[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 61 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4044-H4045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 716) to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 716
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF
1967.
(a) Section 3(a) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967
(22 U.S.C. 1973(a)) is amended by inserting after ``prompt
release of the vessel and crew,'' the following: ``or when a
fee regarded by the United States as being inconsistent with
international law must be paid for a vessel of the United
States to transit the waters of a foreign nation on a voyage
between points in the United States (including a point in the
exclusive economic zone or an area whose jurisdiction is in
dispute),''.
(b)(1) Section 5 of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967
(22 U.S.C. 1975) is amended by inserting after ``seizure;''
in the title, the following: ``or imposition of a fee
regarded by the United States as inconsistent with
international law''.
(2) Section 5(a)(1)(A) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of
1967 (22 U.S.C. 1975(a)) is amended by inserting after ``as a
result of the seizure of,'' the following: ``or imposition of
a fee regarded by the United States as inconsistent with
international law on''.
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect on June 15,
1995.
(d) Section 7 of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (22
U.S.C. 1977) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking the third sentence, and
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``Fees may be collected regardless of whether needed to carry
out the purposes of subsection (a).''; and
(2) in subsection (e) by striking ``October 1, 1993'' and
inserting ``October 1, 1998''.
SEC. 2. CLEARANCE AND ENTRY OF COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSELS.
(a) Not later than 15 days after the date of enactment of
this Act and at least once each year thereafter, the
Secretary of State shall publish a list of those nations that
impose fees for transit passage through their waters on
commercial fishing vessels registered under the laws of the
United States.
(b) Not later than 15 days after the publication of the
list required under subsection (a), the Secretary of the
Treasury shall withhold from commercial fishing vessels
registered under the laws of a nation listed under subsection
(a) the clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. App. 91) for entry
into the navigable waters of the United States west of 122
degrees west longitude.
(c) Subsection (b) shall not apply to a commercial fishing
vessel--
(1) that enters the navigable waters of the United States
pursuant to a bilateral convention governing fishing for
Pacific halibut or albacore tuna;
(2) that enters the navigable waters of the United States
due to an emergency; or
(3) the master of which obtains clearance from the
Secretary of the Treasury's designee by physically appearing
before the designee at a designated port of entry and paying
a fee equal to the fee charged to a commercial fishing vessel
of the United States by the nation under whose laws the
foreign vessel is registered.
(d) The owner or master of a vessel which enters the
navigable waters of the United States in violation of this
section shall be in violation of section 307(1)(A) of the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1857(1)(A)).
SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.
(a) Section 15(a) of Public Law 103-238 is amended by
striking ``April 1, 1995,'' and inserting ``May 1, 1994.''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective
on and after April 30, 1994.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] will be recognized for 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 716, to
reauthorize and improve the Fishermen's Protective Act. Originally
enacted in 1967, this law established a system of economic safeguards
for U.S. fishermen against illegal or unjustified seizure by a foreign
government. One of these safeguards is the Fishermen's Guaranty Fund--
which is a voluntary self-insurance program administered by the State
Department. The fund compensates fishermen for vessels and catch
confiscated by a foreign nation under claims of jurisdiction not
recognized by the United States.
The amount of money each vessel owner pays into the program is based
on the gross tonnage of the vessel. For example, during the history of
the program the fees have ranged from $16 to $30 per vessel ton with
participation ranging from 8 to 30 vessels, depending on the year.
Disbursements or claims paid out from the fund have averaged less than
$1 million each year. The largest claim occurred in 1984 for $5.5
million for a vessel that had been seized and ransacked off the Solomon
Islands.
In 1986, a Federal court in the Brenda Jolene versus United States
case decided that fees collected under the act must equal the amount
Congress appropriates. Since historically, the President has not
requested an appropriation, the State Department has been unable to
collect additional fees. While there is approximately $2.9 million in
the fund, there is a large settlement case pending from the seizure of
four tuna boats off the coast of Costa Rica in 1992, and any further
claims would deplete the assets of the fund.
The passage of this legislation is sorely needed due to unfair and
illegal actions by the Canadian Government. Last year, the Canadian
Government charged U.S. fishermen $1,100 each to access the Inside
Passage. The Canadians stopped the charge, but not before many U.S.
fishermen were subjected to it to the amount of $285,000. We must amend
the Fishermen's Protective Act so these American fishermen can be
compensated for the unfair charge.
During this crisis last year, the former Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee was quick to act. Similar legislation was adopted
by the committee and passed the House as part of a larger bill on
October 7, 1994.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation
and thank the chairman of the full committee, Don Young, for
introducing this bill, and the ranking minority member on the
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, Gerry Studds, for his
support of this legislation.
{time} 1430
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 716. The
Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 provides a mechanism for assisting
U.S. fishermen by reimbursing them for fines and other costs incurred
when their vessels are seized by a foreign nation, in violation of
international law.
