[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10213-H10247]
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. Hayworth). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Monday, September 18, 1995, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares 
the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 39.

                              {time}  1033


                     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 further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 39) to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act to improve fisheries management with Mr. Bunning 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Monday, September 18, 1995, all time for general debate had expired.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill shall be considered under the 5-minute rule by sections and 
pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, September 18, 1995, each 
section shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Amendments of 1995''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 
                   MANAGEMENT ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Section 2(a) (16 U.S.C. 1801(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and (B)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and (C) losses of essential fishery habitat 
     can diminish the ability of stocks of fish to survive'';
       (2) in paragraph (6) by inserting after ``to insure 
     conservation,'' the following: ``to provide long-term 
     conservation of essential fishery habitat,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Continuing loss of essential fishery habitat poses a 
     long-term threat to the viability of commercial and 
     recreational fisheries of the United States. To conserve and 
     manage the fishery resources of the United States, increased 
     attention must be given to the protection of this habitat.''.
       (b) Purposes.--Section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) to promote the conservation of essential fishery 
     habitat in the review of projects that affect essential 
     fishery habitat; and
       ``(8) to ensure that conservation and management decisions 
     with respect to the Nation's fishery resources are made in a 
     fair and equitable manner.''.
       (c) Policy.--Section 2(c)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1801(c)(3)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``practical measures that'' the 
     following: ``minimize bycatch and''.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Execution of Prior Amendments to Definitions.--
     Notwithstanding section 308 of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     provide for the designation of the Flower Garden Banks 
     National Marine Sanctuary'', approved March 9, 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-251; 106 Stat. 66), section 301(b) of that Act 
     (adding a definition of the term ``special areas'') shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) New Amendments.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``Colenterata'' from the heading of the 
     list of corals and inserting ``Cnidaria''; and

[[Page H 10214]]

       (B) in the list appearing under the heading ``Crustacea'', 
     by striking ``Deep-sea Red Crab--Geryon quinquedens'' and 
     inserting ``Deep-sea Red Crab--Chaceon quinquedens'';
       (2) in paragraph (16) by striking ``of one and one-half 
     miles'' and inserting ``of two and one-half kilometers'';
       (3) in paragraph (17) by striking ``Pacific Marine 
     Fisheries Commission'' and inserting ``Pacific States Marine 
     Fisheries Commission'';
       (4) by amending paragraph (21) to read as follows:
       ``(21) The term `optimum', with respect to yield from a 
     fishery, means the amount of fish--
       ``(A) which will provide the greatest overall benefit to 
     the Nation, with particular reference to food production and 
     recreational opportunities; and
       ``(B)(i) which, subject to clause (ii), is prescribed as 
     such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from such 
     fishery, as modified by any relevant economic, social, or 
     ecological factor; or
       ``(ii) which, in the case of a fishery which has been 
     classified by the Secretary as overfished, is prescribed as 
     such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield as reduced 
     to allow for the rebuilding of the fishery to a level 
     consistent with producing maximum sustainable yield on a 
     continuing basis.'';
       (5) in paragraph (31) (as redesignated by the amendments 
     made effective by subsection (a) of this section) by striking 
     ``for which a fishery management plan prepared under title 
     III or a preliminary fishery management plan prepared under 
     section 201(h) has been implemented'' and inserting 
     ``regulated under this Act''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(34) The term `bycatch' means fish which are harvested by 
     a fishing vessel, but which are not sold or kept for personal 
     use, including economic discards and regulatory discards.
       ``(35) The term `economic discards' means fish which are 
     the target of a fishery, but which are not retained by the 
     fishing vessel which harvested them because they are of an 
     undesirable size, sex, or quality, or for other economic 
     reasons.
       ``(36) The term `regulatory discards' means fish caught in 
     a fishery which fishermen are required by regulation to 
     discard whenever caught, or are required by regulation to 
     retain but not sell.
       ``(37) The term `essential fishery habitat' means those 
     waters necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or growth to 
     maturity.
       ``(38) The term `overfishing' means a level or rate of 
     fishing mortality that jeopardizes the ability of a stock of 
     fish to produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing 
     basis.
       ``(39) The term `rebuilding program' means those 
     conservation and management measures necessary to restore the 
     ability of a stock of fish to produce maximum sustainable 
     yield on a continuing basis.
       ``(40) The term `total allowable catch' means the total 
     amount of fish in a fishery that may be harvested in a 
     fishing season, as established in accordance with a fishery 
     management plan for the fishery.''.

     SEC. 5. FOREIGN FISHING.

       (a) Transshipment Permits.--
       (1) Authority to operate under transshipment permits.--
     Section 201(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) is authorized under subsection (b) or (c) or under a 
     permit issued under section 204(d);''.
       (2) Authority to issue transshipment permits.--Section 204 
     (16 U.S.C. 1824) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Transshipment Permits.--
       ``(1) Authority to issue permits.--The Secretary may issue 
     a transshipment permit under this subsection which authorizes 
     a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage 
     in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish products at 
     sea from a point within the boundaries of any State or the 
     exclusive economic zone to a point outside the United States 
     to any person who--
       ``(A) submits an application which is approved by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (3); and
       ``(B) pays a fee imposed under paragraph (7).
       ``(2) Transmittal.--Upon receipt of an application for a 
     permit under this subsection, the Secretary shall promptly 
     transmit copies of the application to the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating, any 
     appropriate Council, and any interested State.
       ``(3) Approval of application.--The Secretary may approve 
     an application for a permit under this section if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the transportation of fish products to be conducted 
     under the permit, as described in the application, will be in 
     the interest of the United States and will meet the 
     applicable requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) the applicant will comply with the requirements 
     described in section 201(c)(2) with respect to activities 
     authorized by any permit issued pursuant to the application;
       ``(C) the applicant has established any bonds or financial 
     assurances that may be required by the Secretary; and
       ``(D) no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States 
     which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for 
     which the application is submitted has indicated to the 
     Secretary an interest in performing the transportation at 
     fair and reasonable rates.
       ``(4) Whole or partial approval.--The Secretary may approve 
     all or any portion of an application under paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Failure to approve application.--If the Secretary 
     does not approve any portion of an application submitted 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall promptly inform the 
     applicant and specify the reasons therefor.
       ``(6) Conditions and restrictions.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and include in each permit under this subsection 
     conditions and restrictions which shall be complied with by 
     the owner and operator of the vessel for which the permit is 
     issued. The conditions and restrictions shall include the 
     requirements, regulations, and restrictions set forth in 
     subsection (b)(7).
       ``(7) Fees.--The Secretary shall collect a fee for each 
     permit issued under this subsection, in an amount adequate to 
     recover the costs incurred by the United States in issuing 
     the permit.''.
       (b) Foreign Fishing for Atlantic Mackerel and Atlantic 
     Herring.--
       (1) Restriction on allocations.--Section 201(e)(1)(A) (16 
     U.S.C. 1821(e)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``No allocation may be made for a 
     fishery that is not subject to a fishery management plan 
     prepared under section 303.''.
       (2) Council recommendation required to approve 
     application.--Section 204(b)(6) (16 U.S.C. 1824(b)(6)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C)(i) The Secretary may not approve an application which 
     proposes harvest of Atlantic mackerel or Atlantic herring by 
     one or more foreign fishing vessels unless the appropriate 
     Council has recommended that the Secretary approve the 
     portion of the application making that proposal and the 
     Secretary includes the appropriate conditions and 
     restrictions recommended by the Council.
       ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
     `appropriate Council' means the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
     Management Council with respect to Atlantic mackerel and the 
     New England Fishery Management Council with respect to 
     Atlantic herring.''.
       (c) Period for Congressional Review of Governing 
     International Fishery Agreements.--Section 203 (16 U.S.C. 
     1823) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``60 calendar days of 
     continuous session of the Congress'' and inserting ``120 
     calendar days (excluding any days in a period for which the 
     Congress is adjourned sine die)'';
       (2) by striking subsection (c); and
       (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
       (d) Technical Correction.--
       (1) Correction.--Section 201(e)(1)(E)(iv) (16 U.S.C. 
     1821(e)(1)(E)(iv)) is amended by inserting ``or special 
     areas'' after ``the exclusive economic zone''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     take effect on the date it would take effect if it were 
     enacted by section 301(d)(2) of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     provide for the designation of the Flower Garden Banks 
     National Marine Sanctuary'', approved March 9, 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-251; 106 Stat. 63).

     SEC. 6. LARGE-SCALE DRIFT NET FISHING.

       Section 206(e) (16 U.S.C. 1826(e)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Report.--Not later than March 17th of each year, the 
     Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State and 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating, shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives a list of those 
     nations whose nationals or vessels conduct, and of those 
     nations that authorize their nationals to conduct, large-
     scale drift net fishing beyond the exclusive economic zone of 
     any nation in a manner that diminishes the effectiveness of, 
     or is inconsistent with, any international agreement 
     governing large-scale drift net fishing to which the United 
     States is a party or otherwise subscribes.''.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 
                   MANAGEMENT TO MINIMIZE BYCATCH.

       Section 301(a) (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(8) Conservation and management measures shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, minimize bycatch.''.

     SEC. 8. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS.

       (a) Membership of North Carolina on Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
     Management Council.--Section 302(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and Virginia'' and inserting ``Virginia, 
     and North Carolina'';
       (2) by striking ``19'' and inserting ``21''; and
       (3) by striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''.
       (b) Voting Members, Generally.--Section 302(b) (16 U.S.C. 
     1852(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B) in the first sentence by inserting 
     before the period the following: ``, and of other individuals 
     selected for their fisheries expertise as demonstrated by 
     their academic training, marine conservation advocacy, 
     consumer advocacy, or other affiliation with nonuser 
     groups''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The Secretary shall remove any member of a Council 
     required to be appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(2) if the member violates section 
     307(1)(O).''.
       (c) Compensation.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 302(d) (16 U.S.C. 1852(d)) is 
     amended in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``each Council,'' and inserting ``each 
     Council who are required to be appointed by the Secretary 
     and''; and
       (B) by striking ``shall, until January 1, 1992,'' and all 
     that follows through ``GS-16'' and inserting the following: 
     ``shall receive compensation at a daily rate equivalent to 
     the lowest rate of pay payable for GS-15,''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)(B) 
     shall take effect on January 1, 1996.

[[Page H 10215]]

       (d) Transaction of Business.--Section 302(e) (16 U.S.C. 
     1852(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) At the request of any voting member of a Council, the 
     Council shall hold a roll call vote on any matter before the 
     Council. The official minutes required under subsection 
     (j)(2)(E) and other appropriate records of any Council 
     meeting shall identify all roll call votes held, the name of 
     each voting member present during each roll call vote, and 
     how each member voted on each roll call vote.''.
       (e) Communications With Federal Agencies Regarding 
     Essential and Other Fishery Habitat.--Section 302(i) (16 
     U.S.C. 1852(i)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end of subparagraph (A) and striking the 
     period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``; 
     and'';
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(C) shall notify the Secretary regarding, and may comment 
     on and make recommendations to any State or Federal agency 
     concerning, any activity undertaken, or proposed to be 
     undertaken, by any State or Federal agency that, in the view 
     of the Council, may have a detrimental effect on the 
     essential fishery habitat of a fishery under the authority of 
     the Council.''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Within 15 days after receiving a comment or 
     recommendation under paragraph (1) from a Council regarding 
     the effects of an activity on essential fishery habitat, a 
     Federal agency shall provide to the Council a detailed 
     response in writing. The response shall include a description 
     of measures being considered by the agency for avoiding, 
     mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on such 
     habitat. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with 
     the recommendations of the Council, the Federal agency shall 
     explain its reasons for not following the recommendations.''.
       (h) Procedural Matters.--Section 302(j)(2) (16 U.S.C. 
     1852(j)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``guidelines'' in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting ``shall'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after ``fishery)'' 
     the following: ``sufficiently in advance of the meeting to 
     allow meaningful public participation in the meeting,'';
       (3) by adding at the end of subparagraph (D) the following: 
     ``The written statement or oral testimony shall include a 
     brief description of the background and interests of the 
     person on the subject of the written statement or oral 
     testimony.'';
       (4) by amending subparagraph (E) to read as follows:
       ``(E) Detailed minutes of each meeting of the Council shall 
     be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a 
     complete and accurate description of matters discussed and 
     conclusions reached, and copies of all reports received, 
     issued, or approved by the Council. The Chairman shall 
     certify the accuracy of the minutes of each meeting and 
     submit a copy thereof to the Secretary. The minutes shall be 
     made available to any court of competent jurisdiction.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) A Council member may add an item to the agenda of a 
     meeting of a Council or of a committee or advisory panel of a 
     Council by presenting to the Chairman of the Council, 
     committee, or panel, at least 21 days before the date of the 
     meeting, a written description of the item signed by 2 or 
     more voting members of the Council.''.
       (i) Disclosure of Financial Interest and Recusal.--Section 
     302(k) (16 U.S.C. 1852(k)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading by inserting ``and Recusal'' before the 
     period;
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``; or'' at the end and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (3) in paragraph (3)(B) by striking ``or (C)'';
       (4) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) be kept on file by the Secretary for use in reviewing 
     Council actions and made available by the Secretary for 
     public inspection at reasonable hours.'';
       (5) in paragraph (6) by striking ``or (C)'';
       (6) in paragraph (7) by striking ``or (C)''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) The Secretary, in consultation with the Councils, and 
     by not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, 
     shall establish rules which prohibit an affected individual 
     from voting on a matter in which the individual or any other 
     person described in paragraph (2) with respect to the 
     individual has an interest that would be significantly 
     affected. The rules may include provisions which take into 
     account the differences in fisheries.
       ``(9) A voting member of a Council shall recuse himself or 
     herself from voting if--
       ``(A) voting by the member would violate the rules 
     established under paragraph (8); or
       ``(B) the General Counsel of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration (or a designee of the General 
     Counsel under paragraph (10)(C)(ii)) determines under 
     paragraph (10) that voting by the member would violate the 
     rules established under paragraph (8).
       ``(10)(A) Before any vote held by a Council on any matter, 
     a voting member of the Council may, at a meeting of the 
     Council, request the General Counsel of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration (or a designee of the General 
     Counsel under subparagraph (C)(ii)) to determine whether 
     voting on the matter by the member, or by any other member of 
     the Council, would violate the rules established under 
     paragraph (8).
       ``(B) Upon a request under subparagraph (A) regarding 
     voting on a matter by a member--
       ``(i) the General Counsel of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration (or a designee of the General 
     Counsel under subparagraph (C)(ii)) shall determine and state 
     whether the voting would violate the rules established under 
     paragraph (8), at the meeting at which the request is made; 
     and
       ``(ii) no vote on the matter may be held by the Council 
     before the determination and statement are made.
       ``(C) The General Counsel of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration shall--
       ``(i) attend each meeting of a Council; or
       ``(ii) designate an individual to attend each meeting of a 
     Council for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(11) For the purposes of this subsection, the term `an 
     interest that would be significantly affected' means a 
     personal financial interest which would be augmented by 
     voting on the matter and which would only be shared by a 
     minority of other persons within the same industry sector or 
     gear group whose activity would be directly affected by a 
     Council's action.''.
       (j) Conforming Amendment.--Section 302(k)(1)(A) (16 U.S.C. 
     1852(k)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) is nominated by the Governor of a State for 
     appointment as a voting member of a Council in accordance 
     with subsection (b)(2) or is designated by the Governor of a 
     State under subsection (b)(1)(A) and is not an employee of 
     the State; or''.

     SEC. 9. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       (a) Required Provisions.--
       (1) New requirements.--Section 303(a) (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and the estimated 
     processing capacity of, and the actual processing capacity 
     utilized by, United States fish processors,'' and inserting 
     the following: ``the amount and species of bycatch taken on 
     board a fishing vessel based on a standardized reporting 
     methodology established by the Council for that fishery, and 
     the estimated processing capacity of, and the actual 
     processing capacity utilized by, United States fish 
     processors;'';
       (B) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
       ``(7) include a description of essential fishery habitat 
     for a fishery based on the guidelines established by the 
     Secretary under section 304(h)(1);'';
       (C) in paragraph (8) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (D) in paragraph (9) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) include a measurable and objective determination of 
     what constitutes overfishing in that fishery, and a 
     rebuilding program in the case of a plan for any fishery 
     which the Council or the Secretary has determined is 
     overfished;
       ``(11) include conservation and management measures 
     necessary to minimize bycatch to the maximum extent 
     practicable;
       ``(12) to the extent practicable, minimize mortality caused 
     by economic discards and regulatory discards in the fishery;
       ``(13) take into account the safety of human life at sea; 
     and
       ``(14) in the case of any plan which under subsection 
     (b)(8) requires that observers be carried on board vessels--
       ``(A) be fair and equitable to all fishing vessels and fish 
     processing vessels, that are vessels of the United States and 
     participate in fisheries covered by the plan;
       ``(B) be consistent with other applicable laws;
       ``(C) take into consideration the operating requirements of 
     the fishery and the safety of observers and fishermen; and
       ``(D) establish a system of fees to pay the costs of the 
     observer program.''.
       (2) Amendment of plans.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, each Regional Fishery 
     Management Council established under the Magnuson Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act shall submit to the Secretary 
     of Commerce an amendment to each fishery management plan in 
     effect under that Act to comply with the amendments made by 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Fish weighing.--By January 1, 1997, the North Pacific 
     Fishery Management Council shall require all fish processors 
     that process fish species under the management of the Council 
     to weigh those fish to ensure an accurate measurement of the 
     total harvest of each species.
       (b) Amendments Relating to Discretionary Provisions, 
     Generally.--Section 303(b) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8) in the matter preceding the first 
     semicolon, by striking ``require that observers'' and 
     inserting ``require that one or more observers'';
       (2) in paragraph (9) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (15); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) assess and specify the effect which conservation and 
     management measures of the plan will have on stocks of fish 
     in the ecosystem of the fishery which are not part of the 
     fishery;
       ``(11) include incentives and harvest preferences within 
     fishing gear groups to promote the avoidance of bycatch;
       ``(12) specify gear types allowed to be used in the fishery 
     and establish a process for evaluating new gear technology 
     that is proposed to be used in the fishery;
       ``(13) reserve a portion of the allowable biological catch 
     of the fishery for use for scientific research purposes; 

[[Page H 10216]]

       ``(14) establish conservation and management measures 
     necessary to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse 
     impacts on essential fishery habitat described in the plan 
     under subsection (a)(7) caused by fishing; and''.
       (c) Requirement To Submit Fishery Impact Statements to 
     Affected States and the Congress.--Section 303 of the 
     Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1853), as amended by section 16(b), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Submission of Fishery Impact Statements to Interested 
     States and the Congress.--Not later than the date a fishery 
     management plan prepared by a Council or the Secretary takes 
     effect under section 304, the Council or the Secretary, 
     respectively, shall submit the fishery impact statement 
     required in the plan under subsection (a)(9) to--
       ``(1) the Governor of each State that might be affected by 
     the plan, who may use information in the statement to assist 
     persons in applying for loans and grants for economic relief; 
     and
       ``(2) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.''.

     SEC. 10. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS DUTIES OF 
                   SECRETARY.

       (a) Safety at Sea.--Section 304(a)(2)(C) (16 U.S.C. 
     1854(a)(2)(C)) is amended by striking ``to fishery access'' 
     and all that follows through the period and inserting ``with 
     respect to the provisions of sections 303(a)(6) and (13).''.
       (b) Highly Migratory Species.--Section 304(f) (16 U.S.C. 
     1854(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the 
     following: ``Fisheries Under Authority of More Than One 
     Council.--'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii) by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``and the plan development team 
     established under paragraph (4)'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)(E), strike ``allocation or quota'' 
     each place it appears and insert ``allocation, quota, or 
     fishing mortality level'';
       (4) in paragraph (3)(F)(ii) by inserting ``and the plan 
     development team established under paragraph (4)'' before the 
     semicolon;
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) The Secretary shall establish a plan development 
     team for each highly migratory species fishery over which the 
     Secretary has authority under paragraph (3)(A), to advise the 
     Secretary on and participate in the development of each 
     fishery management plan or amendment to a plan for the 
     fishery under this subsection.
       ``(B) The plan development team shall--
       ``(i) consist of not less than 7 individuals who are 
     knowledgeable about the fishery for which the plan or 
     amendment is developed, selected from members of advisory 
     committees and species working groups appointed under Acts 
     implementing relevant international fishery agreements 
     pertaining to highly migratory species and from other 
     interested persons;
       ``(ii) be balanced in its representation of commercial, 
     recreational, and other interests; and
       ``(iii) participate in all aspects of the development of 
     the plan or amendment.
       ``(C) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) 
     shall not apply to any plan development team established 
     under this paragraph.''; and
       (6) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) be fair and equitable in allocating fishing 
     privileges among United States fishermen and not have 
     economic allocation as the sole purpose;
       ``(iii) promote international conservation;
       ``(iv) minimize the establishment of regulations that 
     require the discarding of Atlantic highly migratory species 
     which cannot be returned to the sea alive; and
       ``(v) promote the implementation of scientific research 
     programs that include to the extent practicable, the tag, and 
     release of Atlantic highly migratory species.''.
       (c) Limited Access.--Section 304(c)(3) (16 U.S.C. 
     1854(c)(3)) is amended by inserting ``or advisory committee 
     appointed under laws implementing relevant international 
     fishery agreements to which the United States is a party'' 
     before the period at the end.
       (d) Incidental Harvest Research.--Section 304(g) (16 U.S.C. 
     1854(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``3-year'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) No later than 12 months after the enactment of the 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, the 
     Secretary shall, in cooperation with affected interests and 
     based upon the best scientific information available, 
     complete a program to--
       ``(A) develop technological devices and other changes in 
     fishing operations to minimize the incidental mortality of 
     nontargeted fishery resources in the course of shrimp trawl 
     activity to the extent practicable from the level of 
     mortality at the date of enactment of the Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Amendments of 1990;
       ``(B) evaluate the ecological impacts and the benefits and 
     costs of such devices and changes in fishing operations; and
       ``(C) assess whether it is practicable to utilize those 
     nontargeted fishery resources which are not avoidable.'';
       (3) in paragraph (6)(B) by striking ``April 1, 1994'' and 
     inserting ``the submission under paragraph (5) of the 
     detailed report on the program described in paragraph (4)''; 
     and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Any measure implemented under this Act to reduce the 
     incidental mortality of nontargeted fishery resources in the 
     course of shrimp trawl fishing shall apply to such fishing 
     throughout the range of the nontargeted fishery resource 
     concerned.''.
       (e) Essential Fishery Habitat; Overfishing.--Section 304 
     (16 U.S.C. 1854) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Actions by the Secretary on Essential Fishery 
     Habitat.--(1) Within one year after the date of enactment of 
     the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish guidelines to assist the Councils in the 
     description of essential fishery habitat in fishery 
     management plans; and
       ``(B) establish a schedule for the amendment of fishery 
     management plans to describe essential fish habitats.
       ``(2) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     the Interior, shall identify the essential fishery habitat 
     for each fishery for which a fishery management plan is in 
     effect. The identification shall be based on the description 
     of essential fishery habitat contained in the plan.
       ``(3) Each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary 
     with respect to any action proposed to be authorized, funded, 
     or carried out by such agency that the head of the agency has 
     reason to believe, or the Secretary believes, may result in 
     the destruction or adverse modification of any essential 
     fishery habitat identified by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (2). If the Secretary finds that the proposed action would 
     result in destruction or adverse modifications of such 
     essential fishery habitat, the Secretary shall comment on and 
     make recommendations to the agency concerning that action.
       ``(4) Within 15 days after receiving recommendations from 
     the Secretary under paragraph (3) with respect to a proposed 
     action, the head of a Federal agency shall provide a 
     detailed, written response to the Secretary which describes 
     the measures proposed by the agency to avoid, mitigate, or 
     offset the adverse impact of the proposed action on the 
     essential fishery habitat. In the case of a response that is 
     inconsistent with the recommendation of the Secretary, the 
     agency shall explain its reasons for not following the 
     recommendations.
       ``(5) The Secretary shall review programs administered by 
     the Department of Commerce to ensure that any relevant 
     programs further the conservation and enhancement of 
     essential fishery habitat identified by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2). The Secretary shall coordinate with and 
     provide information to other Federal agencies to further the 
     conservation and enhancement of essential fishery habitat 
     identified by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall have the effect of 
     amending or repealing any other law or regulation or 
     modifying any other responsibility of a Federal agency with 
     respect to fisheries habitat.
       ``(i) Action by the Secretary on Overfishing.--(1) In 
     addition to the authority granted to the Secretary under 
     subsection (c), if the Secretary finds at any time that 
     overfishing is occurring or has occurred in any fishery, the 
     Secretary shall immediately notify the appropriate Council 
     and request that action be taken to end overfishing in the 
     fishery and to establish a rebuilding program for the 
     fishery. The Secretary shall publish each notice under this 
     paragraph in the Federal Register.
       ``(2) If the Council does not submit to the Secretary 
     before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
     notification under paragraph (1) a fishery management plan, 
     or an amendment to the appropriate existing fishery 
     management plan, which is intended to address overfishing in 
     the fishery and to establish any necessary rebuilding 
     program, then the Secretary shall within 9 months after the 
     end of that period prepare under subsection (c) a fishery 
     management plan, or an amendment to an existing management 
     plan, to end overfishing in the fishery and to establish any 
     necessary rebuilding program.
       ``(3) If the Secretary finds that overfishing is occurring 
     in any fishery for which a fishery management plan prepared 
     by the Secretary is in effect, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) within 1 year act under subsection (c) to amend the 
     plan to end overfishing in the fishery and to establish any 
     necessary rebuilding program; and
       ``(B) in the case of a highly migratory species fishery, 
     pursue international rebuilding programs.
       ``(4) Any rebuilding program under this subsection shall 
     specify the time period within which the fishery is expected 
     to be rebuilt. The time period shall be as short as possible, 
     taking into account the biology and natural variability of 
     the stock of fish, other environmental factors or conditions 
     which would affect the rebuilding program, and the needs of 
     the fishing industry. The time period may not exceed 10 
     years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish 
     or other environmental factors dictates otherwise.
       ``(5) If the Secretary finds that the action of any Federal 
     agency has caused or contributed to the decline of a fishery 
     below maximum sustainable yield, the Secretary shall notify 
     the agency of the Secretary's finding and recommend steps 
     that can be taken by the agency to reverse that decline.
       ``(6)(A) The Secretary shall review the progress of any 
     rebuilding program required under this subsection beginning 
     in the third year in which the plan is in effect, and 
     annually thereafter.
       ``(B) If the Secretary finds as a result of the review that 
     the rebuilding program is not meeting its specified goals due 
     to reasons related to the reproductive capacity, 
     productivity, life span, or natural variability of the fish 
     species concerned or other environmental conditions or 
     factors beyond the control of the rebuilding program, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(i) reassess the goals of the program;
       ``(ii) determine, based on the best available scientific 
     information, whether revision to the program is needed; and

