    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    H.R. 3331, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
      3390, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
     3516, TO PROHIBIT PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHING IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC
                           ZONE IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                        FEBRUARY 8, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-68

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     house
                                       or
               Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-488           WASHINGTON : 2000
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            Samoa
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    KEN CALVERT, California              SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho          CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   ADAM SMITH, Washington
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  JAY INSLEE, Washington
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania           MARK UDALL, Colorado
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho                  RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
    THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

                         Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                       Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
                  Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                    John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

          Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

                        JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                    Samoa
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
        Carolina                         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho                      Rico
                                         ADAM SMITH, Washington
                        Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
                         Dave Whaley, Legislative Staff
                   Jean Flemma, Democratic Legislative Staff

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held February 8, 2000....................................     1

    Statements of Members:
        Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
          American Samoa.............................................     4
        Goss, Hon. Porter J., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida...........................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Pallone, Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Jersey........................................     4
        Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of New Jersey..............................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statements of witnesses:
        Caputi, Mr. Gary, Co-Chairman, Highly Migratory Species
          Committee, Jersey Coast Anglers Association................    90
            Prepared statement of....................................    92
        Dalton, Penelope, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
          National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
          Atmospheric Administration, accompanied by Dr. Rebecca
          Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division,
          National Marine Fisheries Service..........................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    12
        Delaney, Mr. Glenn Roger, Blue Water Fishermen's Association
          and U.S. Commissioner to ICCAT.............................    26
            Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Hayes, Mr. Robert G., General Counsel, Coastal Conservation
          Association, American Sportfishing Association, The
          Billfish Foundation........................................    54
            Prepared statement of....................................    55
        Nussman, Mr. Michael, Vice President, American Sportfishing
          Association................................................    46
            Prepared statement of....................................    48
        Panacek, Mr. Ernest, Manager, Viking Village Dock, Barnegat
          Light, New Jersey..........................................    59
            Prepared statement of....................................    62
        Stone, Mr. Richard B., Science Advisor, Recreational Fishing
          Alliance...................................................    79
            Prepared statement of....................................    81
        Wilmot, Dr. David, Executive Director, Living Oceans Program,
          National Audubon Society...................................    96
            Prepared statement of....................................    99

    Additional material submitted:
        Hinman, Ken, National Coalition for Marine Conservation,
          prepared statement of......................................    85

    H.R. 3331, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
      3390, THE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT; H.R.
     3516, TO PROHIBIT PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHING IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC
                           ZONE IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2000

                  House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Resources,
                    Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
                                           Wildlife and Oceans,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in Room
    1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                        THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
    Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee
    is conducting its first in a series of hearings concerning
    pelagic longline fishing in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
    Mexico. The focus of this hearing will be on H.R. 3331, H.R.
    3390, a proposal by Congressman Porter Goss who is with us this
    morning, also co-sponsored by Mr. Tauzin, and H.R. 3516, a
    measure by Congressman Mark Sanford to prohibit pelagic
    longline fishing in our Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone.
        In addition, we will examine the National Marine Fisheries
    Service's recommendation that time and area closures be
    established to address pelagic longline bycatch without
    compensation to pelagic longline fishermen. The National Marine
    Fisheries Service proposed closures are similar to those
    designated in two of the bills that I mentioned, but do differ
    in the Western Gulf of Mexico and the area off the coast of
    South Carolina known as the Charleston Bump.
        We stand at an historic crossroads for the conservation of
    highly migratory species. The effective management of Atlantic
    highly migratory species is one of the most complex and
    difficult challenges facing the National Marine Fisheries
    Service and this Committee, I can tell you first-hand. These
    species range widely throughout international waters and the
    jurisdictions of many coastal nations with diverse political
    perspectives on how to properly utilize and manage this
    valuable resource.
        The fishing practices and marketing strategies for these
    species are equally diverse. Unlike most other domestic
    fisheries, effective multilateral management is the goal of our
    Nation's HMS policy. In fact, Congress placed Atlantic HMS
    management authority in the hands of the Secretary of Commerce
    instead of the Regional Fishery Management Councils, in theory,
    to ensure that our government maintains an Atlantic-wide
    perspective and vision.
        It is my firm belief that this Committee and this Congress,
    together with thousands of concerned fishermen and
    conservationists, have a unique opportunity to work together to
    aggressively protect and rebuild stocks of HMS such as
    billfish, sharks and swordfish.
        In August of 1999, I was approached by representatives of
    the longline industry and three recreation/conservation fishing
    organizations who suggested I sponsor legislation which would
    do several things: (1) permanently close a vast area of U.S.
    waters in the South Atlantic to pelagic longline fishing; (2)
    establish two time-area closures in the Gulf of Mexico to
    pelagic longlining; (3) reduce billfish bycatch and the
    harvesting of juvenile swordfish; and (4) provide affected
    fishermen a buyout to compensate them for the loss of fishing
    grounds and fishing opportunities. I remain a strong supporter
    of this concept.
        I believe in this concept because the current management
    system whereby NMFS publishes a regulatory rule that is
    challenged by seemingly endless lawsuits is not an effective
    way of promoting sound HMS fishery management. This system has
    to change.
        Frankly, I introduced H.R. 3331, in part, because the
    National Marine Fisheries Service established the pelagic
    longline fishery as a limited-entry fishery through the HMS
    Fishery Management Plan. As NMFS is well aware, I have been
    asking them to take this action for many years. The
    establishment of a limited-access system is critical to reduce
    harvesting capacity through attrition or a buyback program.
    Hence, once pelagic longline permits for HMS are bought out as
    proposed in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390, there would be no further
    vessels re-entering the fishery.
        In addition, last November the International Convention for
    the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, led by the United
    States, approved a 10-year rebuilding plan for North Atlantic
    swordfish. Although the final approved plan did not go as far
    as I would have liked in reducing the annual quota
    internationally, it nevertheless set an important tone for
    conservation. I commend the U.S. ICCAT Commissioners for their
    tenacity in getting the rebuilding plan approved.
        Before we hear from out witnesses, I would like to make the
    following statement: Prior to and following the introduction of
    H.R. 3331, I and Subcommittee staff met with, and spoke to, a
    number of pelagic longline fishermen, recreational fishermen
    and their organizations, and a number of conservation and
    environmental groups. I am well aware of the strong opinions
    expressed by many on the issue of pelagic longline fishing,
    bycatch, and any buyback proposal. I am also very cognizant of
    the daily skirmishes that occur between certain commercial and
    recreational fishing organizations on the issue of pelagic
    longline fishing. I wish to remind the witnesses that this is
    not the proper forum for those battles. We are here to learn
    and then, following this learning session and perhaps several
    others, we will be prepared hopefully to take action.
        I would like to ask the witnesses to keep in mind that this
    Subcommittee is focused on producing a product that best
    encompasses conservation of affected highly migratory species
    and maintains a viable U.S. swordfish industry. This is the
    beginning of what I suspect will be an arduous process, but I
    am confident that with the input of many, we can provide a
    conservation measure that is good for our beleaguered highly
    migratory species of fish. The stakes are high and further
    inaction is no longer an option.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Reprsentative in Congress from the
                              State of New Jersey

        Today, the Subcommittee is conducting its first in a series
    of hearings concerning pelagic longline fishing in the Atlantic
    Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The focus of this hearing will be
    my bill, H.R. 3331; H.R. 3390, a proposal by Congressmen Porter
    Goss and Billy Tauzin; and H.R. 3516, a measure by Congressman
    Mark Sanford to prohibit pelagic longline fishing in our
    Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone. In addition, we will examine
    the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) recommendation
    that time and area closures be established to address pelagic
    longline bycatch without compensation to pelagic longline
    fishermen. The NMFS proposed closures are similar to those
    designated by H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390.
        It is my firm belief that this Committee and this Congress,
    together with thousands of concerned fishermen and
    conservationists, have a unique opportunity to work together to
    aggressively protect and rebuild stocks of HMS such as
    billfish, sharks and swordfish.
        In August of 1999, I was approached by representatives of
    the longline industry and three recreation conservation fishing
    organizations who suggested I sponsor legislation to: (1)
    permanently close a vast area of U.S. waters in the South
    Atlantic to pelagic longline fishing; (2) establish two time-
    area closures in the Gulf of Mexico to pelagic longlining; (3)
    reduce billfish bycatch and the harvesting of juvenile
    swordfish; and (4) provide affected fishermen a buyout to
    compensate them for the loss of fishing grounds and fishing
    opportunities. I remain a strong supporter of this concept.
        I believe in this concept because the current management
    system whereby NMFS publishes a regulatory rule that is
    challenged by seemingly endless lawsuits is not an effective
    way of promoting sound HMS fishery management. This system has
    to change.
        Frankly, I introduced H.R. 3331 in part, because the
    National Marine Fisheries Service established the pelagic
    longline fishery as a limited-entry fishery through the HMS
    Fishery Management Plan. As NMFS is well aware, I have been
    asking them to take this action for many years. The
    establishment of a limited access system is critical to reduce
    harvesting capacity through attrition or a buyback program.
    Hence, once pelagic longline permits for HMS are boughtout as
    proposed in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390, there would be no further
    vessels re-entering the fishery.
        In addition, last November the International Convention for
    the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), led by the United
    States, approved a ten-year rebuilding plan for North Atlantic
    swordfish. Although the final approved plan did not go as far
    as I would have liked in reducing the annual quota
    internationally, it nevertheless set an important tone for
    conservation. I commend the U.S. ICCAT Commissioners for their
    tenacity in getting the rebuilding plan approved.
        Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to make the
    following statement: Prior to and following the introduction of
    H.R. 3331, I and Subcommittee staff met with, and spoke to, a
    number of pelagic longline fishermen, recreational fishermen
    and their organizations, and a number of conservation and
    environmental groups. I am well aware of the strong opinions
    expressed by many on the issue of pelagic longline fishing,
    bycatch, and any buyback proposal. I am also very cognizant of
    the daily skirmishes that occur between certain commercial and
    recreational fishing organizations on the issue of pelagic
    longline fishing. I wish to remind the witnesses that this is
    not the proper forum for those battles. I would ask the
    witnesses to keep in mind that this Subcommittee is focused on
    producinga product that best encompasses conservation of
    affected highly migratory species and maintains a viable U.S.
    swordfish industry. This is the beginning of what I suspect
    will be an arduous process, but I am confident that with the
    input of many, we can provide a conservation measure that is
    good for our beleaguered highly migratory species of fish. The
    stakes are high and further inaction is no longer an option!

        Mr. Saxton. I would now like to recognize the Ranking
    Minority Member for any statement he may have.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
                          FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly
    would like to welcome our good friend and colleague, the
    gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goss, as he will be testifying
    later.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on
    these different legislative proposals to address overfishing
    and bycatch concerns in the Highly Migratory Fisheries and, in
    particular, the swordfish industry of the Atlantic Ocean. As
    you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic swordfish and
    other highly migratory species have been managed
    internationally for many years by the International Commission
    for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
        In recent years, quotas and rebuilding plans have been
    adopted by ICCAT to promote the recovery of swordfish which are
    currently over-fished. While U.S. fishermen have been strictly
    held to those quotas, other nations unfortunately have not been
    as diligent. As a result of the new bycatch reduction
    requirements under the Magnuson Act, additional restrictions
    will be needed by the U.S. fisheries. The National Marine
    Fisheries Service, the entity charged with management of highly
    migratory species, has proposed time-area closures, and these
    bills lay out alternatives to the NMFS approach.
        I am aware that there will likely be concerns raised about
    Congress legislatively establishing management measures for
    this or any fishery, as well as concerns about other provisions
    to the various bills that preclude further time-area closures
    and require that the buyout proposals be fully appropriated
    before any closures can go into effect. I expect that some of
    the witnesses today will elaborate on those points. At the same
    time, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that your highest priority
    is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainability of
    swordfish is, and has always been your goal, for all marine
    resources.
        So, with that in mind, I am here today to listen and to
    learn from all the witnesses in hopes that these concerns can
    be resolved and that we can all work together to ensure the
    long-term viability of this resource and the industry that
    depends on it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.

     STATEMENT OF FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that
    this important issue, conserving the Atlantic highly migratory
    species, is now being considered by your Subcommittee. Today,
    we are contemplating various proposals designed to preserve
    highly migratory species of fish in the Atlantic to reduce
    bycatch of over-fished and protected species, and to minimize
    the economic impacts on affected commercial fishermen. These
    proposals all close geographic areas for certain periods of
    time to commercial pelagic longline fishing, providing a new
    and ambitious management strategy to reduce incidental catch of
    undersized, overfished, and protected species.
        The geographic extent of the closure should correspond to
    hotspots where the species to be conserved and protected are
    most likely to be otherwise caught. But because it is a new
    strategy, significant questions remain concerning the effect
    time-area closures will have on both fishing effort and
    obviously on fishing communities.
        It is obviously a difficult issue, you can tell that from
    what the Chairman has already said. The negotiations process
    has come far in the past few weeks, but we still have a long
    way to go, and I look forward to working with scientists,
    recreational and commercial fishermen, and the
    conservationists, to find an effective solution for all, and
    basically will be listening to the testimony today and talking
    again to some of the affected parties in New Jersey as well as
    throughout the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Before we proceed, let me ask
    unanimous consent that also Committee members be permitted to
    include their opening statements in the record.
        Before we move to Mr. Goss, it has been mentioned by myself
    and by my two colleagues that certain areas would be closed to
    longline fishing, and I would like to ask Mr. Howarth if he
    would explain the differences in these lines to the Committee
    members and to members of the public.
        Mr. Howarth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
    Members, in your folders, behind your background memo, are
    copies of these maps. There are charts to the left for the
    witnesses and charts to the right for members. On the maps are
    a series of lines. The one farthest south from the Gulf that is
    yellow and black represents the EEZ. That represents the EEZ as
    well as Mr. Sanford's bill banning pelagic longline fishing in
    the Atlantic EEZ.
        The green line in the Western Gulf represents the NMFS
    proposal for the Gulf of Mexico.
        The blue and red line in the Gulf closer to the shore
    represents Mr. Saxton's bill and Mr. Goss' bill. In the
    Atlantic, the lines blue and red, going up the East Coast,
    represent again Mr. Saxton and Mr. Goss' proposals. Also, you
    will see in the Atlantic a green line. That represents the
    Charleston Bump that you heard in the Chairman's testimony, and
    that is from the NMFS proposal.
        This map here on the dais and the map over there represent
    the same picture. Out to the witnesses' left and the members'
    right represents the Mid-Atlantic. Again, the black and the
    yellow line represents the EEZ, the Exclusive Economic Zone,
    and the red line represents Mr. Saxton's proposal of the Mid-
    Atlantic buyout area. Thank you.
        Mr. Saxton. Well, that certainly cleared that up.
        I am very pleased to have our friend and colleague from the
    State of Florida here with us today, Mr. Goss, who is the
    sponsor of H.R. 3390.
        Mr. Goss, we are pleased that you are here. You may proceed
    as you see fit.

    STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Goss. Thank you. I am obviously glad to be here, too,
    on this occasion, and I very much appreciate your leadership
    and the interest of the members of your Subcommittee on this
    subject. It is a matter clearly to say whose time has come is
    well understood. I have a prepared statement which I would like
    to submit for the record, and I would like to abbreviate it and
    just make a few points, if that is permitted.
        First of all, I am very happy that my lead co-sponsor on
    H.R. 3390, which is the bill which I wish to address, is our
    colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, who is well known and has
    been long involved in dealing with these fishery matters.
        H.R. 3390, as we are presenting it, is a legislative
    embodiment of an agreement between the commercial fishing
    industry and conservation groups to close, as the map shows,
    some 160,000 square miles to pelagic longlining in the South
    Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.
        The bill is a compromise that came about after extensive
    negotiation. It is the compromise that now exists, and I think
    it represents a win for all parties, which is why the bill is
    brought forward.
        As you have described, or as your staff has described, the
    bill affects an area from Sanibel, roughly, on the west coast
    of Florida, down around the tip of Florida, up the South
    Carolina coast.
        The areas selected for closure were chosen because the
    scientific analysis done by NMFS and independent scientists
    because they have high concentrations of small swordfish
    bycatch and billfish bycatch. Closing them should allow these
    stocks to rebound without unduly disrupting the swordfish
    longlining industry, and that, I think, is the basis of the
    compromise.
        In addition, the 68 longlining vessels that use these
    fisheries will be bought out by the government. In return,
    these vessels are not going to go back into that fishery or
    other commercial fisheries.
        Payment for the buyout in our bill comes from a combination
    of Treasury funds, consumers of swordfish, and a user fee in
    fact imposed on recreational fishermen.
        The bill does include a bycatch reduction research program.
    This effort is designed to help develop measurable methods to
    further reduce bycatch. This is an area I have been
    particularly interested, as the Chairman well knows, and I
    think follows on the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone's,
    remarks as well.
        I also want to point out that a lot of interested parties
    have come forward on this on both sides and, frankly, I have
    had a lot of time to work with the Coastal Conservation
    Association, and I very much appreciate the CCA efforts and
    take on this and some other matters over the years.
        I know, Mr. Chairman, that you would like to expand the
    closed fisheries area and that you have legislation to do that,
    and I very much congratulate you on that effort. I am hopeful
    that that process will move forward in a smooth way
    legislatively, at the same time not losing anything that we
    have achieved so far, as reflected in H.R. 3390, the base bill
    compromise which we are trying to get passed.
        I think that this is a unique time, that we have seen,
    finally, in these wars that go on, an area where people have
    come together and sat down and worked out an agreement. I think
    in that case this is somewhat benchmark, and I genuinely would
    like to thank all the parties involved on both sides of the
    issue for rationally trying to find a solution that is based on
    science and is also based on fair play and comes up with a
    piece of legislation which I think our colleagues would be able
    to support.
        Having said that, I would also like to thank Mr.
    Faleomavaega for his kind reception and hospitality here, and
    to tell him also that he was well represented by M/Sgt. Totela
    Alefonga [phonetic] in American Samoa at the occasion of my
    recent visit there, where I learned something about the
    problems of the fisheries in that area first-hand. And I wish
    he would give my best wishes to M/Sgt. Totela Alefonga, and be
    assured, Mr. Faleomavaega, that you were well represented.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to offer at this
    time. I would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goss follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Porter Goss, a Representative in congress from the
                                state of Florida

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here this morning to
    discuss H.R. 3390, the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
    Conservation Act. For me, this bill is an excellent model for
    how conservation issues should be addressed. Unfortunately, as
    my colleagues well know, most environmental debates are often
    politicized for partisan gain and have little to do with
    substance or solutions. It is not often that combatants in
    conservation issues can put aside their differences long enough
    to come to a consensus agreement that will benefit both parties
    and ensure meaningful protection for our resources. So, I am
    delighted to be here today with what I hope is a constructive
    solution to a very real problem. The consensus reflected in
    H.R. 3390 will greatly enhance the conservation of billfishes
    and facilitate rebuilding of the swordfish stocks.
        In the fall of 1998, representatives of four groups began a
    discussion that has resulted in the bill I introduced. The
    Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportfishing
    Association, The Billfish Foundation and the Blue Water
    Fisherman's Association have come together to address the
    decline of Atlantic billfishes and the increase in catches of
    juvenile swordfish.
        H.R. 3390 will close some 160,000 square miles to pelagic
    longlining in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. These
    closures, developed from scientific analysis done by
    independent scientists and the National Marine Fisheries
    Service, cover a broad spectrum of conservation benefits
    without unduly disrupting the swordfish longlining industry.
    The areas were selected because of the high concentration of
    small swordfish catch and billfish by-catch.
        The Atlantic closed area extends from my Southwest Florida
    district at Sanibel Island south to Key West, then north all
    the way to the South Carolina North Carolina boarder. This area
    will produce the lion's share of the conservation and economic
    benefit from this bill. The closure is permanent and will
    significantly reduce the catch of small swordfish and sailfish
    byeatch. Portions of the Gulf will see a three-month closure
    that accomplishes similar objectives.
        Although no one has computed the exact economic benefit of
    the legislation, there is no question that it will be a huge
    boost for the economy of my home state of Florida and,
    ultimately, the nation. Florida is the number one marine
    recreational fishing state in the country. That activity cannot
    be sustained without healthy populations of fish. The benefits
    from the Atlantic closure will make the East Coast of Florida
    one of the premier sailfish fisheries in the world.
        These benefits do not come without a cost, however. In
    order to get this level of economic and conservation benefit,
    the legislation makes 68 longline vessels eligible for buy-out
    of the vessel's fishing permits. In return for the buy-out, the
    longlining vessels are forever foreclosed from returning to
    this fishery or any other commercial fishing worldwide. Payment
    for the buyout comes from a combination off Treasury funds,
    consumers of swordfish and a fee imposed on recreational
    fishermen.
        The legislation also includes a bycatch reduction research
    program. The three-year program will direct scientists,
    sponsored by both the commercial industry and recreational
    groups, to develop measurable methods to further reduce bycatch
    in the longline fishery. There is a special emphasis in the
    mid-Atlantic to monitor displacement of vessels and propose
    ways to remedy it.
        I said earlier that the bill is not perfect. Indeed, I have
    yet to see a perfect piece of legislation. No group is going to
    get all they want in this legislation but, taken as a whole,
    this is a good piece of legislation that addresses a real
    conservation problem. We should not pass up this opportunity.
        I commend the groups that have signed the agreement and I
    am particularly proud to sponsor this legislation because of my
    respect for the work of the Coastal Conservation Association.
    In my state of Florida, CCA has always led the charge in the
    fight to protect our marine resources and I am pleased to see
    that commendable record of accomplishment continue.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that you have legislation that would
    expand the buyout area envisioned in H.R. 3390. I commend you
    for that effort. I remain hopeful that throughout the
    legislative process as we move this bill toward passage, we
    will maintain the delicately balanced compromise that produced
    the agreement to close these fisheries.
        Once again, I want to thank the Chairman and the other
    members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before
    you this morning. Thank you.

