[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9116-H9121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 39.

                              {time}  1816


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
39) to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to 
improve fisheries management, with Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill 
is considered as having been read the first time.
  The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] will be recognized for 30 
minutes and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a unique period of time that we are faced with 
during this session. We have a bill that has been heard by the 
committee and we have worked on this bill for approximately 3\1/2\ 
years now. It is H.R. 39, the Fisheries Conservation and Management 
Amendments of 1995, which I sponsored, along with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 39, the Fishery 
Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, which I sponsored.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation, as you will see, enjoys broad, 
bipartisan support from members of the Resources Committee and those 
members from coastal districts with fishing interests. For this bill to 
have come this far shows the bipartisan effort involved in the 
development of the bill. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Saxton, 
Gerry Studds, and George Miller for their leadership in addressing the 
difficult issues in this important legislation.
  This reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act of 1976 is crucial to continuing the sound management of 
this Nation's fishery resources. If Members take nothing else away from 
this debate, remember, this legislation is supported by Members on both 
sides of the aisle, by the fishing industry, and by the environmental 
community.
  This has been no small feat, and while some may not be entirely happy 
with the legislation, reauthorization of this act is very important to 
us all.
  Mr. Chairman, during the 103d and 104th Congresses, 10 hearings on 
reauthorization issues were held. This legislation represents an 
attempt to address the concerns raised at these hearings. This 
legislation may not be perfect; however, fisheries management is a 
complicated balancing act. We have attempted to address the concerns 
raised by commercial fishermen, recreational and charter boat 
fishermen, environmental organizations, fishing communities, fish 
processors, and other interested groups.

  The Magnuson Act was enacted in 1976 in direct response to the 
depletion of U.S. fishery resources by foreign vessels. The Magnuson 
Act expanded U.S. jurisdiction over fishery resources to 200 miles. The 
Act also included provisions intended to encourage the development of a 
domestic fishing industry.
  The act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils to manage 
the fishery resources within their geographic area. The Councils were 
charged with determining the appropriate level of harvest to maximize 
the benefit to the Nation while still protecting the long-term 
sustainability of the stocks.
  This means the Councils must balance the often competing interests of 
commercial and recreational fishermen, and the often competing gear 
groups within the commercial industry.
  It is important to note that the committee continues to strongly 
support the current Regional Fishery Management Councils system. This 
legislation includes some reforms of the Council process and requires 
new disclosure rules to deal with the perception of conflict of 
interest on the Councils.
  While this legislation deals with the fishing industry, it is 
environment friendly. In fact, you have probably received or will 
receive letters of support from many of the national environmental 
groups. We think that we have crafted a bill which will allow fishermen 
to make a living from the sea while also making them better stewards of 
the resources they rely on for their livelihood.
  Three major areas needed to be addressed in this reauthorization to 
maintain healthy fisheries and healthy fishing communities. For the 
domestic fishery resource to remain healthy, fishery managers must take 
steps to reduce bycatch and the mortality of discards in the fisheries, 
to prevent the overfishing of stocks and rebuild those stocks which are 
already overfished, and, finally, to protect habitat essential for the 
continued renewal of the fisheries.
  The reduction of bycatch in our fisheries is one of the most crucial 
challenges facing fisheries managers today. In the North Pacific 
groundfish fishery alone, more than 740 million pounds of fish were 
discarded, in 1993. That represents 16 percent of the total catch of 
the fishery. Much of that discard is of prohibited species. It is clear 
that this is unacceptable. We hope that the requirements of this bill 
will help Councils address the problem of bycatch, and we hope that 
fishermen will respond with innovative methods of reducing bycatch.
  In particular, this legislation requires the Regional Fishery 
Management Councils to amend all existing Fishery Management Plans to 
reduce bycatch to the maximum extent practicable. It also provides the 
Councils with the ability to offer incentives to fishermen to reduce 
their bycatch.
  A second area of concern is the protection of essential habitat. This 
has been a tough issue to wrestle with. We do not want to over-regulate 
the fishing industry; however, the Councils 

