[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10794-S10827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 39) to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act to authorize appropriations, to provide 
     for sustainable fisheries, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with an 
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Sustainable Fisheries Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

[[Page S10795]]

TITLE I--CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
Sec. 101. Amendment of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
              Act.
Sec. 102. Findings; purposes; policy.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
Sec. 104. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 105. Highly migratory species.
Sec. 106. Foreign fishing and international fishery agreements.
Sec. 107. National standards.
Sec. 108. Regional Fishery Management Councils.
Sec. 109. Fishery management plans.
Sec. 110. Action by the Secretary.
Sec. 111. Other requirements and authority.
Sec. 112. Pacific community fisheries.
Sec. 113. State jurisdiction.
Sec. 114. Prohibited acts.
Sec. 115. Civil penalties and permit sanctions; rebuttable presumptions
Sec. 116. Enforcement.
Sec. 117. North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries.
Sec. 118. Transition to sustainable fisheries.
TITLE II--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH
Sec. 201. Change of title.
Sec. 202. Registration and data management.
Sec. 203. Data collection.
Sec. 204. Observers.
Sec. 205. Fisheries research.
Sec. 206. Incidental harvest research.
Sec. 207. Miscellaneous research.
Sec. 208. Study of contribution of bycatch to charitable organizations.
Sec. 209. Study of identification methods for harvest stocks.
Sec. 210. Clerical amendments.
TITLE III--FISHERIES FINANCING
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Fisheries financing and capacity reduction.
Sec. 303. Fisheries loan guarantee reform.
TITLE IV--MARINE FISHERY STATUTE REAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 401. Marine fish program authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 402. Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act amendments.
Sec. 403. Anadromous fisheries amendments.
Sec. 404. Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Management Act amendments.
Sec. 405. Technical amendments to Maritime Boundary Agreement.
                  TITLE I--CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF 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. 102. FINDINGS; PURPOSES; POLICY.

       Section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1801) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a)(2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Certain stocks of fish have declined to the point 
     where their survival is threatened, and other stocks of fish 
     have been so substantially reduced in number that they could 
     become similarly threatened as a consequence of (A) increased 
     fishing pressure, (B) the inadequacy of fishery resource 
     conservation and management practices and controls, or (C) 
     direct and indirect habitat losses which have resulted in a 
     diminished capacity to support existing fishing levels.'';
       (2) by inserting ``to facilitate long-term protection of 
     essential fish habitats,'' in subsection (a)(6) after 
     ``conservation,'';
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
       ``(9) One of the greatest long-term threats to the 
     viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the 
     continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic 
     habitats. Habitat considerations should receive increased 
     attention for the conservation and management of fishery 
     resources of the United States.
       ``(10) Pacific Insular Areas contain unique historical, 
     cultural, legal, political, and geographical circumstances 
     which make fisheries resources important in sustaining their 
     economic growth.'';
       (4) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subsection (b)(5);
       (5) by striking ``development.'' in subsection (b)(6) and 
     inserting ``development in a non-wasteful manner; and'';
       (6) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(7) to promote the protection of essential fish habitat 
     in the review of projects conducted under Federal permits, 
     licenses, or other authorities that affect or have the 
     potential to affect such habitat.'';
       (7) by inserting ``minimize bycatch and'' after ``practical 
     measures that'' in subsection (c)(3);
       (8) striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(5);
       (9) striking the period at the end of paragraph (c)(6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (10) adding at the end a new paragraph as follows:
       ``(7) to ensure that the fishery resources adjacent to a 
     Pacific Insular Area, including resident or migratory stocks 
     within the exclusive economic zone adjacent to such areas, be 
     explored, developed, conserved, and managed for the benefit 
     of the people of such area and of the United States.''.

     SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (32) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (34), respectively, and inserting 
     after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) The term `bycatch' means fish which are harvested by 
     a fishing vessel, but which are not sold or kept for personal 
     use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards 
     but does not include fish caught and released alive that are 
     the target species of recreational fishing under catch and 
     release programs.
       ``(3) The term `commercial fishing' means fishing in which 
     the fish harvested, either in whole or in part, enter 
     commerce through sale, barter or trade.'';
       (2) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``COELENTERATA'' from the heading of the 
     list of corals and inserting ``CNIDARIA''; and
       (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'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (34) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (10) through (36), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (7) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(8) The term `economic discards' means fish which are the 
     target of a fishery, but which are not retained by a fishing 
     vessel because they are of an undesirable size, sex, or 
     quality, or for other economic reasons.''
       ``(9) The term `essential fish habitat' means those waters 
     and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 
     feeding or growth to maturity.'';
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (36) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (16) through (37), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (14) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(15) The term `fishing community' means a community which 
     is substantially dependent on the harvest of fishery 
     resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes 
     fishing vessel owners, operators and crew and United States 
     fish processors that are based in such community.'';
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (20) through (37) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (21) through (38), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (19) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(20) The term `individual fishing quota' means a 
     revocable Federal permit under a limited access system to 
     harvest a quantity of fish that is expressed by a unit or 
     units representing a percentage of the total allowable catch 
     of a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use 
     by a person.'';
       (6) by striking ``of one and one-half miles'' in paragraph 
     (22) (as redesignated) and inserting ``of two and one-half 
     kilometers'';
       (7) by striking paragraph (27), as redesignated, and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(27) The term `optimum', with respect 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, and 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 any relevant social, 
     economic, or ecological factor; and
       ``(C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for 
     rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum 
     sustainable yield in such fishery.'';
       (8) by redesignating paragraphs (28) through (38) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (30) through (40), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (27) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(28) The terms `overfishing' and `overfished' mean a rate 
     or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity 
     of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a 
     continuing basis.'';
       ``(29) The term ``Pacific Insular Area'' means American 
     Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Baker Island, 
     Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, 
     Midway Island, Wake Island, or Palmyra Atoll, as applicable, 
     and includes all islands and reefs appurtenant to such 
     island, reef, or atoll.
       (9) by redesignating paragraphs (31) through (40) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (33) through (42), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (30) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(31) The term `recreational fishing' means fishing for 
     sport or pleasure.
       ``(32) 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.'';
       (10) by redesignating paragraphs (34) through (42) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (35) through (43), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (33) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(34) The term `special areas' means 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, the term refers to 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.'';
       (11) 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'' in 
     paragraph (42) (as redesignated) and inserting ``regulated 
     under this Act'';
       (12) by redesignating paragraph (43), as redesignated, as 
     paragraph (44), and inserting after paragraph (42) the 
     following:
       ``(43) The term `vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States' has the same meaning

[[Page S10796]]

     such term has in section 3(c) of the Maritime Drug Law 
     Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1903(c)).''; and
       (13) by redesignating paragraph (33) as paragraph (45).

     SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The Act is amended by inserting after section 3 (16 U.S.C. 
     1802) the following:

     ``SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act, 
     not to exceed the following sums (of which not less than 10 
     percent in each fiscal year shall be used for enforcement 
     activities):
       ``(1) $147,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $155,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(4) $159,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(5) $163,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.

     SEC. 105. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES.

       Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 1812) is amended by striking 
     ``promoting the objective of optimum utilization'' and 
     inserting ``shall promote the achievement of optimum yield''.

     SEC. 106. FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERY 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) 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 subsections (b) or (c) or section 
     204(e), under a permit issued under section 204(d);''.
       (b) International Fishery Agreements.--Section 202 (16 
     U.S.C. 1822) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (c) ``or section 
     204(e)'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Bycatch Reduction Agreements.--(1) The Secretary of 
     State, in cooperation with the Secretary, shall seek to 
     secure an international agreement to establish standards and 
     measures for bycatch reduction that are comparable to the 
     standards and measures applicable to United States fishermen 
     for such purposes in any fishery regulated pursuant to this 
     Act for which the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, determines that such an international 
     agreement is necessary and appropriate.
       ``(2) An international agreement negotiated under this 
     subsection shall be--
       ``(A) consistent with the policies and purposes of this 
     Act; and
       ``(B) approved by Congress in the manner established in 
     section 203 for approval of a governing international fishery 
     agreement.
       ``(3) Not later than January 1, 1997, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of State, shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives a report describing 
     actions taken under this subsection and section 205(a)(5).''.
       (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 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) Transshipment Permits and Pacific Insular Area 
     Fishing.--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, 
     with the concurrence of the appropriate Council, 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 therefore.
       ``(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.
       ``(e) Pacific Insular Areas.--
       ``(1) At the request of and with the concurrence of the 
     Governor of the applicable Pacific Insular Area, the 
     Secretary of State in concurrence with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Western Pacific Council, may negotiate and 
     enter into a Pacific Insular Area Fishery Agreement 
     (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as a `Pacific 
     Fishery Agreement') to authorize foreign fishing within the 
     exclusive economic zone adjacent to such Pacific Insular 
     Area.
       ``(2) In the case of a Pacific Insular Area other than 
     American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     Commerce and the Western Pacific Council, may negotiate and 
     enter into a Pacific Fishery Agreement to authorize foreign 
     fishing within the exclusive economic zone adjacent to such 
     an area.
       ``(3) In the case of American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Secretary of State shall not negotiate a 
     Pacific Fishery Agreement to authorize foreign fishing within 
     the exclusive economic zone adjacent to such a Pacific 
     Insular Area without consultation with and the concurrence of 
     the Governor of the applicable Pacific Insular Area.
       ``(4) A Pacific Fishery Agreement shall not be considered 
     to supersede any governing international fishery agreement 
     currently in effect under this Act, but shall provide an 
     alternative basis for the conduct of foreign fishing within 
     the exclusive economic zone adjacent to Pacific Insular 
     Areas.
       ``(5) A Pacific Fishery Agreement shall not be entered into 
     if it is determined by the Governor of the appropriate 
     Pacific Insular Area, the Secretary, or the Western Pacific 
     Council that such an agreement will adversely affect the 
     fishing activities of the indigenous peoples of such Pacific 
     Insular Area.
       ``(6) Foreign fishing authorized under a Pacific Fishery 
     Agreement shall conform to the terms of such agreement 
     establishing the conditions under which a permit is issued 
     and held valid. These terms, at a minimum, shall require that 
     a Pacific Fishery Agreement include provisions for a Western 
     Pacific based observer program, annual determination of the 
     quantity of fish that may be harvested, annual determination 
     of fees, data collection and reporting systems, research 
     plans, and monitoring and enforcement tools such as the 
     Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) to ensure effective compliance 
     with the provisions of the Pacific Fishery Agreement and any 
     other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary, the 
     Governor of the appropriate Pacific Insular Area, and the 
     Western Pacific Council.
       ``(7) The Secretary of State may not negotiate a Pacific 
     Fishery Agreement with a country that is in violation of a 
     governing international fishery agreement in effect under 
     this Act.
       ``(8) A Pacific Fishery Agreement shall be valid for a 
     period not to exceed three years and shall become effective 
     according to the procedure of section 203 of this Act.
       ``(9) Foreign Fishing under a Pacific Fishery Agreement 
     shall not be subject to sections 201(d) through (f) and 
     section 201(i) of this Act.
       ``(10) Prior to entering into a Pacific Fishery Agreement, 
     the Western Pacific Council or the appropriate Governor shall 
     develop a three-year plan detailing uses for funds to be 
     collected by the Secretary pursuant to such agreement. Such 
     plan shall include conservation goals and guidelines and 
     prioritize planned conservation and management projects. In 
     the case of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the appropriate Governor shall develop such a plan 
     in consultation with the Western Pacific Council. In the case 
     of other Pacific Insular Areas, the Western Pacific Council 
     shall develop such a plan in consultation with the Secretary. 
     If a Governor or the Western Pacific Council intends to renew 
     a Pacific Fishery Agreement, a subsequent three-year plan 
     shall be developed at the end of the second year of the 
     existing three-year plan.
       ``(11) Fees established pursuant to a Pacific Fishery 
     Agreement 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. The prescription of 
     such fees is not subject to 31 U.S.C. 9701. The amount of 
     fees may exceed administrative costs and shall be reasonable, 
     fair, and equitable to all participants in the fisheries.
       ``(12) Amounts collected by the Secretary from a Pacific 
     Fishery Agreement for American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern 
     Mariana Islands shall be deposited into the United States 
     Treasury and then covered over to the Treasury of the Pacific 
     Insular Area for which those funds were collected. After the 
     transfer of such funds, the Governor of each appropriate 
     Pacific Insular Area shall compensate:
       ``(A) the Western Pacific Council for mutually agreed upon 
     administrative costs incurred relating to any Pacific Fishery 
     Agreement of the respective Pacific Insular Area; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of State for mutually agreed upon 
     travel expenses for no more than two federal representatives 
     incurred as a direct result of complying with section 
     204(e)(1).
       ``(13) There is established in the United States Treasury a 
     Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund into which amounts 
     collected by the

[[Page S10797]]

