state management.

And so they did that and then we went through the process and it was codified through the Gulf Council. Has this really improved the fishing? Absolutely, yeah. I mean there are, there's more access, more days open, you know, and those seasons are based on more reliable information. So I definitely consider that a success.

Thank you very much. And I would like to say back to those sharks. I have caught plenty of red snapper that were 20 pounds, that ended up being only 2 pounds when I got him in. So thank you very much.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Dingle for five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I love a lot of those stories too. I want to thank you for holding today's important hearing on America's seafood competitiveness.

And this hearing is being held on the same day that myself and Representative Mast have reintroduced the bipartisan bill titled the Forage Fish Conservation act, which is a vital step forward in ensuring the health and sustainability of our marine ecosystems. This legislation builds on the proud legacy of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act, which has guided our nation in the responsible management of fisheries for decades by improving protections for forage fish action. Forage fish like sardines, herrings and anchovies are the backbone of the ocean food web, providing essential prey for larger fish such as tuna, salmon and cod, as well as marine mammals and seabirds. These small fish play a major role in supporting fisheries vital to coastal communities. However, these populations have experienced substantial decline because of human activity, which threatens the viability of marine ecosystems as well as opportunities for recreational fishermen.

Currently, there are few management measures in place to address this decline, and that's why this bill is so important. The Forage Fish Conservation act makes certain that we take a science based, ecosystem wide approach. It ensures that before new forage fisheries are authorized, we understand the full impact on existing fisheries, on local economies and on the broader marine environment. It also makes sure that the needs of these essential predator fish and the voices of fishing communities are considered every step of the way. Importantly, this bill respects the role of states in managing the waters closest to home, while strengthening national efforts to protect forage species offshore.

And this legislation has received support from conservationists and sportsmen alike. It's endorsed by the American Sports Fishing association, the National Audubon Society, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. I could go on, but. And I welcome all my colleagues to support it. But now let me Turn to you, Ms. Gaius.

Why is conserving forage fish so important for the health of fisheries? And what actions is National Marine Fisheries Service currently taking to safeguard forage fish? Thanks for the question. I'll take your second question first, actually, and I think the answer is not much to be succinct. So forage fish are, you know, from a sport fishing perspective, they're food for a lot of our sport fish.

And so that's really important, certainly part of a healthy marine environment. And we need all of those things to support recreational fishing and recreational fishing businesses all around the country, including your state of Michigan. Thank you. It's important to note that the Magnuson Stevens act is not currently designed to account for the unique role of forage fish in the marine ecosystem. The Bipartisan Forage Fish Conservation act would address this need while maintaining MSA's state based management flexibilities.

Ms. Gauss, how much of a role do forage fish play in the greater food web and how does their importance play in ensuring a healthy sport fish population? Forage fish are really the base of the food web in a lot of marine ecosystems. So as you said, very, very important. And those fish provide food for sport fish and as I've mentioned, up the chain, supporting recreational fisheries and a lot of commercial fisheries as well. And then on and on the economic impacts from there, the businesses, the anglers, manufacturers throughout the country.

So very important. Thank you. That's why we all need to work on it. My ranking member asked for some time, so I'm not going to ask another question and I'll yield the remainder of. My Time to that was I could.

Have listened to you talk about forage fish all day long. Because I am. I am with you completely on that and thanks to the witnesses. But in the limited time I have, Mr. Bellavance, I want to pick up where we left off. There's a big push right now to deregulate, to have more flexibility in fisheries management.

At the same time, we're already falling behind on stock assessments and on the basic bedrock science we need to do regulation. I'm wondering what happens if you do all the relaxing of conservation standards, you do all the flexibility stuff that some are calling for, and you lose that science. Is that a good thing for those who make their living on the water?

Thank you, Congressman Hoffman. So I think the science is the integral part of the equation, right. In order to make decisions, the science has to be the best possible quality that it can be. So anytime there's a compromise of that, it's going to impact not only the managers that are managing the fish, but the fishing community at large. Would you agree that that's a recipe for crashing fisheries and ultimately closing fisheries?

When you open up flexibility and take away the science needed to thoughtfully and carefully manage them? I mean, it could be right. Like, it can go the other way, too, I guess. But, yeah, definitely there's an opportunity for lax regulations to cause over harvest. And in the long term, that would be bad, but at the same time, you know, there's restrictions as well.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Chairman Westerman for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Chair Hageman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today to talk about a very important issue. And Mr. Belvance, you've been involved in federal fisheries for decades, and in your testimony, you highlight the progress made under the Magnuson Stevens Act. And some people think that MSA needs sweeping, dramatic changes.

Yet a lot of stakeholders that I've talked to have expressed trust and confidence in the federal fisheries management system as it exists. And not saying we don't need to, to change some things about it, but can you share from your perspective how successful the act has been and its existing management system and the results we've seen over the past several decades?

I apologize. Could you repeat the question?

Some people think we should change the Magnuson Stevens act dramatically. But can you explain the benefits you've seen from the act and the changes that we've seen over the decades?