[[Page H 9117]]
and the National Marine Fisheries Service should include in their 
Fishery Management Plans a description of what habitat is essential for 
the continued health of the fishery.
  The third area of change is to address the problem of those stocks 
which are already overfished or may be in danger of overfishing. This 
legislation requires the Secretary to report to Councils if any stock 
is approaching a condition of being overfished. This proactive 
identification of overexploited stocks will enable the Councils to take 
steps to keep the stocks from crashing. The bill also requires that 
Councils implement a rebuilding plan for any stock which is already 
overfished. If the Council is not able to implement a plan within one 
year, the Secretary is then required to implement a plan.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most contentious issues that we have worked 
on this year has been the use of a limited access management system 
known as Individual Transferable Quotas [ITQ's]. This type of 
management system allocates a percentage of the harvest to vessels 
based on past history in the fishery, current level of harvest, and 
several other criteria. Since 1990, three fisheries have already turned 
to ITQ's as the preferable management option, the latest being the 
halibut/sablefish plan in the North Pacific.
  The use of ITQ's has been hotly debated at the Council level and now 
at the national level. I believe that there are many issues yet to be 
resolved on the use of ITQ's as a management tool.
  There are those who argue that this bill kills any chance of ever 
enacting another Individual Transferable Quota [ITQ] plan. It does not. 
It puts the brakes on the headlong rush to enact ITQ plans for all 
fisheries without examining other limited access options. I have heard 
of movements to manage a number of fisheries under ITQ plans including: 
Pacific crab stocks, Bering Sea groundfish, New England lobster, Gulf 
of Mexico red snapper, Atlantic bluefin tuna, and swordfish. I believe 
that there are those at the National Marine Fisheries Service who have 
been advocating the use of ITQ's for all fisheries and I think this 
should stop.
  This bill makes it clear that ITQ's are a tool that the Councils can 
use, but clarifies that the quota shares are not property rights and do 
not convey a permanent right to the resource.
  Some ITQ proponents do not like the guidelines we have put in this 
legislation. This debate has been going on for more than 2 years and 
will probably continue after this bill is passed by the House and the 
debate turns to the Senate, which is currently working to move similar 
reauthorization legislation.
  I think these guidelines bring some rationality to ITQ management 
systems.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem of overcapitalization is another issue 
which has been debated by many of our Members for years. You will hear 
the phrase that ``there are too many boats chasing too few fish'' quite 
a bit today. It is especially true in some areas of the country like 
New England.
  We have worked hard to create a vessel buy-out program which does not 
require huge expenditures of taxpayer money. This program is a delicate 
compromise that I want to thank Gerry Studds and his staff for working 
on so diligently. The program allows a buy-out fund to be initially 
capitalized from already appropriated Federal programs such as 
fisheries disaster programs. The fund will then be used to bring the 
size of fishing fleets to a rational number. Those vessels which remain 
in the fishery and benefit from the reduction in fishing effort will 
then repay the fund over a 15-year period. This is a compromise which 
works, and which will not bankrupt the Federal Government nor the 
fishing industry.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and one that has taken 3 years to 
develop. It is full of compromise, yet does not compromise on 
maintaining the health of the resource--which should be the goal of 
everyone here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, hard as it may be to believe, given the 
youthfulness and vigor of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and 
myself, it was 20 years ago on the floor of this House that the 
gentleman and I, and others, fought for passage of the original act to 
secure U.S. jurisdiction and management authority over fisheries within 
200 miles of our shores. Today, we continue that battle to save our 
fisheries.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem we faced then was that foreign fisherman 
were decimating our stocks from Maine to Alaska, leaving little if any 
fish for our own industry. We sought to push those fishermen out, 
promote the development of the U.S. capacity to harvest these valuable 
fisheries and establish a responsible conservation and management 
regime that would ensure the long-term sustainability of the resources 
and our industry.
  American fishermen now have the technology and the capacity to 
harvest every fish available in U.S. waters. This advanced technology, 
overcapitalization, and the lack of political will to make tough 
management decisions have caused many stocks to face crises similar to 
the situation in the 1970's that spurred the passage of the original 
act. This time, however, there are no foreign fleets to blame.
  In New England for example, years of overfishing have pushed 
groundfish landings to an all-time low--even lower than when we were 
competing with foreign fleets. Haddock is commercially extinct; cod and 
yellowtail are close behind. A $200 million industry is on the verge of 
collapse and with it will go tens of thousands of jobs. Yet, 
unbelievably, the New England Fishery Management Council last week 
chose no action as one of the five options it will consider to address 
this tragedy. Serious action must be taken, and soon, or we will save 
neither the fish nor the fishermen.
  While the situation in New England is the most severe, it is not 
unique. The National Marine Fisheries Service tells us that 40 percent 
of the fisheries for which we have data are being harvested at a 
biologically unsustainable rate, and another 43 percent are fully 
exploited. We must act now, and assert without reservation that no 
action is not an acceptable alternative. Otherwise, we may force other 
fisheries around the country into their own New England-style crisis. 
That would mean the collapse of an industry that pumps $50 billion into 
the national economy and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  The bill we are considering today takes many significant actions to 
strengthen the Magnuson Act. First, and, perhaps most importantly, it 
seeks to bring an end to overfishing. No fishery should be harvested at 
a biologically unsustainable rate. The bill requires the regional 
Fishery Management Councils to establish baselines by which to measure 
overfishing. In cases where stocks are in decline, timelines for action 
by the Councils are explicitly spelled out; no action will no longer be 
an alternative. If the Councils still fail to act, the Secretary of 
Commerce will be required to do so. At the appropriate time the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] will offer an amendment to 
strengthen this provision even further. I plan to support the 
amendment, and I urge other Members to do the same.
  Second, the bill seeks to reduce the bycatch and waste of 
economically undesirable or prohibited species which account for the 
mortality of hundreds of millions of pounds of fish each year--fish 
that one person may want to discard but another may intend to harvest. 
For every management plan, the Councils will be required to adopt 
measures that minimize bycatch, such as gear restrictions, time and 
area closures, and incentives for fishermen to avoid nontarget fish. We 
can not afford to overfish the species we intend to catch, and we must 
also reduce the incidental take of these nontarget species.
  Third, the bill seeks to improve the habitats that are essential to 
the productivity of more than 75 percent of our fish and shellfish 
landings. Even if we address overfishing, the environmental community 
and the fishing industry agree that continued habitat loss could be 
catastrophic. The bill requires fishery managers to identify areas that 
are important fish habitat to ensure that they are protected. In 

[[Page H 9118]]
addition, it encourages Councils to promote fishing practices that 
minimize habitat damage.
  The bill also establishes a mechanism to allow a fishing industry to 
reduce the overcapitalization of its fleet, reduce pressure on 
fisheries stocks and make remaining boats more profitable. The chairman 
and I worked together on this effort, which is essentially a loan 
program for the fishing industry paid for by those in the fleet who 
remain and benefit from a healthier resource. This program will be an 
important part of the recovery effort in New England, and I thank the 
chairman for his support.
  Finally, the bill represents something that is so rare in these 
Chambers of late--a bipartisan effort to protect our natural resources, 
and in turn benefit our economy. Without healthy fisheries, communities 
around the country that depend on them will soon face the economic 
hardships I see now in my district. For that reason, I urge Members to 
support this bill and oppose any efforts to weaken it. That will help 
us keep our fish and shellfish bountiful and self-sustaining, and hold 
out some hope of keeping family fishermen productive and prosperous, 
and alive and well.