[[Page H 10217]]

       ``(iii) if the Secretary determines under clause (ii) that 
     such revisions are needed, direct the Council that 
     established the program to make revisions to the program, or 
     in the case of a program established by the Secretary, make 
     such revisions.
       ``(C) If the Secretary finds as a result of the review that 
     the rebuilding program is not meeting its specified goals for 
     reasons other than those described in subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall direct the Council that established the 
     program to make revisions to the program, or in the case of a 
     program established by the Secretary, make such revisions.
       ``(7)(A) The Secretary shall report annually to the 
     Congress and the Councils on the status of fisheries within 
     each Council's geographic area of authority and identify 
     those fisheries that are approaching a condition of being 
     overfished.
       ``(B) For each fishery that is subject to a fishery 
     management plan, the status of the fishery shall be 
     determined for purposes of subparagraph (A) in accordance 
     with the determination of what constitutes overfishing in the 
     fishery included in the plan under section 303(a)(10).
       ``(C) The Secretary shall identify a fishery under 
     subparagraph (A) as approaching a condition of being 
     overfished if, based on trends in fishing effort, fishery 
     resource size, and other appropriate factors, the Secretary 
     determines that the fishery is likely to become overfished 
     within 2 years.
       ``(D) For any fishery that the Secretary identifies under 
     subparagraph (A) as approaching the condition of being 
     overfished, the report shall--
       ``(i) estimate the time frame within which the fishery will 
     reach that condition; and
       ``(ii) make specific recommendations to the appropriate 
     Council regarding actions that should be taken to prevent 
     that condition from being reached.''.
       (f) Action on Certain Implementing Regulations Proposed by 
     Councils.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Action on Covered Implementing Regulations Proposed 
     by a Council.--(1) After the receipt date of a covered 
     implementing regulation submitted by a Council, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) immediately commence a review of the covered 
     implementing regulation to determine whether it is consistent 
     with the fishery management plan it would implement, the 
     national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any 
     other applicable law; and
       ``(B) immediately publish the covered implementing 
     regulation in the Federal Register and provide a period of 
     not less than 15 days and not more than 45 days for the 
     submission of comments by the public.
       ``(2) Not later than 75 days after the receipt date of a 
     covered implementing regulation submitted by a Council, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) publish a final regulation on the subject matter of 
     the covered implementing regulation; or
       ``(B) decline to publish a final regulation.

     The Secretary shall provide to the Council in writing an 
     explanation of the reasons for the Secretary's action.
       ``(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term--
       ``(A) `receipt date' means the 5th day after the day on 
     which a Council submits to the Secretary a covered 
     implementing regulation that the Council characterizes as a 
     final covered implementing regulation; and
       ``(B) `covered implementing regulation'--
       ``(i) means a proposed amendment to existing regulations 
     implementing a fishery management plan in effect under this 
     Act, which does not have the effect of amending the plan; and
       ``(ii) does not include any proposed regulation submitted 
     with a plan or amendment to a plan under section 303(c).''.
       (g) Pacific Region Stock Assessment.--Section 304 (16 
     U.S.C. 1854) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) Pacific Region Stock Assessment.--(1) Not later than 
     120 days after the date of enactment of the Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, the Secretary 
     shall, in consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management 
     Council and the States of California, Oregon, and Washington, 
     establish a Pacific Region Scientific Review Group (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `Group') consisting of 
     representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
     each of the States of California, Oregon, and Washington, 
     universities located in those States, commercial and 
     recreational fishermen and shore-based processors located in 
     those States, and environmental organizations. Individuals 
     appointed to serve on the Group shall be selected from among 
     individuals who are knowledgeable or experienced in the 
     harvesting, processing, biology, or ecology of the fish 
     stocks of fish that are managed under the Pacific Fisheries 
     Management Council Pacific Coast Groundfish Plan (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `covered Pacific stocks').
       ``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     establishment of the Group, the Group shall transmit to the 
     Secretary a research plan of at least 3 years duration to 
     assess the status of the covered Pacific stocks, including 
     the abundance, location, and species, age, and gender 
     composition of those stocks. The plan shall provide for the 
     use of private vessels to conduct stock surveys.
       ``(3) Immediately upon receiving the plan transmitted under 
     paragraph (2), the Secretary shall take action necessary to 
     carry out the plan, including, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, chartering private vessels, arranging for the 
     deployment of scientists on those vessels (including the 
     payment of increased insurance costs to vessel owners), and 
     obtaining the assistance of shore-based fish processors.
       ``(4) The Secretary may offset the cost of carrying out the 
     plan by entering into agreements with vessel owners or shore-
     based fish processors to provide vessel owners or shore-based 
     fish processors with a portion of the total allowable catch 
     reserved for research purposes under section 303(b).''.

     SEC. 11. EMERGENCY ACTIONS.

       Section 305(c) (16 U.S.C. 1855(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``under section 
     302(b)(1)(A) and (C)'' after ``voting members'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (3)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) shall remain in effect for not more than 180 days 
     after the date of such publication, except that any such 
     regulation may, by agreement of the Secretary and the Council 
     and after notice and an opportunity for submission of 
     comments by the public, be effective for 1 additional period 
     of not more than 180 days; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The Secretary may promulgate emergency regulations 
     under this subsection to protect the public health. 
     Notwithstanding paragraph (3), regulations promulgated under 
     this paragraph shall remain in effect until withdrawn by the 
     Secretary. The Secretary shall promptly withdraw regulations 
     under this paragraph when the circumstances requiring the 
     regulations no longer exist. The Secretary shall provide an 
     opportunity for submission of comments by the public after 
     regulations are promulgated under this paragraph.
       ``(5) An emergency regulation promulgated under this 
     subsection that closes an area to fishing shall not remain in 
     effect for an additional period under paragraph (3)(B) unless 
     before the beginning of the additional period the Council 
     having jurisdiction over the area, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary, publishes a report on the status of the fishery in 
     the area that includes an analysis of the costs and benefits 
     of the closure.''.

     SEC. 12. STATE JURISDICTION.

       (a) Reports.--Section 306(c)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1856(c)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) the owner or operator of the vessel submits to the 
     appropriate Council and the Secretary, in a manner prescribed 
     by the Secretary, periodic reports on the tonnage of fish 
     received from vessels of the United States and the locations 
     from which such fish were harvested.''.
       (b) State Authority.--Section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) For any fishery occurring off the coasts of Alaska 
     for which there is no Federal fishery management plan 
     approved and implemented pursuant to this Act, or pursuant to 
     delegation to a State in a fishery management plan, a State 
     may enforce its laws or regulations pertaining to the taking 
     of fish in the exclusive economic zone off that State or the 
     landing of fish caught in the exclusive economic zone 
     providing there is a legitimate State interest in the 
     conservation and management of that fishery, until a Federal 
     fishery management plan is implemented. Fisheries currently 
     managed pursuant to a Federal fishery management plan shall 
     not be removed from Federal management and placed under State 
     authority without the unanimous consent (except for the 
     Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service) 
     of the Council which developed the fishery management 
     plan.''.

     SEC. 13. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       (a) Prohibition on Damaging Gear.--Section 307(1)(K) (16 
     U.S.C. 1857(1)(K)) is amended by striking ``to knowingly 
     steal, or without authorization, to'' and inserting ``to 
     steal, or to negligently''.
       (b) Failure To Disclose Financial Information.--Section 
     307(1) (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (M);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (N) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(O) to knowingly and willfully fail to disclose or 
     falsely disclose any financial interest as required under 
     section 302(k) or to knowingly violate any rule established 
     under section 302(k)(8).''.
       (c) Prohibited Fishing.--
       (1) In general.--Section 307(2)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1857(2)(B)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) in fishing, except recreational fishing permitted 
     under section 201(j), within the exclusive economic zone or 
     within the special areas, or for any anadromous species or 
     Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond such zone or 
     areas, or in fishing consisting of transporting fish products 
     from a point within the boundaries of any State or the 
     exclusive economic zone or the special areas, unless such 
     fishing is authorized under, and conducted in accordance 
     with, a valid and applicable permit issued under section 204, 
     except that this subparagraph shall not apply to fishing 
     within the special areas before the date on which the 
     Agreement between the United States and the Union of Soviet 
     Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary, signed June 1, 
     1990, enters into force for the United States; or''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 301(h)(2)(A) of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to provide for the designation of the 
     Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary'', approved 
     March 9, 1992 (Public Law 102-251; 106 Stat. 64), is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 14. HAROLD SPARCK BERING SEA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 313 (16 U.S.C. 1862) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:

[[Page H 10218]]

       ``(f) Bering Sea Community Development Quota Program.--(1) 
     The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the 
     Secretary shall establish a western Alaska community 
     development quota program under which a percentage of the 
     total allowable catch of any Bering Sea fishery is allocated 
     to western Alaska communities that participate in the 
     program.
       ``(2) To be eligible to participate in the western Alaska 
     community development quota program under paragraph (1), a 
     community must--
       ``(A) be located within 50 nautical miles from the baseline 
     from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured 
     along the Bering Sea coast from the Bering Strait to the 
     western most of the Aleutian Islands, or on an island within 
     the Bering Sea;
       ``(B) not be located on the Gulf of Alaska coast of the 
     north Pacific Ocean;
       ``(C) meet criteria developed by the Governor of Alaska, 
     approved by the Secretary, and published in the Federal 
     Register;
       ``(D) be certified by the Secretary of the Interior 
     pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to be a 
     Native village;
       ``(E) consist of residents who conduct more than one-half 
     of their current commercial or subsistence fishing effort in 
     the waters of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management 
     area; and
       ``(F) not have previously developed harvesting or 
     processing capability sufficient to support substantial 
     participation in the groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea, 
     unless the community can show that the benefits from an 
     approved Community Development Plan would be the only way for 
     the community to realize a return from previous 
     investments.''.

     SEC. 15. OBSERVERS.

       Title III (16 U.S.C. 1851 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 315. RIGHTS OF OBSERVERS.

       ``(a) Civil Action.--An observer on a vessel (or the 
     observer's personal representative) under the requirements of 
     this Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) that is ill, disabled, injured, or 
     killed from service as an observer on that vessel may not 
     bring a civil action under any law of the United States for 
     that illness, disability for that illness, disability, 
     injury, or death against the vessel or vessel owner, except 
     that a civil action may be brought against the vessel owner 
     for the owner's willful misconduct.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply if the 
     observer is engaged by the owner, master, or individual in 
     charge of a vessel to perform any duties in service to the 
     vessel.''.

     SEC. 16. INDIVIDUAL QUOTA LIMITED ACCESS PROGRAMS.

       (a) Authority To Establish Individual Quota Systems.--
     Section 303(b)(6) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(6)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(6) establish a limited access system for the fishery in 
     order to achieve optimum yields, if--
       ``(A) in developing such system, the Councils and the 
     Secretary take into account--
       ``(i) the need to promote conservation;
       ``(ii) present participation in the fishery,
       ``(iii) historical fishing practices in, and dependence on, 
     the fishery,
       ``(iv) the economics of the fishery,
       ``(v) the capability of fishing vessels used in the fishery 
     to engage in other fisheries,
       ``(vi) the cultural and social framework relevant to the 
     fishery and local coastal communities, and
       ``(vii) any other relevant considerations; and
       ``(B) in the case of such a system that provides for the 
     allocation and issuance of individual quotas (as that term is 
     defined in subsection (g)), the plan complies with subsection 
     (g).''.
       (b) Requirements.--Section 303 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Special Provisions for Individual Quota Systems.--(1) 
     A fishery management plan which establishes an individual 
     quota system for a fishery--
       ``(A) shall provide for administration of the system by the 
     Secretary in accordance with the terms of the plan;
       ``(B) shall not create, or be construed to create, any 
     right, title, or interest in or to any fish before the fish 
     is harvested;
       ``(C) shall include provisions which establish procedures 
     and requirements for each Council having authority over the 
     fishery, for--
       ``(i) reviewing and revising the terms of the plan that 
     establish the system; and
       ``(ii) renewing, reallocating, and reissuing individual 
     quotas if determined appropriate by each Council;
       ``(D) shall include provisions to--
       ``(i) provide for fair and equitable allocation of 
     individual quotas under the system, and minimize negative 
     social and economic impacts of the system on local coastal 
     communities;
       ``(ii) ensure adequate enforcement of the system, including 
     the use of observers where appropriate; and
       ``(iii) provide for monitoring the temporary or permanent 
     transfer of individual quotas under the system; and
       ``(E) include provisions that prevent any person from 
     acquiring an excessive share of individual quotas issued for 
     a fishery.
       ``(2) An individual quota issued under an individual quota 
     system established by a fishery management plan--
       ``(A) shall be considered a grant, to the holder of the 
     individual quota, of permission to engage in activities 
     permitted by the individual quota;
       ``(B) may be revoked or limited at any time by the 
     Secretary or the Council having authority over the fishery 
     for which it is issued, if necessary for the conservation and 
     management of the fishery (including as a result of a 
     violation of this Act or any regulation prescribed under this 
     Act);
       ``(C) if revoked or limited by the Secretary or a Council, 
     shall not confer any right of compensation to the holder of 
     the individual quota;
       ``(D) may be received, held, or transferred in accordance 
     with regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this Act;
       ``(E) shall, except in the case of an individual quota 
     allocated under an individual quota system established before 
     the date of enactment of the Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Amendments of 1995, expire not later than 7 years 
     after the date it is issued, in accordance with the terms of 
     the fishery management plan; and
       ``(F) upon expiration under subparagraph (E), may be 
     renewed, reallocated, or reissued if determined appropriate 
     by each Council having authority over the fishery.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     any fishery management plan that establishes an individual 
     quota system for a fishery may authorize individual quotas to 
     be held by or issued under the system to fishing vessel 
     owners, fishermen, crew members, other persons as specified 
     by the Council, and United States fish processors.
       ``(B) An individual who is not a citizen of the United 
     States may not hold an individual quota issued under a 
     fishery management plan.
       ``(C) A Federal agency or official may not hold, 
     administer, or reallocate an individual quota issued under a 
     fishery management plan, other than the Secretary and the 
     Council having authority over the fishery for which the 
     individual quota is issued.
       ``(4) Any fishery management plan that establishes an 
     individual quota system for a fishery may include provisions 
     that--
       ``(A) allocate individual quotas under the system among 
     categories of vessels; and
       ``(B) provide a portion of the annual harvest in the 
     fishery for entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners, or 
     crewmembers who do not hold or qualify for individual quotas.
       ``(5) An individual quota system established for a fishery 
     may be limited or terminated at any time by the Secretary or 
     through a fishery management plan or amendment developed by 
     the Council having authority over the fishery for which it is 
     established, if necessary for the conservation and management 
     of the fishery.
       ``(6) As used in this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `individual quota system' means a system 
     that limits access to a fishery in order to achieve optimum 
     yields, through the allocation and issuance of individual 
     quotas.
       ``(B) The term `individual quota' means a grant of 
     permission to harvest or process a quantity of fish in a 
     fishery, during each fishing season for which the permission 
     is granted, equal to a stated percentage of the total 
     allowable catch for the fishery.''.
       (c) Fees.--Section 304(d) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary shall''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     collect from a person that holds or transfers an individual 
     quota issued under a limited access system established under 
     section 303(b)(6) fees established by the Secretary in 
     accordance with this section and section 9701(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code.
       ``(B) The fees required to be established and collected by 
     the Secretary under this paragraph are the following:
       ``(i) An initial allocation fee in an amount, determined by 
     the Secretary, equal to 1 percent of the value of fish 
     authorized to be harvested in one year under an individual 
     quota, which shall be collected from the person to whom the 
     individual quota is first issued.
       ``(ii) An annual fee in an amount, determined by the 
     Secretary, not to exceed 4 percent of the value of fish 
     authorized to be harvested each year under an individual 
     quota share, which shall be collected from the holder of the 
     individual quota share.
       ``(iii) A transfer fee in an amount, determined by the 
     Secretary, equal to 1 percent of the value of fish authorized 
     to be harvested each year under an individual quota share, 
     which shall be collected from a person who permanently 
     transfers the individual quota share to another person.
       ``(C) In determining the amount of a fee under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount is 
     commensurate with the cost of managing the fishery with 
     respect to which the fee is collected, including reasonable 
     costs for salaries, data analysis, and other costs directly 
     related to fishery management and enforcement.
       ``(D) The Secretary, in consultation with the Councils, 
     shall promulgate regulations prescribing the method of 
     determining under this paragraph the value of fish authorized 
     to be taken under an individual quota share, the amount of 
     fees, and the method of collecting fees.
       ``(E) Fees collected under this paragraph from holders of 
     individual quotas in a fishery shall be an offsetting 
     collection and shall be available to the Secretary only for 
     the purposes of administering and implementing this Act with 
     respect to that fishery.
       ``(F) The Secretary may not assess or collect any fee under 
     this paragraph with respect to an individual quota system 
     established before the date of enactment of the Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, during the 5-
     year period beginning on that date of enactment.''.
       (d) Approval of Fishery Management Plans Establishing 
     Individual Quota Systems.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is 
     further amended by adding after subsection (k) (as added by 
     section 10 of this Act) the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Action on Limited Access Systems.--(1) In addition to 
     the other requirements of this Act, the Secretary may not 
     approve a fishery management plan that establishes a limited 
     access system that provides for the allocation of individual 
     quotas (in this subsection referred to 

[[Page H 10219]]
     as an `individual quota system') unless the plan complies with section 
     303(g).
       ``(2) Within 1 year after receipt of recommendations from 
     the review panel established under paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall issue regulations which establish 
     requirements for establishing an individual quota system. The 
     regulations shall be developed in accordance with the 
     recommendations. The regulations shall--
       ``(A) specify factors that shall be considered by a Council 
     in determining whether a fishery should be managed under an 
     individual quota system;
       ``(B) ensure that any individual quota system is consistent 
     with the requirements of sections 303(b) and 303(g), and 
     require the collection of fees in accordance with subsection 
     (d)(2);
       ``(C) provide for appropriate penalties for violations of 
     individual quotas systems, including the revocation of 
     individual quotas for such violations;
       ``(D) include recommendations for potential management 
     options related to individual quotas, including the 
     authorization of individual quotas that may not be 
     transferred by the holder, and the use of leases or auctions 
     by the Federal Government in the establishment or 
     allocation of individual quotas; and
       ``(E) establish a central lien registry system for the 
     identification, perfection, and determination of lien 
     priorities, and nonjudicial foreclosure of encumbrances, on 
     individual quotas.
       ``(3)(A) Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management 
     Amendments of 1995, the Secretary shall establish a review 
     panel to evaluate fishery management plans in effect under 
     this Act that establish a system for limiting access to a 
     fishery, including individual quota systems, and other 
     limited access systems, with particular attention to--
       ``(i) the success of the systems in conserving and managing 
     fisheries;
       ``(ii) the costs of implementing and enforcing the systems;
       ``(iii) the economic effects of the systems on local 
     communities; and
       ``(iv) the use of limited access systems under which 
     individual quotas may not be transferred by the holder, and 
     the use of leases or auctions in the establishment or 
     allocation of individual quota shares.
       ``(B) The review panel shall consist of--
       ``(i) the Secretary or a designee of the Secretary;
       ``(ii) a representative of each Council, selected by the 
     Council;
       ``(iii) 3 representatives of the commercial fishing and 
     processing industry; and
       ``(iv) one at large representative who is selected by 
     reason of occupational or other experience, scientific 
     expertise, or training, and who is knowledgeable regarding 
     the conservation and management or the commercial or 
     recreational harvest of fishery resources.
       ``(C) Based on the evaluation required under subparagraph 
     (A), the review panel shall, by September 30, 1997, submit 
     recommendations--
       ``(i) to the Councils and the Secretary with respect to the 
     revision of individual quota systems that were established 
     under this Act prior to June 1, 1995; and
       ``(ii) to the Secretary for the development of the 
     regulations required under paragraph (2).''.
       (e) Restriction on New Individual Quota Systems Pending 
     Regulations.--
       (1) Restriction.--The Secretary of Commerce may not approve 
     any covered quota system plan, and no covered quota system 
     plan shall take effect, under title III of the Magnuson 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act before the effective 
     date of regulations issued by the Secretary under section 
     304(l) of that Act, as added by subsection (d).
       (2) Covered quota system plan defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term ``covered quota system plan'' means a fishery 
     management plan or amendment to a fishery management plan, 
     that--
       (A) proposes establishment of an individual quota system 
     (as that term is used in section 303 of the Magnuson Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act, as amended by subsection (a) 
     of this section); and
       (B) is submitted to the Secretary after May 1, 1995.

     SEC. 17. FISHING CAPACITY REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Title III (16 U.S.C. 1851 et seq.) is 
     further amended by adding after section 315 (as added by 
     section 15 of this Act) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 316. FISHING CAPACITY REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Authority to Conduct Program.--The Secretary, with 
     the concurrence of the Council having authority over a 
     fishery, may conduct a voluntary fishing capacity reduction 
     program for a fishery in accordance with this section, if--
       ``(1) the Secretary--
       ``(A) determines that the program is necessary for 
     rebuilding, preventing overfishing, or generally improving 
     conservation and management of the fishery; or
       ``(B) is requested to do so by the Council with authority 
     over the fishery; and
       ``(2) there is in effect under section 304 a fishery 
     management plan that--
       ``(A) limits access to the fishery through a Federal 
     fishing permit required by a limited access system 
     established under section 303(b)(6); and
       ``(B) prevents the replacement of fishing capacity 
     eliminated by the program through--
       ``(i) a moratorium on the issuance of new Federal fishing 
     permits for the duration of the repayment period; and
       ``(ii) restrictions on fishing vessel capacity upgrading.
       ``(b) Program Requirements.--Under a fishing capacity 
     reduction program conducted under this section for a fishery, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) seek to permanently reduce the maximum effective 
     fishing capacity at the least cost and in the shortest period 
     of time through the removal of vessels and permits from the 
     fishery;
       ``(2) make payments to--
       ``(A) scrap or otherwise render permanently unusable for 
     fishing in the United States, vessels that operate in the 
     fishery; and
       ``(B) acquire the Federal fishing permits that authorize 
     participation in the fishery;
       ``(3) provide for the funding of those payments by persons 
     that participate in the fishery, by establishing and imposing 
     fees on holders of Federal fishing permits under this Act 
     that authorize that participation;
       ``(4) establish criteria for determining the types of 
     vessels and permits which are eligible to participate in the 
     program, that--
       ``(A) assess vessel impact on the fishery;
       ``(B) minimize program costs; and
       ``(C) take into consideration--
       ``(i) previous fishing capacity reduction programs; and
       ``(ii) the characteristics of the fishery;
       ``(5) establish procedures for determining the amount of 
     payments under paragraph (1); and
       ``(6) identify sources of funding for the program in 
     addition to the amounts referred to in subsection (f)(2)(A), 
     (B), (C), and (D).
       ``(c) Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--As part of a fishing capacity reduction 
     program under this section, and subject to paragraph (2) the 
     Secretary shall make payments under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Establishment of fee required.--The Secretary may not 
     make any payment under paragraph (1) for a fishery unless 
     there is in effect for the fishery a fee under subsection 
     (d).
       ``(3) Limitation on total amount of payments for fishery.--
     The total amount of payments under paragraph (1) for a 
     fishery may not exceed the total amount the Secretary 
     projects will be deposited into the Fund from fees that apply 
     to the fishery under subsection (d).
       ``(d) Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary, with the concurrence of a majority of the 
     voting members of a Council having authority over a fishery 
     for which a fishing capacity reduction program is conducted 
     under this section, may establish an annual fee on holders of 
     Federal fishing permits authorizing participation in the 
     fishery.
       ``(2) Amount of fee.--The amount of a fee established under 
     this subsection for a fishery described in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall be adequate to ensure that the total amount 
     collected in the form of the fee will not be less than the 
     amount the Secretary determines is necessary for payments 
     under subsection (b)(2) to reduce fishing capacity in the 
     fishery to a level that will ensure the long-term health of 
     the fishery;
       ``(B) shall be based on--
       ``(i) the value of the fishery;
       ``(ii) the projected number of participants in the fishery;
       ``(iii) the projected catch in the fishery; and
       ``(iv) the direct costs of implementing a fishing capacity 
     reduction program under this section for the fishery; and
       ``(C) may not exceed, for any permit holder, 5 percent of 
     the value of fish harvested under the permit each year.
       ``(3) Effective period.--A fee under this subsection may 
     not be in effect for more than 15 years.
       ``(4) Use of amounts received.--Amounts received by the 
     United States as fees under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall be deposited into the Fund; and
       ``(B) may not be used to pay any administrative overhead or 
     other costs not directly incurred in implementing this 
     section with respect to the fishery.
       ``(e) Advisory Panels.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish for each 
     fishery for which a fishing capacity reduction program is 
     conducted under this section an advisory panel to advise the 
     Secretary regarding that program.
       ``(2) Membership.--Each advisory panel under this 
     subsection shall consist of individuals appointed by the 
     Secretary and shall include representatives of--
       ``(A) the Department of Commerce,
       ``(B) Councils having authority over fisheries for which 
     the panel is established,
       ``(C) appropriate sectors of the fishing industry affected 
     by fishing capacity reduction programs under this sections, 
     and
       ``(D) appropriate States affected by such programs.
       ``(f) Fisheries Conservation and Restoration Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a separate account which shall be known 
     as the Fisheries Conservation and Restoration Fund (in this 
     section referred to as the `Fund').
       ``(2) Deposits into the fund.--There shall be deposited 
     into the Fund--
       ``(A) amounts appropriated under clause (iv) of section 
     2(b)(1)(A) of the Act of August 11, 1939 (15 U.S.C. 713c-
     3(b)(1)(A)), popularly known as the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act;
       ``(B) amounts paid to the United States Government as fees 
     established under subsection (d);
       ``(C) any other amounts appropriated for fisheries disaster 
     that the Secretary determines should be used for fishing 
     capacity reduction programs under this section; and
       ``(D) any other amounts appropriated for making payments 
     under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(3) Availability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available 
     to the Secretary without fiscal year limitation for making 
     payments under subsection (b)(2).