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much for your statement and for
    your brevity, it is appreciated. I would just like to get one
    issue out on the table while you are here, and that is this:
    The area that you and I close are identical in our bills. The
    uppermost concern in the mind of many is that we have no way of
    knowing how many longline fishermen or fisherboats which are
    currently ported, docked, in or adjacent to the closed area,
    would opt to be bought out under the proposal, and how many
    would opt to go fish somewhere else.
        As a Representative of the middle Atlantic States, New
    Jersey in particular, we have some concern that without some
    provisions added to your bill, as is currently represented by
    some provisions in my bill, to address the issue referred to as
    ``displacement of fishermen'', that many of the boats might,
    could, or would, move north, simply moving the fishing effort
    from the closed area to the area that would remain open,
    commonly referred to in these discussions as the mid-Atlantic
    Bight.
        I am just interested in your thoughts on this issue because
    somehow, if we are going to be successful in getting a bill, we
    need to find a solution to this problem, and I am just
    interested in your comments.
        Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I congratulate you on
    your efforts to do that because I think fair play is a critical
    factor in any piece of legislation, and I don't think we really
    entirely understand all the consequences of any legislation we
    pass.
        What I seek to do is to bring forward a slice of this
    problem that I am pretty sure would be noncontroversial as it
    stands by itself because that is what the parties have agreed
    to.
        Do I think this is final solution, the only solution, the
    best solution? No, it is not. It is what we have got so far.
    And if it can be improved and made fairer, specifically
    referring to the displacement issue, that is certainly fine by
    me. It is not my view that we want to in any way be unfair, but
    it is certainly my view that we have to have agreement among
    the parties in order to pass workable legislation, and that is
    why I brought forward H.R. 3390 in its present form. If you
    could improve upon it, you will certainly have my support in
    any way I can.
        Displacement of fishermen is a huge problem. The industry
    has obviously undergone some very serious readjustment. I know,
    with Mr. Faleomavaega, we have talked a lot about porpoises and
    tuna and so forth, and dealing with environmental approaches.
    And I find that rational people sitting down and negotiating
    these things out on the basis of good science and fair play is
    the best way to come to a reasonable solution. I think that
    this first step today legislatively opens the door for more of
    the same, and so I have nothing but encouragement for people
    who are going to try and make a better bill, a fairer bill, if
    it is possible to do, with the consent of all parties.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr.Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again I want
    to assure the gentleman that certainly this Member will
    definitely be seeking his advice and his wisdom and
    understanding of the complications involved here. This is just
    with the Atlantic. It is just as much similar problems that
    we're faced with in the Pacific, and probably to the uniqueness
    of our Nation, the fact is not only as an Atlantic nation but
    as a Pacific nation. But I do want to thank the gentleman for
    coming up with his initiative so that the members of this
    Subcommittee will certainly be aware of the concerns that have
    been addressed by the provisions of H.R. 3390. I want to assure
    the gentleman that I will be closely working with him to see
    what we can do to improve this legislation. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Goss, thank you very much, we appreciate
    your being with us this morning. At this time, we have no
    further questions.
        Mr. Goss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have always been
    hospitably welcomed here, and I appreciate it. It is a pleasure
    to do business with your Subcommittee and its members.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
        I would now like to move on to our next panel. I would now
    like to introduce Ms. Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for
    Fisheries at the National Marine Fisheries Service. I would
    like to remind the witness that we operate here under the five-
    minute rule, which is sometimes flexible. Your written
    testimony certainly will be included in its entirety in the
    record and, Penny, you can begin when you are comfortable.

       STATEMENT OF PENELOPE DALTON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
    FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
      AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. REBECCA
      LENT, CHIEF, HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
                   NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

        Ms. Dalton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Subcommittee. I am Penny Dalton, NOAA Assistant Administrator
    for Fisheries. Accompanying me today is Dr. Rebecca Lent. She
    is the Chief for our Highly Migratory Species Management
    Division.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on three
    legislative proposals before the Subcommittee: H.R. 3331 and
    H.R. 3390, both titled the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
    Conservation Act; and H.R. 3516, legislation to prohibit
    pelagic longline fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone in the
    Atlantic Ocean. I also will discuss our December 15 Rule
    proposing establishment of time and area closures for the
    longline fleet to reduce bycatch.
        Mr. Chairman, my written testimony provides a detailed
    review of the proposed Rule and the three bills. In the
    interest of time, I will briefly compare the Rule and the
    legislation and then discuss our analysis and conclusions.
        The proposed Rule includes as a preferred alternative a
    year-round closure of the Southeast Atlantic Coast and a seven-
    month closure, from March 1 to September 30th, in the Western
    Gulf of Mexico. In selecting this preferred alternative, NOAA
    Fisheries examined several options and balanced the need to (1)
    reduce bycatch of small swordfish, also billfish, bluefin tuna
    and sharks, and (2) minimize reductions in target catches.
        NOAA Fisheries has published a Proposed Rule and a 75-day
    comment period currently is underway, which will end on March
    1, 2000. Once the comments have been compiled and considered,
    NOAA Fisheries will complete action on the Final Rule. Similar
    areas are proposed for closure in the Rule, H.R. 3331 and H.R.
    3390, albeit with some important differences. The South
    Atlantic Bight closure in the Proposed Rule is larger on the
    northern end to account for the variable location of the
    oceanographic feature known as the Charleston Bump. In
    addition, the Proposed Rule would close the Western end of the
    Gulf which is different from the legislative proposals to close
    an area all along the Northern Gulf Coast.
        NOAA Fisheries has only recently begun to use time and area
    closures as a management tool for this fishery. Analyzing the
    impacts and effectiveness that time and area closures on the
    Atlantic pelagic longline fleet has proven to be challenging
    because it is difficult to predict changes in fishing patterns
    when the areas are closed.
        To examine a range of possibilities, NOAA Fisheries
    conducted analyses under two different assumptions regarding
    the fishermen's behavior. The first assumption is that there
    would be zero-effort redistribution. In other words, sets
    currently made in the proposed closed areas would not be made
    elsewhere.
        The second assumption is that there would be a total effort
    redistribution. That is, all of the sets currently made by
    fishermen in the proposed closed areas would be made in other
    open areas.
        The benefits from the time and area closures under the two
    effort redistribution models have been evaluated for the
    Proposed Rule and for both bills. A comparison of the
    effectiveness of all the proposals is shown in the attached
    table at the end of my written testimony.
        In the South Atlantic, the impact of time and area closures
    under the Proposed Rule is similar to that for the bills under
    both models. In the Gulf of Mexico, the time and area closures
    in the Proposed Rule may be more effective at reducing billfish
    bycatch than the proposals in the bill, again, under both
    effort and redistribution scenarios. For both the Proposed Rule
    and the legislative proposals, the net effects will likely be
    somewhere between zero and total displacement, although the
    buyback program proposed in the bills would be likely to reduce
    displaced effort.
        Our analyses shows that there are benefits from time and
    area closures even if effort is displaced at the same time our
    analyses indicated that the extent of the socio-economic
    impacts associated with the Proposed Rule and the need to
    consider mitigating measures such as the buyout. The economic
    and community effects of the Proposed Rule may be substantial.
    Losses in gross revenues to fishing vessels could be as high as
    $14 million per year. And an examination of individual vessel
    records indicate that up to 20 percent of the vessels could
    lose half of their gross income.
        In addition, swordfish dealers could face substantial
    reductions in the total weight of fishes they handle. Comments
    at public hearings indicate that the effects would not be
    confined to the pelagic longline fishery. Processors and small
    businesses supplying the fleet with bait, ice and other
    provisions would also be affected.
        Finally, for those vessel operators remaining in the
    fishery, fishing cost could increase if vessels must go further
    offshore or relocate as a result of closures.
        Overall, NOAA Fisheries supports the intent of H.R. 3331
    and H.R. 3390 to address bycatch concerns in the pelagic
    longline fishery and to reduce overcapacity and economic
    disruptions that result.
        We would like to work with you to deal with certain
    provisions of the legislation that we cannot support as they
    currently are drafted.
        While we are still completing our legislative analyses, we
    would like to point out two specific areas of concern. As we
    mentioned before, the impact of a time and area closure is
    difficult to predict. However, we do believe that there will be
    some redistribution of effort, possibly into areas with higher
    turtle or mammal bycatch. As introduced, the bills currently do
    not provide NOAA Fisheries to address increased turtle or
    marine mammal bycatch or other potential conversation issues in
    the remaining open areas.
        We would be supportive of an industry-funded buyout,
    however, the cost associated with the implementation of the
    buyout must be considered. We have limited administrative
    resources to collect fees from wholesalers and recreational
    fishermen. NOAA Fisheries also lacks funds to pay for the BMS
    units and this would set an adverse precedent for other
    fisheries.
        In addition, we would like to see increased flexibility
    with respect to implementing the buyout program and other
    provisions of the legislation if only partial funding is
    available.
        We recognize the enormous effort and unprecedented
    collaboration between commercial fishermen and marine anglers
    in developing these legislative proposals. We applaud the
    efforts of the sponsors to meet the conservation requirements
    and minimize adverse impacts on displaced fishermen. I look
    forward to working with you to address our concerns and to
    enacting legislation that we can fully support.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]

    Statement of Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
      National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                  Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
    I am Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today on three legislative proposals
    before the Subcommittee: H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390, both titled
    the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act; and
    H.R. 3516, legislation to prohibit pelagic longline fishing in
    the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean.

    DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT OF ATLANTIC HIGHLY
    MIGRATORY SPECIES

        Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS), such as swordfish,
    tunas, billfish, and sharks, range throughout tropical and
    temperate oceans and include some of the world's largest and
    most valuable fish. They are sought after by commercial
    fishermen and prized by sport anglers. In addition, HMS
    conservation and management has attracted considerable interest
    by the environmental community and the general public. Total
    commercial landings of Atlantic HMS in 1998 were over 15
    thousand metric tons (mt), and the ex-vessel value was over $70
    million. Expenditures in recreational fisheries for highly
    migratory species are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
        Since the early 1990s, Atlantic HMS have been managed
    directly by the Secretary of Commerce, primarily because the
    range of these species extends over five regional fishery
    management council areas. Secretarial management also eases
    U.S. participation in international HMS conservation programs
    and establishment and negotiation of U.S. positions at meetings
    of the International Commission for the Conservation of
    Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the 28-member organization charged with
    overseeing the science and management of tunas and tuna-like
    species.
        Atlantic swordfish are harvested by a number of nations and
    currently are designated by ICCAT as overfished. The annual
    U.S. share of landings from the North Atlantic swordfish stock
    is only about 25 percent of the total harvest. Consequently, we
    must work with other nations to eliminate overfishing and
    rebuild the swordfish stock. Through ICCAT, we have worked to
    achieve international cooperation and adequate monitoring and
    compliance. The United States plays a key role in encouraging
    multilateral management measures for swordfish as well as other
    ICCAT species. At the recent ICCAT meeting in Rio de Janeiro,
    the Commission adopted a number of actions to strengthen
    international conservation efforts. Most notably, ICCAT nations
    committed to a 10-year rebuilding program for swordfish. While
    the rebuilding program requires only slight reductions in total
    quotas over the next three years (approximately 15 percent),
    the agreement counts all the harvest, including discards of
    dead swordfish, against the total allowable catch for the first
    time. Counting dead discards against the total quota could be
    an important additional incentive for fishermen to avoid
    catching undersized swordfish.
        Our progress on the international front would not have been
    possible without the strong support of U.S. commercial and
    recreational fishermen, environmental groups and others.
    Pelagic longline fishermen were very supportive of the
    rebuilding program, despite the reductions in their landings
    that the program would entail. Responding to concern over the
    catch and harvest of undersized swordfish, the United States
    also was successful in sponsoring a resolution that called for
    ICCAT to analyze and consider the use of time and area closures
    throughout the Atlantic. Finally, I would like to note that
    ICCAT adopted a binding recommendation that countries ban the
    imports of Atlantic swordfish from Belize and Honduras.
        Consistent with our ICCAT responsibilities, the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
    Stevens Act) requires that NOAA Fisheries take action to manage
    the fishery within U.S. waters. Two years ago, NOAA Fisheries
    established advisory panels under new provisions of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act. With the assistance of these panels, in
    April 1999 NOAA Fisheries completed a new HMS fishery
    management plan (HMS Plan) and amended an existing fishery
    management plan for billfish. These new plans were among the
    first to be implemented under the new requirements of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act and included management measures to
    identify and rebuild overfished HMS stocks, minimize bycatch,
    limit access to the pelagic longline fishery for HMS, and
    address socioeconomic impacts on fishermen and their
    communities.
        Pelagic longlines are the primary commercial gear type in
    the HMS fisheries of the Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico
    and Caribbean. The longline fishery thus provides an important
    source of seafood for the American consumer. However, like most
    types of fishing gear, it unintentionally catches species and
    sizes of fish that, for reason of regulation or economic
    choice, are thrown back into the sea. Some of this bycatch can
    be released alive, but significant amounts are discarded dead.
    While dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery have
    declined over the past decade, concerns remain about bycatch
    levels, particularly of juvenile swordfish, billfish, bluefin
    tuna, and sharks. In addition, NOAA Fisheries must address the
    incidental catch of endangered species such as sea turtles.
    Over the past three years an average of 487 mt of Atlantic
    swordfish (about 13 percent of the total catch) and an average
    of 58 mt of bluefin tuna (just over 4 percent of the total of
    the bluefin fishery) were discarded dead.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that bycatch be minimized
    or avoided to the extent practicable. The draft HMS Plan
    released in October 1998 addressed this requirement by
    proposing a number of measures, including time and area
    closures for pelagic longline gear designed to reduce bycatch
    of bluefin tuna, juvenile swordfish, and billfish. Initial
    analyses focused on areas with high discards of juvenile
    swordfish and bluefin tuna based on logbook data submitted by
    fishermen. They led to a proposal for a June closure off the
    mid-Atlantic Bight to protect bluefin tuna and a closure in the
    Florida Straits to protect small swordfish. During the public
    review process, NOAA Fisheries received comments from
    recreational and environmental constituents, as well as some
    commercial constituents, that the proposed Florida Straits area
    was too small to be effective. Consequently, the final HMS Plan
    included a mid-Atlantic Bight closure but did not include the
    proposed closure for the Florida Straits. When the HMS Plan was
    published, NOAA Fisheries made a commitment to develop a new
    proposal to reduce swordfish bycatch, including time and area
    closures, before the end of 1999.
        To fulfill this commitnent, NOAA initiated additional--and
    more extensive--analyses of logbook data in May 1999. The
    results of these analyses were shared with HMS Advisory Panel
    members at a joint meeting in June 1999. At the same meeting, a
    coalition of recreational and commercial fishing interests
    discussed their efforts to develop a legislative package that
    would include both time and area closures and a program to buy
    back Federal permits of longline fishermen affected by the
    closures.
        Shortly after the June meeting of the HMS advisory panel,
    NOAA Fisheries was sued by a number of environmental groups on
    the grounds that the HMS Plan failed to adequately reduce
    bycatch. However, the parties agreed to a stay until May 1,
    2000 of further proceedings in the litigation pending continued
    progress in developing a new regulation to address bycatch.
        NOAA Fisheries completed its additional analyses and
    released a draft technical memorandum in October 1999. This
    technical memorandum was sent to advisory panel members and the
    five regional fishery management councils and to the general
    public upon request. On November 2, 1999, NOAA Fisheries
    published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
    statement, and announced the availability of the technical
    memorandum. In this same Federal Register notice, the agency
    indicated that a proposed-rule on time and area closures would
    be published by December 15, 1999, and a final rule by May 1,
    2000.
        NOAA Fisheries has published the proposed rule, and a 75-
    day comment period is currently underway which will end on
    March 1, 2000. During the comment period, NOAA Fisheries will
    conduct 15 public hearings throughout the HMS management
    region, including coastal communities within and outside of the
    proposed closed areas. Once the comments have been compiled and
    considered, NOAA Fisheries will consider management options for
    the final rule.
        The proposed rule includes as a preferred alternative a
    year-round closure off the southeast Atlantic coast and a 7-
    month closure (March 1-September 30) in the western Gulf of
    Mexico. In selecting this preferred alternative, NOAA Fisheries
    examined several options, balancing the need to: (1) reduce
    bycatch of undersized swordfish, billfish, bluefin tuna, and
    sharks; (2) minimize reductions in target catches; and (3)
    minimize the effect on other fisheries.

    LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

        Three bills currently are pending in the House of
    Representatives that address pelagic longlining: H.R. 3331,
    introduced by Rep. Saxton; H.R. 3390, introduced by Rep. Goss
    and Rep. Tauzin; and H.R. 3516, introduced by Rep. Sanford.
        H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 are very similar to each other.
    There are some differences, however, primarily related to
    longlining in the mid-Atlantic Bight. Both bills would
    establish: (1) a year-round closure to pelagic longline fishing
    in the South Atlantic seaward of the coast from the northern
    South Carolina boundary to Key West, Florida; (2) two seasonal
    closures in the Gulf of Mexico (an area in the northeastern
    Gulf of Mexico from January 1st to Memorial Day each year and a
    closure seaward of the coast from Mexico to the Florida
    Panhandle that will be closed from Memorial Day to Labor Day of
    each year for five years); and (3) a voluntary program to buy
    out the longline permits of 68 named longline commercial
    vessels ``through a partnership of the recreational and
    commercial fishing industries and Federal funds.'' All vessels
    that participate in the buyout program would be required to
    surrender all commercial fishing permits. The two bills also
    direct NOAA Fisheries to conduct a research program,
    identifying and testing the most effective fishto reduce the
    billfish bycatch in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In
    addition to the measures above, H.R. 3331 also amends the
    Atlantic Tunas Convention Act to allow the Secretary of
    Commerce to reduce swordfish quotas below ICCAT
    recommendations, restricts effort increases on longliners
    fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and creates a second
    voluntary vessel buyout category for mid-Atlantic Bight
    commercial longline fishermen.
        H.R. 3516 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prohibit
    ``pelagic longline fishing in the exclusive economic zone in
    the Atlantic Ocean.'' It does not include a buyout as contained
    in H.R. 3331 or H.R. 3390. In the past, NOAA Fisheries has not
    supported unilateral bans on specific gear types, other than
    destructive fishing practices such as large-scale pelagic
    driftnets.
        Similar areas are proposed for closure in the rule and the
    two bills, albeit with some important differences. The South
    Atlantic Bight closure in the proposed rule is larger on the
    northern end to account for the variable location of the
    oceanographic feature of the Charleston Bump. In addition, the
    proposed rule would close the western end of the Gulf, which is
    different from the legislative proposals to close an area along
    the northern Gulf coast.

    ANALYSES OF PROPOSED CLOSED AREAS

        NOAA Fisheries has only recently begun to use time and area
    closures as a management tool for this fishery (i.e., the June
    closure in the mid-Atlantic Bight to protect bluefin tuna).
    Analyzing the impacts and effectiveness of time and area
    closures on the Atlantic pelagic longline fleet has proven to
    be challenging because it is difficult to predict changes in
    fishing patterns when the areas are closed. To examine a range
    of possibilities, NOAA Fisheries conducted analyses under two
    different assumptions regarding the fishermen's behavior. The
    biological and socioeconomic effects of the various
    alternatives then were compared using these different
    assumptions.
        The first assumption is that there would be zero effort
    redistribution, i.e., the sets currently made in the proposed
    closed areas would not be made elsewhere. This assumption
    provides estimates of the maximum reduction in bycatch and
    landings of target species, as well as the maximum social and
    economic effects of the proposed time and area closures.
        The second assumption is that there would be a total effort
    redistribution, i.e., the sets currently made in the proposed
    closed areas would be made in other, open areas (distributed
    proportionately to historic effort in the remaining open
    areas). This assumption provides an estimate of the minimum
    expected reduction in bycatch, because fishing effort would
    reoccur somewhere else. This scenario also provides a minimal
    estimate of the possible social and economic impacts of the
    proposed time and area closure.
        The benefits from the time and area closures under the two
    effort redistribution models have been evaluated for the
    proposed rule and for both H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390. Because the
    areas proposed in the proposed rule and the legislation are
    similar, bycatch reduction benefits are likely to be similar. A
    comparison of the effectiveness of all of the proposals is
    shown in the attached table. These estimates may differ from
    those provided by proponents of the legislation because the
    analyses on which the legislative proposals are based were
    conducted independently and assume zero effort redistribution.
        In the South Atlantic, the impact of time and area closures
    is similar to that for the bills under both no effort
    redistribution and total effort redistribution. In the Gulf of
    Mexico, the time and area closures in the proposed rule may be
    more effective at reducing billfish bycatch than the proposals
    in the bill, again under both effort redistribution scenarios.
        For both the proposed rule and the legislative proposals,
    the net effects will likely be somewhere between the zero
    displacement and the total displacement, although the buyback
    program proposed in the bills would be likely to reduce
    displaced effort. On the other hand, vessels remaining in the
    fishery could become more active and make more sets in the open
    fishing areas. Although limited access is in place in the HMS
    pelagic longline fishery, there is no limit on effort in the
    form of days fished, number of sets, length of the line, or
    number of hooks. However, reduced ICCAT quotas for swordfish,
    and the further reductions engendered by the dead discards
    provisions, should limit the expansion of effort by the vessels
    remaining in the fleet.
        These analyses provide an estimate of the range of
    potential benefits and costs of time and area closures. The
    biological and economic analyses conducted for the rulemaking
    will be very useful for assessing legislative options for a
    buyout. Our analyses show that there are benefits from time and
    area closures even if effort is displaced. At the same time,
    our analyses demonstrate the extent of socioeconomic effects
    associated with the proposed rule, and the need to consider
    mitigating measures, such as a buyout.
        The economic and community effects of the proposed rule may
    be substantial. Losses in gross revenues to fishing vessels
    could be as high as $14 million per year, and examination of
    individual vessel records indicates that up to 20 percent of
    the vessels could lose half their gross income. In addition,
    swordfish dealers could face substantial reductions in the
    total weight of fish they handle. Comments at public hearings
    indicate that the effects would not be confined to the pelagic
    longline fishery; processors and small businesses supplying the
    fleet with bait, ice, and other provisions also would be
    affected. Finally, for those vessel operators remaining in the
    fishery, fishing costs could increase if vessels must go
    farther offshore or relocate as a result of closures.