                              {time}  1830

  I thank the gentleman from Alaska. It is a pleasure to work with him 
for an embarrassing number of years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  May I suggest nothing has been embarrassing. We have worked well over 
these years, and only the length of time that he and I have served.
  May I suggest that his area has been hardest hit. We thought we were 
doing great things in 1976, and we did. We worked to try to Americanize 
our fleet. Unfortunately, along the line, we did some things, or they 
did some things, that have damaged our fishing areas around our Nation 
very harmfully, ``they'' being our ownselves. So we have to address 
this legislation. This is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. STUDDS. If the gentleman will yield, would the gentleman agree 
with me, if we are successful in strengthening the act, we should 
consider renaming it?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No.
  Mr. STUDDS. The gentleman still does not like the ``Young-Studds?''
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I do believe the gentleman from Guam would like 
to enter a colloquy before we get in trouble.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, during the 
committee markup of H.R. 39 in the Committee on Resources, I had 
prepared an amendment that I had voluntarily withdrawn that would have 
assisted the insular territories in developing their fishery resources. 
My amendment would allow the licensing of foreign fishing vessels to 
allow fishing within the 200-mile exclusive economic zones surrounding 
the insular areas. The funds derived from the licensing fees would be 
used to assist the territories in conserving and managing these fishery 
resources. I had withdrawn this amendment in order to allow time for 
the majority and minority to work collaboratively to find areas of 
agreement. Mr. Chairman, during the committee markup you stated your 
commitment to assisting the territories in developing their fishery 
resources and you also stated your support of an amendment that would 
return the benefits of this development to the territorial governments. 
We have been working with the majority and minority staffs to craft an 
acceptable compromise amendment. Would the chairman support an 
amendment along these lines?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, I am pleased to 
restate my commitment to the gentleman from Guam in support of his 
efforts to allow some development of the territory's fisheries 
resources and allow any benefits from the licensing of foreign fishing 
vessels to accrue to the territories for conservation and management of 
the fisheries resources. I understand this amendment is being worked 
through the committee, with my staff and your staff, and, hopefully, we 
will arrive at a conclusion that will be beneficial to both of them. 
The merits of his amendment are strongly supported by the chairman.
  The one reservation we have, we will have to make sure of how the 
license fees will be utilized for the territory, and we are attempting 
now to work it out where it goes to the fisheries improvement area.
  I have been in your area, and I have seen some of the actions by some 
of the foreign countries which you get no benefit from. I think that 
goes totally contrary to the Magnuson Act. I would support it with work 
on the amendment.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I appreciate the gentleman's sensitivity on that.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 39, the 
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.
  This legislation would reauthorize and amend the Magnuson Act, which 
provides for the conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources 
and the development of U.S. domestic fisheries.
  I am rather familiar with the gentleman for whom much of this 
Nation's fishing law is named, former Senator Magnuson. I ran against 
him when he was reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1968 and 1974. We were 
adversaries then, but we might have had similar opinions on these 
proposed changes to fisheries law.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. It's bad for the State of 
Washington, it's bad for fisheries conservation and it's bad for the 
working men and women who make their living from the resources of the 
sea. I strongly believe these family wage jobs must be protected.
  Mr. Chairman, many of my constituents are alarmed at the potential 
impact of this legislation. Their voices must be heard. Thus, I would 
like to submit for the Record, immediately following my statement, some 
of their concerns. The first attachment is a critique prepared by 
members of the fishing community who will be directly affected by this 
flawed legislation. The second attachment is a report that examines the 
IFQ program for halibut and sablefish and its record in regards to crew 
safety and bycatch utilization issues.
  These issues deserve careful consideration as Congress debates the 
future of fishing law. The livelihoods of fishing families depend on 
the outcome of these deliberations.


                          h.r. 39--a critique

       H.R. 39, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     Amendments of 1995, is bad legislation. The bill does not 
     provide fisheries managers with the tools that are needed to 
     resolve the most fundamental challenges to the sustainability 
     of our nation's fisheries. The enactment of H.R. 39 would 
     ensure that excessive harvesting and processing capacity, 
     waste of target and non-target species, misallocation of 
     resources among user groups, and severe risks to life and 
     property at sea would continue to plague our fisheries.