     Secretary from a Pacific Fisheries Agreement in any 
     Pacific Insular Area other than American Samoa, Guam, or 
     the Northern Mariana Islands shall be deposited. The Fund 
     shall be made available, without appropriation or fiscal 
     year limitation, by the Secretary to the Western Pacific 
     Council, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
     this section.
       ``(14) Amounts used from this Fund to carry out the 
     provisions of this section shall not diminish other funding 
     received by the Western Pacific Council for the purpose of 
     carrying out activities within the Western Pacific Council's 
     mandate other than Pacific Fisheries Agreements.
       ``(15) Amounts generated by Pacific Fishery Agreements in 
     American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands shall 
     be used for purposes, as described in a three year 
     conservation and management plan developed under paragraph 
     (10), that have been determined by the Governors of the 
     respective Pacific Insular Areas in consultation with the 
     Western Pacific Council to contribute to fishery conservation 
     and management in the respective Pacific Insular Area.
       ``(16) The Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund, 
     shall be made available by the Secretary to the Western 
     Pacific Council for purposes, as described in the three year 
     conservation and management plan, that have been determined 
     by the Western Pacific Council in consultation with the 
     Secretary to contribute to fishery conservation and 
     management in the Western Pacific Region. Travel costs of no 
     more than two federal representatives, incurred by the 
     Secretary of State as a direct result of complying with 
     paragraph (2) shall be reimbursed from the Western Pacific 
     Sustainable Fisheries Fund.
       ``(17) `Fishery conservation and management' as used in 
     paragraphs (15) and (16) includes but is not limited to:
       ``(A) An approved Western Pacific based observer program to 
     be operated by the Secretary, subject to the approval of the 
     Western Pacific Council, and in consultation with the 
     Governor of the relevant Pacific Insular Area;
       ``(B) Marine and fisheries research, including but not 
     limited to: data collection, analysis, evaluation, and 
     reporting;
       ``(C) Conservation, education, and enforcement, including 
     but not limited to: living marine resource, habitat 
     monitoring and coastal studies;
       ``(D) Grants to the University of Hawaii for technical 
     assistance projects in the United States Pacific Insular 
     Areas and the Freely Associated States including but not 
     limited to: Education and training in the development and 
     implementation of sustainable marine resources development 
     projects, scientific research, data collection and analysis, 
     and conservation strategies;
       ``(E) Western Pacific Community-Based Demonstration 
     Projects to foster and promote the management, conservation, 
     and economic enhancement of the indigenous, traditional 
     fishery practices of Western Pacific Communities.
       ``(18) Monies collected by the Secretary from a Pacific 
     Fishery Agreement for a Pacific Insular Area may be allocated 
     for other marine and coastal related uses by the government 
     of each Pacific Insular Area or in the case of Pacific 
     Insular Areas other than American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Northern Mariana Islands by the Western Pacific Council only 
     after the costs of uses specified in paragraphs (6) and 
     (17)(A) through (17)(E) under this title and the 
     administrative costs of Pacific Fisheries Agreements have 
     been met. The determination of when conservation and 
     management and administrative costs have been met shall be 
     made, in the case of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 
     Mariana Islands by the Governor of the respective Pacific 
     Insular Area with the concurrence of the Western Pacific 
     Council, and in the case of any Pacific Insular Area other 
     than American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands 
     by the Western Pacific Council.
       ``(19) The Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund of 
     the United States Treasury, shall be made available by the 
     Secretary for the purpose of fisheries conservation and 
     management in the State of Hawaii and the Western Pacific 
     Region only after fisheries conservation and management needs 
     in such Pacific Insular Area other than American Samoa, Guam, 
     or the Northern Mariana Islands have been met as determined 
     by the Western Pacific Council in accordance with its 
     operational standards, policies, procedures, and program 
     milestones.
       ``(20) In the case of American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, amounts received by the Secretary which are 
     attributable to fines or penalties imposed under this Act, 
     including such sums collected from the forfeiture and 
     disposition or sale of property seized subject to its 
     authority, will be covered over to the Treasury of the 
     Pacific Island Area adjacent to the exclusive economic zone 
     in which the violation occurred, after payment of direct 
     costs of the enforcement action to other entities involved in 
     such enforcement action. The Governor of the respective 
     Pacific Insular Area may use such monies available under this 
     paragraph for purposes other than fisheries conservation and 
     management. In the case of violations occurring in the 
     exclusive economic zone adjacent to a Pacific Insular Area 
     other than American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, amounts received by the Secretary which are 
     attributable to fines or penalties imposed under this Act, 
     including such sums collected from the forfeiture and 
     disposition or sale of property seized subject to its 
     authority, will be covered over to the Western Pacific 
     Sustainable Fisheries Fund of the United States Treasury to 
     be used for conservation and management as described in 
     paragraphs (6) and (17)(A) through (17)(E) or other related 
     marine and coastal projects.''.
       (e) Import Prohibitions.--Section 205(a) (16 U.S.C. 
     1825(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (4); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) he has been unable, within a reasonable period of 
     time, to conclude with any foreign nation an international 
     agreement to establish standards and measures for bycatch 
     reduction under section 202(g),''.
       (f) Large Scale Driftnet Fishing.--Section 206 (16 U.S.C. 
     1826) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by striking paragraphs (3) and (4), 
     and redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as (3) and (4), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``(e)(6),'' and 
     inserting ``(e)(4),''.

     SEC. 107. NATIONAL STANDARDS.

       (a) Section 301(a)(5) (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(5)) is amended by 
     striking ``promote'' and inserting ``consider''.
       (b) Section 301(a) (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end thereof the following:
       ``(8) Conservation and management measures shall take into 
     account the importance of the harvest of fishery resources to 
     minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse economic impacts 
     on, and provide for the sustained participation of, fishing 
     communities; except that no such measure shall have economic 
     allocation as its sole purpose.
       ``(9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the 
     extent practicable, minimize bycatch and the mortality of 
     bycatch which cannot be avoided.
       ``(10) Conservation and management measures shall promote 
     the safety of human life at sea.''.

     SEC. 108. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS.

       (a) Section 302(a) (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after the subsection heading;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (H), respectively;
       (3) by striking ``section 304(f)(3)'' wherever it appears 
     and inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
       (4) in paragraph (1)(B), as amended--
       (A) by striking ``and Virginia'' and inserting ``Virginia, 
     and North Carolina'';
       (B) by inserting ``North Carolina, and'' after ``except'';
       (C) by striking ``19'' and inserting ``21''; and
       (D) by striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''; and
       (5) by striking paragraph (1)(F), as redesignated, and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(F) Pacific council.--The Pacific Fishery Management 
     Council shall consist of the States of California, Oregon, 
     Washington, and Idaho and shall have authority over the 
     fisheries in the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States. The 
     Pacific Council shall have 14 voting members, including 8 
     appointed by the Secretary in accordance with subsection 
     (b)(2) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from each 
     such State), and including one appointed from an Indian tribe 
     with Federally recognized fishing rights from California, 
     Oregon, Washington, or Idaho in accordance with subsection 
     (b)(5).'';
       (6) by indenting the sentence at the end thereof and 
     inserting ``(2)'' in front of ``Each Council''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall have authority over any highly 
     migratory species fishery that is within the geographical 
     area of authority of more than one of the following Councils: 
     New England Council, Mid-Atlantic Council, South Atlantic 
     Council, Gulf Council, and Caribbean Council.''.
       (b) Section 302(b) (16 U.S.C. 1852(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' in paragraph (1)(C) 
     and inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (5) of this subsection'';
       (2) by inserting ``full'' before ``consecutive'' in the 
     second sentence of paragraph (3); and
       (3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting after paragraph 
     (4) the following:
       ``(5)(A) The Secretary shall appoint to the Pacific Fishery 
     Management Council one representative of an Indian tribe with 
     Federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, 
     Washington, or Idaho, from a list of not less than 3 
     individuals submitted by the tribal governments. The 
     representative shall serve for a term of 3 years and may not 
     serve more than 3 full consecutive terms. The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and tribal 
     governments, shall establish by regulation the procedure for 
     submitting lists under this subparagraph.
       ``(B) Representation shall be rotated among the tribes 
     taking into consideration--
       ``(i) the qualifications of the individuals on the list 
     referred to in subparagraph (A),
       ``(ii) the various treaty rights of the Indian tribes 
     involved and judicial cases that set forth how those rights 
     are to be exercised, and
       ``(iii) the geographic area in which the tribe of the 
     representative is located.
       ``(C) A vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of any 
     term shall be filled in the same manner as set out in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), except that the Secretary may use 
     the list from which the vacating representative was chosen.
       ``(6) The Secretary may remove for cause any member of a 
     Council required to be appointed by the Secretary in 
     accordance with subsection (b)(2) if--
       ``(A) the Council concerned first recommends removal by not 
     less than two-thirds of the members who are voting members 
     and submits such removal recommendation to the Secretary in 
     writing together with a statement of the basis for the 
     recommendation; or
       ``(B) the member is found by the Secretary, after notice 
     and an opportunity for a hearing in

[[Page S10798]]

     accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code, 
     to have committed an act prohibited by section 307(1)(O).''.
       (c) Section 302(d) (16 U.S.C. 1852(d)) is amended in the 
     first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``each Council,'' and inserting ``each 
     Council who are required to be appointed by the Secretary 
     and''; and
       (2) by striking ``shall, until January 1, 1992,'' and all 
     that follows through ``GS-16'' and inserting ``shall receive 
     compensation at the daily rate for GS-15, step 7''.
       (d) 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 rollcall vote on any matter before the 
     Council. The official minutes and other appropriate records 
     of any Council meeting shall identify all rollcall votes 
     held, the name of each voting member present during each 
     rollcall vote, and how each member voted on each rollcall 
     vote.''.
       (e) Section 302(g) (16 U.S.C. 1852(g)) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and by 
     inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) The Secretary shall establish advisory panels to 
     assist in the collection and evaluation of information 
     relevant to the development of any fishery management plan or 
     plan amendment under section 304(g). Each advisory panel 
     shall participate in all aspects of the development of the 
     plan or amendment; be balanced in its representation of 
     commercial, recreational, and other interests; and consist of 
     not less than 7 individuals who are knowledgeable about the 
     fishery for which the plan or amendment is developed, 
     selected from among--
       ``(A) members of advisory committees and species working 
     groups appointed under Acts implementing relevant 
     international fishery agreements pertaining to highly 
     migratory species; and
       ``(B) other interested persons.''.
       (f) Section 302(h) (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``section 304(f)(3)'' in paragraphs (1) and 
     (5) and inserting ``subsection (a)(3)''; and
       (2) by striking ``section 204(b)(4)(C),'' in paragraph (2) 
     and inserting ``section 204(b)(4)(C) or section 204(d),''.
       (g) Section 302 is amended further by striking subsection 
     (i), and by redesignating subsections (j) and (k) as 
     subsections (i) and (j), respectively.
       (h) Section 302(i), as redesignated, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``of the Councils'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``established under subsection (g)'';
       (2) by striking ``of a Council:'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``established under subsection (g):'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)(C)--
       (A) by striking ``Council's'';
       (B) by adding the following at the end: ``The published 
     agenda of the meeting may not be modified without public 
     notice or within 14 days prior to the meeting date.'';
       (4) by adding the following at the end of paragraph (2)(D): 
     ``All written data submitted to a Council by an interested 
     person shall include a statement of the source and date of 
     such information. Any oral or written statement shall include 
     a brief description of the background and interests of the 
     person in the subject of the oral or written statement.'';
       (5) by striking paragraph (2)(E) and inserting:
       ``(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 statements filed. 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
       (6) in paragraph (2)(F)--
       (A) by striking ``by the Council'' the first place it 
     appears;
       (B) by inserting ``or the Secretary, as appropriate'' after 
     ``of the Council''; and
       (C) by striking ``303(d)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``402(b)''.
       (i) Section 302(j), as redesignated, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and Recusal'' after ``Interest'' in the 
     subsection heading;
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) For the purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `affected individual' means an individual 
     who--
       ``(i) is nominated by the Governor of a State for 
     appointment as a voting member of a Council in accordance 
     with subsection (b)(2); or
       ``(ii) is a voting member of a Council appointed under 
     subsection (b)(2); and
       ``(B) the term `designated official' means a person with 
     expertise in Federal conflict-of-interest requirements who is 
     designated by the Secretary, with the concurrence of a 
     majority of the voting members of the Council, to attend 
     Council meetings and make determinations under paragraph 
     (7)(B).'';
       (3) by striking ``(1)(A)'' in paragraph (3)(A) and 
     inserting ``(1)(A)(i)'';
       (4) by striking ``(1) (B) or (C)'' in paragraph (3)(B) and 
     inserting ``(1)(A)(ii)'';
       (5) by striking ``(1) (B) or (C)'' in paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``(1)(A)(ii)'';
       (6)(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5)(A);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5)(B) 
     and inserting a semicolon and the word ``and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end of paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(C) be kept on file by the Secretary for use in reviewing 
     determinations under paragraph (7)(B) and made available for 
     public inspection at reasonable hours.'';
       (7) by striking ``(1) (B) or (C)'' in paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``(1)(A)(ii)'';
       (8) by redesignating paragraph (7) as (8) and inserting 
     after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7)(A) After the effective date of regulations 
     promulgated under subparagraph (F) of this paragraph, an 
     affected individual required to disclose a financial interest 
     under paragraph (2) shall not vote on a Council decision 
     which would have a significant and predictable effect on such 
     financial interest. A Council decision shall be considered to 
     have a significant and predictable effect on a financial 
     interest if there is a close causal link between the Council 
     decision and an expected and disproportionate benefit, shared 
     only by a minority of persons within the same fishery and 
     gear type, to the financial interest. An affected individual 
     who may not vote may participate in Council deliberations 
     relating to the decision after notifying the Council of the 
     voting recusal and identifying the financial interest that 
     would be affected.
       ``(B) At the request of an affected individual, or upon the 
     initiative of the appropriate designated official, the 
     designated official shall make a determination for the record 
     whether a Council decision would have a significant and 
     predictable effect on a financial interest.
       ``(C) Any Council member may submit a written request to 
     the Secretary to review any determination by the designated 
     official under subparagraph (B) within 10 days of such 
     determination. Such review shall be completed within 30 days 
     of receipt of the request.
       ``(D) Any affected individual who does not vote in a 
     Council decision in accordance with this subsection shall 
     state for the record how he or she would have voted on such 
     decision if he or she had voted.
       ``(E) If the Council makes a decision before the Secretary 
     has reviewed a determination under subparagraph (C), the 
     eventual ruling may not be treated as cause for the 
     invalidation or reconsideration by the Secretary of such 
     decision.
       ``(F) The Secretary, in consultation with the Councils and 
     by not later than one year from the date of enactment of this 
     Act, shall promulgate regulations which prohibit an affected 
     individual from voting in accordance with subparagraph (A), 
     and which allow for the making of determinations under 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C).''; and
       (9) by striking ``(1) (B) or (C)'' in paragraph (8), as 
     redesignated, and inserting ``(1)(A)(ii)''.