    CONCLUSIONS

        Overall, NOAA Fisheries supports the intent of H.R. 3331
    and H.R. 3390, which is to address bycatch concerns in the
    pelagic longline fishery and to reduce overcapacity and
    economic disruptions that result.
        We would like to work with you to deal with certain
    provisions of the legislation that we cannot support as they
    are currently drafted. While we are still completing our
    legislative analysis, we would like to point out two specific
    areas of concern. As has been mentioned before, the impact of a
    time and area closure is difficult to predict. However, we do
    believe that there will be some redistribution of effort,
    possibly into areas with higher turtle or mammal bycatch. As
    introduced, the bills currently do not provide NOAA Fisheries
    with the flexibility to address increased turtle or marine
    mammal bycatch or other potential conservation issues in the
    remaining open areas. We currently are reviewing possible
    mitigating measures in the event that turtle or marine mammal
    bycatch increases as a result of closed areas.
        We are supportive of an industry-funded buyout. However,
    the costs associated with the implementation of the buyout must
    be considered. The collection of fees from wholesalers and
    recreational fishery participants is labor intensive and
    requires administrative funds. Current fishery management
    responsibilities are already curtailed due to limited personnel
    and financial resources. It would be particularly difficult for
    NOAA Fisheries to fund vessel monitoring systems, and this
    would set a precedent that we would be unable to meet in other
    fisheries. In addition, we would like to see increased
    flexibility with respect to implementing the buyout program and
    other provisions of the legislation if only partial funding is
    available.
        We recognize the enormous effort and unprecedented
    collaboration between commercial fishermen and marine anglers
    in developing these legislative proposals. We applaud the
    efforts of the sponsors to meet conservation requirements and
    minimize adverse impacts on displaced fishermen. I look forward
    to working with you to address our concerns and to enacting
    legislation that we can fully support.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.002

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Let me just suggest to my
    two colleagues, as we move through this, if you have a question
    during the time that either myself of Mr. Faleomavaega have
    time, please just jump in.
        Let me begin by asking you, what were the driving or
    determining factors in helping you to reach a decision where
    your proposed area boundaries would be located?
        Ms. Dalton. In the Proposed Rule that we did to implement
    the HMS plan, we had a small area that we proposed for closure
    off the Florida Straits. During the public comment period on
    that Rule, we got a number of comments that the area was not
    adequate, that it was not large enough, that it actually could
    exacerbate bycatch problems.
        So, when we did the Final Rule to implement the plan, we
    made a commitment that we would do some additional analyses and
    develop a new Proposed Rule. This Proposed Rule that we put out
    on December 15th was as a result of those additional analyses.
        Mr. Saxton. I have heard the term ``nursery areas'' used, I
    have heard the discussions about where juvenile swordfish are
    found. Can you discuss those issues with us at this time?
        Ms. Dalton. Basically, what we did is we used the logbook
    information from the fleet--and Rebecca will correct me if I
    make a mistake here--but to look at what we were essentially
    hotspots for bycatch of the species of concern. And, generally,
    for swordfish, that is along the South Atlantic Bight and for
    billfish you have higher concentrations of bycatch in the Gulf.
    And using that logbook information then we tried different
    scenarios of closing different areas to see where we could
    maximize the reduction of bycatch and also minimize the
    reductions in directed swordfish harvest.
        Mr. Saxton. And, therefore, you believe that the areas that
    you have outlined would be the most beneficial from a
    conservation point of view?
        Ms. Dalton. It is actually very hard--if you look at the
    table that is at the end of the testimony, you will see that
    there is a pretty significant range of potential reductions.
    Part of the problem is that it is difficult to deal with the
    issue of displacement, and depending on what you assume happens
    with displacement, you change what your potential conservation
    benefits are.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Goss and I have both introduced bills with
    areas that are substantially different than the areas that you
    propose to close, is that right?
        Ms. Dalton. Yes, for the Gulf--it is actually fairly small
    for the South Atlantic.
        Mr. Saxton. Okay, let us talk about the Gulf. I am trying
    to figure out the rationale that you used that is different
    than the rationale that the people who negotiated this area to
    be closed. What is the difference in our approach. Why don't
    you like our approach in the Gulf?
        Ms. Dalton. In the Eastern Gulf, at least based on the data
    that we have, there is less bycatch of billfish species than
    there is in the area further south that we closed. The good
    thing about the proposal that you came up with legislatively is
    that there obviously is going to be a problem with displacement
    in the Gulf.
        Mr. Saxton. The displacement would be greater with your
    approach?
        Ms. Dalton. Well, it is going to be probably greater in the
    Eastern Gulf. You have closed the Eastern Gulf for that period
    of time in your bill. We haven't closed the Eastern Gulf, so
    what you are probably going to end up have happening is you are
    going to have the displacement right to the Eastern part of the
    closed area.
        Mr. Saxton. You were somewhat uncertain in your statement
    about the degree to which displacement might be a problem, is
    that correct?
        Ms. Dalton. Yes.
        Mr. Saxton. Is that because we don't know which fishermen
    might choose to just go out of business--forgetting about the
    bill for a minute--there is no compensation, obviously, in your
    closure plan, so you would assume that some fishermen would
    choose to no longer fish and that some might choose to fish
    elsewhere, perhaps in the Eastern Gulf, is that right?
        Ms. Dalton. Yes.
        Mr. Saxton. Have you done any research whatsoever--I am not
    asking this in a critical way, I am just asking for information
    purposes for the record--is there any way of having a
    guesstimate that without compensation so many boats would stop
    fishing and other boats would fish elsewhere?
        Ms. Dalton. No. Basically, what we did with the two
    assumptions you are assuming that you are at either end of the
    spectrum. If you have zero-displacement, that is assuming that
    no one is going to make any sets at all to make up for the sets
    that they would have made in the closed area, so that would be
    the maximum reduction in their harvest and the maximum bycatch
    reduction.
        The other end of it is if you assume that all of the sets
    are displaced and then you end up with the minimum reductions
    in bycatch, but also the minimum reductions in the total
    harvest.
        Mr. Saxton. And under your plan, displacement would not
    only likely take place in the Gulf, it would also take place in
    the Atlantic?
        Ms. Dalton. Yes.
        Mr. Saxton. And the logical place for the displaced
    fishermen to go in the Atlantic would be in the mid-Atlantic
    Bight, would it not, and further offshore?
        Ms. Dalton. Yes, actually they could go to the mid-Atlantic
    Bight. They could go to the Gulf. They could go to the
    Caribbean and Grand Banks.
        Mr. Saxton. Would it be fair to say that you might expect
    less displacement if there were a viable buyout in place?
        Ms. Dalton. That would be our expectation.
        Mr. Saxton. And because you have difficulty measuring the
    amount of displacement or the number of displaced boats without
    a buyout, it would become somewhat more difficult to measure if
    you did have a buyout?
        Ms. Dalton. Yes. The other thing that the buyout does is it
    reduces--what you find is that you have localized impacts on
    the industry and on coastal communities in these areas where
    you have the closures. So, a buyout would help mitigate those
    localized impacts as well, at least on the fleet. It wouldn't
    deal with some of the problems you have with the distributors
    and the suppliers.
        Mr. Saxton. If you stay for the balance of the testimony--
    and I am not sure whether you plan to or not--but if you do,
    you will hear testimony later today that the closed area ought
    to be extended into the mid-Atlantic Bight. Would you comment
    on that thought?
        Ms. Dalton. Let me turn it over to Rebecca.
        Ms. Lent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have tried to lay out
    a number of alternatives in our analyses that support the
    Proposed Rule package, and again we tried to strike a balance
    between reducing that discard and minimizing the impact on the
    target species. We selected what we think is a good balance. We
    are in the process right now of public comment period, and we
    are hearing from folks that maybe we haven't got that balance
    just right. Indeed, there is some concern that as you displace
    the effort, either the boats move, the boats that remain in the
    fishery make more sets than the areas that remain open, we
    might have an impact, and that is why we would be interested in
    being able to follow this year to year. Any time-area closure
    may need adjustment in the future, and there is some concern
    about bycatch rates in the Caribbean and in the mid-Atlantic
    area.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dalton, I do
    have several questions that, just for the sake of time, I will
    submit to your office, if you could respond to them
    accordingly, if it is all right. I do have some conceptual
    questions I would like to discuss with you this morning.
        These bills are in place, and we have got the Magnuson Act,
    we have ICCAT. What is your administration's position basically
    on the provisions of these proposals. Do they seem to work
    hand-in-hand with the current aspects of the law under the
    Magnuson Act as well as with ICCAT's function, or do you think
    they go beyond what we are trying to do here? In other words,
    does the administration feel that there are sufficient laws
    that can handle the concerns that have been expressed by the
    provisions of these bills?
        Ms. Dalton. I think our position is that we could
    probably--we certainly support the intent of the legislation to
    deal with the bycatch problem and also to mitigate the impacts
    of the displacement, potential displacement.
        The question of whether we can move forward with this
    administratively, yes, we have a Proposed Rule. We probably can
    do a buyout proposal as well. There is about $10 million in our
    budget proposal for 2001, for fisheries assistants programs. A
    portion of that money could probably be allocated to a buyout,
    if it is appropriated.
        One of the values, though, in the things the administration
    has watched is this whole collaborative process and having the
    recreational industry and the commercial industry work together
    to try to solve the problem, and there is a value in that that
    is very difficult to quantify, but we certainly would like to
    support and encourage.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Has the administration had an opportunity
    to quantify what the actual costs will be on the buyouts if
    this does become viable? I mean, you mentioned $10 million, but
    I was wondering, this might be a lot more than what we are
    expecting.
        Ms. Dalton. Yes. If you assume that you are going to need
    to have the funding that is authorized to be appropriated, it
    is probably, what, upwards of about $25-30 million.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. When you say ``buyout'', does this mean
    that the fishermen can go to another destination and continue
    fishing, or is he just going to scrap his vessel?
        Ms. Dalton. Well, I think the bills would basically call
    for all of their permits to be removed, and they wouldn't be
    able to participate in any commercial fishing. The boats could
    be used for some other purpose. I don't think there is a
    restriction on their use in a recreational fishery. Or they
    could be used for some other--I don't know--whatever other
    purpose, research or something like that.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. What if you come and fish in the Pacific?
        Ms. Dalton. No, they wouldn't be able--because they would
    lose their fishery endorsements and their documents and their
    permits.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I was just noticing, the Pacific Ocean is
    a lot bigger than the Atlantic Ocean. I was just curious----
        Mr. Saxton. If I could just state for the record, not only
    would we buy the boats under our proposal, and I believe both
    proposals--I am sorry--we wouldn't buy the vessel, we would buy
    the permits. So, under both proposals, once the buyout
    occurred, the permits would be removed and commercial fishing
    on that vessel would cease.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But that will not prevent them from
    fishing outside U.S. waters, right?
        Ms. Dalton. There is actually a restriction on their use
    and fishing in foreign fisheries, too, in the legislation.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. There has been a little concern
    expressed, or criticism, about ICCAT's capability of
    maintaining the swordfish. What is the administration's
    position, is ICCAT doing its job, or are they just kind of
    wriding along and not really doing what they are supposed to be
    doing?
        Ms. Dalton. I think that there has been pretty substantial
    progress that was made. At the last meeting, there was
    agreement on a 10-year rebuilding program for swordfish that
    calls for overall reductions in the quota, and also would have
    the dead discards counted against the quota.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I notice that we have some charts here
    that have been submitted on it, and let me say the National
    Marine Fisheries is a lot more colorful description of the
    latitude, longitude and--in fact, it is quite a difference also
    with both the Breaux and Chairman Saxton's proposals.
        Are you suggesting that in your proposal you are a lot more
    scientific in understanding the nature of the migratory fish as
    to why this whole area between Louisiana and Florida has been
    zeroed-out?
        Ms. Dalton. No. I am told that it was just a printing
    error. It just happened to be printed on our documents but not
    on the other ones.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. That is a big printing error. So this is
    not really the true description of the----
        Ms. Dalton. No, it is a true description. There are
    coordinates that--we could put the same coordinates on the
    other two charts as well.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You got me on that one. It says here on
    the 90-degree longitude--here, again, I am not a fisherman--but
    between that 90-degree longitude and the whole West Coast of
    Florida is zero. I mean, there is no restriction----
        Ms. Dalton. Oh, okay. I thought you meant just the fact
    that the labels were on here. Yes. The area in the Gulf is
    quite different. And, again, we did it by analysis of the
    logbook data. There is a fairly high level of bycatch in the
    southern area that we closed, so we got a significant bycatch
    reduction by including that area that is further to the south
    of what is in the legislative proposal. There is less of a
    conservation benefit tied to the logbook data that we have in
    the Eastern Gulf.
        Part of what--the other thing that has been interesting in
    the public hearing process is we have gotten a lot of
    commentary on the use of live bait that is tied to the Gulf,
    and the suggestion that you have higher incidence of bycatch
    for billfish whenever you use live bait. So this is one of the
    things that we are going to be looking at as we go back and
    relook at our Proposed Rule.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Let us talk about bycatch. This is a very
    sensitive issue to me and those of us in the Pacific, and I
    suspect that you have purse seiners also in the Atlantic Ocean
    catching fish in a very unique way, and the fact that there is
    a tremendous amount of bycatch, not necessarily skipjack, but
    you end up with swordfish, sharks, all other varieties of fish,
    which basically in my understanding is just simply discarded
    and not even used at all for any purposes.
        Has the National Fisheries Service made any estimates of
    the value of this bycatch that is caught also in the Pacific as
    well as in the Atlantic? I am told it is in the billions of
    dollars.
        Ms. Lent. I would just mention that in the Atlantic we only
    have five purse seiners, and that we have had observers onboard
    with logbooks, and there is very little bycatch in this
    fishery. They send planes out, they find schools of bluefin,
    they set their net, and there has been very little bycatch
    problem.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You only have five purse seiners in the
    whole Atlantic Ocean? None from the French? None from the
    Norwegian countries? None from other foreign countries? I can't
    believe that.
        Ms. Lent. I am talking about the U.S. Fleet in the
    Atlantic.
        Ms. Dalton. For highly migratory species. We also have
    purse seiners for menhaden as well.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. What is the estimate of purse seiners
    that we have fishing internationally in the whole Atlantic?
        Ms. Dalton. We can get you the information, but I don't
    have it now.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I know we have about 35 purse seiners,
    U.S. parceners, that do fishing in the Pacific, and I also know
    that the Korean government recently allocated over $4 billion
    to improve its fishing fleets which now totals about 780
    vessels. And a very serious concern that I have is that these
    governments literally provide funding to subsidize their
    fishing fleet. We don't do that. We are not doing that. And I
    am very, very concerned at the fact of how can it be possible
    for our commercial fishing industry to compete when countries
    like Korea just simply put out $4 billion to upgrade and to get
    a whole new fleet of the most modern technologically purse
    seiners, longliners, they have got it. What do you suggest on
    how we should compete?
        Ms. Dalton. We have been working in various different
    international fora to--we agree with you completely that
    harmful subsidies are a problem in world fishing fleets, and we
    have been working at FAO and also in other international groups
    to try to get international agreement to reduce those
    subsidies.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. This is my concern, Mr. Chairman, and I
    am sure Penny has been made aware of this--we are putting a lot
    of requirements and restrictions on our own fishing industry to
    comply with ICCAT requirements, even what we impose on
    ourselves, but how do we control those foreign fishing vessels
    that have just come right in and taken, and they don't even
    care about complying with the kind of concerns that we have
    about conservation and this type of thing.
        Ms. Dalton. I think it is a problem. There is very little
    that we can do unilaterally. That is the reason we have been
    working within groups like the Food and Agricultural
    Organization to come to agreement on the need to eliminate
    harmful subsidies. As you know, we are also working on an
    agreement in Western Pacific, the multilateral high level
    conference right now that is going on, that will hopefully come
    up with a long-term agreement that will strengthen conservation
    and management in the Western Pacific.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I can tell you right now, Ms. Dalton,
    that the Japanese do not want any observers on their vessels,
    period. They have been fighting that for years, and they will
    probably continue doing so even in the Atlantic. I am positive
    that the Japanese have a fleet also in the Atlantic and,
    unfortunately, when they get in international waters we don't
    have much to say about that, but it doesn't help our own fleet.
    And I just wanted to express that concern, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you. I know I have taken too much time.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to ask Ms. Dalton--and this is
    without prejudice to any of my colleagues because certainly on
    the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Saxton and Mr. Goss are
    people that I respect and work with, but are you concerned--I
    just wanted to ask you if you are concerned that basically we
    have proposals here--you know, Congress is legislating on the
    matter of the time-area closures for the swordfish. Is your
    position that--do you think that specific management measures
    should be done this way through legislation, or would you
    rather that NMFS and the councils deal with this?
        I guess one of the concerns I would have is the precedent
    that is set. Of course, I love to legislate, too, so I am
    probably not the person that should be asking this, but are you
    concerned about the precedent, or do you feel that you can work
    with this legislation? I mean, it is a little unusual to have
    legislation that comes out at the same time in terms of you
    have a specific proposal and now you have two other members of
    Congress proposing things that are somewhat different and
    somewhat the same, and I just wanted your opinion on that.
        Ms. Dalton. I think it is always preferable to deal with
    things administratively. In terms of the precedent, I think the
    precedent has already been set. We had the American Fisheries
    Act about two years ago that did something that is fairly
    similar to the provisions that are contained in this
    legislation.
        While it may have been congressional management of the
    fisheries that raised people's concerns, it also appears to
    have been fairly successful in addressing overcapitalization in
    the North Pacific, and helping to rationalize that fishery.
        So, I guess while we certainly are worried about
    micromanagement, we are willing to work with you on it and try
    to make sure that whatever you decide to do is the best thing
    both from a conservation perspective and also to benefit the
    fishery itself.
        Mr. Pallone. I will just keep a note, Mr. Chairman, so that
    the next time when I propose some legislation and NMFS doesn't
    like it, I will just remind them of what Ms. Dalton said. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Dalton. We are happy to work with you.
        Mr. Saxton. Penny, before you go, may I just follow up on
    Mr. Pallone's questions. I know that you are not creating a
    buyout program with the regulations, as proposed. Can you
    create a buyout program through regulations?
        Ms. Dalton. We have a Proposed Rule that is winding its way
    very slowly through the administrative process--actually, it is
    the Final Rule--that would provide the guidelines for doing
    buyout programs generally under Section 312 of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act.
        We probably could do that. Our primary limitation is at the
    present time we don't have any funding to do it, and there are
    two ways of doing that. If you do a direct Federal payment on
    it, it obviously requires a substantially higher appropriation.
    You also could do an industry-funded program that you could do
    by allowing the industry to take out a loan. What you are doing
    in your legislation is a combination of both of those things.
    We could probably do it administratively.
        Mr. Saxton. You could probably do it administratively with
    the tools you have?
        Ms. Dalton. If we had the funding, but we don't have the
    funding either.
        Mr. Saxton. I am sorry, but we have to get the funding for
    our proposal, too. I mean, if Congress has the will to
    appropriate for a new statute, then why wouldn't Congress have
    the will to appropriate for a regulation? What is the
    difference?
        Ms. Dalton. I think control of the conditions that the
    buyout is made under.
        Mr. Saxton. Why did you decide not to propose a rule for a
    buyout?
        Ms. Dalton. I don't think that we made a decision not to
    propose a rule for the buyout. The Proposed Rule, as it
    currently is stated, does not have mitigation for the socio-
    economic impacts. One of the things that we are going to have
    to do in receiving public comment on that rule is go back and
    balance. I don't know what we will finally come out with on it.
        At this point, the administration budget that just came out
    doesn't contain funding for doing a buyout for this fishery,
    other than that general financial assistance program that is
    intended to be used on a national basis.
        Mr. Saxton. When will this Proposed Rule be final?
        Ms. Dalton. May 1.
        Mr. Saxton. And on May 1 then, you would anticipate that
    these areas proposed by this rule will be closed, is that
    right?
        Ms. Dalton. Well, we will finalize the Rule. What we do in
    terms of the implementation is another issue. There will be at
    least a 30-day cooling off period.
        Mr. Saxton. That is a good term. What do you anticipate
    will happen at the end of the 30-day cooling off period that
    you just mentioned?
        Ms. Dalton. Some sort of closure would go into effect
    unless the Rule is somehow modified to phase it in. One of the
    things that we have looked at, I don't think there has been any
    decision on. What we have done in some areas where we know that
    there is going to be a substantial economic impact is we have
    phased in closures or phased in the regulations. We have done
    that in some of the New England fisheries to help mitigate
    those impacts. But the Rule would go into effect then under
    whatever conditions we impose.
        Mr. Saxton. Just to change thoughts for a moment, have you
    done any kind of an analysis to determine localized socio-
    economic impacts?
        Ms. Dalton. Excuse me?
        Mr. Saxton. Have you done any kind of analysis to determine
    localized socio-economic impacts?
        Ms. Dalton. Let me turn that over to Rebecca.
        Ms. Lent. We have made an attempt, based on the addresses
    of permit holders, to localize the community and identify the
    communities that would be most affected. We have, of course,
    looked at every single boat and every single fish they catch
    and tried to say what if they lost all those sets and what is
    the economic impact. We have the home address. One of the
    challenges of looking at the socio-economic effect is that the
    boats move around to follow the fish. You might have a boat
    that is in New England part of the year, and it comes down to
    Florida part of the year. It has been a challenge, but we have
    made an attempt to do that, and we are trying to get more
    information through our public comment process.
        Mr. Saxton. Just back to the displacement issue for a
    moment, would it surprise you to learn that some New Jersey
    marina owners have been contacted by longline fishermen from
    the southern part of the Atlantic for dockage?
        Ms. Dalton. No.
        Mr. Saxton. It wouldn't surprise you?
        Ms. Dalton. No.
        Mr. Saxton. I guess I have no further questions at this
    time. Mr. Faleomavaega, do you have any follow ups?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one short one. Ms. Dalton, has your
    office found any provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that
    runs contradictory to the proposed legislations, or any
    provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that is contrary to any
    provision that has been proposed here?
        Ms. Dalton. I am trying to think if there is any. I don't
    think there is any direct contradiction that I can think of.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Leave it to the National Marine
    Fisheries, they will find something.
        Ms. Dalton. One of the things in Mr. Saxton's bill, he
    amends the underlying statute. So, that obviously is a change
    from what is in the law right now.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Ms. Dalton, for being with
    us this morning. We always enjoy having you here, and I hope we
    weren't too tough on you today. We didn't try to be, anyway.
        Mr. Saxton. Moving on to the next panel, we have Mr. Glenn
    Roger Delaney, who represents the Blue Water Fishermen's
    Association and who is also a Commissioner to ICCAT; Mr.
    Michael Nussman, who is Vice President of the American
    Sportfishing Association; Mr. Robert G. Hayes, who is General
    Counsel of the Coastal Conservation Association; Mr. Ernest
    Panacek, who is Manager of Viking Village in Barnegat Light,
    New Jersey, a town and an organization which I am very familiar
    with; Mr. Richard Stone, Science Advisor to the Recreational
    Fishing Alliance, RFA; Mr. Gary Caputi, who is Co-Chairman of
    the Highly Migratory Species Committee and is a member of the
    Jersey Coast Anglers Association; and Dr. David Wilmot,
    Executive Director, Living Oceans Program of the National
    Audubon Society.
        Obviously, there are a lot of members on this panel, so I
    would like to just remind you that we try to observe a five-
    minute rule for your testimony, and that your written testimony
    will certainly be included in the record in its entirety.
        Mr. Delaney, you may begin at your leisure.