                     Individual Transferable Quotas

       The legislative scheme proposed by H.R. 39 establishes 
     unwarranted, unprecedented, and probably insuperable, 
     procedural and substantive hurdles to the establishment and 
     maintenance of ITQs, but not to the viability of any other 
     limited entry systems or fishery management measures. The 
     scheme would not only make promising new individual quota 
     systems highly improbable, but also effectively destroy the 
     successful, existing programs. For many fisheries, including 
     crab and groundfish of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, ITQs 
     represent the single most effective means of reducing 
     excessive fishing capacity, thus ending the wasteful and 
     deadly race for fish, and greatly improving conservation, 
     saving lives, and increasing the economic return for 
     fishermen and their communities.
       Provisions of H.R. 39 that work against individual quotas 
     are as follows:
       1. A new national ``review panel'' is to be established to 
     provide recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce. Based 
     on those recommendations, new regulations would have to be 
     promulgated, before any new ITQ program could be implemented. 
     This scheme requires a new layer of bureaucracy and a new set 
     of regulatory burdens, dilutes the role of local industry and 
     the regional approach to fisheries management, and delays the 
     implementation of new ITQs. At the earliest, ITQ regulations 
     would not be promulgated until September 30, 1998. Page 53, 
     line 1-page 57, line 2.\1\
     \1\ The page and line references are keyed to House 
     Legislative Counsel Document F/HAS/RES1/H39.REP, May 30, 1995 
     (1:23 p.m.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The national review panel should be deleted.
       2. The Secretary of Commerce is provided unique authority, 
     unilaterally and without reference to identified procedures 
     and rational standards, to revoke or limit any individual 
     quota (not only for violations, but also for other reasons as 
     determined by the Secretary), and to limit or terminate any 
     ITQ system, ``at any time''. This invites arbitrary, 
     politically-motivated actions by the 

[[Page H 9119]]
     Secretary and bypasses the scheme of regional management. No other 
     management measures are subjected to such a scheme. Under 
     current law, fishing permits can only be revoked for 
     violations, and only after established procedures have been 
     followed; management programs can be amended or terminated, 
     but only by action of the Councils, with the approval of 
     the Secretary (except for highly migratory species). Page 
     48, lines 9-14; page 50, lines 7-12.
       The provision for revocation of limitation of individual 
     quotas should be limited to enforcement actions and should be 
     subject to prevailing procedural safeguards.
       The provision to terminate individual quota systems should 
     be subject to the normal process by which fishery management 
     plans are amended.
       No later than 7 years after its implementation, any 
     individual quota implemented following the date of enactment 
     of H.R. 39 must automatically terminate, unless affirmatively 
     renewed. This reverses the administrative process established 
     by the Magnuson Act for all other management measures--they 
     remain effective, unless they are time-limited by regulation 
     or further action is taken to terminate or amend them. Page 
     48, line 21-page 49, line 6.
       The sunset provision would introduce a unique, new element 
     of uncertainly into ITQ programs. It would jeopardize the 
     rationalization of the fisheries--one of the principal 
     benefits of ITQs--by preventing quota shares from being 
     freely traded, particularly in the out years, as the 
     termination date approaches. The sunset provision would also 
     make it difficult or impossible to secure much-needed loans 
     with ITQs, Notably, this scheme would not apply to the State 
     of Alaska salmon and herring limited entry permits, which are 
     fully marketable personal assets worth almost $1 billion to 
     individual holders.
       The sunset provisions should be deleted.
       3. New fees would be established for ITQs, but not for 
     other limited entry permits or other management measures. 
     There would be a fee of 4% of the value of the harvested or 
     processed fish annually. In addition, upon first issuance of 
     quotas, there would be a fee of 1% on the value of the fish 
     authorized to be harvested or processed. A further fee of 1% 
     would be applied to each subsequent transfer of quotas. These 
     fee would be prohibitively high. Moreover, it would be unfair 
     to require payment of a fee based on the amount of fish 
     authorized for harvest, not on the amount of fish actually 
     landed and sold. The provision in H.R. 39 to delay 
     implementation of these exactions for 5 years in the case of 
     the existing quota programs does not address the basic 
     economic problem. Page 50, line 23-page 52, line 24.
       In the context of the fisheries of the North Pacific, it is 
     important to take note of the fact that the State of Alaska 
     receives raw fish taxes (3-5% of landed value, one-half of 
     which goes to coastal ports) and borough taxes (2% of landed 
     value) from the fisheries in the federal exclusive economic 
     zone. There is also an observer fee of 2% of the value of the 
     catch. The set-asides of special quotas from the federal 
     exclusive economic zone for certain communities in Alaska 
     represent an additional cost to the industry at large, in 
     the form of lost fishing opportunities and revenues. These 
     set-asides, called community development quotas (CDQs) are 
     described below in detail. However, it is noted here that 
     the North Pacific Council has approved CDQs for all 
     groundfish and crab fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian 
     Islands area of the federal exclusive economic zone in the 
     amount of 7.5% of the total allowable catch. Therefore, in 
     the case of the North Pacific fisheries, the enactment of 
     H.R. 39 would increase the cost to industry at large, in 
     the form of fees and lost revenues, to a level of 
     approximately 20% , before any profits are made or federal 
     income taxes are paid.
       New fees should be capped at 2% and should be calculated on 
     the basis of the unprocessed value of the fish harvested and 
     sold annually. This level should be more than sufficient to 
     cover any incremental additional fisheries management costs 
     attributable to individual quotas.
       4. The ``negative social and economic impacts'' of ITQs on 
     local coastal communities must be ``minimized''. This is a 
     standard that is not applied to any other management measures 
     and could be impossible to satisfy. Page 47, lines 16-19.
       This standard should be deleted. Any negative social and 
     economic impact on any communities, not solely those that are 
     local to the fisheries, should be ``considered'', as are 
     other relevant factors in the management process under 
     prevailing law.
       5. Unlimited portions of the total allowable catches could 
     be set aside from any ITQ system in order to provide for 
     entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners, and crewmen who 
     do not qualify for ITQs. Page 50, lines 3-6. These set-asides 
     could result in the establishment of parallel and 
     inconsistent management systems, one for ITQs and one for 
     open access derbies, and would certainly increase the cost of 
     management. In addition, if implemented, this approach would 
     further compress the already overcapitalized large-vessel 
     fisheries. It should be noted that the Commercial Fisheries 
     Loan Program of the State of Alaska specializes in loans to 
     commercial fishermen to purchase vessels, limited entry 
     permits, and even ITQs. $11 million is reported to be 
     available at this time for loans to fishermen who would not 
     qualify for commercial lending on the open market.
       This provision should be substantially modified to provide 
     a different approach to providing for entry-level fishermen, 
     small boat owners, and crew, or should be deleted. For 
     example, fees on holders of individual quotas could serve as 
     a source of funding to facilitate the entry of fishermen into 
     the management system. Fees would not have to exceed the 
     suggested maximum of 2% to achieve this purpose.
       6. The ITQ scheme in H.R. 39 would not effectively 
     grandfather existing quota programs in order to avoid 
     further, time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain 
     administrative action that could lead to renewed litigation. 
     Notably, the halibut/sablefish quota program was developed 
     over a 10-year period, adopted by the North Pacific Council, 
     approved by the Secretary, and confirmed by the Federal 
     District Court in Alaska. H.R. 39 would merely exempt the 
     existing quota programs from the 7-year termination 
     requirement, but not from other destructive provisions. Page 
     48, line 21-page 49, line 2. The application of new criteria 
     to old programs could greatly delay and otherwise hinder the 
     development of new ITQ systems.
       New criteria should not be applied retroactively to 
     existing quota systems.
       It bears emphasizing that the State of Alaska salmon and 
     herring limited entry permit programs, which are successful, 
     are subject to none of the conditions and restrictions 
     proposed for ITQs. As noted above, the salmon and herring 
     limited access permits are currently worth to their holders 
     almost $1 billion. This represents collateral for loans to 
     facilitate entry into other fisheries and provides economic 
     stability for local communities. H.R. 39 would establish an 
     entirely unfair and unwarranted double standard to the 
     detriment of fishermen who would benefit from ITQ systems.