     SEC. 109. FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       (a) Required Provisions.--Section 303(a) (16 U.S.C. 
     1853(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) describe and identify essential fish habitat for the 
     fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary 
     under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize where practicable 
     adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and 
     identify other actions which should be considered to 
     encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.''
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (3) by inserting ``and fishing communities'' after 
     ``fisheries'' in paragraph (9)(A);
       (4) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) specify objective and measurable criteria for 
     identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is 
     overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were 
     determined and the relationship of the criteria to the 
     reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery) 
     and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or Secretary 
     has determined is overfished, or is approaching an overfished 
     condition, contain conservation and management measures to 
     rebuild the fishery;
       ``(11) assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in 
     the fishery, and, to the extent practicable and in the 
     following priority, include conservation and management 
     measures to--
       ``(A) minimize bycatch; and
       ``(B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be 
     avoided;
       ``(12) assess the amount and type of fish caught during 
     recreational fishing, and to the extent practicable, include 
     conservation and management measures to minimize the 
     mortality of fish caught and released that are the target 
     species of recreational fishing, under catch and release 
     programs;
       ``(13) take into account the safety of human life at 
     sea.''.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, each Regional Fishery 
     Management Council shall submit to the Secretary of Commerce 
     amendments to each fishery management plan under its 
     authority to comply with the amendments made in subsection 
     (a) of this Act.
       (c) Discretionary Provisions.--Section 303(b) (16 U.S.C. 
     1853(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``system for limiting access to'' and 
     inserting ``limited access system for''; and
       (B) by striking ``fishery'' in subparagraph (E) and 
     inserting ``fishery and fishing community'';
       (2) by inserting ``one or more'' in paragraph (8) after 
     ``require'';
       (3) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) include, consistent with the other provisions of 
     this Act, conservation and management measures that provide a 
     harvest preference or other incentives for participants 
     within each gear group to employ fishing practices that 
     result in lower levels of bycatch; and''.

[[Page S10799]]

       (d) Regulations.--Section 303 (16 U.S.C. 1853) is amended 
     by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Proposed Regulations.--Proposed regulations which the 
     Council deems necessary or appropriate for the purposes of 
     implementing a fishery management plan or plan amendment may 
     be submitted to the Secretary for action under section 304--
       ``(1) simultaneously with submission of the plan or 
     amendment to the Secretary for action under section 304; or
       ``(2) at any time after the plan or amendment is 
     approved.''.
       (e) Individual Fishing Quotas.--Subsection 303 (16 U.S.C. 
     1853) is amended further by striking subsections (d), (e), 
     and (f), and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Individual Fishing Quotas.--
       ``(1)(A) A Council may not recommend and the Secretary may 
     not approve or implement any fishery management plan, plan 
     amendment or regulation under this Act which creates a new 
     individual fishing quota program during the fiscal years for 
     which funds are authorized under section 4.
       ``(B) Any fishery management plan, plan amendment or 
     regulation approved by the Secretary on or after January 4, 
     1995 which creates any new individual fishing quota program 
     shall be repealed and immediately resubmitted by the 
     Secretary to the appropriate Council and shall not be 
     recommended, approved or implemented during the moratorium 
     set forth in paragraph (1).
       ``(2)(A) No provision of law shall be construed to limit 
     the authority of a Council to recommend and the Secretary to 
     approve the termination or limitation, without compensation 
     to holders of any limited access system permits, of a fishery 
     management plan, plan amendment or regulation that provides 
     for a limited access system, including an individual fishing 
     quota system.
       ``(B) This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit a 
     Council from recommending and the Secretary from approving 
     amendments to a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or 
     regulation which implement an individual fishing quota 
     program, if such program was approved prior to January 4, 
     1995.
       ``(3) Individual fishing quotas shall be considered permits 
     for the purposes of sections 307, 308 and 309.
       ``(4)(A) A Council may recommend, and the Secretary may 
     approve and administer, a program which allows up to 25 
     percent of any fees collected under section 304(d)(2) to be 
     used, pursuant to section 1104A(a)(7) of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1274(a)(7)), to guarantee or make a 
     commitment to guarantee, payment of principal of and interest 
     on an obligation which aids in financing the--
       ``(i) purchase of individual fishing quotas by fishermen 
     who fish from small vessels; and
       ``(ii) first-time purchase of individual fishing quotas by 
     entry level fishermen.
       ``(B) A Council making a recommendation under subparagraph 
     (A) shall recommend criteria, consistent with the provisions 
     of this Act, that a fisherman must meet to qualify for 
     guarantees under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) and 
     the portion of funds to be allocated for guarantees under 
     each clause.''.
       (f) Individual Fishing Quota Report.--(1) Not later than 
     June 1, 1999, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Councils and National Academy of Sciences, shall submit to 
     the Congress a comprehensive report on individual fishing 
     quotas, which shall propose amendments to the Magnuson 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.) to implement a national policy with respect to 
     individual fishing quotas. The report shall address all 
     aspects of such quotas, including an assessment of the 
     impacts and advisability of--
       (A) limiting or prohibiting the transferability of such 
     quotas;
       (B) mechanisms to prevent foreign control of United States 
     fisheries under individual fishing quota programs, including 
     mechanisms to prohibit persons who are not eligible to be 
     deemed a citizen of the United States for the purpose of 
     operating a vessel in the coastwise trade under section 2(a) 
     and section 2(c) of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. 802) 
     from holding individual fishing quotas;
       (C) limiting the duration of individual fishing quota 
     programs;
       (D) providing revocable Federal permits to process a 
     quantity of fish that correspond to individual fishing 
     quotas;
       (E) mechanisms to provide for diversity and to minimize 
     adverse social and economic impacts on fishing communities, 
     other fisheries affected by the displacement of vessels, and 
     any impacts associated with the shifting of capital value 
     from fishing vessels to individual fishing quotas, as well as 
     the advisability of allowing capital construction funds to be 
     used to purchase individual fishing quotas;
       (F) mechanisms to provide for effective monitoring and 
     enforcement, including incentives to reduce economic discards 
     and allow for the inspection of fish harvested;
       (G) establishing threshold criteria for determining whether 
     a fishery may be considered for individual fishing quota 
     management, including criteria related to geographical range, 
     population dynamics and condition of a fish stock, 
     characteristics of a fishery, and participation by commercial 
     and recreational fishermen in the fishery;
       (H) mechanisms to ensure that vessel owners, vessel 
     masters, crew members, and United States fish processors are 
     treated fairly and equitably in initial allocations, to 
     require persons holding individual fishing quotas to be on 
     board a vessel, and to facilitate new entry under individual 
     fishing quota programs;
       (I) allowing individual fishing quotas to be sold by the 
     Federal government through auctions; and
       (J) such other matters as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (2) The report shall include a detailed analysis of 
     individual fishing quota programs already implemented in the 
     United States, including the impacts of transferability, the 
     impacts on past and present participants, on fishing 
     communities, on the rate and total amount of bycatch 
     (including economic and regulatory discards) in the fishery, 
     on the safety of life and vessels in the fishery, on any 
     excess harvesting or processing capacity in the fishery, on 
     any gear conflicts in the fishery, on product quality from 
     the fishery, on the effectiveness of enforcement in the 
     fishery, and on the size and composition of fishing vessel 
     fleets. The report shall also include any information about 
     individual fishing quota programs in other countries that may 
     be useful.
       (3) The report shall identify alternative conservation and 
     management measures, including other limited access systems, 
     that could accomplish the same objectives as individual 
     fishing quota programs, as well as characteristics that are 
     unique to individual fishing quotas.
       (4) The Secretary shall, in consultation with the Councils, 
     the fishing industry, affected States, conservation 
     organizations and other interested persons, establish two 
     individual fishing quota review groups to assist in the 
     preparation of the report, which shall represent: (A) Alaska, 
     Hawaii, and Pacific Coast States; and (B) Atlantic Coast and 
     Gulf of Mexico States. The Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, attempt to achieve a balanced 
     representation of viewpoints among the individuals on each 
     review group. The review groups shall not be subject to the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.).
       (5) The Secretary shall conduct public hearings in each 
     Council region to obtain comments on individual fishing 
     quotas in preparing the report, and shall publish in the 
     Federal Register a notice and opportunity for public comment 
     on the draft of the report, or any revision thereof. The 
     dissenting views of any Council or affected State shall be 
     included in the final report.
       (6) In the event that the authorization of appropriations 
     under section 4 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) expires prior to 
     enactment of amendments to such Act implementing a national 
     policy with respect to individual fishing quotas, a Council 
     may recommend and the Secretary may approve new individual 
     fishing quota programs only with the approval of a two-thirds 
     majority of voting members of the Council. In such event, the 
     Councils and Secretary shall take into account changes that 
     may be required upon enactment of such amendments.
       (g) North Pacific Loan Program.--(1) By not later than 
     January 1, 1997, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
     shall recommend to the Secretary a program which uses the 
     full amount of fees authorized to be used under section 
     303(d)(4) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1853(d)(4)) in the halibut and sablefish 
     fisheries off Alaska to guarantee obligations in accordance 
     with such section.
       (2)(A) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase 
     ``fishermen who fish from small vessels'' in section 
     303(d)(4)(A)(i) of such Act shall mean fishermen wishing to 
     purchase individual fishing quotas for use from Category B, 
     Category C, or Category D vessels, as defined in 50 CFR 
     676.20(a)(2) (iii) and (iv), whose aggregate ownership of 
     individual fishing quotas will not exceed the equivalent of a 
     total of 50,000 pounds of halibut and sablefish harvested in 
     the fishing year in which a guarantee application is made if 
     the guarantee is approved, who will participate aboard the 
     vessel in the harvest of fish caught under such quotas, who 
     have at least 150 days' experience working as part of the 
     harvesting crew in any U.S. commercial fishery, and who do 
     not own in whole or in part any Category A or Category B 
     vessel.
       (B) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase ``entry 
     level fishermen'' in section 303(d)(4)(A)(ii) of such Act 
     shall mean fishermen who do not own any individual fishing 
     quotas, who wish to obtain the equivalent of not more than a 
     total of 8,000 pounds of halibut and sablefish harvested in 
     the fishing year in which a guarantee application is made, 
     and who will participate aboard a vessel in the harvest of 
     fish caught under such quotas.
       (h) Nothing in the Sustainable Fisheries Act shall be 
     construed to require a reallocation of individual fishing 
     quotas under any individual fishing quota program.

     SEC. 110. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY.