Well, I think the record of rebuilding fish stocks kind of speaks for itself. Right. We have a lot less overfished stocks than we have in the past and our overfishing status is 82% of our stocks are not subject to overfishing. So the cooperative process that lays out in the Magnuson steep act works. Right?

It's rebuilding stocks now. It could be made a little better. But in general, I think strongly that in the I believe strongly in the Magnuson and our whole council process,. Several. Of us, the committee just got back from CODEL last week to Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

And the IUU fishing is a is a huge issue in those countries. We had a chance to visit the fish market in Tokyo, which was quite amazing. But, you know, other countries are dealing with issues of just enforcing the laws they don't have. The Coast Guard and the ability that we have to enforce our fisheries laws. Even though the South Koreans are making a big effort to try to change things where they're fishing, but they still have a lot of foreign vessels that come into their waters and do damage to their fisheries.

How well are we able to enforce the laws that we have in our fisheries?

Thanks for the question. So I think we have rules in place that would do a decent job of enforcing the policies that we have. But it's a huge ocean and there's a lot involved in international enforcement. Right. So I know that the folks that are involved in enforcement at NOAA fisheries and local regions and so on are super dedicated to their job and they try hard, but it's a complicated thing to try to get at all these different attempts to try to circumvent our system and disadvantage our fishermen here in the United States.

So I think it's on the council's mind for sure, of how we can craft regulations that protect our fishermen. And I think maybe the executive orders will help us do that as well. And Mr. Hunter, in your testimony, you talk about how the Community Development Quota Program has encouraged investments in the seafood industry, which in turn has provided a great level of economic independence for the people that your organization serves. And thank you for telling your your personal story, and I would consider that a great American success story. But can you expand on the ways that CDQ program has improved the lives and livelihoods in Alaska?

Absolutely. Thank you for the question.

I want to preface that with, but the reality of what it's like to live in the village. It is tough growing up poor. I didn't realize I was poor until I got a little older. But I see the struggles that a lot of families go through. And the one example I like to give, like in my testimony, every person that we give a job is Somebody pull off of welfare, off of public assistance.

And we had a crisis recently. We had a change in management at a local store, and they couldn't take food stamp. And all the people that were on public assistance couldn't go and shop from the store. So they're begging and pleading with neighbors, you know, and the people that are better off, many of them are our employees that we hire there. I believe we have about a dozen or so in Scampin Bay alone that we hire through the CDQ program.

And my hope is in the future to expand on that. You know, we've maxed out on the benefits and programs that we provide with the resources that we have. And our goal and dream is to expand on cdq and maybe Congress could. Could help with that.

Thank you. Thank you very much. That reminds me of something Ronald Reagan said, that the best social welfare program ever invented is a job. We need to. Need to do more of those.

Got questions for the other witnesses, but I'm way out of time, so we'll see. Submit those. But thank you all for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the chair now recognizes Mr. Golden for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, Dustin, the. The moratorium on right whale regulations that Congress passed back in 2022, that was for six years, so we got till 2028 there. But the new TRT process begins in. In 2026.

Can you talk a little bit about why that doesn't make sense, just the timing of that and what will be lost if we don't consider a slight delay in the TRT process? Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Excuse me. So basically, we had a secure reprieve, and we were very grateful for Congress passing that.

However, the TRT process has draft regulations that are supposed to come out in January of 2026, and we just started a significant right wheel monitoring program in the state of Maine where, you know, Congress generated tens of millions of dollars to start this program, and we've just started collecting data there. But the timeline in the TRT process is not gonna allow for all of the millions of dollars worth of data that we've started collecting to be applied in the process. We need more time to be able to include that in the process so that we can be better informed. But also, the state of Maine separately is working on its own assessment tool, and that also will not be ready in time with this strict timeline. Is six years long enough for the moratorium?

Will you be able to get all that data in and use it in an informed process? By, let's say, 20, 28. I do not think that six years is enough time. I think what was asked in the first place was 10 to 12. And that is because here we are two and a half years after that legislation and we're finally able to get the funding and able to get started on collecting the data.

And it takes a significant amount of time to get through the TRT process. And so that's why they're already starting in that direction. Great. You talked a little bit about the gray zone. Not necessarily in the purview of this committee, but I think it would be good for anyone that watches the testimony from Secretary Lutnick to U.S. trade Representative Jameson Greer, or just generally members of Congress, to be aware.

What are some of the Canadian fishing practices in the gray zone that Maine fishermen actually believe is harming the long term health of the lobster fishery? Well, being a lobster fisherman myself and believing in the strong conservation measures that we have put in place, mostly ourselves, I think one of the largest issues is the fact that the Canadian vessels do not have a maximum size on lobsters. Our brood stock is very dependent on those large female lobsters. And when the Canadian vessels come in, they can harvest those lobsters and they can send them to market. And I believe that our American fishermen are starting to see the results of that behavior in their catches now.

And I think it's really important that we start looking at this issue before it's too late. Great. Running out of time here, so I'll try and squeeze this one in. So you talked about fish stock assessments, the pilot program that you hope gets funded. Congress could do that, or maybe the administration could find some of that funding.