                      community development quotas

       The bill requires the establishment of community 
     development quotas for all Bering Sea fisheries as permanent 
     entitlements. Page 43, line 12-page 44, line 24. There is no 
     limit on the newly mandated CDQ entitlements, which represent 
     simply a form of government economic and social engineering, 
     the cost of which is to be borne, not by society, at large, 
     but by the fishing industry, alone.
       There are already CDQs in the amount of 7.5% of the pollock 
     total allowable catch in the Bering Sea. Based on recent 
     prices, these CDQs are worth $30 million annually (and are 
     reportedly being made tax exempt through the establishment of 
     foundations, and thus are being removed from the general tax 
     base).
       There are also, at present, CDQs in the amounts of 15% and 
     20% of the total allowable catches of sablefish and halibut, 
     respectively, in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. At current 
     prices, the ex vessel values of these CDQs are $3.4 million 
     for sablefish and $2.36 million for halibut, annually.
       The Alaska-dominated North Pacific Council has recently 
     decided to establish CDQs at the level of 7.5% for all 
     groundfish and crab fisheries of the federal exclusive 
     economic zone of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area. This 
     will yield an income transfer to the favored Bering Sea 
     Alaskan coastal communities from historical fishermen of 
     approximately $80 million per year, according to the Draft 
     Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review for 
     License Limitation Alternatives for the Groundfish and 
     Crab Fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/
     Alcutian Islands, dated September 18, 1994. This will be 
     in addition to halibut and sablefish CDQs. At present 
     there are 52 participating Alaskan CDQ communities, with a 
     total population of 21,000. This translates to a perpetual 
     annual transfer of $4,938 for every man, woman, and child 
     in those communities, in terms of the value of the fish 
     reserved to the CDQ program. In the case of the 1034 
     historical crab and groundfish vessels that will be 
     licensed to operate in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, 
     the lost fishing opportunity will be valued at $77,000 per 
     vessel, based on recent prices. There is no precedent for 
     a federal agency, with or without express statutory 
     authority, reallocating private sector income for the 
     purpose of redistributing economic wealth in so radical a 
     manner.
       There must be a statutory limit on these direct income 
     transfers. Alaska natives have already received over $1.3 
     billion in federal payments under the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act and related sales of net operating losses 
     under special provisions of the tax laws.
       It should be remembered that the communities that are 
     accorded privileged treatment under H.R. 39 could have long 
     ago applied federal funds to the development of Bering Sea 
     fisheries on a very substantial scale. Rather, those 
     communities chose to apply the federal funds primarily to 
     other purposes. In point of fact, these communities have 
     never been excluded from--nor been in any manner dependent 
     upon--the major fisheries of the federal exclusive economic 
     zone in the North Pacific.
       It should also be remembered that CDQs do not apply to 
     limited access permits for salmon and herring in Alaska.
       The CDQ provisions of H.R. 39 should be amended to limit 
     CDQs to a maximum of 3% of each affected fishery, and should 
     be subject to criteria that would ensure these income 
     transfers from historical fishermen are dedicated to those 
     communities that are most in need of assistance.
     