       (a) Secretarial Review of Plans and Regulations.--Section 
     304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is amended by striking subsections (a) 
     and (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Review of Plans.--
       ``(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of a 
     fishery management plan or plan amendment, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) immediately commence a review of the plan or plan 
     amendment to determine whether it is consistent with the 
     national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any 
     other applicable law; and
       ``(B) immediately publish in the Federal Register a notice 
     stating that the plan or plan amendment is available and that 
     written data, views, or comments of interested persons on the 
     plan or amendment may be submitted to the Secretary during 
     the 60-day period beginning on the date the notice is 
     published.
       ``(2) In undertaking the review required under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) take into account the data, views, and comments 
     received from interested persons;
       ``(B) consult with the Secretary of State with respect to 
     foreign fishing; and
       ``(C) consult with the Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating

[[Page S10800]]

     with respect to enforcement at sea and to fishery access 
     adjustments referred to in section 303(a)(6).
       ``(3) The Secretary shall approve, disapprove, or partially 
     approve a plan or plan amendment within 30 days of the end of 
     the comment period under paragraph (1) by written notice to 
     the Council. A notice of disapproval or partial approval 
     shall specify--
       ``(A) the applicable law with which the plan or amendment 
     is inconsistent;
       ``(B) the nature of such inconsistencies; and
       ``(C) recommendations concerning the actions that could be 
     taken by the Council to conform such plan or amendment to the 
     requirements of applicable law.
       ``(4) If the Secretary disapproves or partially approves a 
     plan or amendment, the Council may submit a revised plan or 
     amendment to the Secretary for review under this subsection.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection and subsection (b), 
     the term `immediately' means on or before the 5th day after 
     the day on which a Council transmits to the Secretary a plan, 
     amendment, or proposed regulation that the Council 
     characterizes as final.
       ``(b) Review of Regulations.--
       ``(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of 
     proposed regulations prepared under section 303(c), the 
     Secretary shall immediately initiate an evaluation of the 
     proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent 
     with the fishery management plan, this Act and other 
     applicable law. Within 15 days of initiating such evaluation 
     the Secretary shall make a determination and--
       ``(A) if that determination is affirmative, the Secretary 
     shall publish such regulations, with such technical changes 
     as may be necessary for clarity and an explanation of those 
     changes, in the Federal Register for a public comment period 
     of 15 to 60 days; or
       ``(B) if that determination is negative, the Secretary 
     shall notify the Council in writing of the inconsistencies 
     and provide recommendations on revisions that would make the 
     proposed regulations consistent with the fishery management 
     plan, this Act, and other applicable law.
       ``(2) Upon receiving a notification under paragraph (1)(B), 
     the Council may revise the proposed regulations and submit 
     them to the Secretary for reevaluation under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) The Secretary shall promulgate final regulations 
     within 30 days after the end of the comment period under 
     paragraph (1)(A). The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Council before making any revisions to the proposed 
     regulations, and must publish in the Federal Register an 
     explanation of any differences between the proposed and final 
     regulations.'';
       (b) Preparation by the Secretary.--Section 304(c) (16 
     U.S.C. 1854(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``fishery,'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``fishery (other than a fishery to which section 302(a)(3) 
     applies),''
       (2) by striking all that follows ``as the case may be.'' in 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting :
       ``(2) In preparing any plan or amendment under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of 
     State with respect to foreign fishing and with the Secretary 
     of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating with 
     respect to enforcement at sea.'';
       (4) by inserting ``under this subsection'' after ``him'' in 
     paragraph (3); and
       (5) by striking ``system described in section 303(b)(6)'' 
     in paragraph (3) and inserting ``system, including any 
     individual fishing quota system''.
       (c) Individual Fishing Quota Fees.--Section 304(d) (16 
     U.S.C. 1854(d)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately before the first 
     sentence; and
       (2) by inserting the at the end the following:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary is 
     authorized and shall collect a fee of up to 3 percent of the 
     annual ex-vessel value of fish harvested under any individual 
     fishing quota program or community development quota program 
     to recover the costs directly related to the management and 
     enforcement of such program. Fees collected under this 
     paragraph shall be in addition to any other fees charged 
     under this Act and shall be an offsetting collection 
     available only to the Secretary for the purposes of 
     administering and implementing this Act in the fishery in 
     which the fees were collected.''.
       (d) Delay of Fees.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary shall not begin the collection of fees under 
     section 304(d)(2) from persons holding individual fishing 
     quotas in the surf clam and ocean quahog fishery or in the 
     wreckfish fishery until January 1, 2000.
       (e) Overfishing.--Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries.--
       ``(1) The Secretary shall report annually to the Congress 
     and the Councils on the status of fisheries within each 
     Council's geographical area of authority and identify those 
     fisheries that are overfished or are approaching a condition 
     of being overfished. For those fisheries managed under a 
     fishery management plan or international agreement, the 
     status shall be determined using the criteria for overfishing 
     specified in such plan or agreement. A fishery shall be 
     classified as approaching a condition of being overfished if, 
     based on trends in fishing effort, fishery resource size, and 
     other appropriate factors, the Secretary estimates that the 
     fishery will become overfished within two years.
       ``(2) In addition, if the Secretary determines at any time 
     that a fishery is overfished, the Secretary immediately shall 
     notify the appropriate Council and request that action be 
     taken to end overfishing in the fishery and to implement 
     conservation and management measures to rebuild affected 
     stocks of fish. The Secretary shall publish each notice under 
     this paragraph in the Federal Register.
       ``(3) Within one year of an identification or notification 
     under this subsection, the Council (or the Secretary, 
     consistent with section 304(g) and where practicable for 
     fisheries under section 302(a)(3)) shall prepare a fishery 
     management plan, a plan amendment, or proposed regulations 
     for fisheries under the authority of such Council or the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) to end overfishing in the fishery and to rebuild 
     affected stocks of fish; or
       ``(B) to prevent overfishing from occurring in the fishery 
     whenever such fishery is identified as approaching an 
     overfished condition.
       ``(4) For a fishery that is overfished, any fishery 
     management plan, amendment or proposed regulations prepared 
     under this section shall--
       ``(A) specify a time period for ending overfishing and 
     rebuilding the fishery that shall--
       ``(i) be as short as possible, taking into account the 
     status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish, the 
     needs of fishing communities and other economic interests, 
     recommendations by international organizations in which the 
     United States participates and the interaction of the 
     overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem; and
       ``(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the 
     biology of the stock of fish or other environmental 
     conditions dictate otherwise.
       ``(B) allocate both overfishing restrictions and recovery 
     benefits fairly and equitably among sectors of the fishery; 
     and
       ``(C) for fisheries managed under an international 
     agreement, reflect the traditional participation by fishermen 
     of the United States in the fishery relative to other 
     nations.
       ``(5) If, within the one-year period beginning on the date 
     of identification or notification, the Council does not 
     submit to the Secretary a fishery management plan, plan 
     amendment or proposed regulations under paragraph (3)(A), the 
     Secretary shall within nine months prepare under subsection 
     (c) a fishery management plan or plan amendment to stop 
     overfishing and rebuild affected stocks of fish.
       ``(6) During the development of a fishery management plan, 
     a plan amendment, or proposed regulations under this 
     subsection, the Council may request the Secretary to 
     implement interim measures, to be replaced by such plan, 
     amendment or regulations, to reduce overfishing. Such 
     measures, if otherwise in compliance with the provisions of 
     this Act, may be implemented even though they are not 
     sufficient by themselves to stop overfishing of a fishery.
       ``(7) The Secretary shall review any fishery management 
     plan, plan amendment or regulations implemented under this 
     subsection at routine intervals that may not exceed two 
     years. If the Secretary finds as a result of the review that 
     such plan, amendment or regulations have not resulted in 
     adequate progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding 
     affected fish stocks, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) in the case of a fishery to which section 302(a)(3) 
     applies, immediately make revisions necessary to achieve 
     adequate progress; or
       ``(B) for all other fisheries, immediately notify the 
     appropriate Council under paragraph (2).''.
       (f) Fisheries Under Authority of More Than One Council.--
     Section 304(f) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (g) Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.--Section 304 (16 
     U.S.C. 1854) is amended further by striking subsection (g) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.--The Secretary 
     shall prepare a fishery management plan or plan amendment 
     with respect to any highly migratory species fishery to which 
     section 302(a)(3) applies that requires conservation and 
     management, in accordance with the national standards, the 
     other provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law. 
     In preparing and implementing any such plan or amendment, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) conduct public hearings, at appropriate times and in 
     appropriate locations in the geographical areas concerned, so 
     as to allow interested persons an opportunity to be heard in 
     the preparation and amendment of the plan and any regulations 
     implementing the plan;
       ``(2)(A) consult with the Secretary of State with respect 
     to foreign fishing and with the Secretary of the department 
     in which the Coast Guard is operating with respect to 
     enforcement at sea; and
       ``(B) consult with and consider the comments and views of 
     affected Councils, as well as commissioners and advisory 
     groups appointed under Acts implementing relevant 
     international fishery agreements pertaining to highly 
     migratory species and the advisory panel established under 
     section 302(g);
       ``(3) establish an advisory panel under section 302(g) for 
     each fishery management plan to be prepared under this 
     paragraph;
       ``(4) evaluate the likely effects, if any, of conservation 
     and management measures on participants in the affected 
     fisheries and minimize, to the extent practicable, any 
     disadvantage to United States fishermen in relation to 
     foreign competitors;
       ``(5) with respect to a highly migratory species for which 
     the United States is authorized to harvest an allocation, 
     quota, or at a fishing mortality level under a relevant 
     international fishery agreement, provide fishing vessels of 
     the United States with a reasonable opportunity to harvest 
     such allocation, quota, or fishing mortality level;
       ``(6) review, on a continuing basis (and promptly whenever 
     a recommendation pertaining to fishing for highly migratory 
     species has been made under a relevant international fishery 
     agreement), and revise as appropriate, the conservation and 
     management measures included in the plan;
       ``(7) diligently pursue, through international entities 
     (such as the International Commission for the Conservation of 
     Atlantic Tunas), comparable international fishery management 
     measures with respect to fishing for highly migratory 
     species; and

[[Page S10801]]

       ``(8) ensure that conservation and management measures 
     adopted under this paragraph--
       ``(A) promote international conservation of the affected 
     fishery;
       ``(B) take into consideration traditional fishing patterns 
     of fishing vessels of the United States and the operating 
     requirements of the fisheries;
       ``(C) are fair and equitable in allocating fishing 
     privileges among United States fishermen and not have 
     economic allocation as the sole purpose;
       ``(D) minimize the discarding of Atlantic highly migratory 
     species which cannot be returned to the sea alive; and
       ``(E) promote, to the extent practicable, implementation of 
     scientific research programs that include the tag and release 
     of Atlantic highly migratory species.''.
       (h) Review of Secretarial Plan.--Section 304, as amended, 
     is amended further by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Review of Secretarial Plan.--
       ``(1)(A) Whenever the Secretary prepares a fishery 
     management plan or plan amendment under this section, the 
     Secretary shall immediately--
       ``(i) for a plan or amendment prepared under subsection 
     (c), submit such plan or amendment to the appropriate Council 
     for consideration and comment; and
       ``(ii) publish in the Federal Register a notice stating 
     that the plan or amendment is available and that written 
     data, views, or comments of interested persons on the plan or 
     amendment may be submitted to the Secretary during the 60-day 
     period beginning on the date the notice is published.
       ``(B) Whenever a plan or amendment is submitted under 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i), the appropriate Council must submit its 
     comments and recommendations, if any, regarding the plan or 
     amendment to the Secretary before the close of the 60-day 
     period referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii). After the close 
     of such 60-day period, the Secretary, after taking into 
     account any such comments and recommendations, as well as any 
     views, data, or comments submitted under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), may adopt such plan or amendment.
       ``(2) The Secretary may propose regulations in the Federal 
     Register to implement any plan or amendment prepared by the 
     Secretary. The comment period on proposed regulations shall 
     be 60 days, except that the Secretary may shorten the comment 
     period on minor revisions to existing regulations.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall promulgate final regulations 
     within 30 days after the end of the comment period under 
     paragraph (3). The Secretary must publish in the Federal 
     Register an explanation of any substantive differences 
     between the proposed and final rules. All final regulations 
     must be consistent with the plan, with the national standards 
     and other provisions of this Act, and with any other 
     applicable law.''.

     SEC. 111. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY.