I think it's fair to say that NAFSA feels confident that the fish stock assessments are undercounting the health of many fish populations out in the Atlantic. Correct? Yeah, we typically do feel that way. Right. So part of the President's goal with his trade agenda is to see less foreign imports, less reliance on foreign goods, particularly core ones like food.

But what would you say to them about the importance of the pilot program like yours to making sure that we don't just stop our reliance on foreign food imports, but also unleash the domestic resource so that you can put healthy food on the plates of American families? Yeah, so, I mean, we can't stress enough how important it is to have more data, better data collection, but to work with industry partners, to work with fishermen at collecting that 82% of our seafood in the United States is imported. That's not acceptable. We have the means here. We just need to improve the data.

We need fishermen to be involved in these processes. All right. Thanks for your time and your testimony today. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Malloy for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here and testifying. I represent Utah, which is the second driest state in the country. And in case you haven't looked at a map of the United States recently, it is a long way from the ocean. I don't even eat fish if I can avoid it.

But I am really excited about the idea of good resource management. So I'm thrilled to be here today. For pure policy reasons. I don't even have a dog in the fight to that point. Mr. Delano.

I'm probably going to call you Delano because we have a peak in my district that's spelled the same way and pronounced differently. But you're a fantastic witness. And when you started talking about picture what really matters to you, and if layer after layer of regulations placed on it and you lose that, how would you feel? That really resonated with me. I think it would resonate with my constituents in a dry state far from the ocean, because we have similar problems when it comes to timber and livestock and mining.

And so I've been sitting here listening to all these questions and thinking about you, talking about how much you love fishing and how it's in your blood, but you left being on the water to do policy. And I hope being here today helps you realize that that's worth it. Getting this policy right can save that way of life for the rest of your family that's still out there. And if your family's watching and they think you're a slacker because you're here and not out fishing, I hope they see how important this is, too. So I don't have a question.

I just wanted to recognize that I do have questions for some of the rest of you. Ms. Gaez, you talked about how recreational fishing is rooted in conservation, and I agree we don't have a lot of fishing in Utah. We have much more recreational fishing than commercial. But I watch how much people who fish care about conservation and want to make sure we get this right. But you also talked about how the MRIP data is unreliable and even used an example of a red snapper fishery being closed based on flawed data.

And I've got some of the main points from the executive order on seafood competitiveness sitting here in front of me says tells the agencies to identify fisheries with high regulatory Burden and collaborate with regional councils to revise or remove barriers, improve data collection through cooperative research and new technologies, and increase stakeholder input and management decisions.

What regulatory changes would you recommend to reduce restrictions and help recreational fishing grow economically and socially? That's such a good question. You know, I think there's a lot of things that we could do. The fishery that I focused on a lot in my testimony was red snapper. And I think we have a model for where we could go from the Gulf into the Atlantic if we are able to use the exempted fishing permits proposed in the EO in the South Atlantic to help increase access in this.

In the. For red snapper in the South Atlantic, that would be a really big deal. And I feel like that, similar to in the golf, that might be one of the few ways that we get out of this management trap where we have a whole lot of fish out there and anglers that are catching them, but very little access. I mean, we don't even know if we're going to have a season this year. We'll find out potentially in a couple of days, but it's, it's a tough situation.

And so that might be the way to at least try and get us, get us out here. So. Thank you, Mr. Belance. Same thing. We've got these three standards identify fisheries with high regulatory burden and collaborate with regional councils to revise or remove barriers, improve data collection through cooperative research and new technologies, and increase stakeholder input and management decisions.

You. You are part of the regional councils. How are the regional fishery management councils implementing this EO to reduce the regulatory burdens on commercial and regulatory fishing?

Thank you for the question. So currently the. All of the eight regional fishery management councils are working through their advisory panels, their technical staff and their stakeholders to come up with a list of regulatory actions that they feel would be something we could look at for. To remove some burdens. I think we have until the end of September to put those together and then once we deliver them, we'll work with NOAA fisheries to decide which ones can be acted upon.

Thank you. I'm almost out of time, so I'm not going to ask any more questions. But I just want to go back to what I started with, of what Mr. Delano said about protecting a lifestyle. And all of you testified about that. And even though I live in a dry state and represent not a commercial fishing area, we owe it to you to make sure that policy doesn't destroy your lifestyles.

And thank you for being here and being willing to talk about It I yield back. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Reavis for five minutes of questions. Thank you Madam Chair for recognizing me. Ms. O', Connor, you have over a decade of experience understanding the needs and economics of of the fishing industry, especially in Alaska, where fishing powers the livelihoods of many communities across the state.

The small businesses that you advocate for depend on reliable data from NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Services to navigate the most rugged and dangerous seas along the Alaskan coast to help fulfill orders across the country. Ms. O', Connor, how would the doge cuts take to NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service impact small businesses? Specifically, how the lack of data that were impacted by these cuts will impact their day to day operations? Thank you for the question. The impacts of the DOGE cuts have been immediate and concerning Alaska's lost 30% of its NOAA nymph staff.