     STATEMENT OF MR. GLENN ROGER DELANEY, BLUE WATER FISHERMEN'S
               ASSOCIATION AND U.S. COMMISSIONER TO ICCAT

        Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may be your first
    violator of the five-minute rule, but I will do my very best.
        Members of the Subcommittee, for the record, I am Glenn
    Delaney, Consultant to the Blue Water Fishermen's Association.
    I also serve as the U.S. Commissioner to ICCAT, representing
    the commercial fishing industry.
        Mr. Chairman, our industries have certainly brought many
    problems to you over the years, but it is rare that we bring to
    you a solution, real solution, that has been hammered out in
    advance by the mainstream of the core constituencies, a
    solution that respects U.S. fishery policy, is based on sound
    science, and achieves major conservation objectives while
    addressing the social, economic and political realities of
    fisheries management. That is what I think we have done here,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Our proposal, which is fully reflected in H.R. 3390 and
    which is at the core of your bill, is first and foremost about
    conservation. Our proposal used the best available science to
    identify true hotspot concentrations of bycatch in order to
    design vast time-area closures where 52 percent of the small
    swordfish and 31 percent of the billfish bycatches occur in
    U.S. waters.
        Our proposal includes a buyout designed with the help of
    NMFS' economists that both minimizes displacement and provides
    a reasonable opportunity for those fishermen put out of
    business to restructure their lives, but that is not all. The
    buyout also substantially increases the bycatch conservations
    of this bill. The 68 vessels eligible for the buyout account
    for at least 65 percent of the total small swordfish bycatch,
    56 percent of the blue marlin bycatch, 37 percent of the white
    marlin bycatch, and 47 percent of the sailfish bycatch in the
    U.S. EEZ. The conservation potential of this buyout is
    enormous. Finally, our proposal invests in future gains in
    bycatch conservation by establishing an important research
    program in the Gulf and Atlantic.
        As well conceived as we think this proposal is, it is, as
    you can imagine, based on a very delicate agreement. Many
    months of negotiations and compromise have produced what is
    perhaps the only balance that could be struck between these
    groups. We are very apprehensive about changes that might have
    the effect of causing this unusual, perhaps once in a lifetime,
    opportunity to slip away.
        As you explained before introducing your bill, Mr.
    Chairman, you chose to include for the purpose of discussion
    certain provisions that are in addition to those that we
    recommended. I hope you will receive my comments in that spirit
    and understand that they are given with the sincere purpose of
    providing our best possible advice.
        There are three issues that I would like to cover. I think
    I will probably run out of time, but I will start with buyouts.
    In theory, policy supporting the use of buyouts to achieve
    special resource and economic objectives is well established in
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly in section 312(b) of
    National Standard 8.
        I would just interject here that our analysis of section
    312(b) does not provide NMFS with the authority to establish a
    buyback for highly migratory species which, as you know, are
    treated differently under the Act than council managed species,
    and I would just note that difference.
        In practice, it has been Congress that has developed
    buyouts with extensive industry input to address several unique
    circumstances that have developed in fisheries in recent years.
    I believe our proposal is entirely consistent with this policy
    and with this precedent. The bottom line is that the
    conservation benefits of our proposal could not be achieved
    without this particular buyout program, period. It remains one
    of the fundamental reasons why we believe this proposal can
    succeed.
        In contrast, Blue Water has expressed serious difficulty
    with the second mid-Atlantic buyout proposed in Section 7(k)(1)
    of the Chairman's bill. Buyouts represent an extraordinary
    solution to an extraordinary resource and economic problem.
    Buyouts need to have a very compelling purpose. Buyouts need to
    be widely supported from within the affected industry.
        While we feel that the purpose of the first buyout related
    to the impacts of the time-area closures is compelling, it is
    not as clear to Blue Water what the purpose is of the mid-
    Atlantic buyback.
        First, it is not associated with the impacts of a time-area
    closure.
        Second, the U.S. longline industry is not overcapitalized,
    so the purpose cannot be to mitigate the economic impacts of
    overcapitalization, as Congress did in the Bering Sea pollock
    fishery through the American Fisheries Act.
        Third, the pelagic longline fishery has not experienced a
    resource collapse or conservation crisis, as was the case
    underlying the New England groundfish buyout.
        Blue Water respectfully, but strongly, recommends against
    the establishment of the second mid-Atlantic buyout.
        The second issue I would like to cover is unilateral
    action. Mr. Chairman, I included on page 10 of my written
    submission a statement you made on the House Floor in October
    of 1990, when you helped champion the addition of section
    6(c)(3)(K) to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. This provision
    restricts U.S. unilateral action when implementing ICCAT
    conservation measures.
        Mr. Chairman, your statement may be the most coherent
    explanation that I have ever read of why this provision is now
    a cornerstone of U.S. policy regarding the international
    management of highly migratory species. Your statement and this
    provision reflect the core of U.S. policy and the fundamental
    truth that no nation can effectively conserve and manage these
    unique fish through a unilateral strategy. Instead,
    international cooperation throughout the range of these
    fisheries is essential to both successful resource conservation
    and to the fair treatment of U.S. fishermen.
        Mr. Chairman, since you made that statement on the House
    floor, absolutely nothing has changed that would justify a
    change in U.S. policy or an amendment to that provision. So, we
    strongly urge you to drop section 7(k)(3) of your bill. I would
    make the same recommendation to you regarding the closely
    related provisions set forth in section 7(k)(2) of your bill,
    which would require the Secretary to make unilateral reduction
    in the U.S. quota of swordfish.
        I think my time has expired. I did want to address the
    issue of displacement, and I would be happy to outline some of
    the reasons why we feel displacement will not be a problem
    under a proposal, and perhaps in response to a question, Mr.
    Chairman, or I can simply continue at this time, whatever your
    preference is.
        Mr. Saxton. In light of the fact that we have a number of
    witnesses, let us move on and we will try to get to those
    issues during the question-and-answer period.
        Mr. Delaney. Very good, sir. I would just like to wrap up
    and thank you for your tireless attention to the unusually
    complex challenges that we face in the management of Atlantic
    highly migratory species and, in particular, I appreciate
    making your staff consistently available to contribute to our
    efforts at ICCAT. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Delaney follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.019

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
        Mr. Nussman.

      STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL NUSSMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
                        SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Nussman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here today and to testify on behalf of the
    American Sportfishing Association. ASA is a non-profit trade
    association that represents 500 members of the sportfishing
    industry. Besides working for that group, I also serve as the
    U.S. Recreational Commissioner to ICCAT.
        Today, I am going to comment on the entire variety of bills
    that have been laid out before you, as well as the NMFS
    proposal that has been discussed previously.
        Billfish--and by that I mean blue marlin, white marlin and
    sailfish--as well as swordfish are important recreational and
    commercial species. Unfortunately, in the Atlantic, each of
    these species is overfished. Billfish are at about 25 percent
    of the level necessary to provide and sustainable yield, while
    swordfish are at around 65 percent of that level.
        Having said that, the outlook for one of these stocks,
    swordfish, is improving. The last stock assessment completed in
    the fall shows the stock has stabilized--and, in fact, may be
    recovering--due in large part to international and domestic
    quota cuts taken over the last five years.
        Even more promising, late last year ICCAT agreed to a 10-
    year rebuilding plan for swordfish. As a part of that plan,
    U.S. swordfish quotas will be cut by 7 percent this year, and
    that will increase to 12 percent by the year 2002.
        Now, with this background, I think it is important to
    understand why ASA, along with the Coastal Conservation
    Association and the Billfish Foundation agreed to work together
    with Blue Water on a concept that has become H.R. 3390, and in
    large measure your bill, H.R. 3331.
        From a recreational perspective--and I mean that both from
    the industry perspective as well as the angler perspective--our
    goal is a very simple one. We want to improve recreational
    fishing.
        So, despite the fact that we have swordfish on a reasonable
    path to recovery, we all know that billfish are still in
    significant trouble. Further, we recognize that the single
    largest source of billfish mortality in U.S. waters is longline
    bycatch. So, collectively, our groups came together. We took
    the best scientific data and identified areas that had the
    highest bycatch-to-targeted catch ratio and we proposed to
    close them.
        Next, the groups agreed to cooperate in a buyout of
    longline vessels that spent a significant amount of time
    fishing in these areas. From our perspective, there are two
    good reasons to do this. First, we are taking these fishermen's
    livelihoods from them, and equity dictates that they be
    compensated.
        Second, despite the quota reductions I spoke of earlier, if
    these vessels are not retired, their effort could be displaced
    elsewhere, and this displacement could, in fact, have
    unintended consequences which we can't predict.
        Each of the groups involved realize that this effort, while
    an important and critical first step, will not be the final
    answer in restoring our fish populations to healthy levels. So,
    we have included a research program to improve data on bycatch
    associated with longline fishing. This three-year effort,
    signed off on by all parties, will yield important information
    upon which to base future management decisions.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, despite the ICCAT quota reduction
    and the buyout contemplated by the legislation, some have
    raised concerns that longline vessels will be displaced to
    other areas. To address this issue, both your bill and H.R.
    3390 require aggressive monitoring in the mid-Atlantic, an area
    where any possible displacement could, in fact, occur.
        This monitoring will be accomplished by increasing the
    level of observer coverage and by mandating use of vessel
    monitoring system. Further, the bills require NMFS to take
    action if displacement is found to be affecting recreational
    fishing.
        With regard to the rule proposed by the National Marine
    Fisheries Service, we compliment the agency for its hard work
    and note that the proposed areas, while different in some ways,
    are, in fact, fairly similar to the areas that we propose.
        Unfortunately, the agency does not at this time have all
    the tools needed to complete its work. NMFS' proposal, because
    it lacks a buyout, actually encourages displacement of longline
    effort outside the closed area because it leaves the displaced
    boats in business. NMFS acknowledges that this displacement is
    likely to occur and, in fact, will result in increased bycatch
    of blue and white marlin, both species that are significantly
    depressed. We believe that would be a disappointing outcome for
    such a significant proposal as we have on the table today.
        In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I believe that of the bills
    being considered here, H.R. 3390 has the broadest support. I
    would say that it is not a perfect bill but, in fact, few bills
    are. With that understanding, I would urge you to move it
    forward. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and look
    forward to answering any questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nussman follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.025

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
        Mr. Hayes.

      MR. ROBERT G. HAYES, GENERAL COUNSEL, COASTAL CONSERVATION
     ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, THE BILLFISH
                               FOUNDATION

        Mr. Hayes. I am here today as the General Counsel for the
    American Sportfishing Association, the Coastal Conservation
    Association and the Billfish Foundation. I want to address
    three issues that have been raised here this morning, and three
    issues that I think are important to the passage of this bill.
        The first one is, why legislate? Why do we need to do this
    in Congress? There are three very fundamental reasons, in my
    view. The first, Glenn has already indicated, there is a
    question whether there is authority under the Magnuson Act to
    do a buyout through the National Marine Fisheries Service. That
    is an obvious question.
        The second thing is that the buyout that is envisioned in
    the Magnuson-Stevens Act doesn't allow recreational fishermen,
    who clearly could be the beneficiaries of a buyout, to
    participate.
        And the third reason is that there are a number of
    decisions that have been made here, because this is a
    compromise, which might not be the most perfectly
    scientifically supported compromise that could be used here.
    Let me give you the best example.
        The question was raised about the Gulf of Mexico. The
    administrative proposal essentially is to close the entire EEZ
    off the State of Texas. That will essentially displace 35 to 40
    longliners who now reside in the State of Texas and would have
    to go to the upper Gulf.
        Our purpose in designing the line the way in which we
    designed it was to ensure that there would not be any
    displacement of longline vessels from the Gulf of Mexico
    because, if we were going to displace them, that would increase
    the cost and increase the buyout.
        Our concept here is to minimize displacement, but provide
    the greatest, broadest lateral benefit to recreational
    fishermen in the Gulf. That was the basis of the negotiation.
    Frankly, the proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service
    would have to be essentially to close the entire Gulf, if it
    was going to benefit recreational fishermen. If you close the
    entire Gulf, it is obvious at that point that you are going to
    displace 100 vessels out of the Gulf of Mexico, clearly
    something that we were trying to avoid.
        The second thing I want to talk about is the question of
    why legislate. What we are trying to avoid here was litigation.
    There has been a lot of discussion about the possibility of
    proceeding administratively with the closure and then having
    the buyout.
        Frankly, it is our belief that if you do not couple the two
    together, that you are going to put yourself into Federal
    District Court someplace and we are going to be involved in
    litigation for years over whether these are the right areas,
    whether the science supports them, whether the displacement is
    accurate, whether the buyout plan ultimately developed by the
    National Marine Fisheries Service is fair.
        What that leads us to believe is that we were talking about
    a five-year process under the administrative approach. We think
    all of that can be avoided by the bills that we have agreed on
    and have brought to you.
        The second thing I want to talk about very briefly is this
    research program. The research program here is, to the
    recreational community, one of the jewels of this legislation.
    What we are asking Congress to do is fund a research program
    not for the National Marine Fisheries Service, but to fund a
    program that allows scientists from the environmental
    community, from the recreational community, and from the
    commercial community, to come together and design a system in
    which we can prove to each other whether there are available
    bycatch reduction mechanisms that can be put in place here in
    the United States. That research program should lead us to a
    practical, logical, scientifically supported form of management
    free for five years down the line.
        The last thing I want to talk about, and I am going to do
    it very briefly, is I want to talk about this issue of what do
    we do internationally. I was intrigued by the comments that
    there was more than one longline fleet and parcener fleet out
    floating around in the Atlantic Ocean. This program that we
    have put forward--closed areas, reducing fleet size, looking at
    research, looking at alternative ways of reducing bycatch--we
    want to take this concept internationally. I think we could
    even take it to the Pacific Ocean because, if it works, it
    works on every vessel.
        And then the question becomes, do we have the domestic
    willpower and the presence to go to international organizations
    and get them to buy these kinds of closed areas and
    scientifically proven bycatch reduction systems? I think we do,
    and I think for all of those reasons it is important to support
    these bills and move them forward. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
        Mr. Saxton. I am glad you said ``support these bills''.
    That is very good.
        Ernie Panacek.

    Statement of Mr. Robert G. Hayes, General Counsel, Coastal Conservation
    Association, American Sportfishing Association, The Billfish Foundation

        Good morning Mr. Chairman:
        My name is Bob Hayes, and I am the General Counsel for the
    Coastal Conservation Association (``CCA''), The Billfish
    Foundation (``TBF'') and the American Sportfishing Association
    (``ASA''). This morning I'd like to focus my testimony on three
    areas. First, I would like to tell you a little about CCA and
    TBF. Second, I would like to tell you about how some of the
    policy decisions in H.R. 3390 were made, and third, I would
    like to address the particulars of the bill itself.
        The Coastal Conservation Association is the leading marine
    recreational fishing group in the United States. Formed by a
    small group of sportfishermen in Houston in 1978, CCA has grown
    to a fifteen-state operation with over 70,000 members. Each of
    our states operates somewhat independently, focusing on issues
    in the state that are important to marine recreational
    fishermen. However, like so much in fisheries management,
    conservation issues encompass a regional and national
    perspective; therefore, CCA learned long ago that Federal and
    international fisheries management were just as important to
    the local marine recreational fishermen as the conservation of
    the most local fish population.
        CCA pursues conservation policies set by our state and
    national Boards of Directors. These boards are made up of
    active volunteers concerned about the health of the nation's
    fisheries. CCA has been active in a number of conservation
    issues in the last twenty years, including: all of the east and
    Gulf coast net bans; gamefish status for redfish, speckled
    trout, tarpon, striped bass, river shad, marlins, spearfish and
    sailfish; and the reduction of bycatch through the use of
    closed areas and technology. We have also pushed for the
    improvement of the management system through the restructuring
    of state and Federal management systems, the elimination of
    conflicts of interests by decision-makers, and the active
    involvement of our membership in the management process.
        TBF began as a result of a concern by a group of offshore
    fisherman that scientific emphasis on billfish was inadequate
    to develop meaningful conservation measures. From its inception
    TBF has taken the leadership role nationally and
    internationally in the development of science to recover
    billfishes. As that science has developed, TBF has expanded its
    advocacy role to include both domestic and international
    management of billfishes.
        Today, TBF has members from all over the world and works
    cooperatively with tournaments and other groups interested in
    the conservation of billfishes. Like CCA, it is a board driven
    policymaking body that hires professional staff to implement
    the policy.

    The four guiding principles.

        Legislation like the kind being proposed can't be developed
    without some guiding principles. Four have been used by the
    parties to the MOU that lead to the Saxton and Goss bills under
    consideration today.

    Sound science, not emotion, should be the basis of fishery
    management decisions.

        The National Marine Fisheries Service and The Billfish
    Foundation developed the underlying science for all of the
    bills dealing with HMS. Dr. Phil Goodyear, in his published
    report, found that there were areas of the Gulf of Mexico and
    the Southeast coast that if closed to longlining would reduce
    the bycatch of billfishes and small swordfish. The data and
    conclusions in that study form the basis for the NMFS proposal.
    It is not suprising that they are very similar, especially on
    the East Coast. The bill's unified approach to closing these
    areas demonstrates the value of sound science.
        Longline bycatch is not one of those areas where the
    science is abundant. Therefore, the bills establish a
    scientific research program to determine ways to further reduce
    bycatch in the longline fishery. That scientific analysis will
    give Congress, fishery managers and the public a better
    understanding on which to base future decisions.