[[Page H 10220]]

       ``(B) Management of unneeded balance.--Amounts in the Fund 
     that are not currently needed for the purposes of this 
     section shall be invested in obligations of, or guaranteed 
     by, the United States.
       ``(g) Expiration of Acquired Permits.--Permits acquired by 
     the Secretary under subsection (b)(2)(B)--
       ``(1) shall not be effective after the date of that 
     acquisition; and
       ``(2) may not be reissued or replaced.''.
       (b) Use of Amounts Transferred Under Saltonstall-Kennedy 
     Act.--Section 2(b)(1) of the Act of August 11, 1939 (15 
     U.S.C. 713c-3(b)(1)), popularly known as the Saltonstall-
     Kennedy Act, is amended in subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) to fund fishing capacity reduction programs under 
     section 316 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act, by depositing a portion of amounts 
     transferred into the Fisheries Conservation and Restoration 
     Fund established by that section; and''.

     SEC. 18. CONSIDERATION OF ABILITY TO PAY PENALTIES.

       Section 308(a) (16 U.S.C. 1858(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the last sentence by striking ``ability to pay,''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In 
     assessing such penalty, the Secretary may also consider facts 
     relating to the ability of the violator to pay that are 
     established by the violator in a timely manner.''.

     SEC. 19. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title IV (90 Stat. 359-361) is amended to 
     read as follows:
                  ``TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, 
     for carrying out this Act, the following:
       ``(1) $114,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       ``(2) $118,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       ``(3) $122,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       ``(4) $126,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
       ``(5) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
     Act is amended by striking the items relating to title IV 
     (including the items relating to the sections in that title) 
     and inserting the following:

                  ``TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

``Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 20. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Correction.--Section 304 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the designation of the Flower Garden Banks 
     National Marine Sanctuary'', approved March 9, 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-251; 106 Stat. 65), is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3(15) of the Marine 
     Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1362(15)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(15) The term `waters under the jurisdiction of the 
     United States' means--
       ``(A) the territorial sea of the United States;
       ``(B) the waters included within a zone, contiguous to the 
     territorial sea of the United States, of which the inner 
     boundary is a line coterminous with the seaward boundary of 
     each coastal State, and the outer boundary is a line drawn in 
     such a manner that each point on it is 200 nautical miles 
     from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured; 
     and
       ``(C) the areas referred to as eastern special areas in 
     Article 3(1) of the Agreement between the United States of 
     America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the 
     Maritime Boundary, signed June 1, 1990; in particular, those 
     areas east of the maritime boundary, as defined in that 
     Agreement, that lie within 200 nautical miles of the 
     baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of 
     Russia is measured but beyond 200 nautical miles of the 
     baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of 
     the United States is measured, except that this subparagraph 
     shall not apply before the date on which the Agreement 
     between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist 
     Republics on the Maritime Boundary, signed June 1, 1990, 
     enters into force for the United States.''.

     SEC. 21. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by striking ``Committee on 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Committee on Resources''.

     SEC. 22. PROVISIONS RELATING TO GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) Fishery Assessments.--Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C. 
     1854(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) The Secretary shall develop and implement a 
     systematic program for the assessment and annual reporting to 
     the public of the status of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico 
     subject to management under this Act. Such program shall--
       ``(A) provide for the use of peer-review panels consisting 
     of independent and external experts;
       ``(B) not exclude peer-reviewers merely because they 
     represent entities that may have an interest or potential 
     interest in the outcome, if that interest is fully disclosed 
     to the Secretary;
       ``(C) provide opportunity to become part of a peer-review 
     panel at a minimum by soliciting nominations through the 
     Federal Register; and
       ``(D) ensure that all comment and opinions of such peer-
     review panels are made available to the public.''.
       (b) Fishery Monitoring.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(m) Fishery Monitoring.--(1) The Secretary shall develop 
     a plan for the Gulf of Mexico region to collect, assess, and 
     report statistics concerning the fisheries in each such 
     region.
       ``(2) The plan under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) provide fishery managers and the public with timely 
     and accurate information concerning harvests and fishing 
     effort;
       ``(B) minimize paperwork and regulatory burdens on 
     fishermen and fish buyers;
       ``(C) minimize costs to Federal and State agencies;
       ``(D) avoid duplication and inconsistencies in the 
     collection, assessment, and reporting of fishery statistics; 
     and
       ``(E) ensure the confidentiality of information.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that fishermen, fish 
     buyers, and other individuals potentially impacted by the 
     plan required under this subsection are actively involved in 
     all stages of the development of such plan and that 
     appropriate fishery management agencies are consulted.
       ``(4) No later than 9 months after the date of enactment of 
     the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, 
     the Secretary shall publish notice of a proposed plan 
     required under this subsection and provide the public with a 
     reasonable opportunity to comment on such proposed plan. The 
     Secretary shall consider such comments before submitting the 
     plan under paragraph (5).
       ``(5) No later than one year after the date of enactment of 
     the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, 
     the Secretary shall submit a final plan under this subsection 
     to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate.''.
       (c) Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Stock Management Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall have an 
     independent analysis conducted that will evaluate--
       (A) the methods, data, and models used to assess the status 
     of Gulf of Mexico red snapper stock assessments;
       (B) the effectiveness of the fishery management plan in 
     effect under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
     Act that applies to Gulf of Mexico red snapper, in terms of 
     the appropriateness of the management goal and time frame 
     given the available biological data; and
       (C) regulations in effect under that Act that apply to Gulf 
     of Mexico red snapper, in the terms of the effectiveness of 
     fairly controlling fishing mortality.
       (2) Study requirements.--The study shall--
       (A) assess all alternatives that could provide a more 
     balanced and practical approach to managing the red snapper 
     fishery in the Gulf of Mexico;
       (B) involve commercial and recreational fishermen from the 
     Gulf of Mexico in the collection of data and information and 
     in the development of an accurate assessment plan; and
       (C) be completed and reported to the Congress and the Gulf 
     of Mexico Fishery Management Council within 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Use of report.--It is expected for the report on the 
     study under this subsection to be used as the foundation for 
     any future management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico by 
     the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council or the National 
     Marine Fisheries Service (or both). It is also expected that 
     the Council will suspend the implementation of any individual 
     fishing quota plan for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico 
     until the study is completed and until the Secretary of 
     Commerce has completed standards or guidelines.
       (4) Limited immunity.--Individuals providing credible 
     information to receive the most accurate assessments shall 
     not be subject to any catch reporting violations.

     SEC. 23. STUDY OF CONTRIBUTION OF BYCATCH TO CHARITABLE 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a study 
     of the contribution of bycatch to charitable organizations by 
     commercial fishermen. The study shall include determination 
     of--
       (1) the amount of bycatch that is contributed each year to 
     charitable organizations by commercial fishermen;
       (2) the economic benefits to commercial fishermen from 
     those contributions; and
       (3) the impact on fisheries of the availability of those 
     benefits.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit 
     to the Congress a report containing determinations made in 
     the study under subsection (a).
       (c) Bycatch Defined.--In this section the term ``bycatch'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 3(34) of the 
     Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 
     by section 4 of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to the Committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute?


               amendments offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Page 33, line 3, strike ``environmental factors'' and 
     insert ``environmental conditions or factors beyond the 
     control of the rebuilding program''.
       Page 50, line 10, strike ``yields'' and insert ``yield''.
       Page 58, line 24, strike ``paragraph (1)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (c)''.
       Page 59, line 7, insert a comma after ``paragraph (2)''.
       Page 22, line 17, insert ``and'' after the semicolon. 

[[Page H 10221]]

       Page 22, beginning at line 20, strike the semicolon and all 
     that follows through ``program'' at line 22.
       Page 23, line 21, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(16)''.
       Page 24, line 17, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the line.
       Page 24, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(15) in the case of any plan which under subsection 
     (b)(8) requires that observers be carried on board vessels, 
     establish a system of fees, not to exceed the actual costs of 
     the observer program, to pay the costs of the program; and''.
       Page 23, line 8, after ``processors'' insert ``and fish 
     processing vessels (as that term is defined in chapter 21 of 
     title 46, United States Code)''.
       Page 49, beginning at line 7, strike ``other persons as 
     specified by the Council,''.
       Page 37, line 17, strike ``shore-based'' and insert 
     ``United States fish''.
       Page 38, line 10, strike ``plan, including,'' and insert 
     ``plan and report such actions to the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives. The Secretary shall 
     implement the plan,''.
       Page 38, line 11, after ``appropriations,'' insert ``by''.
       Page 38, line 14, strike ``shore-based'' and insert 
     ``United States''.
       Page 38, lines 18 and 19, strike ``shore-based'' each place 
     it appears and insert ``United States''.
       Page 38, beginning at line 19, strike ``total allowable 
     catch'' and insert ``allowable biological catch''.
       Page 47, line 16, after ``appropriate'' insert ``at a level 
     of coverage that should yield statistically significant 
     results, except that on a fish processing vessel at sea 
     observers, shall be required as necessary to ensure 
     monitoring of fishing activities 24 hours each day''.
       Page 41, strike lines 12 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Prohibition on Removing, Damaging, Tampering With, or 
     Moving Fishing Gear and Fish.--
       (1) Prohibition.--Section 307(1) of the Magnuson Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (L), (M), and (N) in 
     order as subparagraphs (M), (N), and (O); and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (K) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(K) to steal or to knowingly and without authorization to 
     remove, damage, or tamper with--
       ``(i) fishing gear owned by another person, which is 
     located in the exclusive economic zone or special areas; or
       ``(ii) fish contained in such fishing gear;
       ``(L) to negligently damage, remove, or move, or to attempt 
     to do any of the foregoing with respect to--
       ``(i) fishing gear that is owned by another person and 
     located in the exclusive economic zone; or
       ``(ii) fish contained in such fishing gear;''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 309(a) of the Magnuson 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1859) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``or (L)'' and inserting 
     ``(K), or (M)''; and
       (B) in subsection (b) by striking ``section 307(1)(L)'' and 
     inserting ``section 307(1)(M)''.
       Page 41, line 19, strike ``(M)'' and insert ``(N) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section)''.
       Page 41, line 21, strike ``(N)'' and insert'' ``(O) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section)''.
       Page 41, line 23, strike ``(O)'' and insert ``(P)''.
       Page 13, line 25, strike ``307(1)(O)'' and insert 
     ``307(1)(P)''.
       Page 65, after the quoted material following line 8, insert 
     the following new subsection:
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations for NOAA Marine Fishery 
     Programs.--The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration Marine Fisheries Program Authorization Act 
     (Public Law 98-210; 97 Stat. 1409) is amended--
       (1) in section 2(a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' after ``1992'' and inserting a 
     comma; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, $47,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $48,645,000 
     for fiscal year 1997, $50,347,575 for fiscal year 1998, 
     $52,109,740 for fiscal year 1999, and $53,933,580 for fiscal 
     year 2000'';
       (2) in section 3(a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' after ``1992'' and inserting a 
     comma; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, $27,400,000 for fiscal year 1996, $28,359,000 
     for fiscal year 1997, $29,351,565 for fiscal year 1998, 
     $30,378,869 for fiscal year 1999, and $31,442,129 for fiscal 
     year 2000'';
       (3) in section 4(a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' after ``1992'' and inserting a 
     comma; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, $17,300,000 for fiscal year 1996, $17,905,500 
     for fiscal year 1997, $18,532,192 for fiscal year 1998, 
     $19,180,818 for fiscal year 1999, and $19,852,146 for fiscal 
     year 2000''; and
       (4) in section 2(e)--
       (A) by striking ``1992 and 1993'' and inserting ``1996 and 
     1997'';
       (B) by striking ``establish'' and inserting ``operate'';
       (C) by striking ``306'' and inserting ``307''; and
       (D) by striking ``1991'' and inserting ``1992''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment has been 
developed on a bipartisan basis and has the support of the minority 
leaders of the Resources Committee.
  During the Resources Committee markup of this bill, several Members 
wanted to offer amendments but withdrew them to allow time for 
compromises to be drafted. This en bloc amendment includes these 
compromises and makes technical amendments to the bill as reported.
  This amendment contains technical fixes which include a clarification 
in the weighing provision of the bill and correction of the placement 
of language addressing observer coverage.
  The amendment also contains language agreed upon by myself and other 
Members including: corrections to the Pacific Region Stock Assessment 
section; additions to the use of observers in ITQ systems; and changes 
to the Prohibited Acts section of the bill.
  I appreciate all the hard work by Members and their staffs in 
reaching agreement on the language in the en bloc amendment. I support 
this amendment and would urge my colleagues to also support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendments offered 
by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Page 69, after 
     line 8, insert the following new subsection:
       (c) Resource Assessment.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n) Resource Assessments.--(1) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the Secretary shall, wherever 
     practicable, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     and when the arrangement will yield statistically reliable 
     results, rely on the private sector to provide vessels, 
     equipment, and services necessary to survey the fishery 
     resources of the united States. The Secretary shall determine 
     whether this arrangement will yield statistically reliable 
     results.
       ``(2) The Secretary, in consultation with the appropriate 
     Council and the fishing industry--
       ``(A) may structure competitive solicitations under 
     paragraph (1) so as to compensate a contractor for a fishery 
     resources survey by allowing the contractor to retain for 
     sale fish harvested during the survey voyage; and
       ``(B) in the case of a survey during which the quantity or 
     quality of fish harvested is not expected to be adequately 
     compensatory, may structure those solicitations so as to 
     provide the compensation by permitting the contractor to 
     harvest on a subsequent voyage and retain for sale a portion 
     of the allowable biological catch of the surveyed fishery 
     that is reserved for research purposes under section 303(b).
       ``(3) The Secretary shall undertake efforts to expand 
     annual fishery resource assessments in all regions of the 
     Nation through the use of the authority provided in this 
     subsection.''.
       Page 69, line 9, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, during the full committee markup 
of this bill, we added a provision which will allow the Councils to set 
aside a portion of the allowable biological catch to be used for 
research purposes. This is clearly a discretionary provision and not 
mandatory.
  For the Pacific region, we have also allowed the Secretary to 
contract with private vessels to conduct research and stock assessment 
work using the portion of the harvest set aside for research purposes. 
The vessels would then be able to sell the catch to offset the cost of 
doing the research. 

[[Page H 10222]]

  My amendment takes this one step further. It allows the Secretary to 
contract with private vessels to perform research functions, now 
carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
[NOAA], in areas other than just the Pacific region.
  It will provide more up-to-date research and stock assessment data by 
contracting vessels to do the work on a yearly basis. At this time, 
stock assessment work is done approximately every 3 years by NOAA 
research vessels.
  Currently, the National Marine Fisheries Service uses this exact 
arrangement in the Gulf of Alaska. Survey work is presently being done 
for black cod stocks and the survey vessels lands their catch to offset 
the cost of doing the research. For some reason, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service feels that it does not have the authority to allow 
this type of arrangement to take place in other areas.
  I believe this amendment will give us better stock assessment data, 
will provide fisheries managers with more up-to-date information, will 
allow private vessels to bid on doing the research work and will allow 
the catch to be landed to offset the cost of doing the research, 
thereby reducing the cost to the Federal Government of doing the 
research.
  This language includes several suggestions made by National Marine 
Fisheries Service and is a discretionary provision. I think this is a 
good step in better fisheries management and urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's efforts to develop new 
methods of fisheries stock assessment. In this time of declining 
budgets, the use of fishing vessels may provide a very viable 
alternative to research vessels that could enable us to collect more 
timely data and hopefully provide some more opportunity for fishermen.
  I do have some concerns with the details of this proposal, as I think 
the gentleman knows, particularly the authority to allow fishermen to 
harvest fish outside of and beyond the research surveys in order to 
cover their costs. This might be difficult to enforce, and I wonder 
whether we are encouraging fishing in excess of the total allowable 
catch levels.
  I will not oppose the amendment, because I think the premise is a 
sound one, but I would ask the gentleman if we could continue to work 
on this issue to iron out these concerns before we go to conference?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, when 
this legislation passes the House, the Senate has not passed theirs. 
You will be on the conference, sitting beside me as we have done all 
these years, and I will continue to work with the gentleman, because 
you do raise a valid point.
  The attempt here is to allow what is already being done in other 
areas where we are being told that they do not think they have the 
authority. This is really a request by the National Marine Fisheries 
Institute.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. studds

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Studds: Page 43, after line 2, 
     insert the following new subsection:
       (d) Restriction on Sale of Lobsters.--Section 307(1)(J)(i) 
     (16 U.S.C. 1557(1)(J)(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``plan,'' and inserting ``plan''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, or 
     in the absence of both such plans is smaller than the minimum 
     possession size in effect at the time under the Atlantic 
     States Marine Fisheries Commission's American Lobster Fishery 
     Management Plan''.

  Mr. STUDDS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. Under 
current law, the sale, shipment, and transport of American lobsters 
smaller than the minimum size established in the Federal American 
Lobster Fishery Management Plan is prohibited.
  Recently, the National Marine Fisheries Service has indicated that 
this plan might be withdrawn. If it is, the prohibition on the sale and 
shipment of undersized lobsters would no longer be in effect and our 
market would be flooded with undersized lobsters. This would have 
serious implications for the resource and the industry.
  This amendment would ensure that the prohibition would remain in 
effect by allowing the minimum size established by the Atlantic States 
Marine Fisheries Commission to serve as the baseline in the absence of 
a Federal plan.
  It is supported by the industry, and I hope Members can support it 
here today.
  The administration has seen this amendment and has no objection to 
it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, my friend from Massachusetts has the 
foresight to be proactive instead of reactive.
  It is my understanding that the National Marine Fisheries Service has 
indicated that the current Fishery Management Plan for lobster may be 
withdrawn. If this does occur, it would mean that the current 
restrictions on the sale and transportation of undersized lobster would 
no longer be in effect.
  Current law prohibits the sale, shipment, and transport of American 
lobsters smaller than the minimum size established in the Federal 
American Lobster Fishery Management Plan.
  The gentleman's amendment provides the necessary measures to ensure 
that the current restrictions are not removed, by allowing the minimum 
size established by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to 
serve as a baseline in the absence of a Federal Fishery Management 
Plan.
  I support the gentleman's amendment and urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 47, 
     line 13, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 47, strike lines 17 through 19.
       Page 48, line 13, strike ``, held, or transferred'' and 
     insert ``and held''.
       Page 50, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(6) Any individual quota system established for a fishery 
     after the date of enactment of the Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Amendments of 1995--
       ``(A) shall not allow individual quotas shares under the 
     system to be sold, transferred, or leased;
       ``(B) shall prohibit a person from holding an individual 
     quota share under the system unless the person participates 
     in the fishery for which the individual quota share is 
     issued; and
       ``(C) shall require that if any person that holds an 
     individual quota share under the system does not engage in 
     fishing under the individual quota share for 3 or more years 
     in any period of 5 consecutive years, the individual quota 
     share shall revert to the Secretary and shall be reallocated 
     under the system to qualified participants in the fishery in 
     a fair and equitable manner and in accordance with the 
     following priorities:
       ``(i) As the first priority, to persons who have 
     participated in the fishery but have not received any 
     individual quota shares under the system, or have received 
     individual quota shares under the system in an amount 
     insufficient to allow participation in the fishery.
       ``(ii) As the second priority, to persons who desire to 
     enter the fishery.
       ``(iii) As the third priority, to persons who participate 
     in the fishery and hold individual quota shares sufficient to 
     permit that participation.
       ``(7) In reallocating individual quota shares under 
     paragraph (6)(C)(iii), the Secretary may utilize a royalty 
     auction or other comparable bidding process.
       ``(8) The Secretary may suspend the applicability of 
     paragraph (6) for individuals on a case-by-case basis due to 
     death, disablement, undue hardship, or in any case in which 
     fishing is prohibited by the Secretary or the Council.

[[Page H 10223]]

       Page 50, line 7, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       Page 50, line 23, strike ``or transfers''.
       Page 51, strike lines 16 through 21.
       Page 54, line 20, strike ``the use of limited access 
     systems under which individual quotas may not be transferred 
     by the holder, and''.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly 
straightforward. What it would do for new ITQ's is allow those portions 
of the quotas that are not utilized to be reallocated to other fishing 
interests, to, in many cases, fishermen that have worked these fishing 
grounds for many, many years, and the crews of the boats, to allow them 
to participate in the fisheries of their historical position, and 
fishing of those grounds should not the full quota be used.
  This amendment would only pertain to future ITQ's and not to those 
that have already been granted by the Government. I also think it makes 
sure that the public resources are continued to be used and widely 
dispersed for those who have historically been involved in the 
utilization of those resources, in this case the fisheries, and I would 
hope the committee would accept the amendment.
  My amendment is intended to prevent the giveaway of yet another 
public resource--our fisheries--as a form of corporate welfare.
  ITQ's are a new fisheries management tool where specific quotas are 
allocated to individual fishermen or corporations based on formulas 
established by fisheries management councils made up of industry 
representatives that in many cases will reap the benefits of the 
formula they establish.
  These quotas, which are allocated for free, can then be brought and 
sold, taking a public resource and turning it into a private commodity.
  The chairman's bill has taken some important steps to address the 
inequities of ITQ's, including a limit on the term of quota allocation 
and the assessment of a nominal fee of 1 percent if the quota is sold, 
but it doesn't go far enough however and still results in hundreds of 
millions of dollars in windfall profits for big, industrial fishing 
corporations who will receive these quotas shares for free.
  My amendment simply eliminates the ability to sell or lease your 
privilege to harvest a public resource. If you do not use it, it 
reverts to the Government to be reallocated to individuals wishing to 
enter the fishery or those who need more quota to make their shares 
economically viable.
  Why is this amendment necessary? Here are just a few reasons.
  In the North Pacific halibut/black cod fishery ITQ program that was 
implemented this year, 40 boat owners received quota shares worth more 
than $100 million for free. Crew members and skippers, many of whom had 
years of participation in the fishery, received nothing.
  Anyone not lucky enough to receive an initial allocation will have to 
buy shares from those recipients who got their shares for free. 
According to some quota brokers in Alaska, those shares are already 
selling for as much as five to eight times the actual value of the fish 
they permit you to harvest.
  Now the push is on by National Marine Fisheries Service and the large 
industrial fishing fleets to impose ITQ's in the North Pacific 
groundfish fishery, the largest dollar fishery in the United States, 
worth more than a billion dollars at the dock last year.
  The reason: After opposing plans to restrict access and control 
overcapitalization, too many factory trawlers entered the fishery in 
the late 1980's, ensuring that none of the boats could remain 
competitive. Now they want us to give them our fish--a public 
resource--to enable them to make the best of some very bad investments.
  Depending on the allocation formula that is adopted, Tyson Seafoods 
could receive quota shares worth hundreds of millions of dollars for 
free and then turn around and sell them.
  Proponents of quota systems tout their advantages. Allowing holders 
to fish when they want instead of in a derby fashion, they can product 
higher quality product, spread out their season, and stay at the dock 
when the weather is bad. All of these advantages will still hold true.
  But what does not merit nor does it require, the flatout giveaway of 
a public resource with no benefits to the taxpayers. Why does a 
corporation like Tyson--with $5 billion in annual revenues--need to 
receive a $200 million subsidy from the taxpayers? Because they made a 
bad investment of $230 million in 1993, buying Arctic Alaska, when the 
fishery was already overcapitalized, and now they want a bailout at the 
expense of the taxpayer.
  This is just another form of corporate welfare paid for with 
taxpayers' resources.
  My amendment would ensure that the give-away of a public resource 
would be prevented; that big fishing corporations would not profit at 
the taxpayers expense; and the stewardship of our fisheries remains in 
the public trust where it belongs.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment to eliminate 
transferability of individual quota shares. While I do not like the 
ITQ's, I want everybody to understand, I have supported and continue to 
support the regional councils in their role as managers of our Nation's 
fishery resources.
  In fact, the gentleman from California, I am going to tell him now, I 
had an amendment to his amendment, and I probably will not offer it, 
because my worthwhile staff reminded me I have always said not to 
interfere with the council's role in this. But this is a good 
amendment.
  ITQ's have been very controversial both in practice and from a policy 
perspective. One aspect that has caused a great deal of concern is the 
recipients of ITQ shares receive a windfall by being the only users of 
a public resource.
  I believe this amendment addresses the concern that fishermen are 
receiving windfall profits by selling their ITQ shares, while the 
general public receives nothing from the allocation of this public 
resource.
  I have heard from many fishermen that ITQ's give a few individuals a 
local on a public resource. The gentlemen's amendment makes sure that 
those who receive shares must fish them or lose them. If the shares are 
not fished by the fisherman for 3 or more years, they would revert back 
to the Secretary, who would then reallocate the share through an 
auction or other comparable bidding process. This reallocation will 
allow those who did not get an adequate share, or those who have 
fished, but did not qualify for shares, to bid on shares.
  This amendment eliminates the incentive to enact ITQ systems rather 
than other limited access options, because some fishermen believe they 
will reap a monetary windfall from the quota shares they receive.
  I want to again stress one of the biggest problems is the possibility 
of the acquisition of shares by, may I say those that may not be 
totally 100 percent American, and in controlling what I fought to do 
with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] in 1976, and that 
was to Americanize our fleet and to protect our stock and to have a 
sustained yield. What we find in many areas around the Nation is this 
is not occurring.
  So this really is, with the original language in the bill, a further 
attempt to make sure that we are looking at the management concept of 
the fisheries and not just a monetary concept of the fisheries.