And for us, that has manifested in canceled surveys. The travel freeze resulted in us being unable to provide airplane tickets to the volunteers that participate in the survey. So that's about half of the survey effort. We have seen season start delays and also early closures of our seasons, Gulf of Alaska, Pacific cod being one. I've also heard examples of that on the east coast coast.

And we've also seen uncertainty in our weather forecasts, which for us represents danger on the daily. So we're making big decisions on whether we want to go out in 10 foot seas in a 22 foot skiff or not. And we need to know what the weather's going to do and we need that to be accurate. We also have seen decommissioning of critical navigational buoys and some of the sea safety programs provided by niosh. And it may not be well known that in certain fisheries receiving a certificate that you've done that training is a requirement to be able to go out and fish.

So not only are we requiring that training, we're also no longer able to receive it. So it puts us in a really difficult position. So in the last several months we've seen immediate and very concerning. Thank you for your answer. Like you mentioned, we've seen that the Trump administration is proposing these budget cuts that will decimate key departments overseeing this work, including 1.33 billion in budget cuts to NOAA's Operation Research and Facilities, a 50% cut to the National Ocean Service, a 29% cut to the National Marine Fishery Fisheries Service and a 74% cut to the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research.

You know, and a zeroing out of science based programs including the Integrated Ocean Observing System and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. So, you know, these reckless cuts, coupled with this big, ugly bill that House Republicans passed, will have dire consequences for the environment, our public health, and for all of our constituents. We're already seeing how these actions are resulting in increasing costs and limiting what. Needs to be done. Like what Ms. O' Connor mentioned.

Thank you. And I yield back. The chair now recognizes Mr. Crank. For five minutes of questions, he almost got away. I tried it.

Madam Chair, I'm sorry about that. I just have to run to another committee here, but just did want to talk very quickly about illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing, a serious global issue, and I know lots have talked about that. It depletes our. Our fish stocks, it weakens our local fishing economies, and it's often linked to organized crime, forced labor, human trafficking, smuggling. And it poses a pretty significant national security threat.

Unsurprisingly, China and Russia are among the worst global offenders. Of the 152 countries scored by the IUU fishing index, China ranks number one and Russia number two. In 2022, a European Parliament report found that half of all vessels engaged in IUU fishing flew Chinese flags. China's role in IUU fishing is driven by two key factors. Rising domestic demand for seafood.

The second, more concerning reason is China's desire to be a maritime power. China has invested over a trillion dollars in its belts and a road initiative. And the Chinese Communist Party has explicitly outlined the key role maritime trade and access play in expanding its soft power and geopolitical influence. Experts estimate China commands over 17,000 vessels in its distant water fleet. China secured fishing agreements with over 42 countries, granting access not just to seafood resources, but to ports, logistics hubs, and surveillance opportunities.

And many of these vessels are equipped with advanced communication and surveillance equipment, enabling them to monitor foreign naval activities and collect maritime intelligence. China's not alone. Russia also uses fishing fleets for dual purposes. Norway and Denmark have raised alarms about Russian trawlers operating in the Arctic being used for espionage. These ships often loiter near undersea cables, which we've discussed in this committee before.

Wind farms and military installations. Madam Chair, I'd like to submit for The Record a 2024 New Yorker article detailing Russia's use of finish fishing trawlers for military intelligence purposes. Without objection. So ordered. And then finally, the dual purpose nature of foreign fishing fleets underscores the urgent need for the US to protect its maritime boundaries, not just to preserve fish stocks, but to prevent adversaries from spying on US Military and infrastructure assets.

And with that, Madam Chair, I do need to run back to the Armed Services Committee. I had several questions, but I think I'll forego those for sake of time. But thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crank. And the chair now recognizes Representative Min for five minutes of questions.

Thank you. Chair Hageman, appreciate you holding this hearing today. It's a very important topic. I have the privilege of representing California's 47th congressional district, home to some of the world's most beautiful coastlines, including on off the coast of Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport beach, and Laguna Beach. And my district is home to hundreds of great seafood restaurants.

I encourage you all to visit fish markets and other businesses that rely on fish supply to meet demand. Now, our commercial fisheries in Orange county are vital to our culinary identity, an important driver of our coastal economy. And so, for example, the local spiny lobster fishery not only provides a popular delicacy, but also supports and has supported generations of fishing families promoting responsible marine stewardship. Like so many other parts of the country, Southern California's seafood industry is struggling in recent years and even weeks due to a number of factors. In recent years, the availability and pricing of seafood have become increasingly challenging for restaurant operators to manage.

Changes in import costs, supply disruptions, and labor shortages have all impacted the stability and operating margins of our regional seafood industries, including forcing restaurants to either adjust their offerings or absorb higher costs. At the same time, with roughly 90% of US seafood being imported from other countries, it's clear that the status quo is not available, is not sustainable. Now, in this environment, I know it's tempting to resort to simplistic policies like tariffs and massive deregulation of the industry, but we know from a lot of experience that those policies will be counterproductive. Right now, I am hearing a deluge of complaints about President Trump's tariffs, which seemingly go up or down, on or off, based on what Trump had for breakfast that morning. And presumably it's not seafood.