[[Page H 9120]]



                   safety of life and property at sea

       H.R. 39 has only weak provisions relating to the safety of 
     life and property at sea. Page 22, lines 4-5; page 25, lines 
     13-17.
       In view of the fundamental importance of reducing injuries 
     and losses of life in the fisheries, there should be a 
     national standard requiring that conservation and management 
     measures promote safety. It should be noted that crab fishing 
     in the Bering Sea is the most dangerous profession in the 
     United States, according to the National Institute of 
     Occupational Safety and Health.
       There should be a national standard that requires fishery 
     conservation and management measures to promote safety of 
     life and property at sea.


                               conclusion

       H.R. 39 contains provisions that are extremely damaging. 
     Positive elements of H.R. 39 fall far short outweighing the 
     negative provisions of the bill. H.R. 39 should be amended to 
     reflect the suggested changes with respect to ITQs, CDQs, and 
     safety, or the measure should be defeated.
                                                                    ____



                                        Marine Safety Reserve,

                                       Seattle, WA, July 18, 1995.
     To: The Alaska and Washington State Congressional Delegation.
       The following report on safety by the Marine Safety Reserve 
     is an examination of the effects that the IFQ program for 
     halibut and sablefish is having on crew injuries. The Marine 
     Safety Reserve was formed in 1954 as a crew liability pool to 
     indemnify vessel owners for Jones Act liability claims. The 
     members of the Reserve are primarily from Washington State 
     and Alaska with membership from all the West Coast states. 
     The Reserve has specialized in longline fishing operation 
     since its inception and has had a consistent number of 
     longline vessels that it has covered. This examination 
     attempts to look at the rate of longline claims through mid-
     season July 17, from 1980 to the present and rationalize the 
     difference in accident rates.
       The following is a composite of our claims in the longline 
     fleet through July 17, 1995 and July 17th for the last 16 
     years since 1980. The number of longline vessels in the 
     Reserve has remained constant through the period examined. 
     Approximately 70 of the Reserve member vessels have been 
     dedicated to longline activities during the years examined. 
     The vessels typically covered are vessels with 4 to 6 person 
     crews that deliver and sell dressed fish.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Number                                 
                                   of       Total    Fishing    Injuries
             Year                claims    claims      days       per   
                                  thru     for the  available   fishing 
                                 July 17    year                  days  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..........................         9  ........      123         .073
1994..........................        14        33       14        2.36 
1993..........................         8        25       22        1.14 
1992..........................        21        41       27        1.51 
1991..........................        22        36       36        1.00 
1990..........................        24        40       62         .65 
1989..........................        23        40       61         .66 
1988..........................        21        44       77         .57 
1987..........................        19        35       62.5       .56 
1986..........................        11        25       61         .41 
1985..........................        12        26      155         .17 
1984..........................         7        21      260         .081
1983..........................         9        18      365         .05 
1982..........................        11        26      365         .07 
1981..........................        11        24      365         .07 
1980..........................         5        18      365         .05 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The number of fishable days for the ice boat fleet for 
     halibut and sablefish was figured using the GOA fishable days 
     for halibut, plus the time available in the Kodiak Central 
     area for sablefish. Some vessels fished in the western 
     district of the GOA and those seasons were somewhat longer 
     than the Kodiak seasons. Some vessels fished only the 
     southeast districts of the GOA, which were shorter seasons 
     than the Kodiak area. It is the Reserve's opinion that the 
     Central Kodiak area for sablefish represented an industry 
     norm for available fishable days.