    There has to be a benefit to all parties to make this work.

        Not every group will get what it wants when this
    legislation goes into effect. Deals like this one are extremely
    complicated because of the diversity of the fishery and the
    lack of legislative authority to do what needs to be done. The
    recreational fishing community got into this because we wanted
    to improve billfishing. To do that, we had to address the
    single largest source of mortality in U.S. waters--longline
    bycatch. The longline fishery is extremely complicated. It is
    managed by the states, the Federal Government and by an
    international body. It is not monolithic. There are tuna and
    swordfish fleets and mixes of the both. They fish year round
    all over the Atlantic Ocean. Universally, they have said to us
    that they want to address the same problem we do, but they
    don't want to go out of business doing it.
        The Goss bill tries to balance the interests of the fleet
    with the interests of the fish that recreational fisherman want
    to catch, and for the most part, release. The buyout program
    will clearly benefit the fleet by reducing competition and
    making the remaining fleet more viable. The closed areas will
    also benefit the fleet by reducing small swordfish catches and
    helping them accommodate the new ICCAT rebuilding plan. The
    closed areas will be a tremendous benefit for recreational
    anglers. Not only will they improve billfish catches, but also
    it will improve the catch of mahi mahi and wahoo. In addition
    it will reduce the conflicts between these gears, which has
    lead to many of the emotional confrontations with the longline
    fleet.

    The beneficiaries of the bill have to contribute to the cost.

        One of the earliest votes taken by CCA, TBF and ASA on the
    negotiation was whether we as recreational fishermen were
    willing to pay for some of the buyout of the longline fleet.
    The vote was unanimous. These groups operate on a principle
    that we are willing to put our money where our conservation
    mouths are. There are number of instances in which recreational
    fisherman have participated in the buy-out of gear and licenses
    through the contribution of funds. As an example in Louisiana,
    we supported legislation that placed a surcharge on
    recreational fishing licenses to provide funds for commercial
    fishermen impacted by the net ban. In Texas CCA made direct
    contributions to the state to buy-out bay shrimp licenses. The
    tackle industry has been making contributions to improve
    fishing for years through Wallop-Breaux. Putting money up to
    improve fishing is not new for the recreational sector. We look
    at resource issues to determine what gains can be made and how
    those gains will improve recreational fishing. We are not
    willing to stand back and avoid achieving improvements because
    someone else is responsible for the damage. We are willing to
    pay because we are getting a benefit.
        The commercial industry is also willing to pay because of
    the benefit they are getting.

    Minimize displacement of the remaining fleet.

        Displacement of the remaining longlining fleet--the
    unintended moving of the fleet from one place to another--has
    been a concern of all four groups from the beginning of our
    discussions. We have tried to minimize the impact on other
    areas of the country. As a result, we decided early on that
    none of the bought out vessels could be used in any other
    commercial fishery. We concluded in the Gulf that the closed
    area had to be designed to allow the existing fleet to remain
    in place albeit further offshore. We concluded that the buy
    down of the fleet had to be large enough to ensure that a
    minimum amount of displacement in the mid-Atlantic would occur.
    We think the provisions of the Goss bill do that and protect
    other fisheries and regions from any displacement.

    H.R. 3390

        CCA, TBF and ASA got involved in this issue through the
    BlueWater Fishermen's Association (``BWFA''). BWFA wanted to
    explore reducing the bycatch of billfish through closed areas
    if there were support for a buyout of the smaller vessels in
    the fleet. We were very interested in this concept. Our Boards
    met three times on this issue and concluded that the approach
    taken in the Goss bill was not only the right approach for the
    resource, it was the only way we could accomplish our basic
    conservation goals. As a result, they instructed me to enter
    into negotiations with BWFA and to build a coalition of other
    like-minded conservation groups. These negotiations led to a
    Memorandum of Understanding among CCA, BWFA, the American
    Sportfishing Association and The Billfish Foundation, which was
    signed in August. The MOU contained many of the principles
    found in your legislation and formed the basis for the working
    relationship the participating groups have today. Each of the
    parties to the MOU still support it, because each of the
    parties knows this is the only way to get a bill like this one
    passed.
        The bill we support, H.R. 3390, does the following:

        1. Permanently closes an area from the North Carolina/South
    Carolina border to Key West, Florida, to all pelagic
    longlining.
        2. Permanently closes an area off the Gulf coast from
    Panama City, Florida, to Mobile, Alabama to longlining from
    January through Labor Day.
        3. For five years after enactment, it closes an area in the
    Gulf from Cape San Blas, Florida to Brownsville, Texas, from
    Memorial Day to Labor Day from the beach out to at least 500
    fathoms.
        4. Provides for a three-year research program with the
    longline fleet to determine ways to further reduce bycatch by
    longliners. This research will provide the basis for a
    permanent solution for longline bycatch, not only in the U.S.,
    but in all Atlantic waters. These measures can be implemented
    at any time by either NMFS or the Congress.
        5. Offers to buy all fishing permits from 68 eligible
    vessels on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. To be
    eligible, a vessel must receive at least 35 percent of its
    income from the permanently closed area.
        6. Vessel owners will be compensated by payment for all
    fishing licenses (Federal and state) and for forfeiture by the
    vessel of its fisheries endorsement. Vessels not documented
    will be prevented from being sold into any other commercial
    fishery.
        7. Total cost could approach $25,000,000. Funding will be
    through the National Marine Fisheries Service $15,000,000 if
    appropriated funds and $10,000,000 provided by the Federal
    Financing Bank. Funds will be provided only to vessel owners
    who can document landings and their Value. Owners will be paid
    $125,000 for their permit packages and an additional payment
    equal to one year's gross landings value not to exceed a total
    of $450,000.
        8. The Federal Financing Bank will be repaid with
    $10,000,000 split 50/50 between the recreational community and
    the longline industry.
        9. The longline industry will repay its obligation through
    a surcharge collected at the dealer level. The recreational
    community will repay its obligation through the issuance of a
    Federal license to vessels fishing for highly migratory species
    in the closed areas. The bill establishes a system for states
    to voluntarily elect to pay the debt for their fishermen.
        10. The bill will provide that the permits can be obtained
    at any post office, retail outlet, on the Internet or through a
    1-800 number system. The permits will issue to the boat and
    will not be transferable.
        11. Longline vessels will be prevented from reflagging or
    fishing in any other commercial fishery including state water
    fisheries.
        12. The bill includes requirements for vessel monitoring
    devices and enhanced observer coverage.
        13. The research program will include a special emphasis
    off the mid-Atlantic in the event of displacement there of
    existing vessels as a result of the closed area.
        The areas chosen for closure are a result of research done
    by The Billfish Foundation, which identified hot spots for
    bycatch, and by the swordfish industry which identified areas
    where small swordfish catches are found. The data used to
    identify these areas shows that the closures will have a number
    of positive impacts on bycatch. The preliminary estimates are
    that the closures will reduce U.S. longline bycatch in the EEZ
    by 47 percent for sails, 32 percent for blue marlin and 13
    percent for whites. In addition, they will have a positive
    impact on the bycatch of sharks, tunas, small swordfish, mahi
    mahi, wahoo and other species. The legislation will reduce the
    U.S. swordfish fleet by about one-third. Since these vessels
    also fish in other domestic fisheries from which they will be
    precluded, the buyout will have some positive impact on the red
    snapper, shark, grouper and mahi mahi fisheries.
        Internationally, it will set a precedent allowing the U.S.
    to negotiate the international closing of open-ocean bycatch
    hotspots and small swordfish areas. These closures will further
    assist in reducing the international fleet exploitation of
    billfishes.
        ASA, TBF and CCA have been praised and maligned for their
    efforts. Most of the criticism has been from groups that do not
    understand the legislation or are looking for solutions that
    are not attainable. I would like to address some of those
    criticisms.
        ``There is no conservation benefit.'' Approximately 52
    percent of the total small swordfish bycatch reported by U.S.
    pelagic longline fishermen in the U.S. EEZ occurs in the three
    proposed closed areas. Similarly, approximately 31 percent of
    the total billfish bycatch reported by U.S. pelagic longline
    fishermen in the U.S. EEZ occurs in these three areas combined.
    In addition, these closed areas will reduce the longline catch
    of other species, including mahi mahi.
        ``The vessels have already left the areas being closed.''
    Prior to entering into the MOU, The Billfish Foundation
    commissioned a study by Dr. Phil Goodyear to look at the
    biological effects of time and area closures on the reduction
    of bycatch in the tuna and swordfish longline fleets. Dr.
    Goodyear looked at thousands of data sets from longline vessels
    in the south Atlantic and the Gulf to determine where and when
    the greatest reductions could be achieved if areas were closed.
    That data was used to determine which areas should be closed.
    In addition, in the Gulf the objective was to address the area
    of the greatest billfish bycatch and the recreational and
    longline fleet interaction without displacing the longline
    fleet to new areas of the Gulf or the Caribbean.
        ``There will be displacement of the fleet to the mid-
    Atlantic bight.'' There are two issues here. The first is the
    impact of the vessels being bought out and the second is the
    potential for more effort in the mid-Atlantic as a result of
    the closed areas.
        A substantial portion of the negotiation over the MOU was
    spent discussing how to avoid the displacement of the eligible
    vessels to any fishery. The provisions in the bill that
    restrict the vessels accepting the buyout from participating in
    any commercial fishery were a result of those discussions.
    Vessels will be required to forfeit all of their state and
    Federal commercial fishery permits. In addition, the vessels
    will be required to permanently forfeit their fishery's
    endorsement, which will restrict any subsequent owner from
    placing the vessel in a commercial fishery. The vessels are
    also prevented from reflagging. Since these vessels are in
    limited entry systems, this will reduce the number of licenses
    in the swordfish, tuna, shark and red snapper fisheries. None
    of these vessels will ever again carry a longline or fish
    commercially.
        The remaining fleet is not likely to increase its activity
    in the mid Atlantic. Vessels not eligible for the buy out will
    be precluded from fishing in the East Coast closed area, but
    that does not mean they will be able to fish in the mid-
    Atlantic. Most of the remaining fleet fish in the closed areas
    during the winter when there is little activity in the mid-
    Atlantic. Closing some of the fleet out of the south isn't
    going to start a mid winter fishery.
    This won't help get a rebuilding plan for swordfish.'' This
    bill is not intended as the exclusive measure to achieve a
    rebuilding plan for swordfish. The bill's aim is to reduce the
    harvest of small swordfish and billfish. However, it will
    greatly assist in the achievement of an Atlanticwide recovery
    that was just negotiated at the recent ICCAT meeting in Rio.
    ICCAT agreed with the United States that it would adopt a ten-
    year rebuilding program for swordfish. That agreement came at
    some substantial cost to the domestic swordfish industry. In
    addition to taking a quota reduction, the domestic industry
    agreed to phase down its allowable discard of small swordfish.
    Without this concession by the industry, no deal approaching a
    ten-year rebuilding plan was possible.
    Taken as a whole, the U.S. industry will take a quota reduction
    approaching 15 percent over the next three years, while other
    fishing fleets from the EU and Japan will take considerably
    less of a cut. I believe that the existence and the potential
    for eventual passage of this legislation gave the industry the
    will to make this sacrifice.
        ``Why not let NMFS close areas?'' CCA strongly endorses the
    principle that the Councils and not the Congress ought to
    manage fisheries. Given that, you might ask why we are
    supporting a legislative approach to address longline bycatch
    when the National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of
    proposing rules to do just that. The reason is that NMFS does
    not have the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
    accomplish what can be accomplished through these bills. As
    Penny Dalton will tell you, these bills go well beyond what
    NMFS can accomplish through a rulemaking.
        NMFS can clearly close areas to longlining; however, in
    doing so it must take several factors into consideration,
    including the economic impact on the longline fishery and the
    biological impact on other fisheries if the closed areas result
    in the displacement of vessels. It has no authority to buyout
    displaced vessels and, therefore, would have to adjust the area
    it is proposing to mitigate the impact on the industry and
    other fisheries. This mix of considerations is best described
    by comparing the NMFS proposal for the Gulf of Mexico and the
    H.R. 3390/3331 Gulf closure. NMFS proposed to close an area in
    the Western Gulf from about Port Eads westward to the Mexican
    border for six months. This will have a significant biological
    benefit for billfish in the western Gulf and could have a
    positive impact on the spawning populations of bluefin tuna. It
    will, however, displace the entire western Gulf longline fleet
    to the eastern Gulf during that period. CCA members and anglers
    in Texas will enjoy substantially improved recreational
    billfishing and will be effectively free of any longline
    interaction. However, our members in Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Alabama and Florida will get to enjoy an even greater
    interaction with the longline fleet as longliners shift their
    effort to the east. Both of these bills are designed to prevent
    the lateral displacement of the fleet in the Gulf. By pushing
    the longline effort further offshore, it creates separation of
    the two activities and produces a positive conservation effect.
        On the East Coast this is even more dramatic. These bills
    propose a permanent closure on the East Coast from Key West to
    North Carolina. It assumes that there will be a number of
    vessels displaced as a result and offers to buy them out of all
    commercial fishing rather than allow them to shift their
    effort. NMFS can close the same area or an even one larger, but
    when it does, it will simply send the effort elsewhere, either
    to the Gulf or the mid-Atlantic. The alternative would be to
    reduce the size of the closure, thereby reducing the potential
    for displacement but also reducing the conservation benefit.
    Neither of these two results is going to make recreational
    fishermen happy.
        Mr. Chairman as you can tell from this testimony that the
    groups I represent support the Goss bill. We would be remiss
    however in not thanking you for your leadership and your
    efforts to balance the concerns of the multiple constituencies.
    We have tried our best to address those concerns in the Goss
    bill and think that approach has the best chance of ultimate
    passage. You help in continuing this legislation will be
    invaluable and we look forward to working with you.

    STATEMENT OF MR. ERNEST PANACEK, MANAGER, VIKING VILLAGE DOCK,
                       BARNEGAT LIGHT, NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Panacek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee. I am Ernie Panacek, Manager of Viking Village
    commercial fishing dock in Barnegat Light, New Jersey. I am
    also proud to be Blue Water Fishermen's Association's Regional
    Director for the New Jersey area and a Director of Garden State
    Seafood Association.
        I hope everyone recognizes this unprecedented step by our
    commercial fisheries substantially reduce unwanted regulatory
    discarding of undersize swordfish, billfish, and other highly
    migratory species.
        All along we have stated that once we had a defined
    universe of participants under limited access, we would develop
    a progressive plan to further reduce the catches of unwanted
    fish. We initiated this intense effort by surveying fishermen,
    dealers, and related businesses to determine the most effective
    and supportable approach for this task. Fortunately, principal
    mainstream sportfishing and conservation organizations shared
    our vision of the benefits of working cooperatively to solve
    major domestic problems so we can then turn as united Americans
    to approach the international arena with a more practical
    method to effectively achieve the conservation needed for the
    future of all our fisheries.
        Other groups, including the Recreational Fishing Alliance,
    attended initial negotiations, however, they insisted that only
    a total ban of U.S. pelagic longlining would satisfy their
    extremist view.
        The cooperative parties recognized this as a
    counterproductive direction and continued to develop perhaps
    the most progressive and positive proposal that has ever been
    developed between competing fishery sectors.
        Today, faced with NMFS' flawed competing regulatory
    proposal, it is tremendously important for Congress to pass S.
    1911 and H.R. 3390 before the agency is forced to finalize its
    proposed rule.
        Mr. Chairman, even though I appreciate that at its core
    your bill includes the cooperating parties' proposal, I am,
    however, concerned and will discuss the following differences
    in H.R. 3331 that I think undermine the intent and
    effectiveness of the courageous proposal embodied in
    Congressman Goss' H.R. 3390.
        (1) I support the inclusion of the additional purpose in
    H.R. 3331 that reinforces the value and the future of the U.S.
    pelagic longline fishery. Thank you for your dedication to
    keeping this fishery alive.
        I recommend Atlantic closed area coordinates that will
    correct the errors made by Senate Legislative Counsel that
    would cause unnecessary displacement and would ensure easier
    compliance and enforcement.
        I strongly oppose any second buyout. Our fishery will need
    time to settle out and evaluate the results of this dramatic
    conservation measure already incorporated into H.R. 3390. We
    are confident that any additional bycatch reduction can be
    cooperatively investigated through the research program.
        The mid-Atlantic buyout is not based on bycatch hotspots
    nor the importance of minimizing target catch disruption, thus,
    could needlessly and negatively impact this fishery. This
    buyout has not been developed by, and cannot be supported by,
    this fishery.
        I oppose any unilateral quota reductions. Experience shows
    unilateral cuts result in taking fish away from the compliant
    American fishermen, leaving this fish available to less
    conservation-oriented foreign fleets.
        I oppose the additional $5 million financial burden of an
    unnecessary second buyout. These are hard economic times for
    the U.S. pelagic longline fishery which suffered from reduced
    prices due to over three times more swordfish imports in 1998
    than in 1996. If additional government revenues are available,
    it should go towards minimizing the socio-economic impacts on
    related seafood businesses dependent on the vessels that are
    eligible for the voluntary buyout.
        I oppose an observer fee placed on a single Atlantic highly
    migratory species sector. The pelagic longline fishery already
    has copious amounts of accurate data while comparable
    information from other commercial and recreational sectors
    remain unknown.
        H.R. 3390 also already addresses additional observers for
    its research program. The mid-Atlantic effort limit may be
    supportable if revised to specifically focus on hooks displaced
    from the closed areas as a monitoring guideline, but not as an
    additional restriction. Operational variables in this fishery
    should remain flexible for potential bycatch reduction methods
    that should be studied by the research program in H.R. 3390.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I strongly and personally recommend
    the additional conservation measure of prohibiting ICCAT quota
    overages from being imported into the U.S. market as a
    tremendous advance for international highly migratory species
    conservation, and to level the playing field for the American
    fisherman.
        In conclusion, I hope that this Subcommittee will find the
    courage and wisdom to move forward H.R. 3390 as soon as
    possible, to send a strong message to all global nations that
    the United States is fully committed to conserve these valuable
    resources for future generations and stands behind their
    American fishermen who lead the world in this effort. Thank you
    very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Panacek follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.042

        Mr. Saxton. Ernie, thank you very much.
        Mr. Stone.

          STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD B. STONE, SCIENCE ADVISOR,
                     RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE

        Mr. Stone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Richard Stone,
    Science Advisor for the Recreational Fishing Alliance. I am
    here to present statements for the RFA and the National
    Coalition for Marine Conservation on the issues of time and
    area closures that are now being proposed by both the National
    Marine Fisheries Service and members of Congress.
        The organizations that I am representing have been
    advocating extensive longline area closures to protect
    undersize swordfish, billfish and oceanic sharks since 1996,
    and are pleased and encouraged that such measures are being
    seriously considered and are likely to be implemented in the
    near future. Unfortunately, differing approaches to instituting
    the closures are dividing the attention of the fishing and
    environmental communities.
        Congressional intervention carries with it two
    controversial changes in the management of large pelagic fish:
    it effectively transfers authority for managing the Atlantic
    pelagic longline fishery, now and in the future, from NMFS to
    Congress; and it links implementation of conservation measures
    in this fishery to financial compensation on the industry's
    terms. We do not think it is appropriate or necessary to
    completely change the interactive, highly migratory species
    management process that most of the organizations involved here
    and Congress helped put into place.
        With the HMS Advisory Panels and the cooperation with the
    U.S. ICCAT Commissioners and Advisory Committee, we believe the
    process is improving. The NMFS proposal for time/area closures
    is a good example. Congress should not step in and derail this
    process now.
        We appreciate the Committee taking the time to hold this
    hearing and getting input into this process because failure to
    resolve critical differences between the two approaches and
    unite the fishing and conservation communities in common
    purpose could undermine the conservation benefits that would
    ultimately derive from either proposal. This would short-change
    the resource and the fishermen who look forward to the benefits
    of recovered stocks.
        I will highlight some of the comments from the
    organizations that I represent, and also submit additional
    comments from the RFA and a position paper from the NCMC. They
    do not object per se to a buyout program, but are concerned
    that it is putting the cart before the horse in this case. The
    attachment of a buyout to the closures is touted as a
    preferable approach to the NMFS proposal because (a) it would
    remove effort from the fishery, thus decreasing the likelihood
    of increased bycatch rates in the areas left open to
    longlining, and (b) it has the support of the longline
    industry, which makes it more likely to be adopted.
        As with the NMFS proposal, the size and duration of the
    closures alone have the potential to reduce overall longline
    effort. Any added reduction in effort due to the buyout offer
    is uncertain mainly because its purpose is not effort reduction
    per se, but economic relief.
        It is possible that only those boats too small or too
    attached to their home port to move to other regions, or those
    that are struggling financially, will take the buyout offer and
    that the more mobile and financially solvent vessels that do
    threaten continued bycatch through redirected effort will
    remain active.
        More importantly, there is nothing in the bill that would
    prevent the boats remaining active in the fishery from
    increasing fishing effort and thus replacing the bought-out
    effort. While assumptions about the effects of displaced effort
    are uncertain under any scenario, an increase in effort is
    likely since the remaining vessels would end up with a larger
    share of the available landings.
        The conservation benefits of the proposed closed areas
    appear similar, but we would support the NMFS proposal for the
    South Atlantic which is slightly larger and beginning the
    closures in the Gulf of Mexico at least on May 1 rather than
    Memorial Day. The NMFS Technical Report dated October 1 clearly
    shows that discards of billfish increase dramatically in May in
    the Gulf. Larger closures appear to be needed in the Gulf of
    Mexico and we understand that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
    Management Council has recommended closing the entire Gulf for
    part of the year.
        We support additional research and monitoring as proposed
    in the bills and suggest that it should not be limited to
    billfish, but include all species of concern. Under the
    proposed bills, however, NMFS is to report the results after
    four years to Congress with recommendations for legislation.
    The effect of this provision and the intent of the legislation
    is to take management authority for the U.S. pelagic longline
    fleet away from NMFS and give it to Congress.
        Research and monitoring will be critical to the success of
    any bycatch reduction plan based on time and area closures.
    Since these longline area closures are experimental in nature,
    and monitoring, evaluation and adjustment may be necessary, it
    is important that the information be available on a real time
    basis and that NMFS have the flexibility to make needed
    adjustments quickly. The proposed legislation would preclude
    any follow-up action to make adjustments, except under
    emergency conditions, until at least 2004, and then only by an
    Act of Congress. We think that is not in the best interest of
    conservation.
        We do agree with the concept of amending the Atlantic Tunas
    Convention Act to allow the Secretary the option of reducing
    the amount that the United States may harvest of its allocation
    or quota by the amount of capacity affected by the buyout and
    keeping it in a conservation reserve until the stock recovers.
    Any share allocated to the United States by ICCAT would not be
    changed by this action. This way the U.S. fishermen will not be
    disadvantaged in the long run.
        In summary, legislation is not necessary to implement the
    time and area closures and achieve the conservation benefits
    that would derive from them. That can and should be done
    through the regulatory process established by Congress under
    the Magnuson Act, and with which NMFS is complying. If Congress
    deems it necessary, it could follow implementation of the
    regulations with legislation to provide relief to those vessels
    that can demonstrate substantial adverse economic impacts as a
    direct result of the regulations.
        If the legislative route is pursued, then we suggest
    modifying Congressman Saxton's bill, and would insist that all
    language restricting future regulation of the U.S. longline
    fishery by NMFS be removed. Additional comments pertaining to
    this approach were submitted. We stand ready to work with
    Congress, NMFS, and others on trying to resolve the different
    approaches being considered.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you and your Committee for its help on
    these issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stone follows:]

       Statement of Richard Stone, Science Advisor, Recreational Fishing
                                    Alliance

        Mr. Chairman, I am Richard Stone, Science Advisor for the
    Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). I am here today to present
    statements for the RFA and the National Coalition for Marine
    Conservation (NCMC) on the issues of time and area closures
    that are now being proposed by both the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Members of Congress.
        The organizations that I am representing have been
    advocating extensive longline area closures to protect
    undersize swordfish, billfish and oceanic sharks since 1996,
    and are pleased and encouraged that such measures are being
    seriously considered and are likely to be implemented in the
    near future. Unfortunately, differing approaches to instituting
    the closures are dividing the attention of the fishing and
    environmental communities. Congressional intervention carries
    with it two controversial changes in the management of large
    pelagic fish: it effectively transfers authority for managing
    the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery--now and in the future--
    from NMFS to Congress; and it links implementation of
    conservation measures in this fishery to financial compensation
    on the industry's terms. We do not think it is appropriate or
    necessary to completely change the interactive, highly
    migratory species (HMS) management process that most of the
    organizations involved here and Congress helped put into place.
    With the HMS Advisory Panels and the cooperation with the U. S.
    International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
    Commissioners and Advisory Committee, we believe the process is
    improving. The NMFS proposal for time/area closures is a good
    example. Congress should not step in and derail this process
    now.
        We appreciate the Committee taking the time to hold this
    Hearing and getting input into this process, because failure to
    resolve critical differences between the two approaches and
    unite the fishing and conservation communities in common
    purpose could undermine the conservation benefits that would
    ultimately derive from either proposal. This would short-change
    the resource and the fishermen who look forward to the benefits
    of recovered stocks.
        I will, highlight some of the comments from the
    organizations that I represent, and also submit additional
    comments from the RFA and a position paper from the NCMC. They
    do not object, per se, to a buyout program, but are concerned
    that it is putting the cart before the horse in this case. The
    attachment of a buy-out to the closures is touted as a
    preferable approach to the NMFS proposal because (a) it would
    remove effort from the fishery, thus decreasing the likelihood
    of increased bycatch rates in the areas left open to
    longlining, and (b) it has the support of the longline
    industry, which makes it more likely to be adopted. As with the
    NMFS proposal, the size and duration of the closures alone have
    the potential to reduce overall longline effort. Any added
    reduction in effort due to the buy-out offer is uncertain,
    mainly because its purpose is not effort reduction per se but
    economic relief. It is possible that only those boats too small
    or too attached to their home port to move to other regions, or
    those that are struggling financially, will take the buy-out
    offer and that the more mobile and financially solvent vessels
    (that do threaten continued bycatch through redirected effort)
    will remain active. More importantly, there is nothing in the
    bill that would prevent the boats remaining active in the
    fishery from increasing fishing effort and thus replacing the
    bought-out effort. While assumptions about the effects of
    displaced effort are uncertain under any scenario, an increase
    in effort is likely since the remaining vessels would end up
    with a larger share of the available landings for swordfish,
    tunas and sharks.
        The conservation benefits of the proposed closed areas
    appear similar but we would support the NMFS proposal for the
    South Atlantic which is slightly larger and beginning the
    closures in the Gulf of Mexico at least on May 1st rather than
    Memorial Day. The NMFS Technical Report dated October 1, 1999
    clearly shows that discards of billfish increase dramatically
    in May in the Gulf. Larger closures appear to be needed in the
    Gulf of Mexico and we understand that the Gulf of Mexico
    Fishery Management Council has recommended closing the entire
    Gulf for part of the year.
        We support additional research and monitoring as proposed
    in the Bills and suggest that it should not be limited to
    billfish, but include all species of concern. Under the
    proposed bills, however, NMFS is to report the results, after 4
    years, to Congress with recommendations for ``legislation.''
    The effect of this provision, and the intent of the
    legislation, is to take management authority for the U.S.
    pelagic longline fleet away from NMFS and give it to Congress.
    Research and monitoring will be critical to the success of any
    bycatch reduction plan based on time and area closures. Since
    these longline area closures are experimental in nature, and
    monitoring, evaluation and adjustment may be necessary, it is
    important that the information be available on a real time
    basis and that NMFS have the flexibility to make needed
    adjustments quickly. The proposed legislation would preclude
    any follow-up action to make adjustments, except under
    emergency conditions, until at least 2004, and then only by an
    Act of Congress. We think that is not in the best interest of
    conservation.
        We do agree with the concept of amending the Atlantic Tunas
    Convention Act to allow the Secretary the option of reducing
    the amount that the United States may harvest of its allocation
    or quota by the amount of capacity affected by the buyout and
    keeping it in a ``conservation reserve'' until the stock
    recovers. Any share allocated to the United States by ICCAT
    would not be changed by this action. This way the U.S.
    fishermen will not be disadvantaged in the long run.
        In summary, legislation is not necessary to implement the
    time and area closures and achieve the conservation benefits
    that would derive from them. That can and should be done
    through the regulatory process established by Congress under
    the Magnuson Act, and with which NMFS is complying. If Congress
    deems it necessary, it could follow implementation of the
    regulations with legislation to provide relief to those vessels
    that can demonstrate substantial adverse economic impacts as a
    direct result of the regulations. If the Legislative route is
    pursued, then we suggest modifying Congressman Saxton's Bill
    (H.R. 3331) and would insist that all language restricting
    future regulation of the U.S. longline fishery by the NMFS be
    removed. Additional comments pertaining to this approach were
    submitted as an attachment. We stand ready to work with
    Congress, NMFS, and others on trying to resolve the different
    approaches being considered. Thank you.
                                    ------

       Aditional Comments by the RFA if the Legislative Approach is Used

        Like the NCMC, we are skeptical that changes in the
    legislative approach can be made through alterations to the
    bills currently before Congress, if for no other reason than
    that the likelihood of the longline industry supporting a bill
    modified to satisfy our concerns may be slim to none. As we
    stated in our testimony, legislation is not necessary to
    implement the time and area closures and achieve the
    conservation benefits that would derive from them. That can and
    should be done through the regulatory process established by
    Congress under the Magnuson Act, and with which NMFS is
    complying.
        If the Legislative route is pursued, then we suggest
    modifying Congressman Saxton's Bill (H.R. 3331) and would
    request that all language restricting future regulation of the
    U.S. longline fishery by the NMFS be removed. Responsible NMFS
    fishery managers, with the help of the APs, ICCAT Commissioners
    and ICCAT Advisors, and the interactive, public input process,
    must retain the discretion to evaluate the effectiveness of
    time and area closures in reducing longline bycatch and to take
    additional domestic actions in the future, including
    alternative closures and gear modifications, as part of the
    regulatory framework established under the FMPs for billfish,
    tunas, swordfish and sharks.
        In SEC. 5, the term ``AFFECTED STATE'' should be eliminated
    since all States will be ``affected'' to some extent and should
    be part of the repayment process of any buyout proposal.
        In SEC. 7, language should be added, that makes it clear
    that any action by the Secretary to reduce the amount that the
    U.S. may harvest of its allocation or quota by the amount of
    capacity reduction affected by the buyout should be kept in a
    ``conservation reserve'' and that any share allocated to the
    U.S. by ICCAT would not be changed by this action. This gives
    the Secretary the same flexibility as Chairman Saxton's Bill.
    Further, it broadens the scope to include all areas and
    establishes a conservation reserve. It does not give up the
    conservation savings to any other ICCAT contracting party.
        As we stated in our testimony, we support additional
    research and suggest that it should not be limited to billfish,
    but include all species of concern. Also, it should not be
    limited to closed areas. The Secretary should be allowed to
    make any changes in the management regime shown necessary by
    the research results and report to Congress on progress but not
    have to wait for Congress to determine what management actions
    are necessary.
        We would have more specific, detailed comments if the
    legislative approach is used.
                                    ------

                                Curriculum Vitae

                                Richard B. Stone

    Sector--Marine Fisheries Consultant

                            Professional Experience

    1996-present-- Sole proprietorship consulting company
    specializing in highly migratory species (HMS) management and
    research, fishery data collection, interactive management,
    dispute resolution, recreational fishery development, fishery
    management plan development, review and comment on fishery
    regulatory actions, research and management planning for
    artificial reef development (domestic and international),
    artificial reef plan development, and international aspects of
    HMS research and management. Technical Advisor for U. S.
    Advisory Committee for the International Commission for the
    Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Advisory Committee
    member for the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program,
    and member of the steering committee to revise,, the U.S.
    National Artificial Reef Plan.
    U.S. Government-Marine Fisheries Research and Management (32
    years)
    1992-1996: Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division,
    Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
    Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce)-Headquarters.
    Directed Atlantic HMS management and coordinated research and
    management budgets for Atlantic HMS. Developed and instituted
    an interactive research and management policy for HMS bringing
    outside fishery interests more into the HMS management process.
    Supervised and participated in the development of fishery
    management actions for HMS including fishery regulations,
    fishery management plans, amendments to plans, and fishery
    closures. Prepared draft National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service (Agency)
    policy positions on FIMS, Congressional briefing documents and
    gave briefings on EMS at all levels of the Agency. Participated
    in international management of HMS as member of U.S. Delegation
    to Japan, Canada, and Mexico and to ICCAT meetings (since
    1978). Agency expert on artificial reef research and management
    issues.
    1976-1991: Recreational Fisheries Officer/Fisheries Management
    Specialist Headquarters. Coordinated Agency artificial reef
    activities, developed artificial reef policy, provided
    technical assistance to states and other countries on
    artificial reef development. Drafted marine recreational
    fisheries policy documents and coordinated or helped to
    coordinate marine recreational fisheries activities within the
    Agency. Served as key Agency contact with recreational fishing
    organizations and individuals. Set up task force to address
    recreational fishery data needs. Specifically developed Agency
    policy on artificial reefs through coordinating development of
    the National Artificial Reef Plan that involved bringing top
    artificial reef experts in the U.S. together to draft report.
    Worked with Sea Grant, The Sport Fishing Institute, and the
    Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to develop an
    easily accessible data base for state and Federal artificial
    reef activities. Worked on HMS fishery management plans and
    drafted policy guidance for foreign fishing on HMS in the U.S.
    fishery conservation zone. Drafted, with the General Counsel
    for Fisheries, the Agency policy on managing billfish as a
    recreational fishery. Coordinated Headquarters ICCAT research
    and management activities. Served on steering committees for
    five international artificial reef conferences and chaired one.
    1964-1976: Biological Oceanographer/Fishery Biologist--Sandy
    Hook Laboratory (NJ) and Beaufort Laboratory (NC). Directed
    artificial reef research for the Agency. Planned, conducted,
    and supervised scientific evaluation of artificial reefs to
    determine how and why fishes use reefs, comparative reef
    material efficiency, life histories of fishes using artificial
    reefs, and the effect of artificial reefs on recreational
    fishing. Collected and analyzed quantitative data on the
    increase in standing crop of fishes in the area of a natural,
    patch reef after adding an artificial reef of similar size
    nearby in the Biscayne National Monument, Florida. Completed a
    study of population dynamics of fishes on artificial reefs off
    Murrells Inlet, SC and directed a study to compare sport
    fishing catch and effort data from man-made and natural
    habitats off Murrells Inlet, SC and New York/New Jersey.
    Supervised tagging studies on mackerels to determine seasonal
    distribution and developed a format for recording tag release
    and recovery data. Supervised and conducted aerial temperature
    surveys with infrared sensors to study the distribution and
    abundance of surface schooling fishes in relation to
    temperature patterns. Participated as technical/scientific
    advisor to state and local artificial reef committees. Prepared
    the Environmental Impact Statement for the use of Liberty Ships
    as artificial reef material off the Virginia Capes.

                      Selected Publications (from over 45)

        Stone, R.B., H.L. Pratt, R.O. Parker, Jr., and G.E. Davis.
    1979. A comparison of fish populations on an artificial and
    natural reef in the Florida Keys. Marine Fisheries Review, 41:
    1-11.
        Stone, R.B., compiler. 1985b. National artificial reef
    plan. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OF-6. U.S. National Marine
    Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.
        Stone, R.B., J.M. McGurrin, L.M. Spreague, and W. Seaman;
    Jr. 1991. Artificial habitats of the world: synopsis and major
    trends. Pp. 31-60 in William Seaman, Jr. and Lucian M.
    Spreague, eds. Artificial habitats for marine and freshwater
    fisheries. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA.
        Stone, Richard B., C. Michael Bailey, Sarah A. McLaughlin,
    Pamela M. Mace. and Margo B. Schultz. 1998. Federal Management
    of the Atlantic Shark Fisheries. Elsevier, Fisheries Research
    808, 1-7.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.047

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stone.
        We are going to take about a five- or ten-minute recess. I
    apologize to the final two witnesses. We will be back in five
    or ten minutes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you for your patience, both members and
    witnesses and interested parties. We are going to proceed now
    to hear from Mr. Caputi. You may proceed, Gary.

      STATEMENT OF MR. GARY CAPUTI, CO-CHAIRMAN, HIGHLY MIGRATORY
          SPECIES COMMITTEE, JERSEY COAST ANGLERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Caputi. First, let me thank Congressman Saxton and
    members of the Subcommittee for inviting the Jersey Coast
    Anglers Association and the New Jersey Federation of
    Sportsmen's Clubs, with the combined membership of over 120,000
    members, to comment at these proceedings. The comments are
    submitted on their behalf.
        H.R. 3390 contains the measures negotiated by groups that
    represent a portion of the recreational community. The groups I
    represent today have a membership that exceeds CCA and TBF, yet
    their positions and concerns were not considered. Any claim
    that the process was representative of the majority of
    recreational fishermen, their opinions and concerns is
    inaccurate.
        Time and area closures in the Gulf, while appearing
    extensive, fall inside the 500-fathom curve where pelagic
    longlining in recent years has been almost non-existent while
    leaving open other areas further offshore where longlining is
    still prevalent.
        Satellite temperature charts of the region clearly show
    that the Gulf Stream and its currents fall outside the closed
    area, yet they are the very places experiencing the most
    longline pressure. They also attract the greatest concentration
    of endangered billfish.
        Similar problems arise in the South Atlantic closed area.
    We have been advised that longline effort for swordfish,
    especially tuna, takes place along the eastern boundaries of
    the Gulf Stream. Satellite temperature charts reveal that the
    eastern edge of the Stream falls well outside the proposed
    close area in much of this region.
        One of our major concerns with H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331 is
    that if southern closed areas are effective, there will be a
    significant effort shift to the mid-Atlantic states, and the
    bill ignores those implications.
        The mid-Atlantic is home to the largest fleet of private
    recreational and charter boats on the East Coast. Many fish
    offshore waters for tuna and billfish, and the economic
    importance of these fisheries is significant. More longliners
    in these waters will greatly increase ground conflicts between
    recreational and commercial fishermen. And the possibility of
    millions of additional longline hooks in the water each year
    will create huge increases in longline bycatch mortality of
    white marlin, the most overfished of the billfish species.
        It will put increased pressure on yellowfin, bigeye and
    longfin tuna stocks determined to be fully utilized by ICCAT.
    In fact, NMFS was so concerned about yellowfin stocks in the
    Western Atlantic that they placed a three-fish bag limit on
    recreational and charter fishermen recently.
        The northward shift has been alluded to no the record by
    longline representatives at the public hearings and, as the
    Congressman stated, marinas in New Jersey have already been
    contacted by numerous southern based longliners inquiring about
    dockage.
        H.R. 3390 contains no reduction in quota to match the
    number of boats bought in a buyout and, therefore, no real
    reduction in overall quota. If the quotas remain the same,
    every last pound of that quota will be landed by the smaller
    fleet, much of it from northern waters, we fear.
        The remaining 75 percent of the boats, if 60 are removed,
    will be the beneficiaries of reduced competition and increased
    quota shares. Unfortunately, this makes the bill appear to be
    more of a relief package for the longline industry and a
    conservation bill for the resource, and it forces taxpayers and
    recreational fishermen to foot the bill.
        The cost of the buyout is to be shouldered not by the
    remaining longliners, but by the taxpayers and recreational
    fishermen in the form of another new fishing permit. Just two
    years ago, recreational fishermen were burdened with a Federal
    tuna permit which originally cost $18, but this year will rise
    to $25. This bill imposes a second permit for fishing in the
    closed areas. Both permits are in addition to saltwater fishing
    licenses imposed by many states. We feel that both permits are
    unacceptable, and that issuance of recreational fishing permits
    and licenses should remain the domain of the states.
        One of the most troubling aspects of H.R. 3390 is a four-
    year moratorium on future regulation. If the reductions in the
    landings of juvenile swordfish and the mortality of billfish,
    marine mammals and sea turtles are not realized through this
    legislation--and there are serious reasons to believe they will
    not be--the bill guarantees the longline fleet a four-year
    moratorium on further regulatory and legislative measures. We
    feel this is a recipe for disaster.
        H.R. 3331 begins to recognize the concerns of
    conservationists and recreational fishermen that were ignored
    in H.R. 3390. In its present form, it does not provide the
    level of effort reduction desired, but it is a step in the
    right direction. It marginally addresses the northward effort
    shift, but in the long run, at present, falls short of being a
    conservation tool to reduce the mortality of juvenile swordfish
    and billfish.
        H.R. 3516, introduced by Congressman Sanford, calls for the
    complete session of longlining and offers the greatest
    conservation benefit, and embodies a concept that more than 100
    recreational fishing and conservation organizations already
    signed on to in support of just last year.
        Concerning the NMFS time and area closures, we feel that
    they are the proper venue for doing so, and have the regulatory
    power under the Magnuson Act. In fact, time and area closures
    were the highlight of the Highly Migratory Species FMP
    developed after extensive participation. It was supported by a
    large number of recreational fishing and conservation
    organizations involved in the process, and could be in place
    for the 2001 fishing year.
        NMFS regulation is the proper venue for such measures, and
    they include no buyout burden on the general public and no new
    permits for recreational fishermen.
        If fleet reductions prove necessary, provisions in the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act allow for longline industry to buyout
    boats using special low-interest government loan programs that
    would be repaid by the sale of fish products caught by the
    remaining boats. The positive conservation benefit of boat
    buyout schemes to date is highly questionable. Look at the
    programs to aid New England groundfish fleet. The government
    has spent over $23 million to purchase 79 trawlers, $7 million
    in disaster relief for fishermen who still can't fish, and an
    additional $15 million on programs involving idle commercial
    fishing vessels. With over $45 million in taxpayer dollars
    spent already, the fisheries off New England are still in
    terrible shape and little, if any, reduction in fishing effort
    has been realized as a result of the buyout.
        In summary, H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331 appear to be focused on
    creating a compensation package for longliners and conservation
    is taking a back seat.
        In our opinion, it is time to step back, look at the
    benefits and downsides of each approach being put forward. We
    should establish a forum where we can all put our heads
    together and do what is best for the resource, without taking
    punitive action against any group, especially recreational
    fishermen who we feel are being used as pawns in the process,
    pitting us against each other.
        The proper venue for time and area closures is through
    NMFS, the mechanism already exists in the law. Further
    conservation efforts, if legislation proves necessary, must be
    hammered out between the longline industry and a far more
    widely representative majority of the recreational and
    conservation communities.
        The members of the New Jersey Coast Anglers Association and
    the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs thank the
    Members of the Committee for the opportunity to voice our
    concerns. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Caputi follows:]

        Statement of Gary Caputi on behalf of the Jersey Coast Anglers
        Association and New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs

        The Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey
    Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs have a combined membership of
    one hundred fifty thousand concerned sportspersons.
        The rush to post bills aimed at curbing longlining has
    reached a fever pitch with a total of three bills submitted in
    the House in recent weeks. They vary dramatically in their
    ability to reduce longline fishing effort; to reduce the
    horrendous problem of longline bycatch of white marlin, blue
    marlin, sailfish, marine mammals and endangered sea turtles;
    and to provide genuine conservation benefits by reducing the
    bycatch and harvest of juvenile swordfish.
        Two bills, H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331, include a proposed
    buyout of a portion of the longline fleet which burdens those
    not responsible for the damage done by this indiscriminate gear
    type with paying the bill to bail out those who participated in
    the fishery. The very individuals and companies that benefited
    financially for years from using these damaging fishing
    practices will be relieved of responsibility and economic loss.
    The bills will provide select longliners with an escape hatch
    paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and, amazingly, by recreational
    fishermen who have been paying the price of longline
    indiscretions for over two decades already. Recreational
    fishermen, and the wide-reaching industries supported by their
    activities, have suffered the loss of fishing opportunities and
    reductions in participation. This is due to the decimation of
    stocks of recreationally important billfish killed as bycatch
    by longline fishing activities and the total loss of a once
    vibrant recreational fishery for swordfish, as that species has
    been overfished to record low levels. Even commercial harpoon
    fishermen have suffered a similar loss in their ability to
    participate in the swordfish fishery they once dominated for
    over one hundred years and which was still thriving until the
    introduction of industrial longlining. It took just two decades
    of longlining to put them out of business and forced the
    remaining boats to transfer effort to the beleaguered bluefin
    tuna stocks.