But those tariffs not only increase the price of imported fish, but also the price of fish exported for processing and then brought back into the US Market. Businesses in Orange county and throughout the country are seeing the impacts through higher prices, reduced foot traffic, and dwindling profit margins, which put jobs and livelihoods at risk. Meanwhile, while some regulatory changes are probably appropriate, including ones I want to mention, simply slashing regulations runs the risk of overfishing and depleting fish stocks. Of course, fishing regulations are some of the oldest regulations in this country's history, because fishing creates what we in economics call a Tragedy of the commons problem. There are incentives to try to fish as much as possible for any individual or company, but not necessarily to think about sustainability leading to depleted fish stocks over time.

Sustainability is a crucial aspect of fishing, not just as a buzzword, but as a set of practices. And I want to reinforce the point made by Ms. O' Connor in her testimony. Fully funding the national oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, or noaa, is critical for this goal of sustainability. Elon Musk, of course, illegally slashed Noah's budget, and now President Trump's skinny budget seeks to codify a lot of that by shrinking NOAA's budget by more than $1.5 billion, about 25% below current levels. This would accelerate the negative impacts that local fisheries are already seeing from NOAA cuts, including delayed stock assessments that hinder science based management and undermine food security.

The American seafood industry is one of the best in the world. It's the safest, aided by environmental and labor standards matched by very few foreign producers. But again, having 90% of our seafood come in from other countries is not sustainable. Clearly, we need to think about smart changes. And so I guess my first question is, are any of you familiar with the Norway model of aquaculture?

You can just raise your hands. I guess not. In Norway, they've developed a massively successful aquaculture system of facilitating and growing domestic sources of seafood through a model based on sustainability, including through circularity of inputs and outputs, thinking about things like sustainable feeds and recycling in a virtuous circle where academic, research, industry and the government work together, including through regulatory adaptations, to try to promote aquaculture and sustainable fishing. And so actually, Norway has become a big exporter of fishing. And so I think they create an example where we could follow here in the United States.

Now, today, aquaculture contributes to only 7.3% of our total domestic seafood supply. But it's something that I think could be very promising. So we just encourage you all to think about this in this committee, as well as what regulatory barriers might be inhibiting us from thinking about sustainability and a model of aquaculture or anything else. With that, I want to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Min.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Begich for five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is for Ms. O'. Connor. Ms. O', Connor, you spoke about the generational nature of Alaska's fisheries and the critical role they play in sustaining communities. What do you see as the biggest obstacles to keeping young Alaskans in the fisheries economy?

And how might Congress help lower those barriers? Whether through loan programs, apprenticeships, or Permitting reforms. Thank you for that question. Our young people are, I think, experiencing the number one barrier for all of us, which includes uncertainty. We're getting hit with uncertainty in the markets, uncertainty in regulation, trade, the climate.

And also, as you're well aware through your work, it's increasingly more and more expensive to enter our fisheries. So. So the work of this committee in previous Congresses, the Young Fishermen's Development act was a great step. It was the first workforce training initiative at the federal level for young fishermen. It is up for reauthorization in 2026.

So want to put a plug in for that there. And I think treating us as what we are, which is small businesses, so loan programs through the sba, improving our working waterfronts so that we can have more control over our fish. There's a lot that you can do, and I'm happy to. Happy to brainstorm. Thank you.

You'll be pleased to know that today we are actually introducing a bill to reauthorize the Young Fishermen Development act in a bipartisan fashion. I'll be a co lead on that. So I don't think we talked about. That, but that's interesting you bring that up. That happened just while we were here.

Second question for Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter, as you rightly pointed out, Alaska's seafood industry is under siege from foreign competition countries that subsidize fleets and bypass environmental standards. This is a direct threat to Western Alaska's economy. What new trade tools or labeling requirements should Congress pursue to ensure that Alaskan seafood competes on a level playing field both here at home and in export markets? Thank you for the question.

I think that's a challenging front to tackle. We have influence over our local domestic product. We have no influence over what Russia does, what China does, what the EU does. You know, I would hope that there's something that we could do through either Congress or this administration to make requirements that allow us to be up front on what kind of product we have and identify that it's sustainable. And the other actors, the other competitors we have with Russia, China, that the world's aware of what they're buying.

And I think Alaska is prime seafood that we need to advocate and advertise for. Thank you. We saw some really interesting proposals from Korea in our discussion on IUU fishing. And one of the things that they're pursuing, I know this is happening here domestically as well within the industry, is complete supply chain visibility where we can see at the retail level where a fish was actually caught and confirm with the consumer that it was caught in a sustainable fashion. And I think that we need to continue to invest in programs that provide that kind of supply chain visibility so that people do have confidence that when it says it's an Alaskan wild caught salmon, it's an Alaskan wild caught salmon.

And I think that's important that Congress create, you know, regulations and a structure to provide for that. I think it is interesting as we're talking about the issue of tariffs and some of the executive actions that have that have come forward in the last few months. You mentioned that there's not a whole lot we can do about Europe and Russia and China. There are things we can do about Europe, Russia and Russia and China, but a lot of that happens at the executive level. And I think the Trump administration has signaled that they are more than willing to engage in some very maybe uncomfortable and challenging discussions.