                              {time}  1045

  Now, I am all in favor of everybody making large profits. I am all in 
favor of everybody making a return on their investments. But, I am not 
in favor of a locked system. And the IDQ's do create a locked system.
  Now, if I understood the gentleman correctly, we are only talking 
about prospective IDQ's, not those that have already been issued. 
Because one of the things that I have resented in this Congress is that 
sometimes we become retroactive in tax laws and other laws and people 
that try to follow the laws that Congress has passed find themselves 
caught in an untenable position.
  Mr. Chairman, I do support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a 
correct one to further make sure that we have the management tools that 
are necessary for the fisheries and they are not depleted to the point 
they were prior to 1976.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H 10224]]

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr: Page 21, line 13, before the 
     first semicolon insert the following: ``and conservation and 
     management measures necessary to minimize, to the extent 
     practicable, adverse impacts on that habitat caused by 
     fishing''.
       Page 23, line 21, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(14)''.
       Page 24, line 12, strike the semicolon and insert ``; 
     and'.''.
       Page 24, strike lines 13 through 17.

  Mr. FARR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young] for dedicating his service here in Congress to 
revising this trend and introducing H.R. 39 to help preserve our 
fisheries for fishers and fish eaters for many generations to come.
  However, there is a flaw in the bill. It was made in committee after 
its original introduction by the gentleman from Alaska, and my 
amendment corrects that flaw and brings it back to the way it was first 
presented to the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, in essence what is happening with many of our fishery 
stocks in America in our offshore waters is that the habitat of those 
fishing stocks are being destroyed and there is no requirement for the 
councils that manage these fish stocks to look into habitat protection 
for fish stock protection.
  Indeed, in my district alone, the famous Monterey area which people 
know about because of Steinbeck's writing about the sardine industry, 
we lost 30,000 jobs in California. We have an industry, the Monterey 
sardine industry once supported Cannery Row and it died out 50 years 
ago because of overfishing.
  California alone has lost 30,000 jobs since 1978. In a recent report 
by Governor Wilson on the future of California's ocean resources says 
that the total California catch declined 18 percent between 1991 and 
1992. These losses forced the Governor to declare a state of emergency 
in 1994 for California's north coast fishing communities. True, 
California has had a bumper salmon season, but this does not make up 
for years of decline.
  My amendment does one simple thing. It simply requires the regional 
fishery management councils to include measures to minimize, to the 
extent practicable, fishing impact on fish habitat. We all know too 
well that healthy fisheries depend on healthy habitat. Fishery 
biologists and other scientists point out the loss of wetland and river 
habitat as the major cause for decline in many commercial fisheries.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 39 will help address this problem, helping to slow 
some of the inland harm to commercial fisheries. But the fishing 
industry itself has a part to play in protecting the fish habitat.
  The way the bill is currently drafted, it says that the councils may 
take steps to minimize impacts on fishing habitats. This is essentially 
the same as current law which, while it does not mention the subject, 
would still allow councils to take steps if they chose to.
  The problem is that the councils have done nothing to address this 
under current law. Since they are not required and they will not be 
required, there is no indication they will address the problem at all. 
Thus, the councils could go on ignoring fish habitat issues under this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fix this problem by requiring 
conservation measures necessary to minimize, to the extent practicable, 
adverse impacts on the impact of habitat caused by fishing.
  It would require the councils to look for ways to minimize the 
impacts that fishing gear and fishing practices have on the habitat. 
This might include time or area closures or restrictions of particular 
types of gear.
  If the councils find that such measures are practical, my amendment 
would require the councils to include them in their plans. Contrary to 
what my colleagues might hear, my amendment will not allow any lawsuits 
because the Magnuson Act, and H.R. 39, do not include citizen suit 
provisions. Thus, my amendment would provide no basis for lawsuits; 
certainly, no more basis than any other mandatory provisions in H.R. 
39.
  Contrary to what my colleagues might hear, my amendment would not 
give one kind of fisherman a weapon to reallocate fishing shares, 
because the Magnuson Act requires the councils to allocate fish access 
to fisheries in a fair and equitable manner.
  Finally, it may look like environmental interests are driving this 
amendment, but there is clearly an environmental component to it. Even 
if the fish habitat impacts raise no environmental concerns, economics 
would still argue for my amendment. The decline of a fishery because of 
fish habitat loss helps kill jobs, helps kill coastal economies and 
consumer choice.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering my amendment because it has broad support 
from people who make their living catching fish, including such 
organizations as the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen; the Golden 
Gate Fisherman's Association; the North Pacific Fisheries Association; 
the Alaskan Marine Conservation Council; the Unalaska Native 
Fisherman's Association; the New Jersey Alliance to Save Fisheries; 
King and Sons, Inc., the largest shipper of American lobsters in the 
world; Trout Unlimited; the Maine Lobsters Association; the Maine Fish 
Conservation Network; and the Center for Marine Conservation.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that councils should be required to take 
those practical steps needed to minimize the impacts. I ask for an aye 
vote on my amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, after the great and kind compliments the gentleman 
from California has given to me, which are rare and far between on this 
floor of the House, it is unpleasant for me to rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concerns about 
protecting fishing habitat from the potential adverse impacts of 
fishing gear, but I am also concerned about the possible unintended 
results of the gentleman's amendment.
  The Regional Fishery Management Councils, and by the way, none of 
them when we had our hearings, we had over 14 hearings in the last 4 
years, none of them ever spoke in favor of this amendment. I want 
everybody to remember, the councils do not favor this amendment. Other 
interest groups may, but not the councils.
  The Regional Fisheries Management Councils currently have the ability 
to reduce adverse impacts that fishing gear may have on fishery 
habitat. Some councils have already taken steps to reduce the effects 
on habitat by closing off breeding and nursery areas during certain 
times of the year.
  While the language of H.R. 39 is discretionary, it sends a direct 
message to the councils that this is an important issue. It recommends 
that if steps have not already been taken to address this problem, the 
councils should take the necessary steps to correct any adverse effects 
that fishing may be having on essential fishery habitat under the 
council's jurisdiction.
   Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that moving this language to the 
mandatory requirements section of the act will require councils to 
restrict certain types of gear. It could potentially heighten gear 
conflicts in fisheries where councils have already taken appropriate 
steps to minimize the impact on the habitat.
  And for those who are not aware of the fishing industry, this is a 
very competitive industry. There is little what I call comradeship 
between a troller, a purse seiner, a gill netter, or a hand troller. 
All of them are seeking part of this. And when we put the council into 
a decisionmaking factor of choosing one gear over other gear, when it 
may not be appropriate. In fact the gentleman said there could be no 
lawsuits. There is a reality that one group could sue the Secretary of 
Commerce, not the council but the Secretary of Commerce saying that 
another type of gear could be adversely impacting the habitat, thus 
gaining a bigger share of the fish.
  So I would suggest this just drives a bigger wedge between the gear 
groups and causes a tremendous problem with the council. The habitat is 
important and we have already suggested in the bill that they do take 
this and do promote habitat protection. But let us not 

[[Page H 10225]]
make it mandatory, where there may be another way that they can protect 
the habitat and avoid the conflicts which would arise between the 
different gear groups and thus diluting the role of the council.
   Mr. Chairman, I do stress this. Only through the councils can this 
Magnuson Act work. Only through the councils can we truly manage this 
system. There are those under this administration and the past 
administration, so it is not partisan, that want to centralize the 
control of all fisheries here in Washington, DC.
  Think about that a moment. They want to bring it here, take it away 
from the councils, because they happen to think that they have more 
brains here in Washington, DC, than anybody else. We all know that is 
wrong. If my colleagues do not know it, I do not know where they have 
been.
   Mr. Chairman, it was set at the 1976 level to make sure that the 
councils do their work. In some cases, the councils have not worked and 
we have addressed that issue in this bill and will continue to address 
it. But it is important that we allow the councils to make these 
decisions. It is necessary to make sure it is a working unit. When it 
is mandatory, we are taking away the council's opportunities to 
function.
   Mr. Chairman, I do oppose the amendment.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, in the original bill of the gentleman from 
Alaska, there was this language. And, in fact, it was not even as weak 
as perhaps my amendment is, because my amendment says ``to the extent 
practicable.''
  The problem that I think the gentleman recognizes is there is only 
one body that really can deal with it and has the total jurisdiction 
and that is the councils.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will tell 
the gentleman, I put it in the bill understanding what he was trying to 
do, but removed it after hearing from the councils. That is why we have 
the hearing process and the input from the general public. That is why 
there was no outcry for this amendment at any time during the hearings.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a broad spectrum of people interested in this 
legislation. This has been on the burner for 4 years. I am going to 
suggest respectfully that I followed the train of thought of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] when I introduced the bill 
originally. But after hearing the councils and other members of the 
public say this would be detrimental and driving us apart, I made it 
discretionary and not mandatory. That is the reason.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
think you have just pinpointed the exact difficulty: That nobody wants 
to deal with this issue. They have had the ability; it is permissible 
in law; they could have dealt with it if they wanted to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Young of Alaska was allowed to proceed for 
1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, they could have dealt with it and have not. 
We have to, as lawmakers, make that responsible decision to say that 
this is important enough that they have to deal with it where it is 
practicable to deal with it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the difference 
is the councils in many cases have already acted. With the language 
that is in the bill now, it is really an awakening call for the 
councils. We will be revisiting this if they do not.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that they do see the importance of this and 
we do have the backing of the councils. But we have to allow the 
councils the discretion or we end up being the total managers of the 
fisheries and that would be a disaster for the fisheries.
  The fisheries are very competitive and very monetarily important for 
certain interest groups and we do not want this Congress to be 
involved, but should allow the councils to be the ones with the 
discretion.
  Mr. Chairman, I do urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, people may wonder, since the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] and I invariably agree on virtually all matters relating to 
fisheries, how I could conceivably find myself in a different position. 
I do not, really, since the gentleman has taken three different 
positions in the course of this debate. I am going to be with him the 
first time he was there.
  Mr. Chairman, the original draft of the bill, as the gentleman from 
California indicated, contained the language of the bill drafted by the 
gentleman from Alaska and myself that he now seeks to reinstate. That 
aroused some controversy during the committee markup and the gentleman 
from Alaska, in his usual statesmanlike way, offered a compromise which 
added the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' to the amendment. I 
thought that was a pretty good idea too, although it did weaken it to 
some extent. Then, even that was removed and it is totally 
discretionary for the councils.
  There is nothing in this language that speaks to any conflict or any 
controversy between gear types. The language in question simply directs 
the council, when they are developing a plan, to consider conservation 
of management measures necessary to minimize to the extent practicable, 
a very large loophole, adverse impacts on that habitat caused by 
fishing.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to see how that language on its 
face could be the source of a great deal of controversy. I would think 
it would be almost inarguable that we would want councils, in the 
course of developing plans, to consider ways to minimize to the extent 
practicable adverse impacts on fishery habitat, for very obvious, and 
it seems to me, self-evident reasons.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Alaska was entirely correct 
when he put this in his initial version. I think he was bending, in the 
way we must around here occasionally, to circumstance when he agreed to 
its slight weakening with the addition of the phrase ``to the extent 
practicable.''

                              {time}  1100

  But I do think to remove this from a requirement for the council's 
consideration and place it, as the bill now does as simply 
discretionary, our very sad history here indicates, probably, councils 
probably will not do it. So I agree with the first two positions of the 
gentleman from Alaska and the current position of the gentleman from 
California, and urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my compliments to the chairman 
of the full committee for coming up with a bill that goes a long way in 
protecting a huge natural resource and a very strong part of the U.S. 
economy, and that is the fishing industry.
  I also rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California, and I think because of several reasons that this body ought 
to vote for that amendment.
  First, it was in the original bill. I think the idea of this 
provision being in the original bill was to give the councils some 
discretion to place an emphasis on one of the most important aspects 
and parts of the fishing industry, and that is habitat, where these 
fish spawn. They have the discretion; to the extent practicable, they 
can use this in the formulation of their plan.
  One striking detail, or one striking fact, shows the necessity, in my 
judgment, of this amendment, and that is you could stop fishing today. 
You could stop all fishing in the coastal areas and still lose 75 
percent of the commercially valuable fish to habitat loss. Now, this 
does, to be honest, involve some of the recommendations and some of the 
insights into gear types between different competing fishermen. But the 
emphasis here is to protect habitat laws, and the emphasis needed for 
the council to use this discretion is overpowering.
  To lose 75 percent of the commercial fish because of habitat loss is 
a striking fact. We also see problems with water quality being degraded 
by a whole range of sources. In any one 

[[Page H 10226]]
given year in this country, actually in any one given day, one-third of 
the shellfish beds throughout this country are closed because of 
problems with habitat.
  So the bill has gone a long way to protecting the fishing industry in 
this country.
  I think we should stick with the original language, including ``to 
the extend practicable'' from the gentleman from California, and I urge 
a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me try to 
set the record straight.
  The current law has this language in the discretionary section. 
Current law is that the ability of the agency is discretionary in this 
area.
  The gentleman's amendment would change current law to make this 
requirement mandatory upon the agency in every fisheries plan. Now, why 
is that a bad idea? It is a bad idea for a number of reasons. We are in 
the throes today of an attempt to reform our Superfund laws because of 
the fact that when we originally wrote the Superfund laws, we created 
such a litigation problem that the law has wasted billions of dollars 
on litigation. Everyone sues, everyone complains, everyone challenges 
each other under that law.
  Please, let us not make that same mistake in this important act.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman putting this language into the 
mandatory section invites those kinds of lawsuits. By whom? Who is 
going to file a lawsuit if this language is put under the mandatory 
section? I will tell you who: competing gear types. If there are two 
kinds of fisheries out there, one which has an allocation that it does 
not think is fair, another which has an allocation it would like to 
get, you can bet there would be a lawsuit filed on this particular 
mandatory section, and the two gear types will be in litigation over 
this bill.
  But let me tell you of an even more important reason why this should 
not, this amendment, should not be adopted. Current law is working very 
well. Anyone who tries to say current law is not working well has 
simply not observed the facts. The facts are that the councils do have 
the authority today and use that authority where essentially important 
to restrict damaging gear types in their management plans. They have 
the authority and have used it to protect sensitive habitat areas such 
as nurseries and hatcheries from fishing types. They have that 
authority. They use it.
  For us to change the law to make it mandatory simply invites someone 
to test whether or not they have used their authority correctly or 
incorrectly in court every time a council moves.
  I live on the gulf coast, as do many of the members of our committee 
live near the coastal areas. We have an important fisheries--25 percent 
of all the commercial fish landings in America come off the coast of 
Louisiana. We have incredible nursing grounds. We understand that 
relationship. Our councils work, in fact, to restrict fishing and 
fishing gear types when, in fact, there is good evidence those fishing 
stocks are in any kind of difficulty. They use the discretionary 
features of this law quite well. We complain sometimes about the 
science they use, but the fact is that councils are working quite well.
  For those of you who want to change the law, and that is what this 
amendment does, for those of you who want to change this law to make 
this mandatory, will mean from now on every time our council makes a 
decision in Louisiana waters, you can bet there will be a lawsuit filed 
from some other fishermen in some other States. There is a great 
contest for some of these species. Red snapper, for example, is a very 
desirable species. It is one that is regulated by the councils. The 
Florida fishermen used to be in Louisiana waters in droves until the 
council took some actions to regulate the kind of fishing that occurred 
in the red snapper industry. You can bet that if there is a mandatory 
feature in this act, the moment the council moves to do anything in 
that fishery in Louisiana waters that does not please the Florida 
fishermen, there will be a lawsuit filed. If they do not do something 
that somebody else wants them to do under this mandatory section, there 
will be a lawsuit filed. There will be lawsuits like Superfund lawsuits 
coming out of our ears, and the bottom line is that this fisheries 
councils system will begin to do what our Superfund has done: waste 
money in courts, encourage gear fights and wars, encourage fights 
between States when right now we are trying to cooperate across State 
boundaries on the outer continental shelf and will, in fact, destroy 
what is currently a good and discretionary feature of the law that is 
working quite well.

  I urge Members not to change it.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to ask the gentleman from Louisiana a 
couple of questions. If we were debating this issue in 1901, then I 
would agree that all of this discretion is fine.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thought the gentleman had a question.
  Mr. GILCHREST. But in 1995, my question is, considering the gear type 
we have in 1995, considering the number of fishermen that are out 
there, considering the number of boats out there, considering all of 
the technologies----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman will yield further, considering that 
we have sonar finders, hydraulic gear, spotter planes, onboard 
processing equipment, satellite communications systems, considering all 
of this out here now, taking fewer fish with more fishermen, should 
there not be some emphasis, and that is what this amendment does, it 
places emphasis on the discretion of the management councils, which I 
do not think have done that up to this point.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Let me try to answer, yes, indeed, there are many more 
gear types out there. But if you make this feature a mandatory portion 
of the law, every one of those new and inventive gear types will be 
suing to ensure they get a better allotment out of the fisheries plan 
than the other plan and suing on the basis that council did not follow 
the mandates of the law now in this area.
  Currently, the councils have discretion. They can do everything you 
want them to do in this amendment, and they can do it without all the 
lawsuits.
  What you are going to do is have a multiplicity of lawsuits. You will 
have gear wars going on, which we cannot afford. Give these councils 
the tools without mandating them into lawsuits is what the current law 
does, and I urge you not to change it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR. As you know, the councils now set very controversial 
issues, and, as you know, in this piece of legislation they can include 
conservation and management measures necessary to minimize by-catch, 
that is, the TED's used in Louisiana waters. Those are very 
controversial. There has never been a lawsuit on that.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, sir, the TED's are not a by-catch 
issue. The TED's are an endangered species issue, and that kind of 
confusion has caused more trouble on our debates on this bill than has 
helped. I want to straighten that out. This is not a TED's issue. This 
is not a TED's issue. This is a question of whether or not this feature 
of the law, which is discretionary, is going to become a mandatory 
feature in this area, and I urge you not to make it mandatory, because 
you will have gear wars and litigation unending in this area, where 
currently the administration and the agencies have the discretion to do 
the right thing when they need to do it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR. My concern is I think you are using the fear tactic of 
lawsuits. There have never been lawsuits filed. We make some very 
controversial issues on this.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The reason there are no lawsuits filed is no mandatory 
provision in the law. I cannot file a lawsuit 

[[Page H 10227]]
today to tell the agency it must do something the law said it did not 
have to do. The reason there is no lawsuit from one gear type to the 
other is because we do not have your amendment. With your amendment, I 
can guarantee there will be wars, litigation, many more lawsuits. If 
you do not believe it, talk to the folks who operate all the gear. They 
complain every day about their allotments.
  They think their type of fishing ought to be the best one, the one 
that gets the most allotment. There will be lawsuits every day in that 
case. You will be in lawsuits and your friends on the environmental 
side trying to stop the fisheries completely, and saying the agency 
should have had a habitat plan that locked it up. There will be 
lawsuits from every side of this issue, and I suggest to you that is 
the last thing that we need. We need more help and cooperation, less 
lawsuits.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to point out a couple of issues here. One is, this makes it 
possible, to the extent practicable, to regulate. It is also a bill 
that is very much supported by the fishery groups, by the people making 
their living in the water. They understand there is this controversy 
going on, and they need to have a forum where that controversy can be 
resolved.
  I agree with the chairman we do not want this resolved in Washington. 
That is why we are delegating the responsibility to the commission so 
that they can resolve it on a case-by-case basis on the issues, on the 
fish that they are responsible in law to regulate.
  This bill makes the inclusion of the issue that the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] just brought up, the by-catch measures, 
mandatory. That is going to be as controversial as anything in the 
bill.
  Indeed, if you are worried about issues raising for lawsuits, that 
one you could argue is even more so than what I am trying to do.
  I urge these Members to take a look at those that are sponsoring this 
amendment, a broad range of fishery groups on both the East Coast, the 
West Coast, and fishery groups that make their living at the sea, and 
they want this conflict of the sea resolved. We think this is the best 
way to do it.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Metcalf amendment to H.R. 39.
  The halibut and sablefish individual transferable quota [ITQ] for 
fishermen in the North Pacific is a product of nearly a decade of work.
  This ITQ program went into effect earlier this year and has been very 
successful. This ITQ was necessary because the race for the fish in the 
North Pacific was becoming extremely dangerous. In fact, between the 
years 1991 and 1993, there were 216 search and rescue efforts in the 
halibut fishery alone.
  Because of the safety issue and the years it took to develop the 
plan, it would be patently unfair to change the rules for the halibut 
and sablefish ITQ in the middle of the game.
  I would like to commend the Fishing Vessels Owners' Association and 
the Deep Sea Fisherman's Union for their diligence in clarifying the 
intent of this legislation for Washington State fishermen.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Metcalf amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my friend from 
California's amendment.
  Commercial fishing is one of the Nation's oldest industries. It 
contributes $111 billion annually to our national economy and creates 
jobs for 1\1/2\ million Americans. Obviously, to maintain a healthy and 
viable fishing industry, we must protect the habitat in which these 
valuable fish live.
  H.R. 39 currently contains language requiring that fishery plans 
address the problem of habitat degradation. But it fails to include one 
significant cause of habitat damage--damage caused by fishing itself. 
Fishing gear such as trawl nets that are dragged along the bottom of 
the ocean floor can have a very significant impact on the productivity 
of essential fishery habitat.
  The Farr amendment would improve upon H.R. 39's habitat protection 
provisions by fixing this shortcoming.
  If we're going to look at other sources of habitat degradation, it is 
only fair that we also require the fishing industry to make sure it's 
not also contributing to the problem. Anything less would be 
hypocritical.
  The fishing industry recognizes this and supports the Farr amendment. 
In particular, the fishermen and women of the west coast have endorsed 
this amendment. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
Associations says--and I quote:

       Habitat loss is the single most important threat to the 
     health and productivity of this nation's fisheries. Everyone 
     must do their share to restore that habitat to full 
     productivity--including the fishing industry--and to protect 
     essential fishery habitat whenever possible.

  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' for this sensible 
and necessary amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251, 
noes 162, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 717]

                               AYES--251

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Canady
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--162

     Allard
     Armey
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa

[[Page H 10228]]

     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Archer
     Barton
     Bateman
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Fields (LA)
     Gibbons
     Jefferson
     Mfume
     Oberstar
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Scarborough
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Wynn

                              {time}  1133

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Scarborough against.

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas and Mrs. FOWLER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BALDACCI, HEFLEY, TALENT, WELLER, GUNDERSON, and ENGLISH of 
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). Are there further 
amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. metcalf

  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Metcalf: Page 48, line 4, after 
     ``time'' insert``, in accordance with the terms of the plan 
     and regulations issued by the Secretary,''.
       Page 50, strike lines 1 through 6 and insert the following:
       ``(5)(A) An individual quota system established for a 
     fishery may be limited or terminated at any time if necessary 
     for the conservation and management of the fishery, by--
       ``(i) the Council which has authority over the fishery for 
     which the system is established, through a fishery management 
     plan or amendment; or
       ``(ii) the Secretary, in the case of any individual quota 
     system established by a fishery management plan developed by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(B) This paragraph does not diminish the authority of the 
     Secretary under any other provision of this Act.
       Page 55, beginning at line 12, strike ``1997, submit 
     recommendations--'' and insert ``1997--''
       Page 55, line 14, after ``(i)'' insert ``submit comments''.
       Page 55, line 18, after ``(ii)'' insert ``submit 
     recommendations''.
       Page 47, line 11, strike ``, and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 47, line 12, insert ``(ii)'' before the text appearing 
     on that line, and move the left margin of that line 2 ems to 
     the right.
       Page 47, line 14, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
       Page 47, line 17, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
       Page 50, line 7, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 50, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) This subsection does not require a Council or the 
     Secretary to amend a fishery management plan in order to 
     comply with paragraph (1)(D)(i) or (ii) with respect to an 
     individual quota system, if the plan (or an amendment to the 
     plan) established the individual quota system before the date 
     of enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management 
     Amendments of 1995.

