('Inngreaa at the Hniteh gtatea ?01 20515 December 12, 2016 Admiral Paul F. Zukunft Commandant United States Coast Guard 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave, SE Washington, DC 20593 Dr. Sullivan Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Admiral Zukunft and Dr. Sullivan: We are writing today to express our grave concern over the recent allegations of signi?cant labor and human rights abuses aboard U.S. ?agged ?shing vessels homeported in Hawaii. At a time when both Congress and the Administration have sought a leadership role in efforts to address global traf?cking in persons and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) ?shing practices in high seas ?sheries, such poor oversight of our domestic ?eet, if true, is unacceptable and undermines our credibility. In addition to responding to the questions below, we ask that you take immediate action to ensure that all vessels in the Hawaiian longline ?eet are complying with all applicable laws, including those regarding manning requirements for U.S. ?agged vessels. Under Federal law, U.S. ?agged vessels are required to be operated with crews comprised of at least 75 percent U.S. citizens. According to a recent investigation conducted by reporters from the Associated Press however, U.S. ?agged ?shing vessels in the Hawaii longline ?eet are allowed to operate with crews that are predominantly comprised of foreign nationals by claiming an exemption to federal manning requirements that is available to a narrow segment of the U.S. ?ag ?shing ?eet. Speci?cally, 46 U.S.C. 8103 exempts ?a ?shing vessel ?shing exclusively for highly migratory Species (as that term is de?ned in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802))? from the requirement that 75 percent of the vessel crew members be citizens of the United States. This code section also exempts from the same requirement ?a ?shing vessel ?shing outside of the U.S. exclusive economic zone." I ae05 fl con?ned-boats PRINTED DN RECYCLED PAPER The Magnuson-Stevens Act speci?cally de?nes highly migratory species (HMS) as ?tuna species, marlin, oceanic sharks, sail?shes, and sword?sh.? No federal agency has the authority to categorize any other species of ?sh as HMS for the purposes of ?sheries management or law enforcement. Yet, while these are some of the more valuable species harvested by the Hawaiian longline vessels, it is clear from landings records2 and marketing materials produced by the Hawaii Seafood Council3 that these vessels are ?shing for, catching, and selling species other than those de?ned as HMS in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including signi?cant quantities of mahi mahi, wahoo, moon?sh, and sickle pomfret. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is unambiguous on the point that these activities constitute ?shing, as 16 U.S.C. 1802(16) de?nes ?shing as: the catching, taking, or harvesting of ?sh; (B) the attempted catching, taking, or harvesting of ?sh; (C) any other activity that can be reasonably expected to result in the catching taking, or harvesting of ?sh; or (D) any operations at sea in support of, or in preparation for, any activity described in subparagraphs (A) through The vessels in the Hawaiian longline ?eet are also ?shing within the US. exclusive economic zone. This violation was con?rmed by an email response from NOAA to Natural Resources Committee staff last month.4 Based on this information, these vessels should not be eligible for either of the aforementioned statutory exemptions from the manning requirements in 46 U.S.C. ?8103. Instead, they should be required to be manned by at least 75 percent US. citizens, and certify that US. labor is not available before allowing foreign workers with visas on board. The manning, certification, and visa requirements exist in part to prevent exactly the kind of labor abuses that have been reported in this ?shery. We request that the Coast Guard take immediate enforcement action to ensure that these vessels comply with US manning requirements, and that NOAA cooperate fully to provide all necessary data, information and assistance that the Coast Guard requires. Further, we request that NOAA use its authority under the Lacey Act to prevent interstate and international commerce in ?shery products landed from these vessels until they come into compliance with the law. This illegal activity does not represent American values and has dealt a blow to US. credibility as a global leader in ?ghting IUU ?shing and human traf?cking. In addition to our request that you begin enforcing immediately the statutory requirement that crews aboard U.S. ?agged vessels in the Hawaii longline ?eet be comprised of at least 75 percent US. citizens, we reSpectfully ask that you respond to the following questions: 1. Please provide the agencies? legal interpretation of 46 U.S.C. 8103 and its applicability to the Hawaiian longline fleet. Given that boats in the Hawaiian longline ?eet are not ?shing exclusively for highly migratory Species and that they are not ?shing solely on the 2 5?007.pdf 3 4 Pers. Comm. NOAA Of?ce of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. 11/3/16. 2 high seas, is there some other reason or reasons to justify why these boats have quali?ed for an exemption from statutory manning requirements for U.S. ?agged vessels? Are there any other U.S. ?sheries that are currently exempt from the statutory manning requirements for U.S. ?agged vessels under 46 U.S.C. 8103? To what extent do these exemptions conform to the agency?s interpretation of 46 U.S.C. 8103? Conditions on some vessels in the Hawaiian longline ?eet have been described in the AP article and by crew members and ?shery observers as unsafe and unsanitary. What responsibilities does the Coast Guard have to ensure that these vessels do not present a safety or health hazard to crew members regardless of their citizenship status? How do the galleys and habitation areas, berthing and sanitation facilities found on the vessels in the Hawaii long line ?eet compare with such facilities found on vessels in in other U.S. ?ag ?shing ?eets? How does the Coast Guard enforce such requirements? What authority does NOAA have to require ?shing vessels that carry ?shery observers to provide safe and sanitary facilities? Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Mr. Matt Strickler on the Natural Resources Committee Democratic Staff at (202) 225- 6065, or Mr. DaVid Jansen on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Democratic Staff at (202) 226-3587. I look forward to your response. rr/aw/ Jar 'd Huffman king Democratic ubcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans Sincerely, Peter A. DeFa Ranking Democratic ember Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ember mg Democratic Member Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation