[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9589-S9592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           ADOPTION OF S. 267

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, S. 267 the Fisheries Act of 1995, is a 
bill I am pleased to bring to the floor for consideration today. It is 
comprised of a number of measures that would strengthen international 
fishery conservation and management.
  I would like to recognize the efforts of Senator Stevens, our Oceans 
and Fisheries Subcommittee chairman, who along with Senators Kerry, 
Gorton, Murray, and Murkowski introduced the bill. The bill also was 
cosponsored by Senator Breaux and Senator Packwood.
  Many of the titles in S. 267, were bills introduced in the 103d 
Congress but not enacted. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation held a hearing on these matters on July 21, 1994, 
indicating a strong bipartisan support for these fishery conservation 
measures.
  The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported the 
bill by unanimous vote on March 23, 1995. While only technical 
amendments were adopted, it was noted that Senator Snowe was 
considering an amendment to restrict directed foreign fishing within 
the EEZ for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel. We have worked with 
Senator Snowe to incorporate her concerns into the committee substitute 
before us and we appreciate her efforts in reaching this compromise.
  We also have incorporated provisions addressing conservation of 
salmon stocks of the Yukon River and regulations and enforcement 
actions for migratory species managed under the Atlantic Tunas 
Convention and the South Pacific Tuna Act.
  I also want to note that the committee has worked with Senator 
Packwood, chairman of the Finance Committee and an active member of the 
Commerce Committee, to address a provision of the bill that deals with 
amendments to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. We appreciate the 
cooperation that he and his staff have given us on this provision.
  I strongly believe that through the proper conservation and 
management of our Nation's living marine resources, we will enhance 
economic opportunities for future generations. The bill before us 
contains a number of provisions important to the conservation of 
fishery resources in our oceans. It is a noncontroversial bill with 
bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, I strongly support S. 267 and ask my colleagues to 
join me in it's adoption.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the substitute to S. 
267 offered by Senator Stevens, and I rise to express support for the 
amendment.
  Before proceeding to discuss the substitute, I want to offer my 
sincere thanks to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Pressler, and the chairman of the Oceans and 

[[Page S9590]]
Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, for their assistance to me 
throughout the process of considering S. 267. Early on, I expressed an 
interest in offering an amendment to the bill, and the two chairmen and 
their staffs always showed a willingness to help me as a freshman 
member of the committee. S. 267 is the first fisheries bill considered 
by the Commerce Committee in the 104th Congress, and the leadership and 
skillfulness that the Senators demonstrated in this effort deserves to 
be commended.
  Mr. President, the substitute includes an amendment that I sponsored 
which is designed to protect two of the few remaining healthy fish 
stocks in U.S. waters--Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel--from 
foreign fishing pressures. I consider this amendment and the issues 
that it addresses to be very important for the health of our domestic 
fishing industry as well as our domestic fish stocks.
  As media stories over the last year have reported, the New England 
groundfish fishery is now experiencing the most serious crisis in its 
long history. Groundfish stocks in the region have dwindled to record 
lows, threatening the future viability of this essential resource. 
Stringent conservation regulations have been implemented in response to 
the stock decline in an attempt to prevent a collapse of the fishery. 
In combination, these two factors have drastically reduced fishing 
opportunities, threatening a centuries-old industry and the livelihoods 
of thousands of people in coastal communities across the region who 
depend on it.
  And the regulations approved to date are not the end of it. The New 
England Fishery Management Council is now developing a public hearing 
document for new fishing effort reduction measures that are even more 
draconian than the existing regulations.
  To survive in the face of such adversity, many fishermen who want to 
remain on the water will have to catch species besides groundfish. But 
unfortunately, given present rates of fishing effort, few species offer 
much opportunity for new harvesting capacity. Two that do are Atlantic 
herring and Atlantic mackerel. The National Marine Fisheries Service 
has determined that these stocks are healthy, and that they can 
withstand higher rates of harvest without endangering the resource.
  Utilization of these species by Northeast fishermen has been limited 
to date because they generate less value in the market than groundfish. 
Maine has a viable sardine industry that uses a modest portion of the 
herring resource, and herring are harvested for bait to supply other 
fisheries like lobster and bluefin tuna. With regard to mackerel, 
several processors in the Northeast have established markets serving 
Canada and the Caribbean.
  But significant potential for expansion of these domestic industries 
exists. The mackerel industry hopes to increase market share in the 
Caribbean and gain a foothold in West Africa, the Middle East, and 
Eastern Europe. The Maine sardine industry has been trying to expand 
its markets in Mexico and the Caribbean. As groundfish landings 
decline, new players are actively pursuing new opportunities in the 
sustainable development of herring and mackerel. Resource Trading 
Company of Portland, Maine, has negotiated a deal to sell 25,000 tons 
of Atlantic herring to China--a market of enormous potential for New 
England fishermen.
  New England fishing interests are not the only ones pursuing our 
herring and mackerel, however. Foreign countries like Russia and the 
Netherlands have shown a keen interest in obtaining fishing rights for 
these species in U.S. waters. In 1993, the Russians and their domestic 
partner came close in persuading the Administrator of the National 
Marine Fisheries Service to approve an application to harvest 10,000 
tons of Atlantic mackerel--
 despite the fact that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council had 
specified that no foreign fishing rights for mackerel be granted. Since 
that time, the Dutch, acting through the European Union, have 
aggressively pursued foreign fishing rights for mackerel, and the 
Russians have continued to push for a portion of the stock.

  Mr. President, it would be unconscionable for the U.S. Government to 
allow foreign countries to begin harvesting two of the only healthy 
stocks left in U.S waters while New England fishermen lose their jobs 
as a result of the groundfish crisis. Since the process of developing 
strict fishing regulations for groundfish began four years ago, Federal 
fisheries managers and policymakers have encouraged groundfishermen to 
pursue alternatives or ``underutilized'' species like herring and 
mackerel. They have cited this option as an important way to help some 
fishermen stay in business during the recovery period for goundfish. To 
give away our fish to foreign fishermen at this critical time, after 
all of the rhetoric about developing underutilized species, would be a 
slap in the face to our fishermen. We should instead help fishermen and 
processors develop these resources in a sustainable manner, and the 
best way that we can do that is to provide assurances that sufficient 
quantities of fish will be available to meet the needs of our industry. 
We need to give entrepreneurs and fishermen the time to develop new 
products and markets so that they can compete all over the world with 
the same countries who seek the last of our healthy fish stocks.
  Out of my great concern for the future of the fishing industry in 
Maine and New England, and out of my strong desire to see American 
fishermen sustainable utilize Atlantic herring and mackerel, I offered 
an amendment during committee consideration of S. 267 which would have 
imposed a 4-year moratorium on the granting of foreign harvesting 
rights for these two species. This moratorium would have given our 
industry adequate time to create new products, markets, and associated 
infrastructure in herring and mackerel. It would have preserved 
valuable jobs in the New England fishing industry, and it would have 
done so without strengthening the position of our foreign competitors. 
The Resource Trading Company deal that I mentioned earlier, which 
involves only U.S. fishermen, shows clearly the great potential that 
exists.
  In committee, however, Senator Gorton expressed reservations about my 
amendment. A company based in Washington State that has operated in 
Russian waters and that is pursuing new markets in Russia was concerned 
that such a strong statement from the United States on fisheries could 
negatively affect some of its ongoing business. I agreed to work with 
Senator Gorton, as well as Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Pressler, to 
work out a compromise acceptable to all parties.
  Fortunately, we were able to reach an agreement on a new amendment 
that I sponsored and that Senator Kerry agreed to cosponsor. The 
amendment is contained in the Stevens Substitute under consideration 
today. It has two provisions.
  First, the amendment prohibits the awarding of any foreign harvesting 
rights for any fishery that is not subject to a fishery management plan 
under the Magnuson Act. At a bare minimum, no foreign harvesting should 
be allowed unless a strict regime for managing the harvest is in place. 
Atlantic herring does not have a council-approved fishery management 
plan at the present time, so this provision will protect the herring 
resource from foreign fishing pressure until the New England Fishery 
Management Council approves a plan.
  Second, the amendment adds a new layer of scrutiny to any 
applications submitted by foreign countries for the harvest of Atlantic 
herring and mackerel in U.S. waters. Under the current procedures in 
the Magnuson Act, the regional fishery management council of 
jurisdiction is required to specify whether foreign harvesting of a 
particular species should be allowed. The Secretary of Commerce is 
encouraged to follow the Council's guidance on foreign fishing, but he 
is not bound by it. In effect, the Secretary can disagree with the 
Council, and approve a foreign fishing application despite the 
Council's reservations.