  Mr. METCALF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a narrow one. It does 
not address the issue of how the new guidelines will affect future 
individual programs. The amendment addresses only existing individual 
programs, and it addresses them in only one way. It provides that the 
existing programs would not be required to be revised in order to 
minimize the effects on local coastal communities.
  In considering the amendment, it is also important to know that 
existing law already requires that the interests of coastal communities 
be considered in the development of individual quota systems. The 
development of those systems also must take into consideration an array 
of other interests.
  The individual fishing quota plan for the halibut and sablefish 
fisheries of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, in particular, took 10 
long years to be developed. Hundreds of members of the public, 
including those from local coastal communities, gave testimony before 
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in scores of meetings held 
in many Alaskan towns and in Seattle, WA.
  The plan was subjected to close analysis in an environmental impact 
statement and regulatory flexibility analysis, which were reviewed by 
the public, the Council, and the Department of Commerce. The Secretary 
of Commerce approved the program after full opportunity for public 
comment on the plan and the regulations to implement it. The formal 
administrative record for the program is 10 feet high.
  While features of the plan should be more than sufficient to comply 
with the new guideline requiring that impacts on communities be 
minimized, some Commerce Department official or Federal judge might 
decide otherwise. That could result in an elaborate and costly 
reconsideration of the program. At the end of the revision process, the 
public and the fisheries managers could find themselves confronted with 
another stack of administrative papers 10 feet high.
  If the North Pacific Council and the Secretary wish to revisit the 
issue of coastal communities, that is their prerogative under 
prevailing law. My amendment simply makes it clear that the system 
should not be required to be revised due to a possible interpretation 
of a single new guideline in H.R. 39.
  I urge my colleagues to agree to my amendment.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. METCALF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  (Ms. DUNN of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf]. This is a fairness amendment. I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman has 
been working very diligently and hard with me to try to resolve our 
differences. It was never my intention that the new individual quota 
system guidelines developed and incorporated in this bill cause a major 
disruption to already existing ITQ's. I mentioned that to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] a moment ago.
  The gentleman is well aware of my general opposition to ITQ's, but I 
also stated I do not want Congress to overturn any plans implemented 
already or taken advantage of by those people that follow the present 
law.
  This amendment clarifies the authority of the Secretary of Commerce 
in regard to amending or limiting fishery management plans. It also 
clarifies that this legislation will not cause a reallocation of 
already issued quota shares. It does, however, allow the Councils to 
make revisions to existing ITQ plans, which is consistent with the 
Council's current authority.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in brief, muffled opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the past we have always required existing fishery 
management plans to be amended to comply with any new requirements of 
the act. I think to start exempting plans or particular aspects of 
plans from new 

[[Page H 10229]]
requirements, as this amendment would do, would set an unfortunate 
precedent that I myself cannot support, although I recognize the 
realities of the situation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. underwood

  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Underwood: Designate the existing 
     text as title I, and at the end of the bill add the following 
     new title:

                        TITLE II--INSULAR AREAS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Pacific Insular Areas 
     Fisheries Empowerment Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Section 2(a) (16 U.S.C. 1801(a)) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) The Pacific Insular Areas of the United States 
     contain a unique historical, cultural, legal, political, and 
     geographic circumstance, including the importance of 
     fisheries resources to their economic growth.''.
       (b) Policy.--Section 2(c) (16 U.S.C. 1801) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``' and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) to assure that the fishery resources adjacent to 
     Pacific Insular Areas, including those within the exclusive 
     economic zone of such areas and any Continental Shelf fishery 
     resources of such areas, be explored, exploited, conserved, 
     and managed for the benefit of the people of each such 
     areas.''.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802), as amended by section 4 of this 
     Act, is further amended by redesignating paragraphs (39) and 
     (40) as paragraphs (40) and (41), respectively, and by 
     inserting after paragraph (38) the following new paragraph:
       ``(39) The term `Pacific Insular Area' means American 
     Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands.''.

     SEC. 204. FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERY 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Authority for Foreign Fishing Under a Pacific Insular 
     Area Agreement.--Section 201(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)), as 
     amended by title I of this Act, is further amended by 
     inserting ``or (e)'' after ``section 204(d)''.
       (b) Authority To Enter Into a Pacific Insular Areas 
     Agreement.--Section 202(c)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1822(c)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``or section 204(e)''.
       (c) Pacific Insular Area Agreements.--Section 204 (26 
     U.S.C. 1824), as amended by section 5 of this Act, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Pacific Insular Areas.--After consultation with or at 
     the request of the Governor of a Pacific Insular Area, the 
     Secretary of State, in concurrence with the Secretary and the 
     appropriate Council, may negotiate and enter into a Pacific 
     Insular Area Fishery Agreement (in this subsection referred 
     to as a `PIAFA') to authorize foreign fishing within the 
     exclusive economic zone adjacent to such Pacific Insular Area 
     or for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond such zone.
       ``(2)(A) Fees pursuant to a PIAFA shall be paid to the 
     Secretary by the owner or operator of any foreign fishing 
     vessel for which a permit has been issued pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(B) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the 
     Governor of the Pacific Island Insular Area, may establish, 
     by regulation, the level of fees which may be charged 
     pursuant to a PIAFA. The amount of fees may exceed 
     administrative costs and shall be reasonable, fair, and 
     equitable to all participants in the fisheries.
       ``(C) amounts received by the United States as fees under 
     this paragraph shall be deposited in the general fund of the 
     Treasury and shall be used, as provided in appropriations 
     Act, for fishery conservation and management purposes in 
     waters adjacent to the Pacific Insular Area with respect to 
     which the fees are paid.
       ``(3) A PIAFA shall become effective according to the 
     procedures of section 203.
       ``(4) The Secretary of State may not negotiate a PIAFA with 
     a country that is in violation of a governing international 
     fishery agreement in effect under this Act.
       ``(5) This subsection shall not be considered to supersede 
     any governing international fishery agreement in effect under 
     this Act.''.

     SEC. 205. ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 311 (16 U.S.C. 1861) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Enforcement in the Insular Areas.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Governors of the Pacific Insular Areas 
     shall, to the greatest extent practicable, support 
     cooperative enforcement agreements between Federal and 
     Pacific Insular Area authorities.''.

     SEC. 206. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 307(2)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1857(2)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``204 (b) or (c)'' and inserting ``204 (b), (c), or 
     (e)''.
       (b) Section 311(g)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1861(g)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting after the citation ``201 (b) or (c)'' the words 
     ``or section 204(d)''.

  Mr. UNDERWOOD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Guam?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would allow the U.S. 
Territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands to responsibly develop an important natural 
resource and to receive the benefits of that development. I want to 
reiterate the policy statement in section 202(b) of my amendment, that 
it is Congress' intent to:

       assure that the fishery resources adjacent to Pacific 
     Insular Areas, including within the exclusive economic zone 
     of such areas and any Continental Shelf fishery resources of 
     such areas, be explored, exploited, conserved, and managed 
     for the benefit of the people of each such areas.

  My amendment authorizes fisheries development in the exclusive 
economic zone adjacent to the Pacific territories through Pacific 
Insular Area Fisheries Agreements. These agreements would be entered 
into by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, and 
the Governor of the affected U.S. territory. Under my amendment, 
permits and licensing fees levied on foreign vessels would be used by 
the participating U.S. territory for fisheries conservation and 
management purposes in the waters adjacent to the affected insular 
area. It is also our intent that the schedule of fees, and the portion 
of fees to be received by each participating territory when there is an 
overlap of interests, would be developed in joint consultation by the 
Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.
  Under current law, any economic benefit from licensing fishing 
vessels would not accrue directly to the territories. Violations of the 
exclusive economic zone surrounding the territories by foreign fishing 
vessels are common. In fact, in the same week the House Committee on 
Resources considered the Magnuson Act, two Japanese vessels were seized 
by the U.S. Coast Guard in waters adjacent to Guam for illegal fishing.
  Mr. Chairman, I should also point out that the Magnuson Act does not 
allow displacement of domestic fishermen by foreign fishermen.

                              {time}  1145

  Foreign vessels would be licensed only for the portion of the 
allowable catch that is not harvested by domestic fishermen. An 
important benefit of my amendment would be the increased incentive for 
foreign fleets to self-regulate foreign fishing in these areas.
  Those licensed to fish in our waters would have an interest in 
reporting those vessels that are fishing illegally. A database would be 
developed that would help us gauge the true potential of our fishing 
resources and this information would help us to develop a domestic 
fishing industry in the Pacific territories.
  My amendment is modeled on draft legislation developed by the joint 
Federal-insular area fisheries working group and endorsed by the 
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Participating in 
that working group were territorial governors and the Departments of 
Interior, Commerce, and State.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the product of the collaborative 
efforts of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the 
Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], 
and their staffs. In addition, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 
Management Council worked with us and supported our efforts.
  The people of the Pacific have responsibly managed their resources 
for thousands of years. This amendment gives us a valuable tool to 
develop our fishing resources and contribute to the development of the 
island economies of the Pacific insular areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], 
the 

[[Page H 10230]]
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for their interest and support of Pacific 
territories and I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  But as my experience in the crafting of this amendment, and in 
fishing in the past, has borne out, we do not catch everything we want, 
and sometimes we get things we do not want, but we are happy we went 
fishing anyway.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
rise today in strong support of the Underwood amendment, the Pacific 
Insular Areas Fisheries Empowerment Act of 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. insular areas have been under fire lately. 
Early this year, the delegates from the territories and the District of 
Columbia had their symbolic votes on the floor of the House taken away. 
Included in the future agenda is a plan to take away the tax coverovers 
currently in existence, and the possessions tax credit is on the 
chopping block as part of the budget reconciliation package in both the 
House and Senate.
  It is clearly time for the leaders in the insular areas to be more 
resourceful in attracting new business and new forms of revenue. The 
Pacific Insular Areas Fisheries Empowerment Act of 1995 is one step in 
that direction.
  As has already been stated, in coordination with the U.S. Government, 
this provision will enable the Pacific U.S. insular areas to charge 
fees to foreign fishing vessels which wish to fish in the exclusive 
economic zones surrounding these insular areas.
  The U.S. Government does not incur any additional expense because of 
this change in the law, but the insular areas benefit through increased 
revenue, and the anticipated assistance of permit holders in reporting 
violations of fishing rights in the local EEZ's. Any revenues collected 
must be used for fishery conservation and management purposes in waters 
adjacent to the insular areas. This is a true win-win scenario for all 
involved.
  It is my understanding that the administration supports this 
provision.
  I want to thank Congressman Underwood for taking the lead on this 
issue and crafting legislative language acceptable to the leadership in 
the insular areas, the majority in the House, and the administration. I 
also want to thank Chairman Young, Chairman Saxton, and Congressmen 
Miller and Studds, the senior Democratic members on the relevant 
committee and subcommittee for their support of this provision.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the two gentlemen who have been speaking 
previously. We have worked very hard on this legislation. Frankly, I am 
pleased with the efforts that have been put forth.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important to get these Pacific insular 
areas involved in conservation and management of the fisheries 
resources off of their coasts.
  Foreign vessels have been reported to be fishing illegally in the 
200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of these insular areas 
and they are part of our great United States. Frankly, when the 
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] walked in a while ago, I asked the 
gentleman to vote with me, and forgot he had lost his vote; both of the 
gentlemen. This is one time that I would frankly like to have the 
gentlemen's votes.
  Mr. Chairman, I again support this amendment as it has been proposed 
and compliment the two gentlemen.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in commending the 
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood]. This is important to the insular 
areas and I am delighted that it could be worked out.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge the 
passage of the amendment.
  The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  The amendment was agreed to.


            amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Page 50, 
     line 17, strike ``(c) FEES.'' and all that follows through 
     Page 52, line 18, and renumber paragraphs accordingly.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment becomes, I 
think, even more logical with the adoption of the amendment of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. What we have here is the 
establishment of the individual quota system. it has been the 
individual transferable quota, but I guess it is no longer that, thanks 
to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, what this does is mandate in the bill before us that 
the Secretary impose fees on the fishermen who receive these individual 
quotas, not simply to recover the cost to the Government of 
administering it, but as a revenue raiser.
  Now, the law, without this bill, gives the authorities the ability to 
recover any costs. So, fees imposed for the purposes of cost recovery 
will not be affected by my amendment.
  The policy question is: should we go to the fishermen who are 
receiving these individual quotas and make them pay revenues that will 
help support other parts of the Government?
  It is true that from one perspective the individual quotas are a 
benefit. They are a benefit compared to the people that do not have 
individual quotas. But they are a reflection of the restrictions we 
have imposed for conservation purposes. In other words, it is looking 
at only half the picture to say, ``Oh, there are these people and they 
get the quota and they can fish and other people cannot.''
  Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree that the people involved would 
rather not have the quotas. They would rather there not be such a 
system. They would rather simply be able to fish. The individual quotas 
come in as part of a very restrictive scheme. Restrictions are 
required, we can debate exactly how much, because of conservation.
  But what we have is this situation: Fishermen today, compared to some 
time ago, are being significantly restricted in what they can catch. 
That is mandated by the needs of conservation. To logically organize 
this restrictive system, we are giving individual quotas. The question 
is, should these fishermen who represent an industry that is already 
being hit by economic problems, an industry that is already being put 
upon, should they then, as they are being told they can fish less, have 
to pay more? Should they pay an additional tax?
  So, Mr. Chairman, saying to people that have individual quotas, ``You 
are lucky,'' remember, these are people who would rather not have the 
quota. Telling them they are lucky is like the people who told George 
Orwell, who fought in the Spanish Civil War and was shot in the neck 
and when he got out of the hospital some people said to him, ``You are 
a lucky person, because you were shot in the neck and recovered.'' And 
he said, ``Well, I have to think that all the people who were never 
shot in the neck in the first place are even luckier than I am.'' To 
tell the people who have individual quotas that they are lucky, I think 
that they would say, ``You know who is even luckier? The people who are 
allowed to go about their businesses and their lines of work without 
these restrictions.''
  Individual quotas are not a benefit. They are an effort to make a 
restrictive regime more manageable. To go to the people who have 
received this restrictive regime, the people in the fishing industry, 
and say to them as part of what they are getting in terms of 
restrictions, we are going to make them pay for the cost of 
administering their system, not simply what it cost the Government, 
this goes beyond recovery.
  But we are going to make some money off the fact of their 
restrictions. 

[[Page H 10231]]

We are going to impose this restrictive regime which individual quota 
is a part of on them, and as part of that we are going to make a 
profit. We, the Government, because we are going to mandate that a fee 
be charged.
  Mr. Chairman, in the prior situation, if they could sell the quota, 
then I think they should have to make a percentage payment to the 
Government. I was going to have my amendment reflect that and if we 
still had the quota as a salable item, like taxi medallions, yes, the 
Government should get a share of that. But thanks to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the quotas are not transferable.
  So, Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is in this restrictive 
regime, we are saying to fishermen that they cannot fish as much as 
they used to. They are under restrictions. But in consequence of our 
not driving them totally out of business, in recognition of the fact 
that we are going to let them fish some, although less than they used 
to, we are going to make them pay a fee not simply to administer this, 
but for the Government to make a profit off of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is inappropriate and, therefore, my 
amendment leaves everything else in this bill in place, but it says to 
the fisherman who was not driven out of business entirely, but instead 
restricted, he will not be required to pay a fee over and above what it 
costs us to administer this. We are not going to make any money off of 
him.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my amendment is adopted.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly but strongly rise in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. No. 1, this 
is relatively a new amendment. We just received it today.
  No. 2, the amendment would strike in this language the Secretary's 
ability to charge fees for the management and implementation and 
enforcement costs of the individual transferral quota system. And for 
those Members that might be watching this program in their offices, the 
IDQ's or IFQ's really are a license restriction, like a liquor license. 
Merchants cannot sell liquor within a certain area or in competition 
within another area. This gives an exclusive right of a public resource 
to a fisherman; a boat, a captain, or a fisherman.
  All we are asking in this is a minimal fee to help pay the costs of 
applying this application of IFQ's and IDQ's to these individuals.
  Now, as far as saying they are going to catch less, that is not 
necessarily true. In fact, the quota for the catch is now dispersed 
among those that got the IDQ's and not the overall general public. In 
fact, they will probably catch more fish instead of less fish.
  But what we are saying is if this costs the Federal Government money 
to give exclusive rights to that public resource, then that person who 
receives those exclusive rights ought to be able to, and willing to. By 
the way, in the committee hearings, most, I would say 99 percent of 
those that are affected by the IDQ's, supported the concept of paying a 
minimal fee to implement the act. I want to stress that.
  Mr. Chairman, this gives the chance for the Government to recover 
some of the costs of implementing the IDQ's and IFQ's. It also, in 
fact, is supported by those that get and have been issued these quotas.
  May I say it is only for the quotas that have been issued today and 
not retroactive and not prospectively in the future. I am going to 
suggest that if we were to take this away, if my colleagues believe in 
a free lunch, then they would vote for this amendment. If they believe, 
as those people receiving the IFQ's and IDQ's, that they ought to 
participate in the program and pay for the cost, they will defeat the 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK Of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I may have misunderstood 
it, but as I read the language, the existing statute, which I had 
understood was not being amended, gives the Secretary the right to 
recover the cost of administering the system. And as I read this, it 
seemed that the fee being mandated here could go beyond that, that that 
linkage was being weakened.
  If the understanding is that they are not to charge any more than the 
cost of administering, that is one thing. But it did seem to me that 4 
percent of the value of the fish, that would be a pretty expensive 
permitting process.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in determining 
the amount of fee under this paragraph, the Secretary shall ensure the 
amount is ccommensurate with the cost of managing the fisheries with 
respect to the way the fee is collected, including reasonable cost for 
salaries and data analysis and other costs directly related to fishery 
management and enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I am, frankly, not a lawyer, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is, but if there was an exorbitant amount of fee and the 
money was given to the Treasury, the Secretary would be open to a 
lawsuit.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, there is a difference. The existing law says the 
level of fees charged under this subsection shall not exceed the 
administrative fees in covering the permits. The Language the gentleman 
just read allows the fee on the individual quota to include other costs 
directly related to fishery management and enforcement far beyond 
whatever you get for the license.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I do not 
believe it does that. What we have attempted to do, and may I stress 
the fact again that this person the IDQ has been given to by the 
council, and all of this helps pay for the cost of the administration 
of that program. That is all it does. And no more money goes to the 
general Treasury and there is no more added cost.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not going to balance the deficit on this. I 
truthfully think that if we are going to talk on this floor about 
mining royalties, about below-cost timber sales, about all the other 
good things, then we ought to be considering if we give someone an 
exclusive right. Now remember, I am not talking about all the fishing 
fleet. I am talking about the exclusive right, exclusive to catch that 
fish. He excludes everyone else; then he has told us that he would be 
willing to pay a share to manage this program.

                              {time}  1200

  I have heard no objection from this. This is why I am surprised at 
the amendment, frankly.
  In the hearings we heard none. I can ask the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], which I am reluctant to ask anything, but 
if in reality did they hear at any time, and I yield to the gentleman 
from Connecticut, being that I mentioned his name, I will yield to the 
gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I was almost about to agree with the gentleman. But I 
may still agree with you. I would say, no matter what the issue at hand 
is, though, on the fisheries, the magnitude of how much the taxpayers 
get ripped off in mining and in timber still outweighs anything 
involved in this issue, it is wrong to even bring it in.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, I do not want to hear speech 
A.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will be nicer. Maybe the difference is 
not as great as we think.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 
expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Young of Alaska was allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, I 
have heard complaints. The complaints have been from people who say, 
frankly, at least in my area, these are part of a restrictive regime 
which is mandated by conservation, and they do not want to have to pay 
for more than the cost of administering the system, and I would say to 
the gentleman, as I read the language on 51 and 52, there is a 
difference in the current law. If he tells me that is not all that 
intentional, maybe we 

[[Page H 10232]]
can narrow this. That is, if we are talking about a fee that is to 
cover essentially the cost of the individual quota system, that is one 
thing. If the gentleman is saying to me it was not intended this would 
go to broader enforcement, because it does say fishery management 
enforcement, but that it would not deal with matters, you could not 
charge a fee for matters unrelated to the administration of the quota 
system, that includes people overfishing.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, this goes just for not only 
issuing the permit but enforcing the permit and all the paperwork. Just 
one set of IDQ's costs the Government 3 million taxpayer dollars. I 
never heard anybody object to participating, we are talking about a 
very small fee here, participating because they have an exclusive 
right, and, you know, I am still a little bit befuddled here by where 
this pressure is coming to eliminate the Secretary's right to collect a 
fee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will explain it. It came from people 
who read it, as I read it, and I did not read that language as 
restrictively as the gentleman has interpreted it, and with the 
understanding that it is not intended to be more than cost recovery for 
the actual administration and enforcement of this system, I would 
withdraw the amendment if I got unanimous consent and ask the gentleman 
to be able to work with him if we got to conference. I would urge that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We will continue to work with the gentleman, 
because that is intent of the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield further, I 
would ask if we could agree we could try to work out language to make 
it exactly clear so there is no ambiguity and other people would not 
get the same misimpression I have gotten. We would not have a problem.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We will work with the gentleman as I have always 
worked with the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, the gentleman has.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest: Page 4, strike line 19 
     and all that follows through page 5, line 14, and insert the 
     following:
       (4) by amending paragraph (21) to read as follows:
       ``(21) The term `optimum', when used in reference to the 
     yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which--
       ``(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the 
     Nation, particularly with respect to food production and 
     recreational opportunities, taking into account the 
     protection of marine ecosystems;
       ``(B) is prescribed on the basis of the maximum sustainable 
     yield from the fishery, as reduced by an relevant, social, 
     economic, or ecological factor, and
       ``(C) in the case of an overfished fishery resource, 
     provides for rebuilding of the resource to a level consistent 
     with providing the maximum sustainable yield from the 
     resource.'';

  Mr. GILCHREST (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, as children, many of us heard the story 
of the goose that laid the golden egg and the folly of the man who 
killed the goose to eat it. The same principle applies to marine 
fisheries.
  Every year, each fishery provides us with a harvest of fish for our 
consumption and recreation. But each species must maintain a certain 
population in order to reproduce and maintain the stock, and if we 
overfish the stock, we impair the ability of the resource to renew 
itself.
  The collapse of the New England fishery is an example of what happens 
when we exceed the maximum sustainable yield of a fishery. They deep 
fry the goose that laid the golden egg.
  Our constituents have had to pay millions of dollars to bail out 
fishermen who lost their livelihood as a result of the failure to 
manage the resource. Current law allows fishery management councils to 
allow a stock to be overfished for short-term social or economic 
reasons. This was one of the main contributors to the collapse of the 
New England ground fishery.
  The bill before us, while good in many ways, does not change the 
tragic flaw in the Magnuson Act, leaving open the possibility other 
fisheries will collapse in the future, requiring more bailouts. The 
principle is simple: In order for a fish stock to replenish itself, a 
certain base population must be maintained, and in order to maintain 
that population, a cap must be placed on the number of fish which can 
be caught. This limit is called the maximum sustainable yield for the 
fishery.
  The way this works is similar to principal and interest in a savings 
account. As long as we only spend the interest in our savings account, 
the principal will perpetually replace that interest for us. If we 
spend down the principal investment, then we impede our ability to get 
future investment and future interest.
  The amendment essentially says we can only catch that portion of the 
fish that represents interest. This is called the maximum sustainable 
yield. Without touching the principal, fish, that being the critical 
population necessary to replenish the stock year after year, we will 
continue to have fish.
  I should emphasize this is not a new concept. We have been 
calculating maximum sustainable yield for fisheries for many years. The 
unfortunate fact, however, is that many fishery management councils 
simply choose to exceed MSY to serve short-term economic interests. I 
realize most people believe this is an environmental amendment, and I 
agree to a certain extent it is. Even if overfishing had no 
environmental impact at all, economics would still argue for this 
amendment.
  Overfishing leads to unemployment, shortages of certain seafood and, 
in many cases, taxpayer bailouts for fishermen who lose their jobs 
because there is no more fish.
  You do not have to care about the environment to oppose mismanagement 
of a publicly owned resource.
  Some opponents of this amendment will claim that it will prevent 
fishery management councils from allowing overfishing of so-called 
trash fish that threaten populations of commercial fish. This argument 
is its own species of trash fish, and that is, it is a red herring. It 
is true two fisheries have called for fishing down two species, the 
arrowtooth flounder and Atlantic mackerel. Both of these species could 
be fished at several times their current rate without violating the 
provisions of this amendment.
  This amendment will not prevent fisheries from reducing populations 
of trash fish which threaten commercial fish populations.
  We have two choices here: We can manage and preserve the resource, or 
we can exploit the resource and lose it. I want to call your attention, 
if the camera can just look at this so people can see this back in 
their offices, take a look at this chart. In 1900, the number of 
fishermen compared to the number of fish. Now, 1995, look at the number 
of fish compared to the number of fishermen, and include the following, 
there are sonar finders on each one of these ships, there is hydraulic 
gear, spotter planes, there is onboard processing equipment, there are 
satellite communications systems. We went in 1900 from this to 1995 to 
this.
  There has to be some sense of a management tool to preserve the stock 
so we can preserve the fisheries.
  Now, there is a bright spot in all of this. There is a bright spot. 
In the mid-Atlantic region, striped bass or rockfish in 1985 was 
commercially extinct. When we injected some reasoned management in this 
to prevent overfishing, 1995, with some sense in the management, the 
rockfish, striped bass, are fully recovered. This would not have 
happened if we did not inject some science to prevent overfishing.
  If we want to preserve the fishing industry, I encourage you to adopt 
my amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilchrest 
amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. It has been endorsed by the 
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. That is the 
Nation's largest organization of commercial fishermen and women who 
fish the west coast.
  I really want to compliment my colleague for introducing this very, 
very 