                              Conclusions

       1. In 1984, the sablefish fishery was Americanized and had 
     its first closure date other than December 31. The number of 
     injury claims between 1980 and 1984 were fairly constant, 
     averaging 21.4 per year.
       2. Between 1980 and 1984, the accident rate per fishable 
     day was .064 per day.
       3. The 1985 season represented the first year that the 
     fleet knew before the season started that the sablefish 
     season would not be unlimited. The number of injuries 
     increased 18.7 percent between 1985 and the previous 5 
     year average. However, the rate per number of fishing days 
     available to the fleet increased 265 percent. The fleet 
     was down to 155 days of operation between halibut and 
     sablefish seasons.
       4. By the 1986 season, the fleet had realized that they 
     were in a race for fish, the fishing time reduced from 155 
     days in 1985 to 61 days in 1986. The number of injury claims 
     remained about the same as the previous year, 25 versus 26. 
     But once again, the injury rate per day increased this time 
     by 241 percent from the year before. The injury rate per day 
     was now 650 percent above the rate per day between 1980 and 
     1984.
       5. By the end of the 1986 season, a fisherman was 6.4 times 
     more likely to be injured during a halibut or sablefish 
     opening than during the time period between 1980 and 1984 
     when unlimited sablefish opportunities were available.
       6. The last year of derby fishing for either halibut or 
     sablefish in 1994 recorded 33 claims which represent 2.36 
     claims per fishable day in the Gulf of Alaska. This reflects 
     that you were 36.8 times more likely to be injured per 
     fishable day than during the 1980 to 1984 time frame.
       7. The nature of injuries became more severe as fishing 
     gear was hauled faster. Prior to the race for fish, injuries 
     usually included an occasional hook in the hand, broken ribs 
     and hernias, injuries that people healed up from. By the time 
     the Council voted approval of the plan, the 1992 season saw 
     12 lives lost in the halibut derbies. The September 1994 
     halibut opener for 24 hours saw 5 vessels lost and one death. 
     These two fisheries had become killers.
       8. The amount of hooks hauled and baited by hand prior to 
     1990 may have been between 10,000 to 12,000 hooks a day for a 
     5 to 6 man crew vessel and this increased to 17,000 to 19,000 
     hooks per day by 1994 for the same size crew. Crews 
     recalibrated their work days to 28 and 30 hour days, as a 
     result, new injury lawsuits of sleep deprivation emerged in 
     the courts. After conducting interviews, it appears that the 
     average vessel has reduced the amount of gear being set per 
     day by 30 to 40 percent under the IFQ program.
       9. The derby fishery forced out of business the majority of 
     crew persons over 45 years old. The pace of the fishery was 
     burning up crew members by the age of 40 with bad backs, 
     stress and fatigue. A typical 24 hour halibut opening meant 
     the crew was up 12 hours before the opening getting gear 
     ready to set and 12 to 20 hours after a season cleaning fish 
     and taking fish out of the holds. The pace of the fishery 
     under the IFQ program has slowed down as there are no time 
     limits to stop a vessels' fishing activity.
       10. Even with all the good safety training now required by 
     Congress with the Safety Act of 1986, the injuries per 
     fishable day increased 570 percent per fishable day between 
     1986 and 1994 following enactment of the Safety Act.
       11. The injuries per day of fishing opportunity in the 
     first 123 days of fishing in 1995 under the IFQ program has 
     fallen 323 percent to .073 injuries per day. This is 
     comparable to rates experienced between 1980 and 1984.
       12. No amount of safety training and new safety laws can 
     have as much affect as the luxury of additional time to avoid 
     bad weather and not be forced to harvest against a set 
     closing date.
       13. The IFQ program, by taking the race out of the Halibut 
     and sablefish fishery, may well have had more positive 
     aspects for human safety than all the new Congressional 
     requirements required by law, and yet there are those who 
     refuse to support having human safety as a new National 
     Standard to the Magnuson Act for which regulations would be 
     judged against.
       The conclusions for the 1995 season are still waiting to be 
     fully examined but as of July 17, 1995, the number of claims 
     and rate per day of claims which we have had recorded have 
     not been this low since the 1983 season when there was 
     unlimited fishing time for sablefish and the halibut fishery 
     in the Gulf of Alaska consisted of one 16-day season and one 
     4-day season. This report is intended to inform you of our 
     perspective of the on-going IFQ program.


                               Fisheries Information Services,

                                        Juneau, AK, July 20, 1995.
     To: Bob Alverson, FVOA.
     From: Janet Smoker, FIS.
       Here is the revised table showing discards of sablefish and 
     other groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska sablefish fishery. As 
     noted before, I choose to use straight observer data because 
     the process of estimating discards in the IFQ fisheries is a 
     very complicated one that will not be thoroughly developed 
     (by a joint effort of IFHC and NMFS staff) until this fall, 
     and the bycatch extrapolation model used by NMFS in past 
     years is thus obsolete.
       I was unable to prepare a similar table for the halibut 
     fishery. Groundfish bycatch and discards in the halibut 
     directed fishery have not been thoroughly documented. 
     Discards of halibut in the halibut IFQ fishery in 1995 have 
     not yet been estimated by IPHC.
       Conclusions to be drawn from the table follow.
       1. The percent of groundfish discarded decreased from more 
     than 24% in 1994 to less than 10% so far this year. This 
     suggests that fishermen are better able to avoid unwanted 
     species in the IFQ fishery.
       2. The complementary conclusion, that fishermen are better 
     able to target on sablefish, is show by the fact that the 
     percent of sablefish of all groundfish taken in the sablefish 
     target fishery increased from 70% to 84%.
       3. The percent of sablefish discarded decreased from over 
     3% in 1994 to under 2% in 1995, suggesting that fewer 
     unwanted (e.g. undersized) sablefish are being taken.
       4. The percent of other groundfish that are discarded in 
     the sablefish fishery has decreased from 74% to 51%, 
     suggesting that fishermen are better able to use incidental 
     take of other groundfish in the IFQ fishery.
       5. The amount of groundfish sampled this year already 
     exceeds that of 1994, even though only 60% of quota has been 
     taken; IFQ fishery allows greater observer coverage and 
     better data collection.
       6. Last but not least, the halibut rate has decreased from 
     almost 42% to 22% this year.

  FIG. 1.--GULF OF ALASKA LONGLINE SABLEFISH TARGET CATCH, BYCATCH AND  
                            DISCARD DATA (MT)                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            1994                 1995             1995/ 
                      ----------------     ----------------        1994 
                              Percent              Percent       Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All groundfish:                                                         
  Retained...........   1949      76         2374      90               
 
[[Page H 9121]]
                                                                        
  Discarded..........    631      24          251      10             39
                      --------------------------------------------------
      Total..........   2579                 2624                    102
                      ==================================================
Sablefish:                                                              
  Retained...........   1751      97         2173      98               
  Discarded..........     58       3           39       2             55
                      --------------------------------------------------
      Total..........   1809      70    +    2212      84    +       120
                      ==================================================
Other groundfish:                                                       
  Retained...........    197      26          201      49               
  Discarded..........    573      74          212      51             69
                      --------------------------------------------------
      Total..........    770      30    +     412      16    +        53
                      ==================================================
Halibut..............   1073      42    *     578      22    *       53 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Proportion of all groundfish.                                          
*Proportion halibut to total groundfish.                                
                                                                        
 Notes: Source: NMFS observer program in-season data. Preliminary data, 
  observed vessels only; (not extrapolated to fleet).                   