But hopefully part of that discussion with these nations will be illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing, as well as a number of the subsidies that, as we've heard today, have been provided by countries like Russia that really damage our ability to be competitive in Alaska. So it's my view that we need an international harmonization of regulations and international framework for enforcing those regulations and as I mentioned earlier, supply chain visibility that gives confidence to the consumer and all those in the supply chain that what they're receiving is actually what's being advertised. And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Begage. The chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Recreational fishing is a way of life in Florida. A driver also of our top industry of tourism. And it's key for commercial fishing, which brings popular fish like red snapper, grouper and mahi mahi to the plates of both Florida residents and folks from around the country and the world honored to represent bass country. So if you're watching major tournaments in the wintertime, you'll hear about a great place called Big Lake Tahopa Kalaga, one of the only warm places in the middle of January and February that you could see pro bass fishing.

I'm also proud to be a co lead with my dear friend Representative Rutherford, who's joined us today on the bipartisan Red Snapper Act. The red snapper season for the Gulf 126 days, but the South Atlantic a puzzling one day. This discrepancy is concerning and I've heard from so many constituents, especially those who prefer the east coast fishing versus the west coast fishing, which we won't get into that right now. It's really stopping A lot of them who really enjoy recreational fishing on the Atlantic. The bill stops closures in the South Atlantic until the great red snapper catches.

This is, of course, a two way street, though. The relief will only work if Congress also funds NOAA enough to do the count. Ms. Gulas, thank you for being here today. Appreciate all the work you've done on these issues in Florida. Why is the Red Snapper act so important?

Well, the Red Snapper act is important because it helps us make sure that we are using the best data to drive decisions, especially a decision where, you know, we are threatened potentially with a large area closure off the east coast of Florida for 55 species to protect red snapper, which are very abundant. That would be devastating economically for coastal communities and really the whole state. As you mentioned, anglers are from all over Florida, fishing on both coasts and, you know, coming from all over the country to fish in Florida. I mean, that's. Florida's a fishing capital world.

It's people's dream. And so, you know, before we do anything drastic, let's make sure we've got the right information in front of us. And how important is NOAA funding to make sure we get this count right? Even as we're working on this bill to give relief to Floridians and others? You know, Congress has invested a lot of money in this count and so certainly would like to see it through.

Absolutely. Ms. O', Connor, what can be the consequence of fisheries if NOAA can't conduct accurate counts? Thank you for the question, and I think it's an important one. It adds uncertainty in a way that can both lead us into a fisheries disaster we don't see coming or leave fish in the water that we could have otherwise safely harvested. So either way, we're in a tough spot.

Sure. So very important. Wanted to talk a little bit about both grouper and lionfish first. Ms. Guyas, how's the grouper population going right now? I know a lot of people love fishing for grouper.

Depends on where you're at. We're hearing some really good things in the Gulf right now. They're meeting and talking about this this week. The Atlantic. Depends on which species you're talking about.

What are the ones that are doing well and the ones that are concerned. Right now. We've got good news in the Gulf with red grouper and gag grouper, we're. Seeing more of those. So that's, that's promising because both of those were not looking great just a couple of years ago.

And where are the areas of concern for the group or population.

On the Atlantic side, we've got some issues with gag. It's a little bit different situation over there. The habitat's different and the stock is different. But the South Atlantic Council is working on a plan to deal with that. Great.

And then last question. Lionfish, Right. Invasive species. It's like a tank. Could be in shallow water or in the deep.

It eats a lot of the eggs of a lot of these sports fishing. A lot of these sports fish. So how do you think the progress is going on addressing the invasive fish that is the lionfish? I think word is getting out that lionfish are, even though they look kind of weird, are really delicious. We've got derbies across the state of Florida where anglers are fishing.

Well, not anglers, I should say spear fishermen, Both commercial and recreational are fishing them. There's some commercial markets now for them as well. Just a few weeks ago, there was the Lionfish Festival in Destin, where the whole point of it is to raise awareness about lionfish and it's harm to the environment and delicious meat. Let's fight it by putting them on the menu. Right.

Well, and we know lionfish, they don't really have natural predators. The spine is poisonous. You know, a lot of fish back away from it. But if you remove it correctly, you have a tasty dish that a lot of us certainly will enjoy. With that, I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Kaggins for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our panelists for being here today. I represent Virginia's 2nd congressional district. So Hampton Roads area, a large portion of that just encompasses the Chesapeake Bay.

So as many of you know, Virginia's second home is. Our home is some of the most diverse and abundant fisheries on the planet. Our unique access to both the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean provides our recreational fishermen with access to prize trophy fish and our commercial fishermen with the largest fishery on the East Coast. In 2020, three commercial fishermen in Virginia harvested over 150,000 metric tons of seed seafood behind only our friends in Louisiana and Alaska. We must continue to find ways to improve the competitiveness of American seafood in foreign and domestic markets while improving local health and recreational benefits for our communities.