[[Page H 10233]]
sensible amendment, and I urge that my colleagues support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilchrest amendment.
  This is a commonsense amendment.
  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we catch 
more fish than are produced in a given year then we will decrease that 
fish population. And if we continue to do this year after year, we may 
deplete that species to levels so low that we cannot harvest them at 
all. If there is no fish to catch, then the fishermen and women who 
rely on those fish for their livelihood cannot make a living, cannot 
pay their bills, and cannot feed their families.
  If we want to prevent this overfishing that leads to economic tragedy 
for our fishing communities, then we need to harvest within the 
biological limits of the fish population. It is that simple.
  The Gilchrest amendment would ensure the long-term sustainability of 
the U.S. fishing industry by changing how annual fish quotas are 
calculated so that they never exceed the biological limits of the fish 
population being harvested. In this way we can prevent overfishing 
before it happens and causes economic disruption to fishing 
communities.
  This amendment has been endorsed by the Pacific Coast Federation of 
Fishermen's Associations, which is the Nation's largest organization of 
commercial fishermen and women on the west coast.
  It is not often that an industry comes to Congress and asks for 
stronger regulations, yet fishermen and women are calling upon us to 
pass this amendment to protect the long-term viability of their 
livelihood. Who are we to deny this request to assist them in better 
managing their economically vital industry?
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this well thought out and 
commonsense amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  What I would like to do is just give a demonstration of what 
overfishing is. If you look at this chart up here, sustainable fishing, 
you can only take what the fish can make. I am going to show you what a 
sustainable fishing management plan does.
  If you look at the green fish up here, this is considered that catch. 
If you look down here, you see breeding and juveniles. These are the 
fish that actually have the potential to reproduce themselves. 
Sometimes fish have to be 9 years old before they can reproduce. 
Sometimes they have to be older than that.
  A sustainable fishery plan works as follows. Just watch this. You 
take the catch. You look down here, those 10 fish can be replaced with 
the number of spawning fish at the bottom. This is like being back in a 
classroom. Now they are replaced. What we can do down here, there are 
still a number of fish that can grow and respawn. That is a fishery 
management plan that brought the rockfish or the striped bass back in 
the mid-Atlantic States.
  I am going to show you what happens if you do not have a management 
plan. You exceed maximum sustainable yield. You take more of the 
spawning in the catch than can be replaced.
  When you do down that far, the only thing that can be replaced are 
now three. The next year, since fishermen are used to catching what 
they have caught the previous year, you are going to go further down 
into the breeding population, into the juvenile population, and what 
you have is a fishery that collapses. We have seen it in New England. 
We have seen in the Gulf of Mexico. We have seen it around the coastal 
areas of the United States.
  The United States has more coastal fisheries waters than any country 
in the entire world, but unfortunately, because occasionally there has 
been mismanagement, we are a net importer of fish. If we want to 
sustain the fishing industry, which is worth billions of dollars, if we 
want to sustain fishermen who need to support their families, I will 
give you an example: In 1986, in the Gulf of Mexico, the average wage 
for a fisherman was $39,000. Now, 1995, the average wage for a 
fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico is $29,000. That is because they expend 
much more time trying to catch fewer fish.
  I encourage you, let us put some sense back into the management of 
one of the greatest laws this country has had, the Magnuson Act. I urge 
we include some science, we include some data to relieve the burden of 
the management councils from making these decisions. They receive this 
information from the National Marine Fishery Service, from the 
scientific statistical committee, from an advisory panel. They get this 
information. Let them use this information. They can allocate the 
amount of time you will be out there fishing. They can allocate the 
number of fishermen. They can allocate the months of the year that you 
do it.
  Unless we manage the fisheries wisely, we are going to lose the 
fisheries in this country.
  I urge adoption of my amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Reclaiming my time, I just want to thank the gentleman for 
certainly the most colorful and interesting dissertation on 
reproduction I have seen on the House floor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I am hard-pressed to compete with show-and-tell on television. That 
is one of the things that is wrong with our Congress today. It was well 
done.
  But there is more to legislation than a show-and-tell program for 
those that promote one side of the issue. This issue was voted for in 
committee and thoroughly defeated. No one spoke in favor of this in the 
committee. Every council, the North Pacific, Pacific council, mid-
Atlantic council, South Atlantic council, and the gulf council spoke 
against this amendment, and yet this body and the audiences exposed to 
a very good presentation, but it is not scientific. The issuer of 
setting optimum yield [OY], maximum sustainable yield, [MYSY], is a 
complicated one that fisheries management has been arguing about for 
years. It is not an easy issue. It is just not a little display with 
red fish and green fish and little fish and big fish.
  If you believe in science, the scientists oppose this amendment. Yes, 
they do. There are some conservation groups or so-called preservation 
groups or antifishing groups that do support it.

                              {time}  1215

  Unfortunately, the thing that bothers me the most is that under this 
legislation, this amendment, the council will now be required to 
address those stocks which are overfished and institute a rebuilding of 
those stocks, including saber tooth flounder, which kill everything 
else that flows and grows in the ocean. And they may be God's 
creatures, but there are other creatures out there that in fact are the 
prey of the saber tooth flounder. And yet we are in the business of 
saying we are going to have sustained yield for all those fish that 
spawn and all those fish that we consume and all those fish that 
support the fishermen in the communities. We are also asking the 
council to manage them well enough where they have a sustainable yield, 
but under this amendment those which prey upon that other than the fish 
themselves, which in reality would be devouring those little fishes at 
the bottom of the scale.
  Now, those that do not believe that man should be involved in this 
management program, I would vote for the amendment, too; if we want to 
exclude everybody out of it, including the fishermen, then I would vote 
for the amendment, too.
  But I can suggest respectfully we have made great progress with the 
councils today. We are managing our fish much better. By the way, this 
is relatively a new law in the scope of time, 1976. And why did we pass 
this law? Because the foreign fleets literally were raping our seas and 
our fish and leaving nothing back but the carnage that they created.
  This Congress finally decided we should Americanize our fleet. I tell 
you, we did make some mistakes, because we were unprepared to manage 
it. But every council, every region, the National Fishery Institute, 
and all the scientists that I know directly involved with this, oppose 
this amendment.
  Again, I cannot compete with someone that is a professor that 
presents a very nice and simple explanation. But if you believe in the 
committee process and the testimony before the committees, one of my 
biggest disappointments in this body has been the lack of listening to 
those who testify and allowing amendments to come to this floor with 
really no backing or justification for them, other than to be interest-
special to be presented to this 

[[Page H 10234]]
Congress, and because it has the pizazz, people vote for it. I 
understand that. We just went through one of those votes. It is easy. 
But the credibility of the legislation as we write a law is diminished 
when this type of event occurs.
  Again, let me stress, every council, the National Marines Institute, 
Fishery Institute, everybody involved directly oppose this amendment.
  Now, if the committee process means nothing, vote for the gentleman 
from Maryland's amendment. If you believe man should not be involved 
with the management of, vote for the gentleman from Maryland's 
amendment, and everybody will be happy. But if you believe in the 
process of science, the process of the councils, and the committee 
process, you will vote no on this amendment.
  The gentleman is well intended, his intentions are honorable. The 
gentleman made a great presentation, and I compliment him. But this is 
a bad amendment and it should be rejected.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Alaska, 
Chairman Young, for bringing this measure to the floor, but I also want 
to talk for a moment just about why it is essential that we adopt 
amendments like this and the one we just adopted.
  Since 1976, the United States has had exclusive jurisdiction over 
the, out to 200 miles, what we call the exclusive economic zone. That 
means that all of the activities, whether they be mining or fishing, 
sports or commercial, are regulated within that zone.
  We are the only elected body that has responsibility for that, 
because all of that property is under public ownership. I think that 
the big debate on this whole bill is how we move forward in the 21st 
century being able to sustain a very vital activity which is labor 
intensive, and for every coastal community in the United States that 
has been historically the reason for that community existing, and that 
is its offshore fisheries.
  We have seen, and, as I said before, I represent the Monterey Bay 
area, which was once the sardine capital of the world. We lost all 
that. The canneries shut down. We had massive unemployment. The 
fishermen stopped fishing. It was a really depressed area.
  Why did it happen? It was because nobody took account of what was in 
balance, of trying to keep the fisheries in balance. What this 
amendment is all about is it essentially is a statement by those of us, 
Members of the U.S. Congress, who have taken the oath of office to 
manage these resources in a practical, reasonable manner, so that they 
are indeed this word that we use all the time now, sustainable, so that 
future generations can go out there and fish as well.
  We have to manage it. The debate is on how you manage it. We have 
given that responsibility to these fishery councils. Do they manage 
every kind of fishery in the ocean? No. Do they get into certain 
commercial fisheries? Yes. Why do we have those councils? Because we 
need to have some local forum, where the debate about that particular 
fishery can be held and rules can be set. The season can be set, 
limited entry, if that is the issue, can be set, in a way in which we 
have been able to delegate the responsibility for looking at that 
fishery.
  What these amendments are all about is giving that council a little 
bit more authority, saying look beyond just the fishery at hand, the 
ability for us to make money on a catch this year. Let us look at 
trying to sustain this over a period of time; and, indeed, if you are 
disturbing the hatchery, the very thing that is providing the 
commercial catch, you are going to wipe out that fishery.
  As the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] said, our Nation has 
jurisdiction over more ocean territory than any other country in the 
world, and is now a net importer of fish because we have lost so many 
of our fisheries. This importing of fish is essentially creating 
additional Federal trade debt.
  So these amendments I think are very responsible amendments. We are 
the only ones in the United States, the only elected officials, that 
can deal with this issue, because we have exclusive jurisdiction over 
the economic zone of the oceans out to 200 miles, and these councils 
are wisely, as this bill states, the responsibility for managing those 
zones for a particular type of fishery.
  I think if these councils have enough responsibility and enough 
jurisdiction to do it wisely, indeed, we can sustain these fisheries 
for generations to come. The fishermen that are there today and the 
fisherwomen there today, their generations and their grandchildren can 
go into that industry.
  If we do not protect these fisheries, they are going to be a one time 
wipe out and nobody will be employed, and the processors will be shut 
down, the truckers will be shut down, and the commercial activity of 
fishing will be lost. That would be senseless, for the U.S. Congress 
until 1995 to wipe out one of America's most effective and historic 
industries.
  So I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a simple question. I represent that area of 
the country probably most sadly impacted by the failure of inability of 
a council to wisely and effectively manage a resource, in the case of 
the New England ground fishery. We have seen, to our great pain, what 
happens when the loophole provided in the current statute allowing 
maximum yield to be exceeded for economic and social reasons is taken 
advantage of. It is something I think we need to think carefully about.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], 
our chairman, for allowing a modification in the original text which is 
now in the bill in the case of an overfished fishery. The gentleman 
agreed with us in the case of a fishery that has already been 
overfished and depleted, that we ought under no circumstances allow the 
maximum yield be exceeded. I thank the gentleman, and I concur with 
him.
  The question occurs and is raised by the gentleman from Maryland as 
to whether we need to go further, whether there ought to be any 
circumstances or in any fishery for any reason where we would allow the 
maximum yield to be exceeded.
  Now, the gentleman, referring to his either saber tooth or saw tooth 
or arrow head flounder, I forget which flounder it is, is making, as I 
understand it, essentially an ecological argument that there may be 
cases, given the balance or imbalance of the stocks in the sea, when 
the maximum yield of one or more stocks may well want to be exceeded, 
for ecological reasons.
  I am not a scientist, but I would concede to the gentleman that may 
be the case, and, if it is the case, we probably should allow for that 
with the best science we have, knowing, as the gentleman knows, as I 
do, that our science in these matters is at best imprecise. 
Unfortunately, we are cutting back on resources given to this research, 
which is, sad but another question.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. One of the problems we have though, if we in 
fact fish the saber tooth flounder, or arrow tooth flounder, or 
whatever it is, and by the way, for the audience listening, it looks 
like an ordinary flounder, but it has the worst set of teeth you can 
imagine. You cannot catch one because it cuts the line and everything 
else. If we try to fish them down there would be a lawsuit contrary to 
saying you are doing it for economic purposes because you are saving 
the salmon and cod and halibut.
  Now, there is our catch-22. That is why when we make things 
mandatory, we do mess up the soup. I am very concerned about that. It 
is, by the way, an ecology-type question. But the gentleman sees what I 
am saying. If I fish down the arrow tooth flounder, supposedly to 
provide more halibut, cod, or whatever else is available, then I can be 
in fact accused, or the council can be, of fishing for economic 
purposes.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not think we are 
disagreeing on this matter. By the way, I would not wish upon the 
gentleman the maximum yield of the arrow tooth flounder. I think we are 
only taking 10 percent of it at the moment. God knows what we would do 
with the other 90 percent.

[[Page H 10235]]

  But, let me say the current law, as the gentleman knows, and it is 
repeated in part in this bill, with regard to maximum sustainable 
yield, says ``as modified by any relevant economic, social, or 
ecological factor.''
  I am not disagreeing with the gentleman with regard to ecological 
factors, whether it is the arrow tooth or any other flounder. We may in 
fact have a situation in New England that is somewhat analogous to 
that. We may, in the depletion of the traditional ground fish stocks, 
the cod, flounder, and haddock, have a disproportionately large and 
unnatural amount of, say, dog fish or skate or mackerel or something, 
which may be related to the fact that our human effort deleted the 
traditional commercial stocks. It may be, I do not know, but it may be 
we want to overharvest, if you will, the current supply of the new 
species in order to restore what was some semblance of the natural 
balance over time. That may be. And if it is, it is an ecological 
factor that the scientists need to take into account.
  What I suggest to the gentleman is, conceding that, maybe the lesson 
we should draw from the tragedy in New England is we ought not to allow 
this maximum yield to be exceeded for economic or social reasons. That 
is where we made our fundamental mistake in New England.
  I grant the gentleman, there might be a case to be made for 
ecological variation. But it would seem to me what we experienced in 
New England, to our horror, would say to us we ought not to allow the 
maximum yield to be exceeded for economic or for social reasons on the 
grounds that, you know, we have got to pay the mortgage next month or 
the next year, and the hell with the next decade or next century.
  That is what got us where we are. That is the kind of 
shortsightedness that so damaged our ground fishery and I think bodes 
so ill for fisheries elsewhere.
  So all I am saying to the gentleman is while I support this amendment 
as it is currently written, in the amendment, the unlikely event, that 
the gentleman from Maryland were not to succeed in prevailing upon the 
body with his wisdom, I would suggest we support this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Gilchrest, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Studds 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just a comment very quickly to the chairman of the full committee, 
and also I would say the ranking member of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. These two gentlemen probably 
know more about fishing than anybody else in this Congress. I also want 
to compliment the gentleman from Alaska for dealing with this issue to 
protect the fishing industry.
  Just a couple of quick comments about my amendment and how it would 
impact arrow tooth flounder. Right now, the allowable catch for arrow 
tooth flounder is 312,000 tons. What is being caught right now is 
45,000 tons. So we can continue to catch a huge amount. I am not sure 
what you would do with it, but you can catch a huge amount more, and 
not come close to maximum sustainable yield.
  I see the gentleman from Massachusetts, the other gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who has an issue with Atlantic mackerel, the allowable 
catch for Atlantic mackerel is 850,000 metric tons. What is actually 
harvested right now is 12,500 metric tons. So that means you could 
incurease both of these enormously without impacting the yield of this 
particular species.
  What you need to do to catch more mackerel or more arrow tooth 
flounder is to find a market for it. But my amendment does not impact 
in any way the complexity of the ecology of the fisheries.

                              {time}  1230

  I also want to make one other comment about the number of 
organizations and people that are supporting this amendment. I have 
three pages of organizations, from fisheries institutes, from 
fishermen, from scientists, and so on.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, as I say, while I do intend to support the gentleman's 
amendment, and I hope that it prevails, I would really ask that all 
Members look carefully at what we have just gone through and are still 
going through and will be going through, unfortunately, for a good many 
years to come in New England. I think we are paying a heavy price for 
having allowed ourselves the luxury of modifying that yield for 
economic and social reasons.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, 
and I understand the arguments both he and my colleague from 
Massachusetts have been making.
  I think if we went back in time perhaps 20 or 25 years, I would have 
no trouble supporting this amendment at all. But now we are in a 
situation where, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] 
pointed out, in the past, the yield for certain ground fishes off the 
coast of New England were altered for reasons that may be very 
arbitrary. However, those stocks are now depleted.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland makes the point that 
mackerel, an underutilized species, could be caught in a significantly 
greater numbers. I look at our role as trying to restore the balance to 
the fishing stocks somewhere close to where they were before. If we 
continue where we are now, we have very low numbers of ground fish, we 
have very high numbers of what are called underutilized species. Those 
species prey upon the young ground fish we say we are trying to 
restore.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the effect of it now, would 
actually make it more difficult to restore those ground fish stocks. I 
think the intent of the gentleman is positive. Again, if this had been 
proposed maybe 20 years ago I think I would support it.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, as far as Atlantic mackerel is 
concerned, we could catch 60 times more than we are catching now under 
my amendment. I do not think my amendment would prevent catching this 
particular mackerel to raise the stock of the ground fish.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, the point on mackerel, on herring, and 
other underutilized species is that, literally, we have to, if you 
will, substantially increase the catch if we are going to quickly see 
the restoration of ground fish.
  Now, the gentleman knows, because we have talked about this before, 
that there really is not a huge market for mackerel in the United 
States right now. There are efforts under way, some in Massachusetts, 
some in other States, to create markets for that. But even if the 
markets are not there, if we are serious about restoring our ground 
fish, we will have to look at what creatures in the environment are 
preying upon their young. Right now some underutilized species are in 
exactly that circumstance.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I do rise to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's 
statement. I would hope we could work out some language to take in 
specific considerations, but in those areas where the environment is 
not in balance. I think we have to make exceptions. The amendment does 
not make exceptions that I think are adequate to restore the ground 
fish off the coast of New England, therefore, I do have to oppose the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 304, 
noes 113, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H 10236]]


                             [Roll No. 718]

                               AYES--304

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Burr
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--113

     Allard
     Archer
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kim
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Schaefer
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Chapman
     Collins (IL)
     Durbin
     Fields (LA)
     Johnston
     Kasich
     McIntosh
     Mfume
     Parker
     Riggs
     Scarborough
     Smith (MI)
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Wilson

                              {time}  1253

  Messrs. HUTCHINSON, ROBERTS, and DOOLITTLE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KLINK, BREWSTER, and DEAL changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). Are there other amendments to 
the bill?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) In General.--Title IV, as amended by section 19, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section.

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS; NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It 
     is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available under this Act should be American-made.
       ``(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, shall provide to each recipient 
     of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a buy-American amendment that 
would, in fact, apply to the funds appropriated under this act. It has 
the support, from what I understand, of the chairman and the ranking 
Democrat.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a 
great presentation of this buy-American amendment. He has been the 
leader in buy-American. He is so pro-American, that I will accept this 
amendment with open arms and embrace it and congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, me too.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this does not mean 
that we have to buy and eat American fish. There is a whole lot more to 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments to the bill?


                     Amendment offered by Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: Page 29, line 3, add ``and'' 
     after the semicolon.
       Page 29, strike lines 4 through 7 (and redesignate the 
     subsequent paragraph accordingly).

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply strikes one paragraph 
from the bill--language added to H.R. 39 during consideration by the 
Resources Committee. The provision I am seeking to remove bars two 
regional fishery management councils--the Gulf of Mexico and the South 
Atlantic--from taking any actions to reduce shrimp bycatch for another 
year. ``Bycatch'' in this case refers to the finfish, turtles, marine 
mammals, and any other non-shrimp sea creatures that are caught and 
killed by shrimpers. Put plainly: Bycatch is waste, pure and simple--
the fish, turtles, sharks, and so forth are caught in the nets, die, 
and are discarded. How much of these resources are wasted under current 
practices? The National Marine Fisheries Service states that in the 
South Atlantic, shrimp make up a mere 20 percent of a shrimper's 
typical harvest--and in the Gulf of Mexico that figure drops to just 16 
percent, meaning that over 80 percent of the average haul is wasted. 
For every 1 pound of shrimp caught in the gulf, more than 4 pounds of 
finfish alone are killed and discarded. Congress and NMFS have 

[[Page H 10237]]
recognized that this level of bycatch can cause serious environmental 
and economic problems.
  On the economic front, the tremendous waste of finfish hits two 
Florida industries hard. It hits commercial fishermen who rely on 
healthy stocks of finfish like the red snapper in order to make a 
living. These stocks have been heavily depleted by shrimping nets and 
according to NMFS, ``This source of mortality would have to be 
significantly reduced in order to rebuild red snapper stocks within the 
time frame established by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 
without halting all directed commercial and recreational red snapper 
fisheries.''
  Other commercial finfish stocks are also threatened. Another industry 
important to Florida is recreational fishing. Former President Bush and 
millions of others enjoy Florida's coastal waters for the excellent 
sport fishing opportunities. But the stocks of gamefish are dwindling--
in some part due to bycatch by shrimp trawlers--and we in Florida 
cannot afford to lose this resource.

  On the environmental front, the decline of fish stocks overall has a 
negative impact on the entire food chain and could potentially throw 
the whole system out of balance. In addition, endangered sea turtles 
have historically been caught and killed in shrimp nets. While efforts 
in the gulf--specifically the use of turtle excluder devices--have 
reduced the take of these creatures, the death rate has climbed this 
year, and it is clear that more could be done to reduce turtle deaths.
  Again, in the State of Florida this is a fairness issue: residents of 
Florida's coastal communities have imposed strict limits on the size, 
location, and lighting of houses--partly in an effort to help the 
endangered sea turtles. These measures won't make a difference without 
the cooperation of those who share the gulf's resources, including the 
shrimpers.
  Mr. Chairman, others will argue that allowing this exemption for the 
shrimpers in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is unfair because it 
puts their own fishermen at a disadvantage--but I will leave that to 
them. I am here as a gulf coast Member, representing Southwest Florida. 
And the message from my district is very clear--don't waste more time 
and money on studies of this problem. Since 1990 we've spent some $7.5 
million on studies--all the while delaying action. The time has come to 
move forward and allow the fishery management councils to do their 
jobs. I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment which allows 
councils opportunity to get on with the job of reducing unnecessary and 
significant bycatch waste.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment. I am a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  This amendment will just ensure that all fisheries in this country 
are treated equally. That is only fair. Americans hate waste, and in 
the fishing industry waste is called bycatch. This bycatch means fish 
that are thrown away, caught and killed because they are the wrong type 
of fish or they are the wrong size. The bycatch totals 27 million 
metric tons each year; that is 25 percent of all the fish we catch.
  Now, H.R. 39 currently contains several important provisions to try 
and reduce the problem of bycatch. These measures apply to all 
fisheries along the U.S. coasts except one, the shrimp trawl fishery in 
the Gulf Mexico and South Atlantic. An amendment was added in the 
markup that will let these shrimpers continue to fish the way they do 
today.
  Now, every other fisher man and fisher woman in the United States is 
working to fish more cleanly. Why this special treatment? Why this 
loophole? What makes this loophole even more unfair is that the gulf 
fishery has the worst bycatch rate of any fishery in the United States. 
More than 80 percent of all fish are thrown back dead or dying.
  Now, the Goss-Furse amendment will make the shrimp fishery follow the 
rules of every other fishery in the United States. I have brought with 
me today a photo of a typical shrimp trawl harvest, this one. You will 
note that, although the target fishery is shrimp, the net is full of 
many other finfish and invertebrate species.
  To further illustrate this, I have brought along a chart of an 
average 60-pound harvest from a shrimp trawl fisher. This is what they 
would catch in an hour. These numbers come from a very recent report 
which we paid for, was asked for by Congress of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
  As you can see in this chart, shrimp make up only 16 percent of the 
weight of the catch. Commercially and recreationally important finfish 
are thrown away; 68 percent of the catch is thrown away. In other 
words, for every pound of shrimp that is caught and kept, 4.3 pounds of 
fish are wasted.
  Now, this waste practice has resulted in 1 billion pounds of fish, 
and the marine life wasted on the Gulf of Mexico is about 1 billion 
pounds.
  Now, this third chart I have brought along shows that the 600 million 
pounds of commercially and recreationally harvested finfish that are 
wasted annually include 13 billion Atlantic croaker, 35 million red 
snapper, a great fish food, and more than 5 million Spanish and king 
mackerel. This is fish that sports men and women and commercial fishers 
would love to catch and we would all like to eat.
  I ask my colleagues, where is the fairness in asking the fisher men 
and women of the West Coast, the companies of Alaska and New England to 
all pitch in and do their fair share while a single fishery is allowed 
to waste and plunder a viable resource?
  Now, it is very important to point out to my colleagues that the Gulf 
and the South Atlantic fishery council is made up of local fishermen, 
regional fishermen. They want to move forward and do the right thing. 
Yet we are about to pass a law that would prevent them from cleaning up 
the fishery. That is not States rights. We need to allow these fishery 
councils to do their job.
  We certainly do not need another report. As my colleague points out, 
we have already spent $7 million on a shrimp by catch trawl report. We 
know there is a problem. It is a huge problem. We do not need to wait. 
If we are serious about Government that makes common sense, we must 
oppose the loophole. We must support the Goss-Furse amendment.
  Simply, this amendment would make all the fisher men and fisher women 
in this country follow the same rules. It is fair. It is a good idea. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Goss-Furse amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about turtle excluder devices, but it is 
just like the turtle excluder device process. This issue involves 
another device which the agency and the Federal Government has invented 
called a fish excluder device. A fish excluder device, or FED, is what 
the agency wants to compel shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico to 
carry in their shrimp nets. They are already carrying a TED, a turtle 
excluder device. Now they want them to carry a new invention, a fish 
excluder device.
  The language the committee adopted said hold off a second. Let us 
give this thing a year. Why do we not do what the House voted on 
earlier this year? Why do we not subject this fish excluder device to 
the new test of peer review by scientists outside the agency and 
examination of what other devices or what other techniques can best 
avoid the bycatch problem in the fisheries of shrimp in the Gulf of 
Mexico? A cost-benefit analysis called for in the regulatory reform 
bill that passed this House is over waiting for action in the Senate 
right now.
  But, no, this amendment says, go ahead, do not worry about whether it 
is cost-benefit effective. Do not worry about whether there may be 
better ways to deal with the bycatch issue than requiring fishermen to 
carry another device in their shrimp nets. Just go ahead and impose 
this fish excluder device on the shrimp fishing industry, just like we 
imposed the turtle excluder device on the shrimp fishing industry in 
years past.
  So the two are somewhat related. The two are very related. This House 
voted overwhelmingly to change the rules by which the agency regulates 
in this area. What did we say? We said, look, before you impose a 
recovery plan or a management plan like a fish 

[[Page H 10238]]
 excluder device, look at all the alternatives available. Look at the 
ones which work without putting people out of business. Look at the 
ones which will get you the same results without forcing someone to 
sell their shrimp boat or to give it up or to give it up because they 
cannot pay the payments on the mortgage.
  Look for all the ways to solve these problems before we impose a 
Government-inspired new device upon the industry without any 
consultation in terms of alternatives and good scientific evaluation of 
whether this new device is going to help or hurt. But, no, this 
amendment comes in and says, let us go forward. Let us rush this fish 
excluder device, put it out, force it on the industry, whether or not 
it makes good sense, whether or not it meets the cost-benefit analysis 
of the bill that is awaiting action.