[[Page H4045]] H.R. 716 reauthorizes this important act for an
additional 2 years. The legislation also amends the statute to
reimburse our fishermen for transit fees considered by our Government
to be inconsistent with international law, and to assess a similar fee
on vessels from the offending nation. These amendments are intended to
address what was, in my opinion, an illegal move by Canada last year to
charge U.S. vessels transiting Canadian waters en route to Alaska.
While that fee was finally lifted, many fishermen were forced to pay
and deserve reimbursement.
While I support these amendments, I want to be very clear that this
legislative action should not be interpreted by the Canadian Government
as a sign that we are willing to accept--or forget--this outrageous
action taken against our fishermen purportedly in the name of
conservation. The Canadian-Spanish shootout in the Northwest Atlantic
last month, combined with last year's illegal transit fees,
demonstrates a worrisome trend toward the use of unilateral actions to
resolve international fisheries disputes on the high seas. Some of
these actions are based on a conservation concern, others--such as the
transit fees--are simply taken out of frustration over the slow pace of
negotiations.
Regardless of the reason, unilateral actions such as these are not
the answer. Instead, the Canadians, and all coastal nations, should
seek to address these problems multilaterally through international
agreements. The drastic, unilateral actions of one country cannot
protect and restore our marine resources. All countries with a stake in
the fishery must participate if we are to be successful, and they must
be willing to agree to multilateral enforcement mechanisms to ensure
that the terms of such agreements are not violated.
This Congress has passed several pieces of legislation in the past
few weeks that will strengthen the U.S. resolve toward multilateral,
cooperative management, and we will continue to encourage these
efforts. In the meantime, this bill will protect U.S fishermen from
those countries that choose to take matters into their own hands, and I
urge Members to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 716, I rise in strong support of
this measure to reauthorize and improve the Fishermen's Protective Act
of 1967.
Mr. Speaker, one of the major motivations for this legislation was an
incident that occurred last year when 258 United States fishermen were
unfairly charged $1,100 each by the Canadian Government to sail through
the Inside Passage. While we were successful in convincing the
Canadians to stop collecting these illegal transit fees, the
Fishermen's Protective Act [FPA] must be amended to allow these
Americans to be compensated for their financial loss.
My bill would reauthorize the FPA for the next 3 years; allow money
to be deposited in the Fishermen's Guaranty Fund, regardless of whether
Congress appropriates any money; expand the compensation provision to
cover those Americans who paid the illegal fee assessed by the
Canadians; and prohibit port entry to the vessels of any nation that
assesses illegal fees on our vessels in the future.
Furthermore, we are making it clear that we will fully protect the
rights of U.S. fishermen. We will not allow Canada, or any nation, to
violate international maritime law or fishing treaties without a swift
response.
I fully expect the United States State Department to vigorously seek
reimbursement of these fees from the Canadians and not to simply make
some weak or half-hearted effort because it may be inconvenient to our
relationship with Canada. They broke the law and I want the more than
$285,000 the Canadians collected paid back to our fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 716 and thank Jim Saxton
and Gerry Studds for their bipartisan subcommittee support in joining
with me in this important legislative effort.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
Mr. METCALF. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 716, the
Fishermen's Protective Act. While this is an important piece of
legislation to fishermen across the country, the provisions of H.R. 716
are particularly vital to the salmon fishermen in the State of
Washington. The United States and Canada have been engaged in
negotiations, almost unending negotiations, since the Pacific Salmon
Treaty was negotiated. Last summer, fishermen from my district in
Washington State left for the annual trip north to fish in Alaskan
waters. This 500 mile journey is usually a pleasant passage, I have
made the round trip 3 times, incredibly scenic, mostly through calm,
inside passage channels and bays. But in 1994, our fishermen were
stopped by the Canadian Government, and forced to pay an illegal
transit fee of approximately $1,100 per vessel, just for passing
through Canadian waters. The U.S. fishermen had to pay the fee, or make
the transit in the rough, open waters of the Pacific Ocean.
Mr. Speaker, for 500 years, the British have supported freedom of the
seas and open waterways for trade. It seems ridiculous that in 1994,
Canada no longer believes in this principle. But with the salmon treaty
differences still not resolved, the prospect of this happening again
this spring is very real.
The provisions of H.R. 716 will allow for the repayment of these fees
to the fishermen involved, and provide the financial protections
required to make the transit this year, should the Canadians impose
this fee again. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the United States and
Canada can reach agreement on a new Pacific Salmon Treaty before the
start of this year's salmon season. If we should not, then the Congress
must provide this method so the fishermen can establish the program
contained in H.R. 716.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support our fishermen by
supporting H.R. 716.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I am as surprised as the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton] to learn that there will be a recorded vote on this
measure.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SAXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying that on most issues,
almost every issue with which we deal having to do with fishing and
fisheries is complicated, contentious, confusing, confounding, and many
other words that we could express that would indicate anything less
than simple. This is one of the more simple issues that we deal with,
but one that is very timely and one that is much needed.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further request for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 716.
The question was taken.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule
I, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this
motion will be postponed.
____________________