I think I thank the chairwoman for holding this hearing as an opportunity for dialogue and how we can accomplish these goals. Conversations surrounding the North Atlantic right whale have been ongoing in this committee. The chairwoman asked earlier in this hearing how we can protect this critical endangered species and mentioned potential impacts of offshore wind Virginia's Second District is home to the largest offshore wind project in the country. And we're very proud of the work being done to promote an all the above energy strategy. This project also benefits the Naval Air Station, which is in need of a power grid upgrade.

And we have a fabulous public private partnership where Dominion Energy will be providing about a $500 million power grid upgrade to that base, which I am thankful for. I look forward to working with you on ways to protect marine life using a data driven and science based approach approach like tagging and geomonitoring. Our goal is to protect this threatened species without implementing burdensome speed restrictions on commercial and recreational fishermen. So, Ms. Goyas and Mr. Deliano, can you both expand on the concerns and experiences you had with these proposed speed rules and how should Congress think about these issues in the context of protecting commercial fishing industry and American seafood competitiveness?

I appreciate the question, but we actually, excuse me, we haven't been subjected to speed restrictions in the Northeast yet with the commercial fishing other than like mandatory slowdown zones when whales are present.

With the proposal that was out for North Atlantic right whale, the speed zone expansion, I mean, one of our major concerns right from the, the get go was, you know, our community was not really part of the process in coming up with that solution. And you know, we felt like there are other ways to come at this problem, notably technology. Mr. Delano mentioned some of that. But, you know, there are also the technologies on vessels nowadays can be quite sophisticated. And you know, I think there's an opportunity there to use some of the technologies that are on vessels to help fishermen and other mariners out there from avoiding whales.

So there could have been other ways to come at this. Has the issue been kind of tabled for now? Is, is it in a place where people are, are happy just to, to sit with it or, or, or are we, is there a concern that they will be back? Because we hear from our local fishing industry that who is, who are opposed to these fee restrictions, that the issue will be back. My understanding is that it's been put aside for now, but you know, there's always the question that could come back.

But you know, I can tell you that our community, we are thinking about technology and how to, you know, be proactive in dealing with this issue. I think that's the right place to be. Thank you for that. And Ms. Goyas, you live in Florida, but I understand you grew up in the Chesapeake Bay. And one of my top priorities here in Congress is supporting efforts to protect and restore the Bay an important component of these efforts is supporting oyster reef restoration and commercial aquaculture as oysters filter water, improve water quality, and provide essential habitat for other species.

So could you please just talk about what role do oysters play in supporting our recreational fisheries and in turn promote our domestic seafood industry? And are we seeing stability in the number of oysters that America is able to harvest? Yeah, thanks for the question. Oysters provide, not only they're cleaning the water, which is very important, but they provide habitat for a lot of fisheries, particularly juvenile fisheries, sport fish and commercial fisheries. And so similar to my remarks with Ms. Dingle about forage fish, you know, that really helps.

It's the base that we need to have healthy fisheries, to have healthy recreational fisheries and to support recreational businesses. So very, very important to us. And remind me your other question. I'm sorry. Sorry.

If the numbers of oyster, oysters that we're seeing being harvested in America, if there's stability in that number, is there. I just want to make sure there's not a decrease or maybe times are great, there's an increase, but just. It's been a pretty stable. You know, I can't speak to the exact number, but I can tell you that a lot of oyster farming operations certainly are taking off in my reg region. And so I think, you know, there are a lot of good opportunities there and oyster growing and harvesting opportunities.

Our region too, we. We're seeing a lot of that. And. I think my time has expired, so I'll. I'll yield back.

But thank you. Thank you. The chair now recognizes ranking member Hoyle for five minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. My.

My mother's family are commercial fishermen. We're commercial fishermen off the west coast of Ireland. The fishing industry in Ireland has decreased, has been devastated over quite a period of time because of overfishing by other countries, because of overregulation that happened without the input of commercial fishing industry and inherently bad trade policy. So I think this, this hearing is really important and I appreciate everything that you're saying and your input, given that I represent the central and south coast of Oregon. The fishing, commercial fishing and sports fishing industries are absolutely critical to our economy, especially since the crash of the timber industry.

We lost a lot of jobs there. One of the things that our fishermen are most concerned about is the gutting of staff at NOAA and what that's done to the National Weather Service. I was listening to projections about wildfire preparedness last week, and we learned about the firing of a number of the staff that impacted the amount of weather balloons that are being sent up in Alaska, in Maine, across the United States. And that impacts the ability for us to get weather information specific specifically for our fishermen before they go out. That kind of information saves lives.

We also have had threats by anti government groups specifically to NOAA because there's disinformation about what these weather balloons do. Apparently some people think they create weather as opposed to telling us the weather. So this kind of disinformation can cost people their lives. The thing about weather balloons is that they give you information you can't get any other way. Ms. O', Connor, can you?

And actually anybody else, really. But first you, could you talk about maybe some of the impacts that these NOAA cuts have had and specifically how you rely on the National Weather Service and what impacts those cuts will have? Thank you for the question. Absolutely. So one of the first impacts that I was made aware of from the Doge cuts was turning off the webcams at Alaska's rural airports.