  Why the rush? I will tell you why the rush. The rush is on to do this 
regulation, impose this new device because they are afraid that the 
Senate just might one day pass our regulatory reform bill, and the 
government agency that is trying to impose this new device just might 
have to subject it to the kind of review that agency regulations ought 
to be subject to, the kind of review that includes a wide range of 
discussions of what might work in bycatch and a wide-ranging discussion 
of what the cost-benefit analysis of this new requirement is.
  Let me give my colleagues quickly a summary of the results on the 
TED's. Yes, we have a 98 compliance rate with the TED's in the Gulf of 
Mexico today, a 98 compliance rate. Unfortunately, 25,000 fishing 
families have now been reduced to 12,000 fishing families. We held a 
task force hearing in my district to talk to some of those fishermen 
who were left, the ones who are still surviving.
  What they have told us without exception is, if you let the 
Government impose a new device like a fish excluder device on it, 
without examining the cost-benefit relationships, without working with 
us to reduce bycatch or to utilize bycatch more efficiently, if you do 
not work with us, the rest of us are gone in short order.
  Now, there are Members in this House who would just as soon see the 
commercial shrimp fishing industry gone. There are Members in this 
House who would be satisfied for America to live on imported shrimp and 
not have a shrimp industry in America. There are Members in this House 
who do not much care about whether there is a gulf fisheries shrimp 
industry alive or not. But there are 12,000 families in my district who 
still support themselves by fishing shrimp, supplying it to the 
American household. There are 12,000 families asking us to do a simple 
thing: Ask the agencies not to impose this device until we have had a 
chance for the new regulatory reform bill to pass and to go into 
effect.
  Why the rush? The rush is on because the environmentalists want to 
see this FED imposed. They want to see an end to the shrimp fishing 
industry. That is what this is all about. If Members want to please 
them, if we want to throw a vote to them again today, then vote for 
this amendment. But if we want to see the end of shrimp fisheries in 
the Gulf of Mexico, that is what we will be accomplishing. I urge 
Members not to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from Louisiana, as a Member 
from Maryland, I will do everything in my power to sustain and to 
continue the livelihood of those families that are engaged in these 
shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. I think the last thing I and 
Members of this committee want to do is to eliminate that particular 
industry. The last thing we want to do is to import more shrimp rather 
than to use our domestic shrimp, and the last thing we want to do is to 
impose burdensome gear types that are unworkable.
  I want to make a couple of points. The gentleman was talking about 
rush to judgment on using different gear types, on reducing by-catch. 
There was a study that cost well over $1.7 million. That study has been 
going on for 5 years.

                              {time}  1315

  The study is ready to be implemented, and the gulf council, the South 
Atlantic council are gearing up to implement the study that was 
approved by a full range of groups, including a number of fishermen. So 
the last thing we want to do is to put people out of business. We are 
not rushing to judgment. This study has been completed, and it is ready 
to go.
  What the gentleman from Louisiana wants to do is postpone it yet 
another year. I am not sure the ecology of the fishing industry in the 
Gulf of Mexico or the South Atlantic can wait that long.
  By-catch and waste are currently the greatest threat to the 
commercial fishing industry. Fishery managers around the country are 
faced with the problem of how to reallocate what is thrown overboard 
toward a more beneficial use. A fish that is caught and thrown back 
dead does not add anything to the economy. It does not put food on the 
table. It does not keep the shrimp fishery families in business, and it 
will certainly not produce generations of fish that will yield economic 
benefit in the future.
  Discards represent 80 percent of what the gulf shrimp fishing 
industry pulls in over the side. Throwing away 80 percent of what they 
catch, we cannot sustain that. Something has to be changed.
  As this Congress endeavors to find ways to diminish a staggering 
Federal deficit, as we contemplate the exploitation of some of our most 
fragile natural resources to address that, I find it absolutely 
unconscionable that we will allow this sort of waste to continue as we 
try to stretch taxpayers' dollars to assist communities in New England 
that once relied on the collapsed Georges Bank stocks. It is astounding 
that we prevent these two councils, South Atlantic council and gulf 
council, from managing the stocks under their jurisdiction to prevent a 
similar catastrophe for red snapper fishermen and so on.
  Fishery managers in this country are charged with the duty of 
managing marine resources to the maximum benefit of this Nation. We do 
not want to interfere with the fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico, 
but I do not think Washington, DC, should tell the gulf council that is 
deciding to implement some of the advice of this 4- or 5-year-long 
study and the South Atlantic council that are ready to implement some 
of the recommendations, I do not think we here in Congress should at 
the last minute, which is what is happening, deny those councils the 
right to do that. It does not necessarily mean in all cases a FED, a 
fish excluder device. It does not necessarily mean the FEDs are going 
to be implemented in all of the ships.

  My last point, we waste, just in that area of our coastal waters 
alone, try to imagine, 50,000 10-ton garbage trucks. That is how many 
fish are wasted each and every year. We cannot afford to continue that 
waste. While we are wasting fish, even though we have more territory 
than any other nation in this world as far as the ocean is concerned, 
we are a net importer of fish.
  This is a study that has taken 5 years. It is a study that has cost 
$7.4 million. It is a study that the gulf council and South Atlantic 
council are willing and ready and gearing up to implement, and I do not 
think we, as a Congress, in the last minute should deny them that 
right.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Does your bill require, or, well, let us back up a little bit, I 
think you made a statement about what percentage of the shrimp that is 
consumed in America comes from overseas. What percentage is that?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I made a comment about the percentage of fish caught 
and percentage wasted. When I said we are a net importer of fish, I did 
not include a percentage of any particular species of fish.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. We are directing this amendment at the 
gulf fishing fleet. I would like to remind this body well over 80, and 
probably closer to 90, percent of all shrimp eaten in America is 
imported now. Much of it comes from communist China.
  What you are asking this body to do is put yet one more mandate on 
the 

[[Page H 10239]]
American fleet that is only about now 15 percent of the total that is 
consumed here, while not putting a similar mandate on the Chinese, on 
the Mexicans, on the Koreans.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, what we want to do is sustain.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my 
good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  This amendment, in my opinion, would allow the premature imposition 
of potentially devastating regulations on the Texas shrimping industry. 
Texas shrimpers represent a $6 million trade employing 30,000 men and 
women on a total of 2,400 trawlers.
  By cutting short a comprehensive review of by-catch reduction 
devices, this amendment threatens the livelihood of an entire industry. 
Instead of relying on sound science, this amendment, in my opinion, is 
based on speculation, incomplete information, and bureaucratic inertia.
  As originally written, this program was to be a cooperative effort 
between the Federal Government and the affected industries. 
Unfortunately, the Government appears to have already made up its mind 
and is now threatening to leave the industry research unfunded. These 
studies, which would end should this amendment be adopted, are 
producing information which directly contradicts the regulatory tilt of 
the National Marine Fisheries Service's findings.
  For example, take some of the early data from a study by the Gulf and 
South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation authorized under this program. This 
information indicates that the fin fish by-catch is not as severe as 
once thought. Rather than 15 pounds of fin fish by-catch per pound of 
shrimp, as originally estimated by the NMFS, the foundation study 
indicates that, in reality, this ratio is closer to 2 to 3 pounds.
  Did the NMFS change their study to reflect this information? No. They 
continued to press for an increase in regulation despite scientific 
evidence to the contrary.
  Another disturbing item is the lack of direct side-by-side testing of 
these devices. The Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation 
petitioned the NMFS to allow the basic tests, towing a naked net 
without by-catch reduction devices, while simultaneously towing another 
equipped to free nontarget species. One would think that a direct 
comparison would be the easiest way to evaluate the performance of 
these devices. Yet the NMFS refused to allow the test, citing that the 
chance that turtles might be caught. You talk about a catch 22.
  We need these devices to save the species, but because you might 
catch one, we cannot perform the test to see if they work. It is ironic 
that measures designed to save these animals may not have any actual 
impact because we have decided not to test them thoroughly.
  It appears that this amendment would put the cart before the horse. 
While the goals of this amendment are commendable, it recklessly 
curtails the only source of accurate science-based information 
available. Acting without such information would be both a mistake and 
a disaster.
  The fishing industry is just asking that we allow 1 year to get this 
one right. Presently, both the regional councils and the NMFS are 
poised to start a new round of regulation based on incomplete data and 
misguided science. Where have you heard that before? They know the 
study will be completed by June. Would it not be best for all involved, 
the fin fish, the shrimping industry, the American people, to make sure 
that these devices work? Let us not be in a rush to regulate.
  I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Goss amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to, and I will not, question the motives 
of people who are in favor of this amendment. I am sure they are well-
intended. But I do not think they have taken the time to think out what 
they are doing.
  As I mentioned to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest], something in the nature between 80 and 90 percent of all 
the shrimp that are eaten in this country are imported anyway. So what 
you are doing is putting another mandate on the American fisherman who 
has seen his percentage of the shrimp sales in this country shrink from 
about 90 percent just 15 years ago down to 10 percent right now. They 
are at the mercy of the shrimp that are dumped on the market by the Red 
Chinese, the Indians, the Ecuadorans, the Mexicans, and other places. 
They are already at the mercy of them as far as price, because 10 
percent of the market does not dictate the market price. Ninety percent 
of the market does.
  They already are the only nation in the world that has to pull the 
turtle excluder device. I have visited several other countries as a 
result of my work on the Committee on National Security. It almost 
always takes me out over the water. Invariably, I get a chance to look 
at other people's fishing vessels. In Panama, I have never seen a TED. 
In Colombia, I have never seen a TED. Other places I have visited 
around the world, not one TED. Yet our Nation allows these shrimp to 
come into our country and gives those people an advantage over our 
fishermen who are living by the rules.
  I also think I have a little advantage over some of the proponents of 
this bill. I have been on shrimp boats. I own a shrimp trawl, and I can 
tell, those of you who are in favor of marine mammals ought to know 
most of these fish that are caught that are tossed overboard that are 
dying are eaten by porpoises. What the porpoises do not eat, the sea 
gulls eat. They are not wasted. A lot are kept for bait by commercial 
crabbers.
  The science behind this, they would have you believe, the statement 
of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] would have you believe 
they are literally dumped overboard like garbage. They become an 
important part of the Marine ecosystem. Thousands upon thousands of sea 
gulls flock to the Mississippi Gulf Coast in time for shrimp season 
every year.
  What happens if you no longer allow this? They are going to die. So 
for those of you concerned about messing up the ecosystem, you are the 
ones who are going to mess up the ecosystem by passing this ill-advised 
piece of legislation.
  But lastly, I just want to make a point of fairness. It is really 
fair to put one more mandate on the American fisherman, who is already 
barely surviving, who does not dictate the price for his product, that 
comes from Red China, comes from India, Ecuador? Is it really fair to 
make him do one more thing that you will not ask our foreign 
competitors to do? My answer to that is ``No,'' it is not fair.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Is there a law right now that requires that imported 
shrimp caught in other countries brought into America in competition 
with shrimp produced here in America has to abide by any of these 
regulations?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] there is such a law. As we both know, the Commerce Department, 
for political reasons, not wanting to offend our friends and allies we 
have bases with overseas, does not enforce it. I can assure you it is 
not being enforced in Panama.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The other nations, in fact, are free to import into this 
country without complying with the same requirements that our fishermen 
are at great disadvantage?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. It is very much my NAFTA argument all over 
again. We are putting rules on Americans that we are not willing to put 
on our trading partners.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. FURSE. Is it not true that every fishery in this country has to 
abide by by-catch rules, the Alaska fishermen, the Northwest fishermen, 
the North Atlantic fishermen? What this amendment does is says there is 
one rule for all fisheries, and that the people who set the 
requirements are those local councils.
  Now, we understand that the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic 
council, made up of citizens in the fishing industry, are ready to 
implement the by-

[[Page H 10240]]
catch regulations. Our amendment says merely that all fishermen have to 
hold by the same rules which are set by these regional councils of 
fishermen, made up of fishermen. We just say it is not fair Alaska 
fishermen and North Atlantic fishermen and Oregon and Washington 
fishermen have to be held by rules, but this one fishery has been 
allowed by an amendment in the bill to be exempt from these rules. This 
is a fairness issue, I say to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Taylor]. This is an issue that fishermen are ready to put some time and 
attention to, and now why should one fishermen be exempt?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman raises an 
excellent question. I say to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], 
you are speaking fairness, and you are asking for universal 
implementation of the law.

                              {time}  1330

  But the truth of the matter is, the only people who would have to 
implement this law will be Americans. Foreign competitors will not 
implement this law. The foreign competitors have not implemented the 
TED law. The American shrimpers have suffered as a result of that.
  This is yet another good idea that has not been perfected, much like 
the TED's where the Federal Government spent $4 million trying to 
perfect a turtle excluder device which to this day does not work 
properly. Now we are putting one more mandate on these fishermen.
  Getting back to what was said, it is simply not fair to ask the 
American fisherman to do this, if his foreign competitor will not.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of prolonging this debate. I do 
want to put one thing in perspective, if I may.
  I think the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Oregon 
are entirely correct, and I commend the gentleman from Louisiana, who 
is certainly one of our most skillful parliamentarians and has been 
extraordinarily successful in battling for the interests of his 
constituencies as he sees them. I would remind Members how successful 
the gentleman has been.
  There has been some suggestion here we are singling out the gulf 
shrimp fishermen for unfair treatment. Quite the reverse is true. The 
gentleman from Louisiana has been successful in singling them out for 
uniquely special treatment under the law, unlike that available to 
anybody else, any other fishery in the country.
  Five years ago, the gentleman successfully wrote into law an 
exemption for the gulf fisheries specifically so a 3-year study could 
take place. The 3-year study took place. The gentleman then extended 
the extension for the gulf fishery another 3 months, which I guess is 
all we would give him, until April 1994.
  The important thing is not only have there been special exemptions 
for this fishery and this fishery alone, but since April 1994, which is 
almost a year and a half ago, there have been no such exemption and 
there have been no regulations promulgated by the Councils. So nobody 
apparently is in a real big rush to do anything.
  I would also remind Members that in the event that any regulation 
were promulgated, it would not be by the Secretary of Commerce or 
anybody in Washington; it would be by the Fishery Management Councils 
in the region.
  To put a little more context, if I may, the bill before us, which the 
gentleman from Alaska and others have worked so hard on, makes some 
very major progress in strengthening the fundamental act. One of the 
most important pieces of that progress is to strengthen the provisions 
dealing with bicatch.
  The worst bicatch problem by far in this country is precisely in the 
fishery we are now discussing. At a time when we are ratcheting down in 
the bicatch in every other fishery in the land, in Alaska, in New 
England and everywhere else, which is going to cause pain everywhere 
else, once again those who speak for the gulf fishery are in here 
asking for special treatment and special exemptions from this, as they 
have done so successfully for over 5 years now.
  I love shrimp. I love the fishery. I stand with the gentleman and all 
others in defense of the fishery. But so far as I know, there are 
orders for gulf fishing boats in the shrimp fishery. I realize there is 
an imbalance in terms of imports, but I do not think you have trouble 
selling what you catch.
  But even that is really extraneous to what is here. The question is, 
with the new national standards, trying to get at one of the worse 
problems we have, not just in Louisiana or the gulf, but everywhere, 
which is bicatch and wasted biomass and food, once again that region of 
the country which has the worst problem and which is the only region 
that has exempted itself from a law which applies to everybody else in 
the country for 5 years, is once again asking for special exemption for 
them and for them alone.
  I think on the grounds of fairness, we should stand behind the 
gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Oregon and say no, we 
are going to treat all regions of the Nation equally.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman has pleaded that we not treat one area 
different from the other. Would the gentleman tell me whether these 
turtles are found in the waters of Massachusetts and whether the waters 
of Massachusetts are covered by the TED's regulation?
  The answer is they are found, and you are not covered by the TED's 
regulation. They stop at the Carolinas. The answer is these regulations 
do not apply to the gentleman's region. They have been very specially 
applied to our region.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are not talking 
about TED's, as these gentlemen have pointed out.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman has made a very complimentary statement that this 
gentleman has done a great job of exempting his region from coverage by 
the regulation. I am covered by the TED's.
  The region in Massachusetts where turtles are found is not covered by 
the TED's regulation. I wonder why? I wonder how that happened. Perhaps 
I should compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman quite 
accurately pointed out that we are not talking about TED's. There is no 
reference to that in here. I am also informed, to my utter astonishment 
and delight, that New England shrimp fishermen do pull TED's, or FED's.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield further, would the gentleman 
confirm for me that the TED's regulation stops at the Carolinas?
  Mr. STUDDS. I believe that is correct. It is also irrelevant. The 
gentleman was quite correct in pointing out we are not talking about 
that. At least we were not until the gentleman chose to.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I do not know.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Think about it.
  Mr. STUDDS. I will think about it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I would like to compliment the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. In that case, I will certainly yield.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman 
from Massachusetts for doing such a great job of making sure the TED's 
regulations stopped at the Carolinas, since he has done such a great 
job of complimenting me.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his absolutely pungent and totally irrelevant observation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I will submit my statement for the Record in opposition to the Goss 
amendment. I also suggest respectfully 

[[Page H 10241]]
there will probably be another amendment offered at a later time that I 
hope everyone sees the wisdom of voting for.
  I have watched this Congress in the light of supposedly protecting, 
which I support, but also supposedly in making sure that all species 
are protected, which is well and good.
  But we have driven our tuna fleet overseas. When I first came to 
Congress we had 212 tuna boats. We have three left. They are catching 
tuna; I do not see any shortage of tuna, but without any regard to what 
we said had to be done in our waters or with our American fleet.
  We are doing the same thing with the shrimp fleet. If, in fact, what 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the gentlewoman from Oregon 
[Ms. Furse] mention is a fact, and I will not dispute what they say, if 
in fact that is occurring, that should apply to every country that we 
import those type fishes from, and then let the Americans, like I say, 
eat bread, otherwise have no shrimp. That is what it boils down to.
  I do not think it is fair to pick out just my shrimpers or somebody 
else's shrimpers. If what they are doing is supposedly biologically 
wrong, that should apply to India, China, Ecuador, or Mexico, which 
this whole thing started over the turtle. It always bothered me when I 
would go to Mexico and see people eating turtle eggs, and eating and 
drinking turtle oil for certain medicinal purposes, and having turtle 
boots, and our fishermen are saying no, you have to drag a TED. I do 
not think that is fair, nor is it equitable or correct environmentally.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me point out what the gentleman's 
amendment will delete from the bill, and I call the attention of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts to this particularly. They will delete the 
section that says any measure implemented under this act to reduce 
incidental mortality of nontargeted fisheries or sources shall apply to 
such fishing throughout the range of the nontargeted fishing resource 
concerned.
  In short, we are trying to make sure when these regulations do go 
into effect, they cover everybody, not just a selected area.
  Second, let me point out that our amendment adopted by the committee 
did not create an exemption for the gulf. It did not. It simply said 
that before the regulations were put in place, that several things had 
to occur: First, that a cost-benefit analysis under our regulatory 
reform had to occur; second, that technological devices and other 
changes in fishing operations to minimize bicatch should be examined so 
that all options are open to the fisheries councils in the various 
regions; and third, whether it was practicable to utilize nontargeted 
fisheries resources which were unavoidably caught; in short, to do the 
complete work.
  You heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] point out that the 
agency refused to allow a side-by-side test to find out what really 
worked and what did not work. This business of going forward without 
the full science, without a cost-benefit analysis, without an 
evaluation of what else might work, so we do not impose these mandates 
on our fisheries that are not imposed on other countries that import to 
America, is wrong. We ought to tell the agency, do it right, if you are 
going to do it. We ought to tell the agency when you do it, when you 
require it, require it across the whole range. Do not stop at North 
Carolina. If the fish are getting caught in the gulf waters and in the 
waters off Massachusetts, and you have to have this device, make sure 
it is applied all over the range of those fisheries, not just some of 
it.
  But most importantly, this is not an exemption which the amendment 
tries to strike. It is simply a requirement that the agency follow the 
rules we adopted in the House; cost-benefit analysis, alternative 
resource recovery devices, good science behind the study before you 
promulgate another device,  and fair treatment for Americans who are 
trying to earn their living and produce food and fiber for this Nation.