    H.R. 3390

        This bill was originally sponsored in the Senate by
    Senators John Breaux (LA) and Olympia Snow (ME) both recognized
    champions of commercial fishing. The house version, H.R. 3390,
    was then introduced by Congressmen Billy Tauzin (LA) and Porter
    Goth (FL). It contains the measures negotiated between the
    Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), the Billfish Foundation
    (TBF), the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) with the
    longline industries Blue Water Fisherman's Association (BWFA).
        H.R. 3390 includes provisions for time and area closures in
    the Gulf of Mexicoland the south Atlantic and the controversial
    buyout of longline vessels previously mentioned in addition to
    a provision that defers any further conservation action for
    four years after adoption of the bill, even if the bill does
    not prove effective. The area closures, especially those in the
    Gulf, while appearing extensive, mostly fall inside the 500-
    fathom curve where pelagic longlining activities in recent
    years have been almost non-existent, while failing to close
    areas further offshore where longlining is prevalent. Similar
    problems arise in a portion of the South Atlantic closed area
    off South Carolina, Georgia and northern Florida. We have been
    advised that most longline effort for swordfish, tunas and
    dolphin, which accounts for a greatest percentage of billfish
    bycatch, takes place along the eastern boundaries of the Gulf
    Stream. This area falls well outside the proposed closure area.
        If the proposed closure areas in H.R. 3390 do have a
    significant effect on the longlining effort in the Gulf and
    south Atlantic, there will be a significant effort shift to the
    north and the bill provides absolutely no protection for the
    mid-Atlantic region. These areas are home to the largest fleets
    of recreational fishing boats and charter boats on the East
    Coast and a shift in longline fishing effort there will cause
    extensive conflicts between the two user groups. Such an effort
    shift will put greatly expanded longline efforts and possibly
    millions of additional hooks in the water each year that will,
    potentially, create a huge increase in the bycatch mortality of
    white marlin, the most overfished and precariously balanced
    stock of all the billfish species. It will put increased
    pressure on the yellowfin, bigeye and longfin albacore tuna
    that are all, at present, determined to be fully utilized by
    ICCAT. In fact, NMFS was so concerned with maintaining the
    health of the yellowfin stocks, that they unilaterally placed a
    three fish bag limit on recreational and charter fishermen.
    Such an effort shift will increase the harvest of these fish by
    longliners. Further, NMFS own data indicates that any reduction
    realized in the harvest and bycatch mortality of juvenile
    swordfish through the closed areas will become insignificant if
    longline effort increases in the mid-Atlantic canyons, where
    juvenile swordfish are also present.
        The cost of the buyout in H.R. 3390, estimated to cost $25
    million or more, is to be shouldered by taxpayers; seafood
    consumers in the form of a tariff on all swordfish sold; and
    recreational fishermen in the form of a new fishing permit to
    be required for sportfishing boats venturing into the closed
    areas. No portion of the cost is to be paid by the remaining
    longliners who will benefit from the reduction in fleet size
    the buyout will attempt to make. Keep in mind that just two
    years ago recreational fishermen were stunned by the imposition
    of a Federal ``tuna permit'' unilaterally regulated into
    existence by the National Marine Fishery Service. It originally
    cost $18, but this year will rise to $25. A commercial
    fisherman can purchase a permit to longline from NMFS for only
    $50. This bill will impose a second permit for the privilege of
    being able to fish in the closed areas, on top of the one
    already in existence. These permits are in addition to
    saltwater fishing licenses that are imposed by growing number
    of states. How many times can the government ``tax'' people to
    fish for public resources? With the imposition of another
    permit, recreational fishermen will be paying more money for
    licenses and permits than the longliners, but no one is
    offering to buy their boats as the fisheries decline. This new
    permit is totally unacceptable.
        The criteria for longline boats to participate in the
    buyout are extremely loose. It will allow owners of boats that
    have not participated in the fishery in recent years to get in
    on the big payoff. At the same time, H.R. 3390 contains no
    reduction in quota, and therefore no real reduction in overall
    fishing effort on the longliners that remain in the fishery. If
    the quotas remain the same, every last pound of the quota will
    be landed by the remaining boats in the fleet.
        The remaining boats, which comprise about 75 percent of the
    existing fleet if the buyout indeed removes 60 boats, will be
    the beneficiaries of greatly reduced competition and increased
    quota share as a result. It's a great deal for the longliners
    who sell and an even better one for those who stay in the
    fishery. Congress is going to force citizens and recreational
    fishermen to buy out a big chunk of their competition.
    Taxpayers, consumer and recreational fishermen will foot the
    bill and the remaining boats will each get a greater share of
    the same quota.
        Therefore, in all honesty, H.R. 3390 does not reduce
    overall fishing effort and any reduction in bycatch is purely
    speculative. In effect, it forces taxpayers and recreational
    fishermen foot the bill to make the boats in the longline fleet
    more profitable and ultimately, more politically powerful.
    However, there is still another very troubling part of this
    poorly conceived bill. If, for any reason, the reduction in the
    landings of juvenile swordfish, the overfishing of billfish and
    the mortality of marine mammals and sea turtles through bycatch
    are not realized, and there are many reasons to believe they
    will not be, the bill guarantees the remaining longline fleet a
    four-year moratorium on any further regulatory or legislative
    measures. This is a recipe for disaster.
        The Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey
    Federation of Sportsman's Clubs can not support this bill for
    all of the above mentioned reasons.

    H.R. 3331

        The second bill, sponsored by Congressman James Saxton
    (NJ), chairman of the House Committee on Sustainable Fisheries,
    Oceans and Wildlife, mirrors H.R. 3390, but establishes a
    correlation in quota reduction corresponding to the number of
    boat purchased through the buyout. Though some mechanism, the
    quota reduction only comes into play for boats transferring
    effort to, or fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Bight area. H.R. 3331
    recognizes the concerns of many conservationists and
    recreational fishermen that H.R. 3390, while having the
    potential to provide some conservation benefits in the Gulf and
    South Atlantic closure areas, will create a massive shift in
    fishing effort to the Mid-Atlantic region and further north.
    Such an effort shift is all but guaranteed by H.R. 3390 because
    most of the boats that will ``volunteer'' for the buyout money
    will most certainly be the least profitable and least mobile in
    the fleet. They will be boats that are only marginally in
    business at this point in time, if not already sitting idly at
    the dock. The remaining 75 percent of the fleet will consist of
    larger, more modern vessels capable of traveling great
    distances or shifting their base of operations into the mid-
    Atlantic region. They will be increasing operations in an area
    of the greatest concentration of recreational fishing boats,
    the states between North Carolina and New York, where grounds
    conflicts are sure to arise. In addition, the effort shift will
    place far greater pressure in areas where seasonal
    concentrations of white marlin are still found in U.S. waters.
    Note that that the white marlin is the most endangered and
    overfished of the billfish species and is in that precarious
    state due to longline bycatch over the past twenty plus years.
    It will further stress the critically important yellowfin tuna
    fishery that accounts for the most recreational participation
    in region.
        While H.R. 3331 recognizes one of the flaws in H.R. 3390,
    it still does not do enough to address the many inadequacies of
    that proposed legislation. JCAA can not support this bill in
    its current form.

    H.R. 3516

        The third bill, H.R. 3516, introduced by Congressman Mark
    Sanford (SC) calls for the complete session of longlining in
    all U.S. EEZ waters. This bill is obviously the strongest and
    offers the greatest conservation benefit for both swordfish in
    U.S. waters and in reduction of bycatch mortality of all
    billfish, marine mammals and sea turtles. It embodies a concept
    that approximate 100 recreational fishing and conservation
    organizations had signed on in support of in just last year. As
    a result of the strategically timed introduction of H.R. 3390
    which offers greatly watered conservation efforts, if any at
    all, H.R. 3516 is given little chance of advancing through the
    House. This is truly unfortunate.

    NMFS Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan
    Proposed Rule for Time and Area Closures

        With all these legislative efforts underway, the National
    Marine Fisheries Service, in a recent public hearing
    announcement, detailed specifications for a proposed rule that
    would institute major time and area closures in the south
    Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico through the regulatory power
    granted them by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The use of time and
    area closures to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish and
    billfish was actually the highlight of the Highly Migratory
    Species Fishery Management Plan unveiled by NMFS last year
    after two years of development time. The time and area closures
    portion of the FMP was postponed while NMFS could further study
    longline logbooks to determine where such areas should be
    located to be effective. Now begins the public hearing process
    to gather additional information concerning the proposal so
    that it can be fine-tuned to accomplish its objectives. The
    time and area closure portion of the FMP was strongly supported
    by the majority of the recreational fishing and conservation
    organizations involved in the advisory process during the
    development of  the FMP, including The Billfish Foundation,
    which has now shifted its effort away from the regulatory
    process to seek a legislative solution, including a costly
    buyout scheme.
        NMFS detailed a total closure of the south Atlantic region
    from South Carolina through the Straights of Florida year-round
    and a seasonal closure of the entire western Gulf of Mexico
    from the Mexican border through Louisiana from March 1 through
    September 30 in the proposed rule. Following the procedures set
    out in the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act, passed
    by this body, NMFS is requesting public comment on the closure
    areas and timing and is in the process of holding public
    hearings. Once comments are reviewed, the final rule will be
    developed and implementation could be in place for the 2001
    fishing year.
        The importance of accomplishing the time and area closures
    through  regulation, actually the correct venue for such
    measures, is that no buyout burden will be placed on the
    general public and recreational fishermen and no new permits
    will be required of recreational fishermen. Provisions in the
    Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act allow the longline
    industry to buyout boats effected by the closure through
    special, low interest government loan program that would not
    burden taxpayers and recreational fishermen that would be paid
    back through the sale of fish products caught by the remaining
    boats. No legislative buyout is necessary, period!
        The entire concept of boat buyouts to reduce fleet size,
    and, ostensibly, fishing effort is highly questionable when one
    looks at what has happened in New England in the past few years
    and what is occurring in the Pacific northwest right now. In
    New England, the government has spent over $23 million to
    purchase 79 commercial trawlers, $7 million in so-called
    disaster relief for remaining fishermen who can't still can't
    fish, and now an additional $15 million is being spend on
    questionable scientific research to be conducted by idle
    commercial fishing vessels. With over 45 million in taxpayer
    dollars spent already, the fisheries off New England are still
    in terrible shape and little, if any, reduction in fishing
    effort has been realized. Whose to say the results of a
    longliner buyout, which is actually a subsidy for the remaining
    boats in the fleet as well, will have any better results.

    Summary

        The NMFS proposed rule accomplishes time and area closures
    through the proper channels. It closes areas that longline,
    recreational fishing and conservation organization
    representatives, in the development of the HMS-FMP, agreed had
    to be closed, However, it stops short of spending millions of
    dollars to compensate longliners for their supposed economic
    loss, even though they are the cause of that loss in the first
    place.
        In the case of H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331, these legislative
    efforts appear to be more focused on creating a compensation
    package for commercial fishermen than conservation and
    protection for juvenile swordfish and decimated billfish
    stocks. We feel that it is not the place of Congress to
    micromanage fisheries. We find it disturbing that these bills
    contain provisions that prevent any regulatory action for an
    additional four years during which time the need to further
    protect these species and other marine animals could arise.
        While H.R. 3331 begins the process of bring some measure of
    conservation to H.R. 3390, in its current form, it falls far
    short of the expectations of the majority of conservation and
    recreational fishing groups. With an open and constructive
    dialogue, this bill might be crafted into a real conservation
    bill and one simply aimed at conserving the longline industry
    and bailing out a portion of the fleet that is no longer
    profitable.
        In the opinion of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association,
    it's time to take a step back and look at the motives of all
    the groups involved and the benefits and downside of each
    approach being put forward. We should establish a forum where
    we can put all our heads together and do what is best for the
    resource without taking punitive action against the
    recreational fishermen who, we feel, are being used as a pawn
    in this process, by pitting us against each other. The largest
    number of recreational groups have agreed that the proper venue
    for time and area closures is through the regulatory body
    charged by law with doing it, the National Marine Fisheries
    Service. The mechanism already exists in the law. While NMFS
    has a less than stellar track record in the past, the agency
    appears poised to do the right thing without Congress getting
    in the way.
        Further conservation efforts, if legislation proves
    necessary, must be hammered out between the longline industry
    and a more far more widely represented majority of the
    recreational fishing and conservation communities than were
    present at the negotiations that developed H.R. 3390. Any
    suggestion that the three groups involved in that process
    represent a majority of the recreational fishing and
    conservation organizations is simply not accurate.

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Wilmot.

       STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WILMOT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LIVING
                OCEANS PROGRAM, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

        Dr. Wilmot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Audubon
    Society. National Audubon Society is a national conservation
    organization with more than 550,000 members and, as a member of
    the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, has advocated for bycatch
    reduction measures in the pelagic longline fleet for years.
        Minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality is a fundamental
    element of conserving marine wildlife and rebuilding depleted
    populations of overfished and protected species. Large scale
    time and area closures are a necessary part of any bycatch
    reduction plan for the fleet, and we are pleased they are being
    seriously considered.
        NMFS proposed rule, H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 all propose
    large area closures. In general, we concur with the areas
    selected because they include areas with the highest bycatch
    rates. We are studying the proposed rule in detail and will
    recommend adjustments in the borders of the closed areas.
        It is difficult to evaluate the conservation implications
    of the area closures in the two bills because there is not a
    detailed analysis available. We do, however, suggest that the
    South Atlantic closure in the bills be expanded to include the
    entire Charleston Bump area, which is known to have high
    bycatch of juvenile swordfish.
        It must be recognized that closures alone, even with a
    buyout, may not be sufficient to guarantee significant bycatch
    reduction because of the threat of displacement of fishing
    effort.
        NMFS's analysis of its own proposed closures shows that at
    least some displacement is likely, and factoring in
    displacement has a major effect on the biological benefits of
    the closures. In order to have confidence that significant
    bycatch reductions are realized, we recommend that landings of
    vessels in closed areas--this is with or without a buyout--be
    subtracted from the overall pelagic longline quota. We propose
    expanding the effort in quota reductions detailed in H.R. 3331
    beyond the mid-Atlantic to include the entire region. We also
    support changes as suggested in H.R. 3331 to the Atlanta Tunas
    Convention Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to accomplish this.
        Providing for a quota reduction for longliners based on
    closures will not result in effort reduction for the remaining
    fleet or disadvantage U.S. fishermen. Commercial fishermen
    don't have to lose quota. Commercial fishermen don't have to
    lose quota because we can reallocate a portion of the swordfish
    quota from the longliners to commercial fishermen using
    selected gears--for example, harpoons or rod and reel. Give
    these men the opportunity to catch the remaining swordfish
    quota. This would allow the quota to be caught while minimizing
    the risk of increasing bycatch.
        The turtle situation has been raised. That is one of
    particular concern because the turtle bycatch in the New
    England area is so high, and if we have increased effort in
    that area, we likely will see that problem exacerbated.
        In fact, commercial fishermen in the New England area have
    indicated to us that they will target swordfish with their
    selected gears, provided that big fish return to the region.
        We strongly support NMFS efforts to publish a final rule,
    and we do not believe that NMFS is required to provide economic
    relief for needed conservation in management efforts, however,
    we could support legislation that establishes large scale time
    and area closures to significantly reduce bycatch, and includes
    a buyout, provided specific changes to existing legislation
    proposals are incorporated. We believe there is an opportunity
    to move forward with the legislation, and we welcome it.
        We have additional issues that we would like to raise very
    briefly. I have provided detailed comments in writing that you
    have. The first one was raised this morning by Ms. Dalton and
    several other panel members. This is the four-year, or longer,
    prohibition on interim regulations. Monitoring, evaluation and
    adjustment are critical to the success of any bycatch reduction
    plan. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness
    of time and area closures, it is essential that any bycatch
    reduction plan be designed from the onset to provide NMFS the
    ability to manage in a flexible and adaptive manner. We
    strongly oppose Sections 13 and 12 in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390,
    respectively, because they deprive NMFS of this flexibility.
        We also oppose the prohibition on closures going into
    effect unless and until a buyout is completed. We believe
    closures must go into effect whether or not a buyout takes
    place.
        The second issue is the need for onboard observers. Given
    the uncertainty surrounding any large scale time and area
    closures, we recommend that increased observer coverage should
    be mandated so that we can reliably determine the effects of
    the closures. In addition, we recommend the research program
    proposed in H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 be expanded beyond just
    billfish to include all species in geographic areas in the HMS
    and billfish FMPs. In addition, the conservation community
    should be included in all phases of the research programs
    development and implementation.
        The third issue is the need for a vessel monitoring system,
    which is essential for enforcement of closed areas. NMFS'
    current requirement that all longline vessels carry VMS should
    remain in place. To do less would represent a rollback in
    current regulations.
        In closing, H.R. 3331 and H.R. 3390 require a huge
    investment by the public to help conserve a valuable public
    resource. We believe strongly that the public interest will be
    served only if conservation takes precedence and the
    legislation is revised to provide additional bycatch reduction
    guarantees and protections for overfished and protected
    species.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to share our
    thoughts on these challenging and important issues with the
    Subcommittee, and we look forward to working with you in the
    future. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Wilmot follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4488.056