       (a) Section 305 (18 U.S.C. 1855) is amended--
       (1) by striking the title and subsection (a);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (f); and
       (3) by inserting the following before subsection (f), as 
     redesignated:

     ``SEC. 305. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Gear Evaluation and Notification of Entry.--
       ``(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Secretary shall publish 
     in the Federal Register, after notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment, a list of all fisheries
       ``(A) under the authority of each Council and all fishing 
     gear used in such fisheries, based on information submitted 
     by the Councils under section 303(a); and
       ``(B) to which section 302(a)(3) applies and all fishing 
     gear used in such fisheries.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall include with such list guidelines 
     for determining when fishing gear or a fishery is 
     sufficiently different from those listed as to require 
     notification under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Effective 180 days after the publication of such 
     list, no person or vessel shall employ fishing gear or engage 
     in a fishery not included on such list without giving 90 days 
     advance written notice to the appropriate Council, or the 
     Secretary with respect to a fishery to which section 
     302(a)(3) applies. A signed return receipt shall serve as 
     adequate evidence of such notice and as the date upon which 
     the 90-day period begins.
       ``(4) A Council may submit to the Secretary any proposed 
     changes to such list or such guidelines the Council deems 
     appropriate. The Secretary shall publish a revised list, 
     after notice and an opportunity for public comment, upon 
     receiving any such proposed changes from a Council.
       ``(5) A Council may request the Secretary to promulgate 
     emergency regulations under subsection (c) to prohibit any 
     persons or vessels from using an unlisted fishing gear or 
     engaging in an unlisted fishery if the appropriate Council, 
     or the Secretary for fisheries to which section 302(a)(3) 
     applies, determines that such unlisted gear or unlisted 
     fishery would compromise the effectiveness of conservation 
     and management efforts under this Act.
       ``(b) Fish Habitat.--
       ``(1)(A) The Secretary shall, within six months of the date 
     of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, establish 
     guidelines to assist the Councils in the description and 
     identification of essential fish habitat in fishery 
     management plans (including adverse impacts on such habitat) 
     and the actions which should be considered to ensure the 
     conservation and enhancement of such habitat, and set forth a 
     schedule for the amendment of fishery management plans to 
     include the identification of essential fish habitat.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall provide each Council with 
     recommendations and information regarding each fishery under 
     that Council's authority to assist it in the identification 
     of essential fish habitat, the adverse impacts on that 
     habitat, and the actions that should be considered to ensure 
     the conservation and enhancement of that habitat.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall review programs administered by 
     the Department of Commerce and ensure that any relevant 
     programs further the conservation and enhancement of 
     essential fish habitat.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall coordinate with and provide 
     information to other Federal agencies to further the 
     conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat.
       ``(2) Each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary 
     with respect to any action undertaken, or proposed to be 
     undertaken by such agency that may adversely affect any 
     essential fish habitat identified under this Act.
       ``(3) Each Council--
       ``(A) may comment on and make recommendations to the 
     Secretary and any Federal or State agency concerning any 
     activity undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken, by any 
     Federal or State agency that, in the view of the Council, 
     may affect the habitat, including essential fish habitat, 
     of a fishery resource under its authority; and
       ``(B) shall comment on and make recommendations to the 
     Secretary and any Federal or State agency concerning any such 
     activity that, in the view of the Council, is likely to 
     substantially affect the habitat, including essential fish 
     habitat, of an anadromous fishery resource under its 
     authority.
       ``(4)(A) If the Secretary receives information from a 
     Council or Federal or State agency or determines from other 
     sources that an action undertaken, or proposed to be 
     undertaken by any State or Federal agency would adversely 
     affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act, 
     the Secretary shall recommend to such agency measures that 
     can be taken by such agency to conserve such habitat.
       ``(B) Within 30 days after receiving a recommendation under 
     paragraph (4)(A), a Federal agency shall provide a detailed 
     response, in writing, to the commenting Council and the 
     Secretary regarding the matter. 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 Secretary, the 
     Federal agency shall explain its reasons for not following 
     the recommendations.''.
       (b) Section 305(c) (16 U.S.C. 1855(c) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (3) and by inserting the following after 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(3) Any emergency regulation which changes an existing 
     fishery management plan shall be treated as an amendment to 
     such plan for the period in which such regulation is in 
     effect. Any emergency regulation promulgated under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be published in the Federal Register together 
     with the reasons therefor;
       ``(B) shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C), remain 
     in effect for not more than 180 days after the date of 
     publication, and may be extended by publication in the 
     Federal Register for an additional period of not more than 
     180 days, provided the public has had an opportunity to 
     comment on the emergency regulation, and, in the case of a 
     Council recommendation for emergency regulations, the Council 
     is actively preparing a fishery management plan, amendment, 
     or proposed regulations to address the emergency on a 
     permanent basis;
       ``(C) that responds to a public health emergency may remain 
     in effect until the circumstances that created the emergency 
     no longer exist, provided that the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services concurs with the Secretary's action and the 
     public has an opportunity to comment after the regulation is 
     published; and
       ``(D) may be terminated by the Secretary at an earlier date 
     by publication in the Federal Register of a notice of 
     termination, except for emergency regulations promulgated 
     under paragraph (2) in which case such early termination may 
     be made only upon the agreement of the Secretary and the 
     Council concerned.''.
       (c) Section 305(e) is amended by striking ``12291, dated 
     February 17, 1981'' and inserting ``12866, dated September 
     30, 1993''.
       (d) Section 305, as amended, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(g) Negotiated Conservation and Management Measures.--
     (1)(A) A Council or the Secretary may, in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to this 
     paragraph, establish a fishery negotiation panel to assist in 
     the development of specific conservation and management 
     measures for a fishery under authority of such Council or the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) No later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
     establishing procedures, developed in cooperation with the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States, for the 
     establishment and operation of fishery negotiation panels. 
     Such procedures shall be comparable to the procedures for 
     negotiated rulemaking established by subchapter III of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Upon receipt of a report containing proposed 
     conservation and management measures from a negotiation panel 
     convened under this subsection, the report shall be published 
     in the Federal Register for public comment.
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     require either a Council or the Secretary, whichever is 
     appropriate, to include all or any portion of a report from a 
     negotiation panel established under this subsection in a

[[Page S10802]]

     fishery management plan or plan amendment for the fishery for 
     which the panel was established.
       ``(h) Central Registry System for Limited Access System 
     Permits.--
       ``(1) Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Sustainable Fishery Act, the Secretary shall establish an 
     exclusive central registry system (which may be administered 
     on a regional basis) for any limited access system permits 
     established under section 303(b)(6) or other Federal law, 
     including individual fishing quotas, which shall provide for 
     the registration of title to, and interests in, such permits, 
     as well as for procedures for changes in the registration of 
     title to such permits upon the occurrence of involuntary 
     transfers, judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure of interests, 
     enforcement of judgments thereon, and related matters deemed 
     appropriate by the Secretary. Such registry system shall--
       ``(A) provide a mechanism for filing notice of a 
     nonjudicial foreclosure or enforcement of a judgment by which 
     the holder of a senior security interest acquires or conveys 
     ownership of a permit, and in the event of a nonjudicial 
     foreclosure, by which the interests of the holders of junior 
     security interests are released when the permit is 
     transferred;
       ``(B) provide for public access to the information filed 
     under such system, notwithstanding section 402(b); and
       ``(C) provide such notice and other requirements of 
     applicable law that the Secretary deems necessary for an 
     effective registry system.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as 
     may be necessary to carry out this subsection, after 
     consulting with the Councils and providing an opportunity for 
     public comment. The Secretary is authorized to contract with 
     non-federal entities to administer the central registry 
     system.
       ``(3) To be effective and perfected against any person 
     except the transferor, its heirs and devisees, and persons 
     having actual notice thereof, all security interests, and all 
     sales and other transfers of permits described in paragraph 
     (1), shall be registered in compliance with the regulations 
     promulgated under paragraph (2). Such registration shall 
     constitute the exclusive means of perfection of title to, and 
     security interests in, such permits, except for federal tax 
     liens thereon, which shall be perfected exclusively in 
     accordance with section 6323 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (26 U.S.C. 6323).
       ``(4) The priority of security interests shall be 
     determined in order of filing, the first filed having the 
     highest priority. A validly-filed security interest shall 
     remain valid and perfected notwithstanding a change in 
     residence or place of business of the owner of record. For 
     the purposes of this subsection, ``security interest'' shall 
     include security interests, assignments, liens and other 
     encumbrances of whatever kind.
       ``(5) Notwithstanding section 304(d)(1), the Secretary may 
     collect a reasonable fee of not more than one-half of one 
     percent of the value of limited access system permits upon 
     registration and transfer to recover the costs of 
     administering the central registry system.''.
       (e) Registry Transition.--Security interests on permits 
     described under section 305(h)(1) that are effective and 
     perfected by otherwise applicable law on the date of the 
     final regulations implementing section 305(h) shall remain 
     effective and perfected if, within 120 days after such date, 
     the secured party submits evidence satisfactory to the 
     Secretary and in compliance with such regulations of the 
     perfection of such security.

     SEC. 112. PACIFIC COMMUNITY FISHERIES.

       (a) Harold Sparck Memorial Community Development Program.--
     Section 305, as amended, is amended further by adding at the 
     end:
       ``(i) Alaska and Western Pacific Community Development 
     Programs.--
       ``(1)(A) The North Pacific 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 the program.
       ``(B) To be eligible to participate in the western Alaska 
     community development quota program under paragraph (1), a 
     community shall--
       ``(i) 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 an island within the 
     Bering Sea;
       ``(ii) not be located on the Gulf of Alaska coast of the 
     north Pacific Ocean;
       ``(iii) meet criteria developed by the Governor of Alaska, 
     approved by the Secretary, and published in the Federal 
     Register; and
       ``(iv) be certified by the Secretary of the Interior 
     pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to be a 
     Native village;
       ``(v) 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
       ``(vi) 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.
       ``(C)(i) During the fiscal years for which funds are 
     authorized under section 4, the North Pacific Council may not 
     recommend to the Secretary any fishery management plan, plan 
     amendment, or regulation that allocates to the western Alaska 
     community development quota program a percentage of the total 
     allowable catch of any Bering Sea fishery for which, prior to 
     October 1, 1995, the Council had not recommended that a 
     percentage of the total allowable catch be allocated to 
     western Alaska community development quota programs.
       ``(ii) During the fiscal years for which funds are 
     authorized under section 4, with respect to a fishery 
     management plan, plan amendment, or regulation for a Bering 
     Sea fishery that--
       ``(I) allocates to the western Alaska community development 
     quota program a percentage of the total allowable catch of 
     such fishery; and
       ``(II) was recommended by the North Pacific Council to the 
     Secretary prior to October 1, 1995,
     the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any expiration date in 
     such plan, plan amendment, or regulation, allocate to the 
     program a percentage of the total allowable catch that is no 
     greater than the percentage described in such plan or plan 
     amendment.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall deduct from any fees collected 
     under section 304(d)(2) for fish harvested under the western 
     Alaska community development quota program costs incurred by 
     fishing vessels in the program for observer or reporting 
     requirements which are in addition to observer or reporting 
     requirements of other fishing vessels in the fishery in which 
     the allocation to such program has been made.
       ``(2)(A) The Western Pacific Council and the Secretary may 
     establish a western Pacific community development program 
     which may include an allocation of a percentage of the total 
     catch of any fishery, limited entry permits, or other quotas 
     related to vessel size and fishing zones to western Pacific 
     communities that participate in the program.
       ``(B) To be eligible to participate in the western Pacific 
     community development program, a community shall--
       ``(i) be located within the Western Pacific Regional 
     Fishery Management Area;
       ``(ii) meet criteria developed by the Western Pacific 
     Council, approved by the Secretary and published in the 
     Federal Register, and based on historical fishing practices 
     in and dependence on the fishery, the cultural and social 
     framework relevant to the fishery, and economic barriers to 
     access to the fishery;
       ``(iii) consist of community residents who conduct more 
     than one-half of their current commercial or subsistence 
     fishing effort in the waters within the Western Pacific 
     Regional Management Area;
       ``(iv) not have previously developed harvesting or 
     processing capability sufficient to support substantial 
     participation in the western Pacific Regional Fishery 
     Management Area; and
       ``(v) develop and submit a Community Development Plan to 
     the Western Pacific Council and Secretary.
       ``(C) For the purposes of this subsection--
       ``(i) `Western Pacific Regional Management Area' means the 
     area under the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Council, 
     or an island within such area; and
       ``(ii) `western Pacific community' means any community 
     located in the Western Pacific Regional Management Area where 
     a majority of the inhabitants are descended from the 
     aboriginal peoples indigenous to the area and in which 
     traditional fishing practices are or have been historically 
     used for subsistence or commercial purposes.
       ``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Western Pacific Council shall take into account traditional 
     indigenous fishing practices in preparing any fishery 
     management plan.
       ``(E) After the date of enactment of the Sustainable 
     Fisheries Act, no Council may recommend a community 
     development quota program except as provided in this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Western Pacific Demonstration Projects.--(1) The 
     Secretary and Secretary of Interior are authorized to make 
     direct grants to eligible western Pacific communities, as 
     recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management 
     Council, for the purpose of establishing not less than three 
     and not more than five fishery demonstration projects to 
     foster and promote traditional indigenous fishing practices, 
     which shall not exceed a total of $500,000 in each fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Demonstration project funded pursuant to this 
     subsection shall foster and promote the involvement of 
     western Pacific communities in western Pacific fisheries and 
     may--
       (A) identify and apply traditional indigenous fishing 
     practices;
       (B) develop or enhance western Pacific community-based 
     fishing opportunities; and
       (C) involve research, community education, or the 
     acquisition of materials and equipment necessary to carry any 
     such demonstration project.
       (3)(A) The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, in 
     consultation with the Secretary shall establish an advisory 
     panel under section 302(g)(2) of the Sustainable Fisheries 
     Act to evaluate, determine the relative merits of, and 
     annually rank applications for such grants, which shall 
     consist of not more than eight individuals who are 
     knowledgeable or experienced in traditional indigenous 
     fishery practices of western Pacific communities and who are 
     not members or employees of the Western Pacific Fishery 
     Management Council.
       (B) If the Secretary or Secretary of Interior awards a 
     grant for a demonstration project not in accordance with the 
     rank given to such project by the advisory panel, the 
     Secretary shall provide a detailed written explanation for 
     the reasons thereof.
       (4) The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council shall, 
     with the assistance of such advisory panel, submit an annual 
     report to the Congress assessing the status and progress of 
     demonstration projects carried out under this subsection.
       (5) Appropriate Federal agencies may provide technical 
     assistance to western Pacific community-based entities to 
     assist in carrying out demonstration projects under this 
     subsection.