  My amendment prohibits the Secretary from approving a foreign fishing 
application for herring and mackerel unless the
 council of jurisdiction recommends approval of it. In the absence of 
explicit Council agreement, the Secretary will no longer be able to 
grant foreign fishing rights. A foreign applicant will therefore have 
to convince not only the Commerce and State departments, but the 
regional council that was established to conserve the 

[[Page S9591]]
marine fisheries resources of the region, and whose membership is drawn 
in part from the regional fishing industry. While I would have 
preferred a moratorium, this new provision will make it more difficult 
for foreign countries to gain access to our important herring and 
mackerel resources.

  Mr. President, I also wanted to mention a couple of additional 
amendments contained in the substitute that I cosponsored. Both 
amendments relate to the management and conservation of Atlantic 
bluefin tuna and other highly migratory species in the Atlantic.
  Last year, pursuant to a request from the Maine and Massachusetts 
congressional delegations, a scientific peer review panel convened 
under the auspices of the National Research Council issued an important 
report that criticized NOAA's scientific work on Atlantic bluefin tuna. 
The report contained a number of significant findings, but perhaps most 
significant was the panel's finding that NOAA scientists had 
erroneously estimated Western Atlantic bluefin population trends since 
1988. Rather than a continuing decline during that period, the NRC 
panel concluded that the stock had remained stable.
  Because the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 
Tunas, to which the United States belongs, relies heavily on NOAA's 
bluefin science, the NRC peer review report had a profound impact on 
Atlantic bluefin management. Whereas ICCAT and NOAA had been advocating 
a 40 percent cut in the Western Atlantic bluefin quota before the 
report was issued, ICCAT actually approved a slight increase in the 
existing quota after the report's findings were published. Tuna 
fishermen in New England, where most of the commercial fishery for the 
species in the United States exists, had long criticized the quality of 
NOAA's bluefin science. The NRC report reinforced those criticisms.
  This episode points out the need for improved fisheries science in 
general, and improved research on highly migratory species like 
Atlantic bluefin tuna, in particular. One way that we can improve 
research on bluefin and other highly migratory species is to ensure 
that the scientists who conduct stock assessments and monitoring 
programs are wholly familiar with the conditions of the primary 
fisheries for the species. In the case of Atlantic bluefin tuna, most 
of the scientific activity is conducted at NOAA's Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center in Miami, even though the overwhelming majority of the 
commercial fishing activity for the species takes place in the 
Northeast, and much of the data used by scientists is collected from 
this fishery.
  Senator Kerry sponsored an amendment, which I cosponsored, that 
requires NOAA to ensure that the personnel and resources of each 
regional fisheries research center participate substantially in the 
stock assessments and monitoring of highly migratory species that occur 
in the region. Hopefully, this provision will bring scientists closer 
to the fishery, stimulate fresh thinking about fisheries science, and 
lead to improvements in NOAA's scientific program. Senator Kerry and I 
have also asked for administrative action on this matter, and we will 
continue our efforts in that regard after S. 267 is enacted.
  I had also cosponsored another amendment offered by Senator Breaux 
pertaining to the enforcement of ICCAT conservation measures. Western 
Atlantic fishermen, particularly American fishermen, have abided by 
ICCAT's rules since the first stringent quotas were implemented in the 
early 1980's. Unfortunately, some fishermen from other countries don't 
appreciate the need for conservation or international agreements the 
way that our fishermen do, and they harvest highly migratory species in 
the Atlantic in a reckless and unsustainable manner.
  To give ICCAT conservation recommendations greater force, Senator 
Breaux drafted an amendment which would have required the Secretary of 
Commerce to certify that ICCAT has adopted an effective multilateral 
process providing for restrictive trade measures against countries that 
fail to address reckless and damaging fishing practices by their 
citizens. If ICCAT failed to adopt such a process, the Breaux/Snowe 
amendment would have required the administration to initiate bilateral 
consultations with problem nations. And in the event that consultations 
proved unsuccessful and the country in question failed to address 
unsustainable fishing practices by its nationals, the amendment would 
have required the Secretary of the Treasury to impose a ban on the 
imports of certain fish and fish products from that country.