And those not only allow our pilots to understand what they're flying into, but allow all of us to make travel decisions from small skiffs to tiny two person airplanes. So it has extended from there, unfortunately, to more systematic cuts to the weather service which have impacted our ability to project snow in seasons that we might not have been expecting it, also high seas. And we are seeing the more the long ranging impacts of that which include our understanding of our changing climate. So. So the impacts I think have already been felt and will continue to be felt.

And I would very much encourage fully funding and fully staffing the weather service. Thank you. Mr. Belavance, how do you expect staff cuts at NOAA to affect your council's work? And have you been forced to take on unfunded mandates due to the chaos at noaa? Basically.

How's that affected you?

Thank you for the question. So at the council level, we rely on NOAA fisheries to provide us with information, scientific information, to help us make management decisions. We also rely on the regional offices to guide us through the regulatory process. And ultimately NOAA will have to publish proposed rules and final actions on quotas and specifications to allow fishermen to fish. We've noticed recently that there seems to be less people available to do stock assessments.

We've had to look at our stock assessment schedule into the future and readjust that. And we've also had delays in publication of regulations that we've promulgated at the council. So hopefully we can come up with ways to streamline that and recover. But it's been a challenge. Thank you.

I yield back. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Rutherford for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee and the witnesses here this morning or this afternoon.

And I really do appreciate all of you and I know you all know probably more than anyone else that good fisheries management requires good, reliable, scientific fisheries data. What we just saw in these Gulf states, they have shown us that state led management can work and work well. The Gulf states data collection programs have produced more accurate numbers than NOAA and allowed for more responsive management that has resulted in greater fishing opportunities for anglers. That's thanks to that improved state data this year, my state, the state of Florida was even able to announce a record breaking 126 day season in the Gulf. Now that compare that to the southeast Atlantic, that's 125 days more than we had.

We had one day, one day the state led management in the Gulf compared to what NOAA gave us in the Southeast Atlantic. And we know they're wrong. In fact, they know they're wrong. Even NOAA has admitted that their data is flawed, saying in 2003 that recreational harvest estimates could be off as much as 40%. That's unacceptable.

Especially when anglers in my district are constantly telling me the red snapper is so abundant down there. You've been out there, Ms. Gaius. There's more red snapper than you can shake a stick at. So. Good news has come for the state of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.

Just this morning, Madam Chair, this letter was sent by Governor DeSantis to Secretary Lutnick asking that they be allowed the state of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina that they be allowed to state manage our fisheries.

That is a strong signal that the states are ready to step up. So Miss Guys, let me ask you, because you've been heavily involved in the Gulf as well, what are some of the next steps that we could do to help push this along as members of Congress?

Yeah, that's very encouraging that that letter came through and perfect timing considering we're having this discussion. I think what the Congress can do, certainly, and you all have done this, is help support, get better information to inform fisheries management and supporting state management. You know, one thing that could be helpful is making sure the states have the resources that they need to do this. Florida has a lot of experience doing it in the Gulf. South Carolina and Georgia and other South Atlantic states like North Carolina, this would be a new thing for them.

And so really just providing that support, I think is going to be critical, especially if the executive Order paves the way for this in the Gulf. There was support from Congress as well. And there was directive language in the budget bill that year to direct NOAA to create these EFP programs. So that's another option as well. Thank you very much.

And I will tell you, I really feel like this whole Amendment 59 is kind of shot Noah, in the foot, so to speak, because they have, you know, just as a by. And this was under the previous administration, as they were going out the door, six days before they went out the door, they announced this Rule 50, or Amendment 59, Rule 59. And now we're seeing a response to that concept that they want to close the bottom for 90 days every year in the Southeast Atlantic, not just a red snapper to all 55 bottom species. And so I think they really overstepped their boundaries. And that's why I think you're seeing the states step up and respond and say, hey, whoa, wait a minute, let us do this.

We can do this much better. They've proven it in the Gulf. And, Madam Chair, I'm hoping that we can certainly do that from Congress and allow the Southeast Atlantic fisheries to be managed by the state of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. And with that, I see my time is up. I yield back, Madam Chair, but thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. Rutherford, would you like to submit that letter for the record? Actually, I would. Okay. Thank you. Without objection.

It's so ordered. I also have. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record a letter from the National Fisheries Institute on the importance of strengthening and supporting a thriving domestic US Seafood economy. Without objection. So ordered.

And I also seek to introduce the November 4, 2021, letter to the Honorable Jared Huffman and the Honorable Ed case from the US Regional Fishery Management Councils addressing the bill that Mr. Huffman, Representative Huffman talked about earlier today that he has introduced. Without objection. So ordered. I want to thank the witnesses for your value. I see that we might have some other unanimous consent requests, just a few.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous consent to include the following news article relating to the impact of the deep cuts in NOAA for. The record,.

And also ask unanimous consent to enter into The Record the 2025 article titled Uncertain United States Seafood Sustainability and a manufactured crisis by Dr. Hallie Frolick and Dr. Jessica Gephard, without objection. So ordered. I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony and the members for attending and your questions. Today 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 9.

The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses and without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

It.