[[Page S10803]]

       (6) For the purposes of this subsection, `western Pacific 
     community' shall have the same meaning as such term has in 
     section 305(i)(2)(C)(ii) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act.

     SEC. 113. STATE JURISDICTION.

       (a) Paragraph (3) of section 306(a) (16 U.S.C. 1856(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) A State may regulate a fishing vessel outside the 
     boundaries of the State if the fishing vessel is registered 
     under the law of that State, and--
       ``(i) there is no fishery management plan in place for that 
     fishery; or
       ``(ii) if there is a fishery management plan or plan 
     amendment in place for that fishery, the State's laws and 
     regulations are consistent with the purposes of that fishery 
     management plan or plan amendment.
       ``(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `registered under the law of that State' means that--
       ``(i) the owner, captain, or vessel holds a fishing 
     license, or other document that is a prerequisite to 
     participating in the fishery, issued by the State;
       ``(ii) the vessel is numbered by the State in accordance 
     with chapter 123 of title 46, United States Code; or
       ``(iii) the documentation of the vessel under chapter 121 
     of title 46, United States Code, identifies the vessel's 
     homeport as located in the State.''.
       (b) Section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(3) If the State involved requests that a hearing be held 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall conduct such 
     hearing prior to taking any action under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) For any fishery occurring off Alaska for which there 
     is no fishery management plan approved and implemented under 
     this Act, or pursuant to a fishery management plan under this 
     Act, the State of Alaska may enforce its fishing laws and 
     regulations in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska, 
     provided there is a legitimate State interest in the 
     conservation and management of the fishery, until a Federal 
     fishery management plan is implemented for any such fishery 
     which does not allow for such enforcement. Fisheries in the 
     exclusive economic zone off Alaska 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 
     North Pacific Council. The preceding sentence shall not be 
     construed to require the North Pacific Council to unanimously 
     vote to continue a fishery management plan under which the 
     State of Alaska is already principally involved in the 
     management or enforcement of a fishery.''.
       (c) Section 306(c)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1856(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' in subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting a semicolon and the word ``and''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) the owner or operator of the vessel submits reports 
     on the tonnage of fish received from vessels of the United 
     States and the locations from which such fish were harvested, 
     in accordance with such procedures as the Secretary by 
     regulation shall prescribe.''.

     SEC. 114. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       (a) Section 307(1)(J)(i) (16 U.S.C. 1857(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 any such plan 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 (and, for purposes of this clause, if the 
     Secretary withdraws the Federal plan or any successor to that 
     plan, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has 
     not implemented a plan to manage the American Lobster 
     Fishery, the minimum possession size in effect at the time 
     the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan was withdrawn 
     shall remain in effect until the Atlantic States Marine 
     Fisheries Commission implements a plan that contains a 
     minimum possession size)''.
       (b) Section 307(1)(K) (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(K)) is amended by 
     striking ``knowingly steal or without authorization, to'' and 
     inserting ``to steal or to negligently and without 
     authorization''.
       (c) Section 307(1)(L) (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(L)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(L) to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, 
     intimidate, sexually harass, or interfere with any observer 
     on a vessel under this Act, or any data collector employed by 
     the National Marine Fisheries Service or under contract to 
     carry out responsibilities under this Act;''.
       (d) Section 307(1) (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (M);
       (2) by striking ``pollock.'' in subparagraph (N) and 
     inserting ``pollock; 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(j), or to knowingly vote on a Council decision in 
     violation of section 302(j)(7)(A).''.
       (e) Section 307(2)(A) (16 U.S.C. 1857(2)(A)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A) in fishing within the boundaries of any State, 
     except--
       ``(i) recreational fishing permitted under section 201(i),
       ``(ii) fish processing permitted under section 306(c), or
       ``(iii) transhipment at sea of fish products within the 
     boundaries of any State in accordance with a permit approved 
     under section 204(b)(6)(A)(ii);''.
       (f) 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 
     (d)''.
       (f) Section 307(3) (16 U.S.C. 1857(3)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(3) for any vessel of the United States, and for the 
     owner or operator of any vessel of the United States, to 
     transfer at sea directly or indirectly, or attempt to so 
     transfer at sea, any United States harvested fish to any 
     foreign fishing vessel, while such foreign vessel is within 
     the exclusive economic zone or within the boundaries of any 
     State except to the extent that the foreign fishing vessel 
     has been permitted under section 204(b)(6)(B) or section 
     306(c) to receive such fish;''.
       (g) Section 307(4) (16 U.S.C. 1857(4)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or within the boundaries of any State'' after 
     ``zone''.

     SEC. 115. CIVIL PENALTIES AND PERMIT SANCTIONS; REBUTTABLE 
                   PRESUMPTIONS.

       (a) Section 308(a) (16 U.S.C. 1858(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``ability to pay,''.
       (b) The first sentence of section 308(b) (16 U.S.C. 
     1858(b)) is amended to read as follows: ``Any person against 
     whom a civil penalty is assessed under subsection (a) or 
     against whom a permit sanction is imposed under subsection 
     (g) (other than a permit suspension for nonpayment of penalty 
     or fine) may obtain review thereof in the United States 
     district court for the appropriate district by filing a 
     complaint against the Secretary in such court within 30 days 
     from the date of such order.''.
       (c) Section 308(g)(1)(C) (16 U.S.C. 1858(g)(1)(C)) is 
     amended by striking the matter from ``(C) any'' through 
     ``overdue,'' and inserting the following: ``(C) any amount in 
     settlement of a civil forfeiture imposed on a vessel or other 
     property, or any civil penalty or criminal fine imposed on a 
     vessel or owner or operator of a vessel or any other person 
     who has been issued or has applied for a permit under any 
     marine resource law enforced by the Secretary, has not been 
     paid and is overdue,''.
       (d) Section 310(e) (16 U.S.C. 1860(e)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) For purposes of this Act, it shall be a rebuttable 
     presumption that any vessel that is shoreward of the outer 
     boundary of the exclusive economic zone of the United States 
     or beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation, and that 
     has gear on board that is capable of use for large-scale 
     driftnet fishing, is engaged in such fishing.''.

     SEC. 116. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) The second sentence of section 311(d) (16 U.S.C. 
     1861(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Guam, any Commonwealth, territory, or'' 
     and inserting ``Guam or any''; and
       (2) by inserting a comma before the period and the 
     following: ``and except that in the case of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the appropriate court is the United States 
     District Court for the District of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands''.
       (b) Section 311(e)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1861(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``fishery'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``marine'';
       (2) by inserting ``of not less than 20 percent of the 
     penalty collected'' after ``reward'' in subparagraph (B), and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) claims of parties in interest to property disposed of 
     under section 612(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1612(b)), as made applicable by section 310(c) of this Act or 
     by any other marine resource law enforced by the Secretary, 
     to seizures made by the Secretary, in amounts determined by 
     the Secretary to be applicable to such claims at the time of 
     seizure; and''.
       (c) Section 311(e)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1861(e)(2)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Any person found in an administrative or judicial 
     proceeding to have violated this Act or any other marine 
     resource law enforced by the Secretary shall be liable for 
     the cost incurred in the sale, storage, care, and maintenance 
     of any fish or other property lawfully seized in connection 
     with the violation.''.
       (d) Section 311 (16 U.S.C. 1861) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (i), and by 
     inserting the following after subsection (f):
       ``(g) Enforcement in the Pacific Insular Areas.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Governors of the Pacific 
     Insular Areas and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 
     Management Council, shall to the extent practicable support 
     cooperative enforcement agreements between Federal and 
     Pacific Insular Area authorities.
       ``(h) Annual Report on Enforcement.--Each year at the time 
     the President's budget is submitted to the Congress, the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of the Department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating shall, after consultation with the 
     Councils, submit a report on the effectiveness of the 
     enforcement of fishery management plans and regulations to 
     implement such plans under the jurisdiction of each Council, 
     including--
       ``(1) an analysis of the adequacy of Federal personnel and 
     funding resources related to the enforcement of fishery 
     management plans and regulations to implement such plans; and
       ``(2) recommendations to improve enforcement that should be 
     considered in developing plan amendments or regulations 
     implementing such plans.''.
       (e) Section 311 (16 U.S.C. 1861), as amended by subsection 
     (d), is amended by striking ``201 (b), (c),'' in subsection 
     (i)(1), as redesignated, and inserting ``201 (b) or (c), or 
     section 204(d),''.

[[Page S10804]]

     SEC. 117. NORTH PACIFIC AND NORTHWEST ATLANTIC OCEAN 
                   FISHERIES.

       (a) North Pacific Fisheries Conservation.--Section 313 (16 
     U.S.C. 1862) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``RESEARCH PLAN'' in the section heading 
     and inserting ``CONSERVATION''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Bycatch Reduction.--In implementing section 
     303(a)(11) and this section, the North Pacific Council shall 
     recommend conservation and management measures to lower, on 
     an annual basis for a period of not less than four years, the 
     total amount of economic discards occurring in the fisheries 
     under its jurisdiction.
       ``(g) Bycatch Reduction Incentives.--(1) Notwithstanding 
     section 304(d), the North Pacific Council may recommend, and 
     the Secretary may approve, consistent with the provisions of 
     this Act, a system of fees in a fishery to provide incentives 
     to reduce bycatch and bycatch rates; except that such fees 
     shall not exceed one percent of the estimated annual ex-
     vessel value of the target species in the fishery. Any fees 
     collected shall be deposited in the North Pacific Fishery 
     Observer Fund, and may be made available by the Secretary to 
     offset costs related to the reduction of bycatch in the 
     fishery from which such fees were derived, including 
     conservation and management measures and research, and to the 
     State of Alaska to offset costs incurred by the State in the 
     fishery from which such fees were derived and in which the 
     State is directly involved in management or enforcement.
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding section 303(d), and in addition to 
     the authority provided in section 303(b)(10), the North 
     Pacific Council may recommend, and the Secretary may approve, 
     conservation and management measures which provide 
     allocations of regulatory discards to individual fishing 
     vessels as an incentive to reduce per vessel bycatch and 
     bycatch rates in a fishery, provided that--
       ``(i) such allocations may not be transferred for monetary 
     consideration and are made only on an annual basis; and
       ``(ii) any such conservation and management measures will 
     meet the requirements of subsection (h) and will result in an 
     actual reduction in regulatory discards in the fishery.
       ``(B) The North Pacific Council may recommend restrictions 
     in addition to the restriction imposed by clause (i) of 
     subparagraph (A) on the transferability of any such 
     allocations, and the Secretary may approve such 
     recommendation.
       ``(h) Catch Measurement.--(1) By June 1, 1997, the North 
     Pacific Council shall recommend, and the Secretary may 
     approve, consistent with the other provisions of this Act, 
     conservation and management measures to ensure total catch 
     measurement in each fishery under its jurisdiction. Such 
     measures shall ensure the accurate enumeration, at a minimum, 
     of target species, economic discards, and regulatory 
     discards.
       ``(2) To the extent the measures submitted under paragraph 
     (1) do not require United States fish processors and fish 
     processing vessels (as defined in chapter 21 of title 46, 
     United States Code) to weigh fish, the North Pacific Council 
     and Secretary shall submit a plan to the Congress by January 
     1, 1998, to allow for weighing, including recommendations to 
     assist such processors and processing vessels in acquiring 
     necessary equipment, unless the Council determines that such 
     weighing is not necessary to meet the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(i) Full Retention and Utilization.--(1) The North 
     Pacific Council shall submit to the Secretary by June 1, 
     1999, a report on the advisability of requiring the full 
     retention by fishing vessels and full utilization by United 
     States fish processors of economic discards in fisheries 
     under its jurisdiction if such economic discards, or the 
     mortality of such economic discards, cannot be avoided. The 
     report shall address the projected impacts of such 
     requirements on participants in the fishery.
       ``(2) The report shall address the advisability of measures 
     to minimize processing waste, including standards setting 
     minimum percentages which must be processed for human 
     consumption. For the purpose of the report, `processing 
     waste' means that portion of any fish which is processed and 
     which could be used for human consumption or other commercial 
     use, but which is not so used.''.
       (b) Northeast Atlantic Ocean Fisheries.--Section 314 (16 
     U.S.C. 1863) is amended by striking ``1997'' in subsection 
     (a)(4) and inserting ``2000''.

     SEC. 118. TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES.