  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 39, the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and ask to revise and extend 
my remarks. Congress enacted the Magnuson Act and created the 200-mile 
fishery conservation zone--now called the exclusive economic zone--in 
direct response to a dramatic rise in foreign fishing off the coasts of 
the United States in the early 1970s. One undisputed success of the 
Magnuson Act has been the virtual elimination of foreign fishing within 
the exclusive economic zone.
  According to some environmental groups, the Magnuson Act succeeded in 
getting rid of foreign overfishing only to replace it with domestic 
overfishing.
  Our fisheries resources are facing an acknowledged crisis. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service reports that some of the Nation's 
most historically important fisheries are in serious decline, including 
several key species of Northeast groundfish, many Pacific coast salmon 
runs, and Gulf of Mexico shrimp.
  During this year's reauthorization, the Magnuson Act must provide a 
framework for the recovery of diminished stocks. One of the issues that 
will have to be addressed is ``overfishing.'' The original Magnuson Act 
did not define overfishing and the time has come to do so. Our 
fisheries resources are too valuable to squander away.
  The Magnuson Act in its current draft is not perfect, but it is 
comprehensive and does address the problems I mentioned. One area that 
I may offer an amendment on is in the definition of bycatch. 
Recreational fishermen are concerned that the bill's definition of 
bycatch and the new language regarding this definition will cause the 
``catch and release'' fisheries to be closed down by regional councils. 
I may offer an amendment to make clear that ``catch and release'' 
fisheries cannot be eliminated by regional management councils to 
minimize bycatch.
  In closing, I compliment the chairman of the Resources Committee, Don 
Young, and the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, which I chair, Gerry Studds, for their 
bipartisanship during the drafting process of this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, in a clear demonstration of 
the fact that fish truly do not know political boundaries, I find 
myself on the same side of an resource management issue as the 
gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young and rise in support of H.R. 39, the 
Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995.
  As many Members have mentioned here, our fisheries, and in turn our 
family fishermen, are in trouble. In northern California, the salmon 
fishermen have seen their season remain closed two years in row, the 
stocks devastated by habitat loss. In New England, overfishing of cod 
and haddock have closed significant areas of the once teeming waters of 
Georges Bank. In the Gulf of Mexico and the North Pacific, some 
fisheries are in decline or must be shut down early as a result of high 
bycatch of these species by fishermen who are targeting totally 
different fish.
  When we harvest our fish at an unsustainable rate, when we decimate 
the habitat that fish depend on for reproduction and growth, and when 
we continue to discard non-target species at unchecked rates, everybody 
loses. The resource, the fishermen that depend on it to make a living, 
and the consumers that face higher prices due to limited supplies. 
Overfishing, habitat loss, and bycatch are just a few of the problems 
that face our fisheries, severe economic impacts to our coastal fishing 
communities is the result.
  Last week, there was yet another news article documenting the plight 
of the fishing industry. ``Fisheries going the way of the family farm'' 
was the title of the story which detailed the challenges the small 
independent operators face today, driving many out of business. To stem 
this tide, we must act now if we want to preserve the fish and the 
fishermen and protect fishermen's jobs, instead of short term 
investors' profits. We must act now if we want to maintain an industry 
that encourages small independent owner-operators and holds the promise 
for crew members that invest their hearts and souls in the fishery that 
their hard work will enable them to fulfill the dream of owning their 
own vessel and fishing just as their fathers and grandfathers did.
  The bill before us today represents a bipartisan effort to improve 
our fisheries management system and maintain this way of life. I 
congratulate the Chairman and the gentlemen from Massachusetts and New 
Jersey for their efforts to bring this legislation to the floor. At the 
appropriate time I will be offering an amendment that I believe takes 
us even closer to what I hope would be our goal for the future of the 
fishing industry. In total, however, this is a good bill and I urge 
Members to support it.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this 
opportunity during general debate of H.R. 39 to point out the 
importance of fisheries to my district.
  The Magnuson Act is vitally important to the people of fishery 
dependent communities in southwest Washington. The action we take in 
this legislation impacts among others, crab fishermen in places like 
Grayland, Chinook and Tokeland, and shoreside processors in places like 
Westport. These are some of the hardest working people I have ever 
seen, and all they want from the Federal fisheries program is an 
opportunity to make a living.
  I also want to point out that during consideration of H.R. 39 in the 
House Resources Committee I offered an amendment to establish a pilot 
program that starts a process to contract out fish stock surveys to the 
private sector. This will allow fishermen to conduct fish surveys and 
keep the catch as a way to defer costs for the use of their boats. This 
will allow fishermen in my State to have a better idea of what stocks 
are available.
  More than anyone, fishermen have a stake in making sure that we have 
the best information available about the quantity and quality of fish 
stocks. I would like to thank the West Coast Seafood Processors and 
Fisherman Marketing Association for their support of my amendment.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman and my colleagues in the 
Senate as we work toward reauthorizing this important Act. The 
hardworking people of my State deserve nothing less.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time. I urge a ``yes'' vote when this bill finally gets to the floor on 
the Magnuson Act, the renewal of the fisheries conservation bill.
  I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Foley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 39) to 
amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve 
fisheries management, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________