  Unfortunately, due to jurisdictional problems in the House that 
threatened to derail this entire bill, it was decided that the 
sanctions language in the original Breaux-Snowe amendment would not be 
included in the substitute. We did, however, include language similar 
to the other provisions of the amendment which require the Secretary to 
identify problem nations, and which authorize the President to initiate 
consultations on conservation-related issues with the governments of 
these problem nations. I would have preferred the original language, 
but this was the best that we could do without risking the entire bill.
  Let me state, Mr. President, that I do not think the issue of foreign 
compliance with ICCAT recommendations ends here. I intend to continue 
monitoring this issue, and if no more progress is made, I think that 
the Commerce Committee should be prepared to revisit it. We owe it to 
American fishermen who play by the rules, and to our highly migratory 
fisheries resources, to ensure that foreign countries are doing their 
part to conserve these important natural resources.
  Mr. President, the amendments that I have described will 
significantly improve S. 267, and improve U.S. efforts to manage its 
marine fisheries. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute, and 
to support S. 267 as amended.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my pleasure as the 
Senate prepares to pass the Fisheries Act of 1995. This legislation 
addresses an issue of great importance to the people of Massachusetts, 
the Nation, and, indeed, the world--the promotion of sustainable 
fisheries on a worldwide basis.
  One of the world's primary sources of dietary protein, marine fish 
stocks were once thought to be an inexhaustible resource. However, 
after peaking in 1989 at a record 100 million metric tons, world fish 
landings now have begun to decline. The current state of the world's 
fisheries has both environmental and political implications. Last year, 
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] estimated 
that 13 of 17 major ocean fisheries may be in trouble. Competition 
among nations for dwindling resources has become all too familiar in 
many locations around the world.
  The bill we are passing today will strengthen international fisheries 
management. Among the provisions reinforcing U.S. commitments to 
conserve and manage global fisheries, are the following: First, 
implementation of the FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with 
International Convention and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on 
the High Seas that would establish a system regulating U.S. vessels 
fishing on the high seas; second, implementation of the Convention on 
Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries 
that would provide for U.S. representation in the Northwest Atlantic 
Fisheries Organization [NAFO] and coordination between NAFO and 
appropriate Regional Fishery Management Councils; third, improved 
research and international cooperation with respect to Atlantic bluefin 
tuna and other valuable highly migratory species; fourth, reimbursement 
of U.S. fishermen for illegal transit fees charged by the Canadian 
Government and for legal fees and costs incurred by the owners of 
vessels that were seized by the Canadian Government in a jurisdictional 
dispute that were necessary and related to securing the prompt release 
of the vessel; fifth, a ban on U.S. fishing activities in the central 
Sea of Okhotsk except where such fishing is conducted in accordance 
with a fishery agreement to which both the United States and Russia are 
parties; sixth, a prohibition on U.S. participation in international 
agreements on fisheries, marine resources, the use of the high seas, or 
trade in fish or fish products which undermine the United Nations 
moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on 

[[Page S9592]]
the high seas; seventh, implementation of an interim agreement between 
the United States and Canada for the conservation of salmon stocks 
originating from the Yukon River in Canada; eighth, permission for U.S. 
documented vessels to fish for tuna in waters of the South Pacific Tuna 
Act of 1988 Area; and ninth, prohibition of a foreign allocation in any 
fishery within the United States exclusive economic zone unless a 
fishery management plan is in place for the fishery and the appropriate 
regional fishing council recommends the allocation.
  This bill will make a substantial contribution to U.S. leadership in 
the conservation and management of international fisheries. I want to 
acknowledge the leadership on this issue of the chairman of the Oceans 
and Fisheries Subcommittee, my friend the senior Senator from Alaska. 
It has been a pleasure working with him. I also want to thank the 
committee's distinguished ranking member, Senator Hollings, for his 
support on this bill. I also would like to recognize the staffs of the 
Commerce Committee for their diligence and their truly bipartisan 
efforts to bring this bill to the floor, specifically Penny Dalton and 
Lila Helms from the Democratic Staff and Tom Melius and Trevor Maccabe 
on the Republican side.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment be agreed 
to, the bill be deemed read a third time; further that the Commerce 
Committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
716 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that all 
after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 267, as 
amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, further that H.R. 716 be 
considered read a third time, passed as amended, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the 
bill appear at appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 716), as amended, was considered read the third time 
and passed.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent S. 267 be placed 
back on the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________