       (a) The Act is amended by adding at the end of title III 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 315. FISHING CAPACITY REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary, with the approval of 
     the appropriate Council, may conduct a fishing capacity 
     reduction program (referred to in this section as the 
     `program') in a fishery if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) the program is necessary to prevent or end 
     overfishing, rebuild stocks of fish, or adequate to achieve 
     measurable and significant improvements in the conservation 
     and management of the fishery;
       ``(B) the fishery management plan implemented for the 
     fishery--
       ``(i) is consistent with the program objective;
       ``(ii) will prevent the replacement of fishing capacity 
     removed by the program through a moratorium on new entrants, 
     restrictions on vessel upgrades, and other effort control 
     measures and accounting for the full potential capacity of 
     the fleet; and
       ``(iii) establishes a specified or target total allowable 
     catch that triggers closure of the fishery or proportional 
     adjustments to reduce catch; and
       ``(C) the program is cost-effective and capable of repaying 
     any debt obligation incurred under section 1112 of title XI 
     of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
       ``(2) The objective of the program shall be to obtain the 
     maximum sustained reduction in fishing capacity at the least 
     cost and in a minimum period of time. To achieve that 
     objective, the Secretary is authorized to pay the owners of--
       ``(A) permits authorizing participation in the fishery, 
     Provided that such permits are surrendered for permanent 
     revocation; or
       ``(B) fishing vessels, Provided that any such vessel is--
       ``(i) scrapped; or
       ``(ii) through the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating, subjected to title restrictions 
     that permanently prohibit and effectively prevent its use in 
     fishing.
       ``(3) Participation in the program shall be voluntary, but 
     the Secretary shall ensure compliance by all who do 
     participate.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall consult with the appropriate 
     Council, other Federal agencies, appropriate regional 
     authorities, affected States and fishing communities, 
     participants in the fishery, conservation organizations, and 
     other interested parties throughout the development and 
     implementation of any program.
       ``(b) Program Funding.--(1) The program may be funded by 
     any combination of amounts--
       ``(A) available under clause (iv) of section 2(b)(1)(A) of 
     the Act of August 11, 1939 (15 U.S.A. 713c-3(b)(1)(A); 
     Saltonstall-Kennedy Act);
       ``(B) appropriated for fisheries disaster relief under 
     section 316 of this Act or section 308 of the 
     Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 4107);
       ``(C) provided by an industry fee system under this section 
     and in accordance with section 1112 of title XI of the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1936; and
       ``(D) provided from any State or other public sources and 
     private or nonprofit organizations.
       ``(2) All funds for the program, including any fees 
     established under subsection (c), shall be paid into the 
     fishing capacity reduction fund established under section 
     1112 of title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.
       ``(c) Industry Fee System.--(1)(A) If an industry fee 
     system is necessary to fund the program, the Secretary, with 
     the approval of the appropriate Council, may conduct a 
     referendum on such system. Prior to the referendum, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Council, shall--
       ``(i) identify, to the extent practicable, and notify all 
     permit or vessel owners who would be affected by the program 
     and who meet eligibility requirements for participation in 
     the referendum; and
       ``(ii) make available to such owners information about the 
     industry fee system describing the schedule and procedures 
     for the referendum, the proposed program, and the amount and 
     duration and any other terms and conditions of the fee 
     system.
       ``(B) The industry fee system shall be considered approved 
     if the referendum votes which are cast in favor of the 
     proposed system constitute a two-thirds majority of the 
     participants voting.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding section 304(d) and consistent with an 
     approved industry fee system, the Secretary is authorized to 
     establish such a system to fund the program and repay debt 
     obligations incurred pursuant to section 1112 of title XI of 
     the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. The fees for a program under 
     this section shall--
       ``(A) be established by the Secretary and adjusted from 
     time to time as the Secretary determines necessary to ensure 
     the availability of sufficient funds to repay such debt 
     obligations;
       ``(B) not exceed 5 percent of the gross sale proceeds of 
     all fish landed from the fishery for which the program is 
     established;
       ``(C) be deducted by the first ex-vessel fish purchaser 
     from the gross fish sales proceeds otherwise payable to the 
     seller and accounted for and forwarded by such fish 
     purchasers to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary 
     may establish; and
       ``(D) be in effect only until such time as the debt 
     obligation has been fully paid.
       ``(d) Implementation Plan.--(1) The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the appropriate Council and other 
     interested parties, shall prepare and publish in the Federal 
     Register for a 60-day public comment period, an 
     implementation plan for each program. The implementation plan 
     shall--
       ``(A) define criteria for determining types and numbers of 
     vessels which are eligible for participation in the program 
     taking into account characteristics of the fishery, the 
     requirements of applicable fishery management plans, the 
     needs of fishing communities, any strategy developed under 
     section 316, and the need to minimize program costs; and
       ``(B) establish procedures for program participation (such 
     as submission of owner bid under an auction system or fair 
     market-value assessment) including any terms and conditions 
     for participation which the Secretary deems to be reasonably 
     necessary to meet the goals of the program;
       ``(2) During the 60-day public comment period--
       ``(A) the Secretary shall conduct a public hearing in each 
     State affected by the program; and
       ``(B) the appropriate Council shall submit its comments and 
     recommendations, if any, regarding the plan and regulations.
       ``(3) Within 45 days after the close of the public comment 
     period, the Secretary, in consultation with the appropriate 
     Council, shall analyze the public comment received and 
     publish in the Federal Register a final implementation plan 
     for the program and regulations for its implementation. The 
     Secretary may not adopt a final implementation plan involving 
     industry fees or debt

[[Page S10805]]

     obligation unless an industry fee system has been approved by 
     a referendum under this section.''.
       (b) The Secretary of Commerce shall establish a task force 
     comprised of interested parties to study and report to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives within two years of the date of enactment of 
     this Act on the role of the Federal government in--
       (1) subsidizing the expansion and contraction of fishing 
     capacity in fishing fleets managed under the Magnuson Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act; and
       (2) otherwise influencing the aggregate capital investments 
     in fisheries.
       (c) The Act, as amended by subsection (a), is amended by 
     adding at the end of title III the following:

     ``SEC. 316. TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES.

       ``(a) Sustainable Development Strategy.--(1) At the 
     discretion of the Secretary or at the request of the Governor 
     of an affected State or a fishing community, the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Councils and Federal agencies, as 
     appropriate, may work with regional authorities, affected 
     States, fishing communities, the fishing industry, 
     conservation organizations, and other interested parties, to 
     develop a sustainable development strategy for any fishery 
     identified as overfished under section 304(d) or determined 
     to be a commercial fishery failure under this section or any 
     other Federal fishery for which a fishery management plan is 
     being developed or amended under section 303.
       ``(2) Such sustainable development strategy shall--
       ``(A) develop a balanced and comprehensive long-term plan 
     to guide the transition to a sustainable fishery and the 
     development of fishery management plan under section 303 or a 
     fishery rebuilding effort under section 304(d) which--
       ``(i) takes into consideration the economic, social, and 
     environmental factors affecting the fishery;
       ``(ii) identifies alternative economic opportunities; and
       ``(iii) establishes long-term objectives for the fishery 
     including vessel types and sizes, harvesting and processing 
     capacity, and optimal fleet size;
       ``(B) identify Federal and State programs which can be used 
     to provide assistance to fishing communities during 
     development and implementation of a fishery recovery effort; 
     and
       ``(C) establish procedures to implement such a plan and 
     facilitate consensus and coordination in regional decision-
     making;
       ``(3) The Secretary shall complete and submit to the 
     Congress a report on any sustainable development strategy 
     developed under this section within 6 months after it is 
     developed and annually thereafter.
       ``(b) Fisheries Disaster Relief.--(1) At the discretion of 
     the Secretary or at the request of the Governor of an 
     affected State or a fishery community, the Secretary shall 
     determine whether there is a commercial fishery failure due 
     to a fishery resource disaster as a result of--
       ``(A) natural causes;
       ``(B) man-made causes beyond the control of fishery 
     managers to mitigate through conservation and management 
     measures; or
       ``(C) undetermined causes.
       ``(2) Upon the determination under paragraph (1) that there 
     is a commercial fishery failure, the Secretary is authorized 
     to make sums available to be used by the affected State, 
     fishing community, or by the Secretary in cooperation with 
     the affected State or fishing community for assessing the 
     economic and social effects of the commercial fishery 
     failure, or any activity that the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate to restore the fishery or prevent a similar 
     failure in the future and to assist a fishing community 
     affected by such failure. Before making funds available for 
     an activity authorized under this section, the Secretary 
     shall make a determination that such activity will not expand 
     the size or scope of the commercial fishery failure into 
     other fisheries or other geographic regions.
       ``(3) The Federal share of the cost of any activity carried 
     out under the authority of this section shall not exceed 75 
     percent of the cost of that activity.
       ``(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.''.
       (d) Section 2(b)(1)(A) of the Act of August 11, 1939 (15 
     U.S.C. 713c3(b)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting a semicolon and the word ``and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) to fund the Federal share of a buy-out program 
     established under section 315(b) of the Magnuson Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act; and''.
               TITLE II--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH

     SEC. 201. CHANGE OF TITLE.

       The heading of title IV (16 U.S.C. 1881 et seq.) is amended 
     to read as follows:

             ``TITLE IV--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH''.

     SEC. 202. REGISTRATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT.

       Title IV (16 U.S.C. 1881 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after the title heading the following:

     ``SEC. 401. REGISTRATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) Standardized Fishing Vessel Registration and Data 
     Management System.--The Secretary shall, in cooperation with 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating, the States, the Councils, and Marine Fisheries 
     Commissions, develop recommendations for implementation of a 
     standardized fishing vessel registration and data management 
     system on a regional basis. The proposed system shall be 
     developed after consultation with interested governmental and 
     nongovernmental parties and shall--
       ``(1) be designed to standardize the requirements of vessel 
     registration and data collection systems required by this 
     Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 
     seq.), and any other marine resource law implemented by the 
     Secretary, and, with the permission of a State, any marine 
     resource law implemented by such State;
       ``(2) integrate programs under existing fishery management 
     plans into a nonduplicative data collection and management 
     system;
       ``(3) avoid duplication of existing state, tribal, or 
     federal systems (other than a federal system under paragraph 
     (1)) and utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     information collected from existing systems;
       ``(4) provide for implementation through cooperative 
     agreements with, appropriate State, regional, or tribal 
     entities and Marine Fisheries Commissions;
       ``(5) provide for authorization of funding (subject to 
     appropriations) to assist appropriate State, regional, or 
     tribal entities and Marine Fisheries Commissions in 
     implementation;
       ``(6) establish standardized units of measurement, 
     nomenclature, and formats for the collection and submission 
     of information;
       ``(7) minimize the paperwork required for vessels 
     registered under the system;
       ``(8) include all species of fish within the geographic 
     areas of authority of the Councils and all fishing vessels 
     including vessels carrying a passenger for hire engaged in 
     recreational fishing, except for private recreational fishing 
     vessels used exclusively for pleasure;
       ``(9) require United States fish processors, and fish 
     dealers and other first ex-vessel purchasers of fish that are 
     subject to the proposed system to submit data (other than 
     economic data) which may be necessary to meet the goals of 
     the proposed system; and
       ``(10) prescribe procedures necessary to ensure--
       ``(A) the confidentiality of information collected under 
     this section in accordance with section 402(b); and
       ``(B) the timely release or availability to the public of 
     complete and accurate information collected under this 
     section.
       ``(b) Fishing Vessel Registration.--The registration system 
     should, at a minimum, obtain the following information for 
     each fishing vessel--
       ``(1) the name and official number or other identification, 
     together with the name and address of the owner or operator 
     or both;
       ``(2) gross tonnage, vessel capacity, type and quantity of 
     fishing gear, mode of operation (catcher, catcher processor 
     or other), and such other pertinent information with respect 
     to vessel characteristics as the Secretary may require; and
       ``(3) identification (by species, gear type, geographic 
     area of operations, and season) of the fisheries in which the 
     fishing vessel participates.
       ``(c) Fishery Information.--The data management system 
     should, at a minimum, provide basic fisheries performance 
     data for each fishery, including--
       ``(1) the number of vessels participating in the fishery 
     including vessels carrying a passenger for hire engaged in 
     recreational fishing;
       ``(2) the time period in which the fishery occurs;
       ``(3) the approximate geographic location, or official 
     reporting area where the fishery occurs;
       ``(4) a description of fishing gear used in the fishery, 
     including the amount and type of such gear and the 
     appropriate unit of fishery effort; and
       ``(5) other such data as required under subsection 
     303(a)(5).
       ``(d) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     term `passenger for hire' shall have the same meaning as the 
     definition for such term in section 2102(21a) of title 46, 
     United States Code.
       ``(e) Use of Registration.--Any registration under this 
     section shall not be considered a permit for the purposes of 
     this Act, and the Secretary may not revoke, suspend, deny, or 
     impose any other conditions or restrictions on any such 
     registration or the use of such registration under this Act.
       ``(f) Public Comment.--Within one year after the date of 
     enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register for a 60-day public 
     comment period, a proposal that would provide for 
     implementation of a standardized fishing vessel registration 
     and data collection system that meets the requirements of 
     subsections (a) through (c). The proposal shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the arrangements for consultation 
     and cooperation with the department in which the Coast Guard 
     is operating, the States, the Councils, Marine Fisheries 
     Commissions, the fishing industry and other interested 
     parties; and
       ``(2) any proposed regulations or legislation necessary to 
     implement the proposal.
       ``(g) Congressional Transmittal.--Within 60 days after the 
     end of the comment period and after consideration of comments 
     received under subsection (d), the Secretary shall transmit 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a proposal for implementation of a national 
     fishing vessel registration system that includes--
       ``(1) any modifications made after comment and 
     consultation;
       ``(2) a proposed implementation schedule; and

[[Page S10806]]

       ``(3) recommendations for any such additional legislation 
     as the Secretary considers necessary or desirable to 
     implement the proposed system.
       ``(h) Report to Congress.--Within 15 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Secretary 
     shall report to Congress on the need to include private 
     recreational fishing vessels used exclusively for pleasure 
     into a national fishing vessel registration and data 
     collection system. In preparing its report, the Secretary 
     shall cooperate with the Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating, the States, the Councils, and 
     Marine Fisheries Commissions, and consult with governmental 
     and nongovernmental parties.''.