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
        I would like to thank each of you for articulating your
    positions. It has been an interesting process to date.
        If I may just reflect on what has occurred. For years,
    members of this Committee, including me, have anxiously awaited
    the rule that would provide for the limited entry as a
    prerequisite to implementing a conservation plan, buyout, what
    have you--closures, buyouts, et cetera. I was encouraged to a
    large degree when NMFS put the limited entry rule in place, and
    thought that we could move forward. But in moving forward, it
    seems to me that we have at this point several options. We can
    find a consensus, or not. And if we don't, then the legislation
    would proceed to run over somebody's interest--I am not quite
    sure whose it would be at this point because I don't see a
    consensus among the members of the Subcommittee either--or we
    could do nothing, I suppose, and I am not sure that that serves
    conservation's needs. And so in order to try to bridge the gap,
    I met over months with all of you and other interested parties,
    and listened to all sides, understand that we need conservation
    effort, understand that NMFS has an important role to play,
    tried to listen and move toward a consensus--incidentally, I
    didn't introduce my bill for talking purposes. I introduced my
    bill as a serious effort--and then we tried to take the
    proposal that was arrived at by three coalition members to my
    left and your right, and we tried to add some provisions to it
    to solve the problems of the mid-Atlantic Bight, which had to
    do basically with displacement.
        We provided for a second buyout, which is optional. We
    provided for a 10-percent limit on increased effort by longline
    boats/fishermen, and we included a provision which said that
    displaced boats, if that is the correct term, could increase
    their days at sea in the mid-Atlantic Bight by no more than 10
    percent of what they had done on average in the mid-Atlantic
    Bight between 1992 and 1997. I figured we were moving toward
    some kind of a compromise.
        And so Congress broke right after we introduced the bill,
    and I left Washington with the intent of spending my break
    talking about this issue with all interested parties. First, I
    met with the longline fishermen, explained my provisions,
    talked about it for a couple of hours, explored possibilities,
    and at the end of the day there was no movement.
        And I went and met with members of the conservation
    community, members of the recreational community. After about
    three and a half hours, there was movement toward more
    conservation and more stringent measures.
        So my efforts in closing the gap had just the opposite
    effect, it broadened the gap. So we are not moving toward
    consensus. So that means that somehow or another, as chairman
    of this Committee, I have two other choices. Since we are not
    moving toward consensus, I can do nothing, or I can hold a
    series of hearings and see if a consensus develops, or I can
    try to develop a consensus among Members of this Committee
    which none of you are going to end up liking. So, I am a little
    frustrated with the process because we haven't seemed to move
    together in any meaningful way.
        And so I guess my question is, inasmuch as we don't appear
    to be moving toward a consensus, and inasmuch as I doubt if the
    Members of the Subcommittee are going to mark up something
    where there is no consensus, I guess my question is, to whoever
    wants to respond, where do we go from here? Mr. Stone?
        Mr. Stone. Mr. Chairman, since no one else has spoken up, I
    will try just to say a few words. First, we are pleased with
    your attempt to try to come up with a consensus. I think, as I
    stated in my testimony, that it is important that we pull
    fisheries folks together, both the fishermen and conservation
    community, and try to solve bycatch problems. There is no
    question, it is a problem. However, there is a process--what
    the organizations I represent are concerned about is that by
    going through the legislative route, we are getting away from a
    process that has been set up, an interactive management
    process. There is an advisory panel. There is the ICCAT
    Advisory Committee. And what I would hope is that we could work
    within that process that is already set up and come up with
    something to solve the problem.
        Now, it is going to be difficult, no question about it, but
    it is going to be difficult, as you pointed out, under any
    scenario, and it is just a concern of the groups that I
    represent that if we go with a legislative approach--what you
    are proposing, there is no problem with what you are proposing
    in the sense of the closed areas, the buyout, things like that.
    It is just that that takes the management authority really away
    from NMFS. It just disrupts the management process that has
    been put into place.
        So, we would hope that it could be done somehow within the
    process that has been set up. Thank you.
        Mr. Saxton. Any other comments?
        Mr. Delaney. I will take a shot. Just to clarify, I said in
    my statement, I believe, that it was my understanding that the
    provisions, the additional provisions that were added to your
    bill were particularly for the purposes of discussion, but at
    the same time we have provided discussion on those issues. And
    in my testimony, I think we made clear that Blue Water
    Fishermen's Association is not supportive of the second buyback
    in the mid-Atlantic area. It does not support unilateral
    actions through amending the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act or
    through unilateral reductions in swordfish quota for a number
    of reasons we have articulated in our testimony. But at the
    same time, as my testimony indicates, we are very sensitive to
    your concern about displacement into the mid-Atlantic Bight and
    do feel, as I stated in my testimony, that we would like to
    work with you on the provision that specifically addresses
    monitoring and looking at the issue of increased fishing effort
    in the mid-Atlantic bight as a consequence of the closed areas,
    particularly those in the South Atlantic region.
        So, we do see that area as a productive area for
    discussion, which I think there can be movement when we fully
    develop and further develop our thoughts and ideas about how
    most effectively to address that concern.
        It is a very difficult issue to deal with in displacement,
    and about the only thing we can say with any certainty at this
    point is that any of the vessels who accept the buyback will
    not be displaced. Beyond that, we can offer you indications and
    assumptions that may be somewhat anecdotal based on our, and my
    client's extensive knowledge of the industry as to what is
    likely to occur. Until the program is implemented, it is very
    difficult to predict precisely what will be the results of
    those time/area closures, and who will accept a buyback, and
    what vessels are capable of fishing where and where they will
    go.
        So, to address that issue in a more general way seems
    preferable, such as the approach I think you took in section 12
    of your bill. We would like to work with you, as I said in my
    testimony, on that provision to try to address that issue.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, as you had stated earlier,
    the attendance our friends at this hearing certainly a
    reflection of the complexity of the issue now before us.
        We have got, obviously, four competing interests. You have
    got the conservationists. You have got the recreational
    aspects. You have got the commercial, and also the regulatory.
    I seem to hear interesting comments here that some of you are
    satisfied with NMFS performance, and I hear otherwise.
        Do I get a sense from you gentlemen that you are satisfied
    with the current workings and functionings of the National
    Marine Fisheries in providing the resources and the things that
    are needful, whether it be commercial or recreational, in terms
    of its regulatory authority under current statutes, or do you
    feel that the current proposal is going way beyond what you
    would envision? I mean, I am just asking a general question
    here. If I could get some responses, please.
        I am glad we have our friend here from ICCAT because I have
    some questions for Mr. Delaney as well.
        Mr. Hayes. Let me see if I can answer at least from a
    coastal conservation standpoint this issue of administration
    versus doing this in a fashion which we propose, which is do it
    legislatively.
        We don't think the National Marine Fisheries Service has
    either the capability or the legislative authority to do what
    we are trying to do in this legislation. They will tell you
    that they can create a buyout. Those set of regulations, I
    believe, have been about two and a half years in the making,
    have been designed for another buyout up in Alaska. They have
    no relationship to what is going on in this fishery or probably
    any other fishery than the one they are being designed for.
    Lord knows how long it is going to be before those regulations
    come out and set up a framework in which they can operate.
        Secondly, in the Gulf of Mexico, this distinction that we
    made where we drew a line out to 500 fathoms and simply took
    that for about a 105-day period and just pushed those boats
    out, in some cases, 50 miles and in some cases about 125 miles.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service is going to look at
    that proposal and they are going to publish a regulation that
    looks exactly like the one they have published, which says ``We
    will close it all off of Texas, and for you Coastal
    Conservation Association members that live in Florida and
    Alabama and Louisiana and Mississippi, you lucky guys, you get
    what is coming because it is coming from Texas''. We tried to
    design something that would prevent the displacement of those
    vessels, and we think we did that.
        Now, if you were to look at what we did legislatively, or
    proposed legislatively, it is probably arbitrary from a purely
    scientific standpoint, but it does solve the overriding
    problem. National Marine Fisheries Service has a standard by
    which it publishes regulations which doesn't allow it to be
    arbitrary. It has to do things based on science, and based on
    the impact that it would have on existing communities when they
    put those regulations in place. They can't draw that line, and
    that line is vitally important to us as recreational fishermen.
    We don't see how NMFS has the capability to do what is in the
    legislation.
        I can tell you that one of the basic hallmarks of the
    Coastal Conservation Association is that we work inside the
    system, and we try to work with regulators. We are in 15
    states, we have 17 state lobbyists. I can tell you, we are
    working inside the system in lots of places.
        We don't normally come to Congress and ask Congress to do
    specific management measures. In fact, under normal
    circumstances, we would never take this route. We took this
    route because we don't think the Fisheries Service can do what
    needs to be done.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Wilmot?
        Dr. Wilmot. I'd just like to very briefly add to this. On
    the buyout side, it may be true that NMFS is not in a position
    to be able to address this issue, but our biggest concern on
    this is that in looking at it, this is the beginning of a
    solution, not the end. This will potentially benefit
    conservation. Depending on how it is crafted, it could have a
    significant impact, but it is still only the beginning.
        This is directed at a couple of species in particular, the
    billfishes including the swordfish. It is not looking at other
    species. For example, pelagic sharks. They are not overfished
    right now. They may be designated as overfished in the very
    near future.
        The point is that we can't really anticipate all of the
    problems that are going to come up in the next short period of
    time that NMFS will need to be able to respond to. This
    legislation has very strong language that limits dramatically
    how NMFS will respond to this problem. The rhetoric is there.
    It is a first step. We know more has to be done. The language
    is very Draconian and holds back. NMFS needs the flexibility,
    and that is why I think in Mr. Stone's testimony and our
    testimony we feel it is essential that NMFS have this
    flexibility now and in the future to address this problem as it
    evolves.
        I can promise you, this will not solve the bycatch problem
    of highly migratory species. None of us sitting here believe
    that. The key is, how best do we take the second step. And many
    of us fear that this will inhibit the second step that will be
    needed.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. My sense in reading the provisions of the
    bill, there is no restriction that provides for NMFS to monitor
    and to analyze the situation, unless I am wrong on this.
        Dr. Wilmot. The section 12 and 13 language that basically
    puts a four-year prohibition, a time-out as some have called
    it, actually raises the bar quite high, requiring that
    emergency action be taken by NMFS limiting it to actions on
    highly migratory species, not other species, including
    protected species such as turtles. So, we actually believe the
    language in sections 12 and 13 in H.R. 3390 and H.R. 3331,
    respectively, is very, very----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So your concern is that the language is
    not as inclusive of other species, but are more specific on
    these certain species that the legislation has addressed.
        Dr. Wilmot. Correct.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Stone.
        Mr. Stone. Just to elaborate a little bit more on what Dr.
    Wilmot said, we do believe it is very important to conduct the
    research and monitoring, and because of the flexibility needed,
    to look at what is happening.
        We have all stated that we don't know exactly what is going
    to happen with the relocation or shift of effort or whatever,
    and so there could be some things that could be damaging to the
    other stocks. And they need to have the capability to move on
    it quickly, not to wait for four years to do something.
        And to address your question about is NMFS doing a good
    job, I think a lot of people feel like NMFS doesn't do as good
    a job as it should, and it varies by species/groups that we are
    talking about. But we think that when NMFS does try to do
    something, that Congress can find ways. I know when I worked
    for National Marine Fisheries Service, they could find ways to
    put pressure on us to do certain things--other than through
    legislation is what I am talking about.
        And so I think you have the capability to have influence,
    and there are things, such as the buyout and the research
    program, where there needs to be some help, but we are just
    concerned that the process remains interactive.
        Mr. Caputi. Specifically to your question about whether we
    are comfortable with NMFS doing a good job, probably quite the
    opposite is true. NMFS, on its own with highly migratory
    species, has taken a long time to develop regulations for
    specific species. Those regulations now are being finalized
    with their time and area proposals which are supposed to be one
    of the highlights of that Fisheries management plan.
        In different arenas, NMFS has done a better job and,
    unfortunately, in those arenas, the job being done is impacted
    politically. Take a look at the council system. I sit on the
    Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. We have a relatively
    balanced council as far as commercial, recreational and
    conservation membership. If you look at councils in other areas
    of the United States, those councils are heavily biased by one
    user group or the other, usually commercial. And the job that
    they do is impacted dramatically by that bias.
        You only have to look to New England or some of the Pacific
    councils to see the type of situation that their fisheries are
    in and the reasons for those, and I think Congress could help
    NMFS do a better job by enforcing the Magnuson Act provisions
    that call for councils to be more balanced. So, in some cases,
    NMFS' job is impacted politically. In other cases, the job that
    NMFS does is impacted by competing pressures.
        One of the things I would like to say is the proceedings
    that we are dealing with here today I think set the stage for
    us to do something in probably the most difficult Fisheries
    management arena there is, and that is pelagic fisheries. There
    are no simple answers. There never has been.
        The Chairman, after many, many years of dealing with this,
    I am sure, can attest to that. But I don't see the process that
    has been started here with either of these bills or with what
    NMFS is doing as an end, I see it as a beginning. I would like
    to see the Chairman and this Committee put together a forum to
    continue the discussions and to continue the work that has been
    started between a wider range of recreational fishing groups,
    bring in the conservation community that in some cases has been
    left out of the process, and the commercial longliners, and see
    if we can't hammer out a more conservation oriented bill that
    still takes care of people economically.
        Mr. Hayes. Can I take a moment to make a comment on this
    timeout provision. I think people, frankly, before they become
    overly critical of it, ought to read it because I think it is
    fairly explicit in what it says.
        It was designed to ensure that the scientific research that
    is in the bill would be conducted before you made adjustments
    to the areas that are closed. That was its intent. Limitation
    in there doesn't limit the National Marine Fisheries Service
    from doing the research, conducting the research, doing the
    analysis. It doesn't limit anyone from coming back to Congress.
    If we could do that, wouldn't that be a wonderful thing. People
    would love us for that, but I think that is pretty unlikely. I
    don't think you could do that to yourself.
        It doesn't limit the National Marine Fisheries Service from
    taking any other form of conservation regulation or measure
    that they deem necessary. They could adjust the hook size, the
    length of the lines, the soak times. There are all sorts of
    things the National Marine Fisheries Service could do.
        What it does limit them to do, it says if you are going to
    adjust those time and area closures, then, frankly, you can't
    do that unless there is a resource emergency. They could even
    do that if they could demonstrate that there was a resource
    emergency.
        Now, there are some consultation requirements in there.
    There are some requirements that they at least have to consult
    with commissioners, look at the ICCAT recommendations. There
    are things like that which are findings, essentially, and
    things that they would have to do, but it is not a raising of
    the bar that it is so high that you have tied the hands of the
    National Marine Fisheries Service.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, as you know, earlier I raised the
    issue of the boundaries that were drawn by the National Marine
    Fisheries Service as comparison to Congressman Saxton and
    Senator Breaux' sense of boundaries in this EEZ, if you will,
    and it is quite different, in my humble opinion, at least what
    I found here.
        And the question I raise, was it because their studies were
    more scientific, or is it just by adjusting these boundaries?
    Was there any reason behind these differences? And I would like
    to ask Mr. Delaney if any of this has any impact on ICCAT's
    mission, or are we in compliance with ICCAT's function and
    everything that we expected it to be?
        Mr. Delaney. Thank you. I appreciate that question. First
    of all, the general concepts that we are trying to address here
    to substantially decrease our bycatch in small swordfish and
    billfish, I would say, far exceed our requirements at ICCAT,
    our international obligation.
        I would also note that the United States accounts for
    approximately 5 percent of the total harvest by all ICCAT
    nations, of ICCAT managed species, highly migratory species.
        We cannot manage this resource alone. We can terminate all
    of our highly migratory species in the Atlantic Ocean, and it
    would have absolutely no positive conservation effect. In fact,
    I would strongly argue it would have a negative conservation
    effect because we would be turning our fish, our allocations,
    our quotas, back over to those nations to do a far worse job in
    terms of compliance in bycatch conservation. So, we are way,
    way ahead of the curve in terms of ICCAT with this proposal.
        What the three main parties sitting here today agreed,
    though, was an important objective was to establish in the
    United States basically a model that we could take to ICCAT and
    advocate and say, ``See, this is what we were able to
    accomplish through time/area closures in terms of bycatch
    reduction, we ought to apply these same ideas and principles on
    the international level to achieve far greater and what would
    be truly meaningful reductions in bycatch throughout the
    Atlantic''.
        We talk about big numbers here in this bill and in my
    presentation, big percentages of reduction in bycatch. That is
    in the U.S. EEZ. If you compare that to the Atlantic-wide
    effect, it is rather minimal.
        What we need is international cooperation to do the very
    same things we have done on a very micro-scale here.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you suggest, Mr. Delaney, that we are
    not doing enough in pushing ICCAT to have a little higher
    standard than just for the United States and its fishing
    industry to do the same?
        See, my problem here is I heard somebody mention about
    imported swordfish. If we are to consider our own local
    industry--of course, I know that we import about $7 billion
    worth of fish from foreign countries because we don't produce
    enough domestically--but there was some mention about imported
    swordfish. It gives me the idea that all other foreign
    countries are catching, they don't care whether it is small or
    big or whatever measures, as compared to the restrictions that
    we have set upon our own commercial fishing industry.
        So, I suppose when we see this imported swordfish coming
    from other countries in Europe, it does raise a concern. If I
    were a commercial fisherman, I would be really ticked off.
        Mr. Saxton. If the gentleman would yield.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would be glad to yield to the Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. On that point, the United States has developed
    a great appetite for swordfish, and obviously that has created
    a good situation for commercial fishermen in this country, but
    it also has given rise to the importation of large amounts of
    swordfish.
        And as Ernie suggested, we might want to look at doing
    something with that. As a matter of fact, we are in the process
    of drafting a bill which takes note of the fact that last
    summer NMFS, with the assistance of the Customs Service and
    other U.S. agencies, implemented a system which prohibits the
    importation of undersized Atlantic swordfish, and we are now
    looking at legislation which we will introduce under a separate
    bill because it will be referred to the Ways and Means
    Committee, that would prohibit fish caught by foreign fishermen
    and fleets in excess of ICCAT conservation quotas from being
    imported in the United States as well.
        So, hopefully we will have the opportunity to leverage
    through that legislation some international conservation effect
    with regard to swordfish.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I hope it will include the
    Pacific as well.
        Mr. Saxton. Ernie wanted to make a comment.
        Mr. Panacek. Yes, I just wanted to comment briefly on the
    import situation, too, just to convey that our American
    fishermen are very frustrated and they are very discouraged
    with that influx of foreign countries sending the swordfish in
    and reducing the American fishermen's prices to a great extent,
    when we are all involved, foreign countries and the United
    States, and the United States is trying to make that position
    that the American fishermen are doing the best they can to
    conserve this resource, and I think we have to pursue that, and
    we have to pursue it aggressively.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you, gentlemen.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask
    Gary Caputi a couple of questions. Actually, I guess I can make
    them one question. I have your statement, but I obviously
    wasn't here when you and the rest of the panel made your
    statements orally.
        With regard to the two bills, Mr. Saxton and Mr. Goss'
    bill, what evidence do you have that the closed areas in the
    Gulf of Mexico and off South Carolina, Georgia and northern
    Florida might be ineffective. And then following up on that,
    can you expand on your concerns about an effort shift to the
    mid-Atlantic region and the implications for the resource and
    the recreational fishing industry?
        Mr. Caputi. Certainly, Congressman Pallone. I did have the
    opportunity to address those a little bit earlier while you
    were out of the room.
        One of the businesses that I am involved in is a high tech
    business that provides satellite ocean temperature charts for
    recreational fishermen throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Florida,
    South Atlantic and the mid-Atlantic States. And one of the
    things that we have done--and we have provided Congressman
    Saxton with some of the information--was detailing specific
    charts that track the Gulf Stream, its currents, throughout the
    Gulf States, the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic region.
        And one of the areas that has been targeted in recent years
    by recreational fishermen and by longliners, are temperature
    gradients--and the Gulf Stream loop creates the largest
    temperature gradient. Areas of great temperature change have a
    tendency to amass bait fish and to amass specific types of
    target species like billfish and swordfish. And one of the
    rules of thumb that we used looking at the area closures was
    the location of the Gulf Stream and its loop currents in the
    Gulf of Mexico compared to where the breakoff line was at the
    500-fathom curve for the proposed close areas in the two bills,
    and noted that the Gulf Stream and its loop currents are well
    outside of those boundaries. So we feel that while possibly in
    years past the greatest bycatch of billfish and juvenile
    swordfish was more in-shore, in recent years longline activity
    seems to have been taking place further offshore along the
    edges of the Stream and in those loop currents. So that is one
    of the reasons that we made those comments, and we have
    provided that information to any number of sources around the
    table and on the Subcommittee.
        Concerning the displacement, yes, there is any number of
    groups, the two that I am here commenting on today, the New
    Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey Federation
    of Sportsmen's Clubs, we are seriously concerned with an influx
    of longline activity into the New York Bight, the mid-Atlantic
    Bight area in particular, because it is such a vibrant
    recreational fishery.
        As you know, being a Representative from New Jersey, the
    canyon areas between North Carolina and off of Long Island,
    through that area, are prize recreational fishing destinations.
    We have had our pelagic fisheries that used to occur closer to
    short--bluefin tuna, pelagic sharks--pretty much decimated over
    the last 25 years, and hence the recreational fishery has moved
    further offshore into the canyons, and it depends heavily on
    yellowfin tuna and also white marlin and blue marlin which
    occur very heavily in those areas. And in recent years,
    surprisingly enough, a large number of juvenile swordfish are
    being caught and released by recreational fishermen through the
    canyon areas. So, an increase in longline activity in those
    areas is something that we really worry about and would like to
    see addressed in the bills.
        H.R. 3331, Congressman Saxton's bill, begins to do that,
    and we would just like to see more discussion on that topic.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Pallone. And you said that information that you talked
    about earlier is being disseminated to everyone so they will
    all have it.
        Mr. Caputi. Yes.
        Mr. Stone. Congressman Pallone, if I could, I would like to
    say that the Recreational Fishing Alliance also is concerned
    about shift in effort, and that is one of the reasons why, as I
    said in my testimony, they would support Congressman Saxton's
    bill. Thank you.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you. I just want to thank all of you
    again for being here to share your thoughts with us today. Just
    by way of announcement, we had tentatively scheduled a hearing
    to accommodate Mr. Goss and people in Florida who are
    interested in this subject for February 23. Unfortunately, Mr.
    Goss can't make it that day, and so we will have to go back to
    the drawing board on that effort. So, that would have been the
    next step in the process.
        We also are planning a Northeast hearing at some future
    date after the Florida hearing, so we will get back to all of
    you with regard to that information at a later time.
        Unless there are other questions at this point, the hearing
    will be adjourned. Thank you very much again for being here.
        [Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]