  Now, if that is not a correct plea, then what is? Should we not ask 
the agency to follow the rules we adopted this year? Why this rush to 
judgment? I suggest to you they want to rush it out because they are 
not prepared to defend it under the new rules, and they know they 
cannot defend it under the new rules. They want to rush it out, impose 
it, and then we are stuck with it, the way we have been stuck with a 
lot of other Federal regulations that do not make good sense.
  The gentleman from Alaska has asked us to pay attention. If this 
amendment is adopted, there will be an amendment to follow it. Please 
pay attention to the next amendment, if this one should, by all worst 
reasons, get adopted.
  The next amendment says we ought not treat our Americans differently 
than we do others. Watch for that one when it comes. We ought to at 
least do that.
  We ought to defeat this amendment, make sure good science and proper 
evaluation of these devices occurs before we go forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Young of Alaska was allowed to proceed for 
1 additional minute.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify what the 
amendment before us does and does not do. I believe the gentleman from 
Louisiana suggested that it strikes lines 10 through 14 on page 29, 
which says it shall apply throughout the range of nontargeted fishery 
resources.
  It does not strike that unless I have the wrong amendment. It strikes 
lines 4 through 7 and those four lines only.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman says is correct.
  Mr. STUDDS. The gentleman's last oratorical flurry was based on that 
assumption.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentleman's last oratorical flurry was in answer to the gentleman's 
very complimentary words that we have exempted our region. We have not. 
We have not exempted our region.
  We have simply said get the scientific work done and make sure it 
does apply. If you are not striking to make sure it does not apply to 
everything, I am grateful, but you ought to get it done right so your 
fisheries and my fisheries have the same good science making these 
determinations, not some science that says, as the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay], pointed out, we are not going to test everything. We just 
want to impose this Federal Excluder Device, this FED, on everybody, 
without ever checking out to see if there is a better way to do things.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goss-Furse 
amendment. This amendment would require premature, costly regulation to 
be imposed on the shrimp fishery before a comprehensive review of the 
best scientific data is available. A study being coordinated by the 
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation is currently evaluating 
the best methods of reducing bycatch. This study is expected to be 
completed in June 1996.
  Without the results of this study, the shrimping industry will be 
subjected to mandatory bycatch reduction devices without the benefit of 
the best data available to make this decision. This results in lower 
catches and more expense to an industry which is working to be resource 
conscious.
  Let's not advocate needless regulations which will only damage the 
shrimping industry in south Texas. We need meaningful research with 
representation and input from all interested and affected parties to 
come up with some solutions and achieve their intended result without 
decimating a once-proud industry.
  Vote ``no'' on the Goss-Furse amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 294, 
noes 129, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page H 10242]]


                             [Roll No. 719]

                               AYES--294

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--129

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gonzalez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kim
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Montgomery
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Watts (OK)
     White
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Mfume
     Sisisky
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Wilson

                              {time}  1404

  Messrs. SKELTON, THOMPSON, PAXON, HALL of Texas, SMITH of Texas, and 
BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CHAMBLISS, RANGEL, TOWNS, WELLER, PAYNE of New Jersey, 
MANZULLO, JEFFERSON, OWENS, and FLANAGAN, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Ms. 
McKINNEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: Page 5, 
     after line 14, insert the following: ``and (D) which provides 
     employment opportunities and economic benefits through the 
     sustained participation of local community-based fleets and 
     the coastal communities which those fleets support.''.
       Page 7, line 2, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     second period, and after line 2 insert the following:
       ``(41) The term `efficiency' with respect to the 
     utilization of fishery resources means fishing which--
       ``(A) yields the greatest economic value of the fishery 
     with the minimum practicable amount of bycatch, and
       ``(B) provides the maximum economic opportunity for, and 
     participation of, local community-based fleets and the 
     coastal communities which those fleets support.''.
       Page 22, at line 8 strike ``and'', and at line 22 strike 
     ``program'' and all that follows through the end of the line 
     and insert ``program; and''.
       Page 22, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(15) take into account the historic participation of 
     local community-based fleets and the coastal communities 
     which those fleets support, and provide for the sustained 
     participation of those fleets and communities.''.
       Page 38, after line 20, insert the following:
       (h) Economic Analysis.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is 
     further amended by adding after subsection (m) (as added by 
     section 22(b) of this Act) the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Economic Analysis.--In performing any economic 
     analysis of a plan, amendment, or regulation proposed under 
     this Act, the Secretary or a Council, as appropriate, shall 
     consider the costs and benefits which accrue to local 
     community-based fleets and the coastal communities they 
     support.''.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and 
straightforward. What it seeks to ensure is that local, community-based 
fishing fleets continue as a valuable sector of our fishing industry. 
It requires that in the consideration of optimum and efficient use of 
resources, that we understand the overall benefit to this Nation of the 
sustained participation of our coastal fleets and our coastal 
communities and the families that are involved in the business of 
fishing.
  Mr. Chairman, it seeks to recognize, as we all should, that very 
often a fishing boat represents a small business. It represents an 
individual, or in many cases a husband and wife or two brothers, 
providing for their families, or fathers and sons, who are engaged in 
the small business of fishing.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that tries to make that compatible 
with the decisions that the councils have to make about the 
sustainability of the resources and takes into account the economic 
impacts on communities and on coastal fleets. I think it is a good 
amendment and I would hope that the committee could support it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if I knew the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] was going to be so cooperative and so 
understanding on issues of fisheries, he should have joined our 
committee many, many years ago.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and I have had a great 
working relationship concerning the seas. We have worked, I believe, 
although we had our discussions about to which degree we can go, but we 
have always sought to protect the species, provide the species, and 
make sure that the American fisherman does exist. 

[[Page H 10243]]

  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has offered an amendment 
that has great merit. Again, I want to compliment the gentleman. One of 
my biggest fears over the years is after we Americanize the fleet, 
through no fault of the fishermen themselves, those that had the great, 
deep pockets from overseas, and other areas, would have the possibility 
of obtaining total control of the fisheries and thus we would have 
avoided what we were seeking to begin with, and that is an 
Americanized-type fishery, especially with the communities that live 
along the coast.
  So, I do compliment the gentleman and would suggest respectfully that 
he look forward to the future when we have this continued cooperation 
regardless of who sits in the chair. Regardless of what happens, that 
we work together on these important issues.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist the observation that it is 
certainly not my fault that the gentleman from California has had to 
engage in a crash course in the fisheries.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That is true.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, let me also join the gentleman from Alaska 
in his assessment of the amendment of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller]. I know that the gentleman from Alaska shares the same 
vision with regard to how we would like to see the future of this 
industry develop.
  Mr. Chairman, we need more fishermen, not necessarily more boats. We 
need smaller vessels. We need vessels run by those who own them. We 
need, if anything, possibly and ironically, a less rather than a more 
efficient fishery in many respects.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alaska. I commend the 
gentleman from California and anyone else who ought to be commended.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. I rise in strong support of the Miller of California 
amendment.
  The small coastal communities that line much of our Nation's 
perimeter--including my district in northwest Oregon--are often 
economically dependent upon the bounty of the fishery resources that 
lie off their shores. Many of them have fleets of small, family-owned 
boats that bring back their marine harvest to be processed onshore. In 
this way, they multiply the economic benefit of their catch by 
generating additional jobs and marketable products in their 
communities--unlike the mammoth factory trawlers that process their 
huge catches at sea and take it to distant ports. These small boat 
fleets and coastal communities suffer the most as fisheries become 
overcapitalized and overfished.
  The Miller amendment will help protect these coastal communities and 
small boat fleets by making sure their fate is considered when fishing 
rules and regulations are adopted by the regional councils.
  The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which is 
the Nation's largest trade association of commercial fishermen and 
women on the west coast, endorses this amendment because they see it as 
vital to protect the economic health of America's family fishing 
operations and keep coastal communities economically afloat.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and the family fishermen and women in 
supporting the Miller amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] 
for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the chairman 
of the committee and the ranking member for their work on this bill. As 
a Representative of a coastal district, in fact, I represent more 
coastline than any member of the California delegation.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficulties and complexities the 
gentleman from Alaska has faced in crafting legislation to balance such 
diverse and complicated and sometimes competing fishing interests. I 
believe, however, there is still one aspect of the legislation which 
should be clarified hence my colloquy now.
  As the gentleman knows, the law currently permits fishermen to avoid 
regulation in the absence of a fishery management plan by fishing 
exclusively in Federal waters, then delivering their catch to a coastal 
State or nation without landing laws addressing that particular species 
of fish.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of smaller fisheries along the west 
coast, such as pink shrimp, thresher shark, and dungeness crab, which 
are not now covered by a fishery management plan. I have been informed 
that the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service simply do not have the resources to develop and 
implement fishery management plans for these fisheries. Much of the 
fishing activity occurs in State waters, but there is fishing activity 
on the same stocks in the exclusive economic zone as well.
  These States' efforts to control and manage these smaller fisheries 
are being frustrated by their inability to extend these regulations to 
the exclusive economic zone.
  The language currently found in the Magnuson Act would allow 
nonresident fishermen to harvest fishery resources and deliver them to 
Canada or Mexico, or to forum shop between conflicting State landing 
laws on the west coast. Such action is in direct defiance of the 
efforts of our States to implement conservation and management regimes 
in the absence of Federal management.
  At a time when the Congress is asking the States to assume a greater 
share of the burden in managing public resources, we need to let the 
States fill the conservation and management vacuum caused by 
insufficient Federal management funds.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress from a west coast State 
with coastal constituencies, I respectfully ask that the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] and his able staff, work to find a balanced and 
agreeable solution that will ensure these stocks not covered by a 
Federal fishery management plan can be protected from overharvesting.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I commend my 
colleague for his tenacity on this issue. At every point in the 
reauthorization of this act, he has shown his commitment by continually 
pushing me and the members of the committee on this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the specific questions of the gentleman 
from California, I assure the gentleman I will make it a priority of 
the committee to find a solution that will adquately protect those 
stocks not covered by a fishery management plan from overharvest.
  Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the gentleman this has been one of my 
goals. The gentleman is absolutely correct that many areas for other 
reasons have not had a fishing plan that would cover them, consequently 
I think they are being overfished and we will address this issue. 
Probably in conference, by the way.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman from Alaska and look forward to working with him.


                     amendment offered by mr. hayes

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read the following:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes: At the end of title I of the bill, 
add the following new section:

     ``SEC.--PROHIBITION.

       ``No fish may be introduced into interstate commerce of the 
     United States unless the Secretary of Commerce certifies that 
     the country of origin of the fish has implemented and is 
     enforcing laws or regulations requiring fish excluder devices 
     on that country's fishing industry.''.

  Mr. HAYES: Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain and support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the previous debate on a prior vote on an amendment, 
we had a resolution of a confrontation of whether certain environmental 
goals were so important as to perhaps interfere with those who are 
trying to make a living.
  I think as a society, the reflection of that vote was, with a 
combination of concerns of sports fishermen, combination with that of 
concerns of environmentalists, that that is a decision that we as a 
country would make.
  Mr. Chairman, what I have done with this amendment is to simply say 
let us do not disguise who we are talking about when we say this 
country's commercial fishermen or fishing industry. To the place I come 
from they are not 

[[Page H 10244]]
an industry and they are not commercial, in the sense of a large 
corporate existence. They are small families of people who are able to 
send their kids through school because they get up early in the morning 
and bring home nets late in the evenings.
  They live in a world of regulatory schemes, almost none of which are 
easily comprehended if you are of the highest educational level. 
Instead, more often than not, they are the families whose kids never 
have quite too few dollars to be able to get a Federal grant for 
educational assistance, and who make a little too much to receive any 
of our generous government programs. Who make enough to support their 
family, but not an additional amount to pay for tuition.

                              {time}  1415

  They do not like Feds. They did not like them before they heard the 
word this afternoon and for good reason. They feel that they are always 
the ones who are the last to be recognized unless we are sending 20,000 
kids into Bosnia, in which case they will be the first people to get 
the notice in the mail.
  So what I have done is simply this, I have said that if we are going 
to have these environmental goals recognized, if we are going to 
recognize the commercial fishing industry at all, then let us implement 
a fairness that simply says, you cannot bring the product into this 
country from places where they do not care about these rules and where 
they are supporting their people who are trying to scratch out a living 
fishing. Let us not do that at the expense of our own people. Let us 
make it fair.
  It is my understanding that this is not a matter that is opposed.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I know exactly what the gentleman wants to 
do. I frankly do not have any objection to it. I suspect this was 
drafted hastily. I want to suggest, although I am not sure precisely 
how to improve it, the way it reads now is that no fish may be 
introduced into the United States unless, I am skipping here, the 
country of origin of the fish has implemented and is enforcing laws or 
regulations requiring fish excluder devices on that country's fishing 
industry. That is the totality of the fishing industry of the country.
  I assume what the gentleman intends, and I do not quite know how to 
say this, is that requiring devices on that country's fishing industry 
and fisheries where such devices would be appropriate and analogous to 
U.S. requirements or something like that. I hope the gentleman does not 
mean to suggest that the entire fishery, all fisheries have to have 
them whether they need it or not.
  Mr. HAYES. Why do we not say this, is enforcing laws or regulations 
requiring fish excluder devices on that country's fishing industry in 
the manner in which such laws or regulations would be enforced in the 
United States?
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would have no objection to adding that.
  Mr. STUDDS. I assume that is the gentleman's intent.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. STUDDS. That may not be the perfect wording but it is closer than 
this.
  Mr. HAYES. I have no objection to that perfecting language.


             modification of amendment offered by mr. hayes

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The clerk will report the 
modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Hayes: At the end 
     of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment, 
     before the period, add the following: ``in the manner in 
     which these laws are enforced in the United States''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I simply want to 
rise in support of the amendment and also indicate that the amendment 
as drafted could mean that not only are these devices going to be 
required on other countries that are required on our fishermen, but 
they are going to be enforced the same way they are enforced on our 
fishermen. We have a similar law of TED's right now that is not 
enforced in Mexico, not enforced in other countries. That is wrong. If 
this is such a great thing that has to be foisted on the industry with 
or without cost-benefit analysis, we want to make sure it is enforced 
on other countries equally as it is enforced on fishermen in our 
country.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would make the further observation that 
the existing provision was circumvented by a letter from the Secretary 
of Commerce involving TED's because the country of origin was deemed to 
be one of low economic standards. While the gentleman and I represent 
districts in America whose median family incomes are well below the 
national average, we would like to make it clear in this debate, we are 
talking about any country, any place under any economic circumstances.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other gentleman from 
Louisiana. This is an example of what should have been implemented in 
this Congress many, many years ago. We would not have the trade deficit 
we have today if we were to do so. But I will say, my favorite 
individual groups, interest groups, preservationists, and I could call 
them a whole lot of other things, somehow think that the so-called 
environmental movement only has to reside in the United States. We can 
clean all the air up; we can clean all the water up and save all the 
fish and all the furry animals and everything else. But we also buy 
from overseas.
  I just mentioned the turtles in a previous statement. You could go 
right down, I think you can go right down now to Mexico and buy turtle 
soup, turtle oil, turtle leather, yet our shrimp fishermen are 
penalized.
  I can go into the clothing industry and all the other industries, 
which most of my colleagues should be aware of that do not meet our 
standards but we buy it from abroad. We wonder why we have lost our 
jobs and why we have lost our other industries. We have lost 500,000 
jobs in the oil industry overseas, supposedly to protect the 
environment of the United States. We lost our timber jobs to protect 
the spotted owl. Now we are buying timber from Canada, cutting the rain 
forests in South America. And we are continually not recognizing this 
environment is a one-world operation.
  We cannot have it on one end and say we are going to be pure on this 
end and dip this hand into the mud. That is what we have been doing.
  This amendment is an attempt to bring to light the unfairness of 
allowing and requiring our small, little tiny remaining industry in the 
fishing field to meet requirements supposedly for an interest group and 
not requiring them someplace else.
  The gentleman from Louisiana has done an excellent job in presenting 
this amendment. The only thing I have any reservations about is, will 
the Secretary of Commerce enforce the law? I want to suggest to this 
body, I have watched now six administrations, four Republican, two 
Democrat, I have watched department heads, undersecretaries, and 
secretaries thumb their nose at the Congress.
  I have said before, I will say it again, we ought to in fact cite 
them for contempt when they do not implement the law passed by this 
Congress. If we believe we are coequal branches of the government, when 
we make the laws, they are to implement them. And when they ignore us, 
they are wrong. That is why we do not have a great deal of faith in 
this government by the general public.
  I am not going to always agree to what this Congress does. Many times 
my friend from Massachusetts will support something that is totally way 
out on the left side. I will support something way out on the right 
side, but 

[[Page H 10245]]
that is the system. But when there is finally a law passed and the 
President signs it, then to have one of the agency heads say we are not 
going to do it because it might interfere or hurt someone's feeling 
overseas, that is wrong.
  I think this body has a responsibility to cite those agencies and 
those people responsible for contempt when they do so.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I was just getting into the gentleman's 
vision speech. It is very compelling.
  I believe there are no further amendments left to the bill. Members 
should know that we are virtually at the end of this debate.
  I just had to take a second to reflect, I was sitting here in my mind 
seeing the gentleman and myself and a handful of others standing here 
in 1976, when we enacted this statute in the first instance. Since 
then, as Members know, the Senate has seen fit, in a subsequent 
Congress, to actually rename, to name the statute after one of its 
former Members, which is a remarkable act that only the upper Chamber 
could contemplate, I suspect.
  I have no idea whether either the gentleman or I will live long 
enough to see the next reauthorization of this statute. And since there 
is always a chance that neither he nor I will be here on that occasion, 
is the gentleman contemplating as a final amendment here what I have 
suggested so many times, renaming it once again so the Senate will 
understand once and for all this should be the Young-Studds Act?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have not considered that, 
although I do think we deserve the merit for this bill probably more so 
than the one it is named after. I do say this with respect. The 
gentleman and I put the work in on this bill. The gentleman was 
chairman of the subcommittee. It came through his committee. 
Unfortunately, history has a way, those that are still available are 
never remembered in good light. So after we leave, we will not know 
whether to rename the bill.

  Mr. STUDDS. That was supposed to be lighthearted, not egotistical. 
The name, if we think about it, has a certain ring to it, which I think 
might last longer than both of us. May I also say, the gentleman does 
not look as old as he must be given how long ago we were here.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff members 
that have worked on this and not individually by name but each one of 
them knows how much has been put into it. This legislation will go, in 
fact, over to the Senate side, and we will go to conference. But the 
ultimate goal of everyone in this room is to make sure that our 
fishermen and our fish can coexist for future generations.
  This is a good and well-balanced bill. it should and will become law. 
It is time that this Congress acts in a positive fashion.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Let me begin my complimenting my colleague, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], for his amendment. It is the right thing to do.
  But as my colleague, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], pointed 
out, we will be counting on the Department of Commerce to enforce it. 
History has shown for all of the reasons that he has named, in addition 
to political treaties, in addition to bases in different places, in 
addition to mutual alliances, it probably will not be enforced.
  So what the net effect will be is that we will have put another 
unfunded mandate on the American fishermen that his foreign competitors 
will not have to have. I am going to vote for the Hayes amendment. I am 
going to pray that the Department of Commerce will enforce it. But I 
can tell Members this, they are not. Therefore, I am going to vote 
against this whole bill, because it is just one more example of 
Washington not being fair to our folks.
  One of the reasons for the big change last November is the people got 
sick and tired of us not being fair to them. So I will encourage 
Members to vote for the Hayes amendment. I will encourage the Secretary 
of Commerce for once to stand up for the American people, the people 
who pay his salary. I also encourage Members to vote against the bill 
because it is not being fair to the American shrimper.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague 
Congressman Riggs in his concerns with the lack of management authority 
outside the jurisdiction of State waters.
  I have been working with the Columbia river Crab Fisherman 
Association and the Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association on this 
very important issue. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of 
fishing and crabbing to the small communities in Pacific and Gray 
Harbor Counties.
  Certain fisheries such as dungeness crab, scallops, and thresher 
shark are not covered by a Federal Fishery Management Plan. States lack 
the authority to manage these fisheries while the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service lack the 
resources to manage them.
  In the absence of management and conservation authority, these 
fisheries can easily be exploited by fisherman fishing exclusively in 
the EEZ and then landing the product in State or foreign nation without 
landing laws addressing that species of fish.
  The bill as currently written grants authority to manage in the EEZ 
in Alaska. I appreciate the commitment by Chairman Young to give 
serious consideration to extending this authority to other States.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the 
amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest to H.R. 39, legislation to 
reauthorize the Magnuson Act.
  Since it was originally enacted, the Magnuson Act has been the 
premier legislative tool for ocean fisheries management.
  This bipartisan reauthorization bill goes a long way to address the 
problems associated with overfishing, bycatch and waste of fish, and 
fish habitat protection. However, we need to further strengthen the 
bill.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland reinforces the 
bill's overfishing provisions by redefining optimum yield. Currently, 
more than 40 percent of our Nation's fish species are overfished.
  The Gilchrest amendment proposes a new definition of optimum yield so 
that short-term social and economic factors would not take precedence 
over long-term social, economic, and ecological health.
  Marine fisheries are one of our country's greatest and most valuable 
natural resources and they must be conserved for long-term economic and 
ecological sustainability. The Gilchrest amendment shares this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to strengthen the Magnuson Act by supporting the 
Gilchrest amendment.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the fine work of the Resources Committee and Chairman Young and 
support H.R. 39, the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act.
  This issue is of tremendous importance to the fishermen along the 
seacoast of New Hampshire, and I am pleased that I have had an 
opportunity to work with the Resources Committee and Chairmen Young and 
Saxton to address a particular concern of mine. The problem of gear 
conflict, or acts--either intentional or not--that destroy gear such as 
nets and lobster pots, is an increasingly serious problem for fishermen 
in the Northeast, who are already suffering these days.
  After working for several months with Chairman Saxton and Chairman 
Young, we were able to work out language that addresses the problem of 
gear conflict, and I have no doubt that this provision will be of 
tremendous assistance to our fishermen in New Hampshire and the entire 
Northeast.
  Prior to discussing the amendment, however, I wish to provide a bit 
of background information and set the stage as to why this language is 
necessary.
  First of all, fisherman's gear can be loosely defined as the tools 
he, or she, uses to catch fish. Gear could be fixed gill nets, lobster 
pots, or nets dragged behind large trawlers that catch everything in 
their path. The fishing industry in New Hampshire consists primarily of 
gill net fishermen who leave a number of nets attached to a secured 
line in the ocean and check on those nets periodically every few days 
or so.
  The simplest example of a gear conflict would be to envision a large 
boat dragging a net behind it navigating through an area where gill 
nets are located. The gill nets are caught up in the trawler's net and 
are destroyed. The same situation occurs when a trawler passes through 
an area of lobster pots. The pots are either destroyed or entangled in 
the nets and pulled from the ocean.
  The gear conflict problem is exacerbated in the New England area by 
the recent closing of fishing grounds off the east coast which were 
traditionally fished by large trawling vessels. 

[[Page H 10246]]
Predictably, the large trawlers, in search of new areas to fish, have 
moved inshore and are now competing for fish in areas traditionally 
fished by gill-netters and small lobster fishermen. As NMFS and the New 
England Fishery Management Council review even more restrictive 
measures to further limit traditional fishing areas, there will be 
fewer and fewer areas to fish and that such reductions will lead to a 
greater concentration of fishing vessels and more gear conflict.
  In a report provided to the New England Fishery Management Council, 
in the period between November 1992 and January 1995, there were 73 
gear conflict incidents reported to the Portsmouth, NH, NMFS Office of 
Enforcement. Primarily, these incidents were between large trawling 
vessels and small gill-net or lobster fishermen. Based on discussions 
with fishermen and fishery officials, it is apparent that the actual 
number of such incidents may be twice what is reported.
  The economic costs to the small boats whose gear is being destroyed 
is staggering. The gear lost in the period referenced above had a value 
of $130,000, costing individual vessel owners anywhere from $1,700 to 
$23,000 to replace the gear. In light of the fact that most small 
fishermen, like many other small businesses throughout the country, are 
struggling to survive and face increasing Government regulation, losing 
gear can prove to be an economic burden that is simply too difficult to 
bear.
  The Magnuson Act, as currently written, requires that, to hold an 
alleged perpetrator of a great conflict liable, NOAA General Counsel 
must prove that an individual knowingly destroyed gear. It has been 
very difficult for NOAA to prove an individual's state of mind or that 
he acted with intent. Therefore, many gear conflict cases are left 
unpunished.
  The language I worked out with the Resources Committee includes a 
two-tier system to address NOAA's dilemma. First, this system sets a 
negligence standard as its base, meaning that if NOAA could prove that 
a vessel is simply negligent then NOAA could hold a vessel civilly 
liable for the gear conflict. This tier would carry a fairly wide range 
of penalties so that NOAA could implement a small penalty in the event 
that a conflict was truly accidental. However, in the event that a 
vessel continually--or intentionally--is involved in gear conflict 
situations, NOAA would have the opportunity to severely penalize repeat 
offenders.
  It is the second tier that would be used in the most egregious cases 
wherein NOAA had sufficient evidence to prove that a vessel consciously 
and with intent destroyed another fisherman's gear. This tier would 
carry the opportunity for NOAA to criminally prosecute the vessel 
responsible for the gear conflict.
  It is absolutely essential that we in Congress give the fishery 
enforcement community the tools it needs to protect the small 
commercial fishermen working off the coasts of our great Nation. On the 
mainland, any individual who consciously destroys the tools necessary 
for an individual's small business to operate would be severely 
treated. I believe, and I am sure the small boat fishermen in New 
Hampshire and nationwide, would agree, that if NOAA can prove an 
individual consciously destroyed another person's tools of livelihood, 
that person should be considered a criminal.
  The fact is, as the Government continues to decrease the areas where 
fishermen are allowed to fish, more and more vessels are going to be 
concentrated into smaller areas. If we don't act now to develop 
language which will deter conflicts, many small boat fishermen will 
simply be wiped out. Worse yet, if we don't act, fishermen will take it 
upon themselves to protect their own gear, inevitably leading to the 
kind of standoff I outlined earlier. I am hopeful that my colleagues 
will not allow this to happen.
  We are an anticrime Congress. We are a Congress that believes in 
protecting small business. I believe that this legislation does both. I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 39.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the amendment offered by Mr. Miller to H.R. 39. This important 
amendment will help maintain the economic viability of family fishing 
operations throughout the United States, and by doing so, help keep our 
coastal, community-based fishing fleets alive.
  The Miller amendment to H.R. 39 requires fishery management plans to 
consider historic participation and the needs of coastal fleets and the 
communities they support.
  When the Magnuson Act became law in 1976, its chief goal was to 
develop U.S. fishing capacity and to promote efficient use of our 
fisheries. Since then, fisheries management plans have favored larger 
boats with huge capacities at the expense of smaller, family-run 
operations.
  By requiring that fishery management plans consider the participation 
and needs of smaller operations, we will ensure a diversified fleet 
throughout our country which maximizes jobs, provides greater economic 
benefits to our communities, and results in less waste and lower 
capital costs.
  I am proud to represent a congressional district with a long history 
of active family fishing operations. Each year, millions of visitors to 
northern California enjoy the fruits of the sea which are a result of 
long hours and hard work. This amendment supports these family 
operations and ensures that their sector of the coastal fishing economy 
will be strengthened.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment and vote ``yes'' 
on H.R. 39.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill.
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 18, 1995, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 39) 
to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to 
improve fisheries management, pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 18, 1995, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 18, 1995, the previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388, 
nays 37, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 720]

                               YEAS--388

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston

[[Page H 10247]]

     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--37

     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Callahan
     Cooley
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Everett
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Laughlin
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Montgomery
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ortiz
     Parker
     Pombo
     Scarborough
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     White

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Mfume
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1449

  Messrs. EVERETT, LAUGHLIN, NETHERCUTT, de la GARZA, and McCRERY 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________