     SEC. 203. DATA COLLECTION.

       Section 402 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 402. DATA COLLECTION.

       ``(a) Council Requests.--If a Council determines that 
     additional information and data (other than information and 
     data that would disclose proprietary or confidential 
     commercial or financial information regarding fishing 
     operations or fish processing operations) would be beneficial 
     for developing, implementing, or revising a fishery 
     management plan or for determining whether a fishery is in 
     need of management, the Council may request that the 
     Secretary implement a data collection program for the fishery 
     which would provide the types of information and data (other 
     than information and data that would disclose proprietary or 
     confidential commercial or financial information regarding 
     fishing operations or fish processing operations) specified 
     by the Council. The Secretary shall approve such a data 
     collection program if he determines that the need is 
     justified, and shall promulgate regulations to implement the 
     program within 60 days after such determination is made. If 
     the Secretary determines that the need for a data collection 
     program is not justified, the Secretary shall inform the 
     Council of the reasons for such determination in writing. The 
     determinations of the Secretary under this subsection 
     regarding a Council request shall be made within a reasonable 
     period of time after receipt of that request.
       ``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--(1) Any information 
     submitted to the Secretary by any person in compliance with 
     any requirement under this Act shall be confidential and 
     shall not be disclosed, except--
       ``(A) to Federal employees and Council employees who are 
     responsible for fishery management plan development and 
     monitoring;
       ``(B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission employees 
     pursuant to an agreement with the Secretary that prevents 
     public disclosure of the identity or business of any person;
       ``(C) when required by court order;
       ``(D) when such information is used to verify catch under 
     an individual fishing quota system;
       ``(E) unless the Secretary has obtained written 
     authorization from the person submitting such information to 
     release such information and such release does not violate 
     other requirements of this subsection; or
       ``(F) that observer data collected under the North Pacific 
     Research Plan may be released as specified for weekly summary 
     bycatch data identified by vessel, and haul-specific bycatch 
     data without vessel identification.
     Nothing in this paragraph prevents the use by the Secretary, 
     or (with the approval of the Secretary) the Council, for 
     conservation and management purposes information submitted in 
     compliance with regulations promulgated under this Act, or 
     the use, release, or publication of bycatch data pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(F).
       ``(2) The Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe such 
     procedures as may be necessary to preserve such 
     confidentiality, except that the Secretary may release or 
     make public any such information in any aggregate or summary 
     form which does not directly or indirectly disclose the 
     identity or business of any person who submits such 
     information. Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted 
     or construed to prevent the use for conservation and 
     management purposes by the Secretary, or with the approval of 
     the Secretary, the Council, of any information submitted in 
     compliance with regulations promulgated under this Act or the 
     use, release, or publication of bycatch data pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(F).
       ``(c) Restriction on Use of Certain Data.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations to restrict the use, 
     in civil enforcement or criminal proceedings under this Act, 
     the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 
     seq.), or the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.), of information collected by voluntary fishery data 
     collectors, including sea samplers, while aboard any vessel 
     for conservation and management purposes if the presence of 
     such a fishery data collector aboard is not required by any 
     of such Acts or regulations thereunder.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not require the submission of a 
     Federal or State income tax return or statement as a 
     prerequisite for issuance of a Federal fishing permit until 
     such time as the Secretary has promulgated regulations to 
     ensure the confidentiality of information contained in such 
     return or statement, to limit the information submitted to 
     that necessary to achieve a demonstrated conservation and 
     management purpose, and to provide appropriate penalties 
     for violation of such regulations.
       ``(d) Contracting Authority.--In case of a program for 
     which--
       ``(1) the recipient of a grant, contract, or other 
     financial assistance is specified by statute to be, or has 
     customarily been, a State, Council, or a Marine Fisheries 
     Commission; or
       ``(2) the Secretary has entered into a cooperative 
     agreement with a State, Council, or Marine Fisheries 
     Commission,
     such financial assistance may be provided by the Secretary to 
     that recipient on a sole-source basis, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law.
       ``(e) Resource Assessments.--(1) The Secretary may use the 
     private sector to provide vessels, equipment, and services 
     necessary to survey the fishery resources of the United 
     States when the 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 that compensation by permitting the contractor to 
     harvest on a subsequent voyage and retain for sale a portion 
     of the allowable catch of the surveyed fishery.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall undertake efforts to expand 
     annual fishery resource assessments in all regions of the 
     Nation.''.

     SEC. 204. OBSERVERS.

       Section 403 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 403. OBSERVERS.

       ``(a) Guidelines for Carrying Observers.-- Within one year 
     of the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, 
     the Secretary shall promulgate regulations, after notice and 
     public comment, for fishing vessels that carry observers. The 
     regulations shall include guidelines for determining--
       ``(1) when a vessel is not required to carry an observer on 
     board because the facilities of such vessel for the 
     quartering of an observer, or for carrying out observer 
     functions, are so inadequate or unsafe that the health or 
     safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel 
     would be jeopardized; and
       ``(2) actions which vessel owners or operators may 
     reasonably be required to take to render such facilities 
     adequate and safe.
       ``(b) Training.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     appropriate States and the National Sea Grant College 
     Program, shall--
       ``(1) establish programs to ensure that each observer 
     receives adequate training in collecting and analyzing data 
     necessary for the conservation and management purposes of the 
     fishery to which such observer is assigned; and
       ``(2) require that an observer demonstrate competence in 
     fisheries science and statistical analysis at a level 
     sufficient to enable such person to fulfill the 
     responsibilities of the position;
       ``(3) ensure that an observer has received adequate 
     training in basic vessel safety; and
       ``(4) make use of university training facilities and 
     resources, where possible, in carrying out this subsection.
       ``(c) Wages as Maritime Liens.-- Claims for observers' 
     wages shall be considered maritime liens against the vessel 
     and be accorded the same priority as seamen's liens under 
     admiralty and general maritime law.
       ``(d) Observer Status.--(1) An observer on a vessel and 
     under contract to carry out responsibilities under this Act 
     or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 
     et seq.) shall be deemed to be a Federal employee for the 
     purpose of compensation for work injuries under the Federal 
     Employee Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.)
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply if the observer is 
     engaged by the owner, master, or individual in charge of the 
     vessel to perform any duties in service to the vessel.''.

     SEC. 205. FISHERIES RESEARCH.

       Section 404 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 404. FISHERIES RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall initiate and 
     maintain, in cooperation with the Councils, a comprehensive 
     program of fishery research to carry out and further the 
     purposes, policy, and provisions of this Act. Such program 
     shall be designed to acquire knowledge and information, 
     including statistics, on fishery conservation and management 
     and on the economics of the fisheries.
       ``(b) Strategic Plan.-- Within one year after the date of 
     enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, and at least 
     every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall develop and 
     publish in the Federal Register a strategic plan for 
     fisheries research for the five years immediately following 
     such publication. The plan shall--
       ``(1) identify and describe a comprehensive program with a 
     limited number of priority objectives for research in each of 
     the areas specified in subsection (c);
       ``(2) indicate the goals and timetables for the program 
     described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) provide a role for commercial fishermen in such 
     research, including involvement in field testing.
       ``(4) provide for collection and dissemination, in a timely 
     manner, of complete and accurate data concerning fishing 
     activities, catch, effort, stock assessments, and other 
     research conducted under this section.
       ``(c) Areas of Research.--The areas of research referred to 
     in subsection (a) are as follows:
       ``(1) Research to support fishery conservation and 
     management, including but not limited to, research on the 
     economics of fisheries and biological research concerning the 
     abundance and life history parameters of stocks of fish, the 
     interdependence of fisheries or stocks of fish, the 
     identification of essential fish habitat, the impact of 
     pollution on fish populations, the impact of wetland and 
     estuarine degradation, and other factors affecting the 
     abundance and availability of fish.
       ``(2) Conservation engineering research, including the 
     study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new 
     gear technology and fishing techniques to minimize bycatch 
     and any adverse effects on essential fish habitat and promote 
     efficient harvest of target species.

[[Page S10807]]

       ``(3) Information management research, including the 
     development of a fishery information base and an information 
     management system that will permit the full use of data in 
     the support of effective fishery conservation and management.
       ``(d) Public Notice.--In developing the plan required under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with relevant 
     Federal, State, and international agencies, scientific and 
     technical experts, and other interested persons, public and 
     private, and shall publish a proposed plan in the Federal 
     Register for the purpose of receiving public comment on the 
     plan. The Secretary shall ensure that affected commercial 
     fishermen are actively involved in the development of the 
     portion of the plan pertaining to conservation engineering 
     research. Upon final publication in the Federal Register, the 
     plan shall be submitted by the Secretary to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.''.

     SEC. 206. INCIDENTAL HARVEST RESEARCH.

       Section 405 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 405. INCIDENTAL HARVEST RESEARCH.

       ``(a) Collection of Data.-- Within 9 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Secretary 
     shall, after consultation with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
     Management Council and South Atlantic Fishery Management 
     Council, conclude the collection of data in the program to 
     assess the impact on fishery resources of incidental harvest 
     by the shrimp trawl fishery within the authority of such 
     Councils. Within the same time period, the Secretary shall 
     make available to the public aggregated summaries of data 
     collected prior to June 30, 1994 under such program.
       ``(b) Identification of Stock.--The program concluded 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall provide for the 
     identification of stocks of fish which are subject to 
     significant incidental harvest in the course of normal shrimp 
     trawl fishing activity.
       ``(c) Collection and Assessment of Specific Stock Data.-- 
     For stocks of fish identified pursuant to subsection (b), 
     with priority given to stocks which (based upon the best 
     available scientific information) are considered to be 
     overfished, the Secretary shall conduct--
       ``(1) a program to collect and evaluate data on the nature 
     and extent (including the spatial and temporal distribution) 
     of incidental mortality of such stocks as a direct result of 
     shrimp trawl fishing activities;
       ``(2) an assessment of the status and condition of such 
     stocks, including collection of information which would allow 
     the estimation of life history parameters with sufficient 
     accuracy and precision to support sound scientific evaluation 
     of the effects of various management alternatives on the 
     status of such stocks; and
       ``(3) a program of data collection and evaluation for such 
     stocks on the magnitude and distribution of fishing mortality 
     and fishing effort by sources of fishing mortality other than 
     shrimp trawl fishing activity.
       ``(d) Bycatch Reduction Program.--Not later than twelve 
     months after the enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, 
     the Secretary shall, in cooperation with affected interests, 
     and based upon the best scientific information available, 
     complete a program to--
       ``(1) develop technological devices and other changes in 
     fishing operations necessary and appropriate to minimize the 
     incidental mortality of bycatch in the course of shrimp trawl 
     activity to the extent practicable, taking into account the 
     level of bycatch mortality in the fishery on November 28, 
     1990;
       ``(2) evaluate the ecological impacts and the benefits and 
     costs of such devices and changes in fishing operations; and
       ``(3) assess whether it is practicable to utilize bycatch 
     which is not avoidable.
       ``(e) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall, within one 
     year of completing the programs required by this section, 
     submit a detailed report on the results of such programs to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(f) Implementation Criteria.-- Any conservation and 
     management measure implemented under this Act to reduce the 
     incidental mortality of bycatch in the course of shrimp trawl 
     fishing must be consistent with--
       ``(1) measures applicable to fishing throughout the range 
     of the bycatch species concerned; and
       ``(2) the need to avoid any serious adverse environmental 
     impacts on such bycatch species or the ecology of the 
     affected area.''.

     SEC. 207. MISCELLANEOUS RESEARCH.

       (a) Fisheries Ecosystem Management Research.--Section 406 
     (16 U.S.C. 1882) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 406. FISHERIES ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.

       ``(a) Establishment of Panel.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the 
     Secretary shall establish a fisheries ecosystem management 
     advisory panel under this Act to develop recommendations to 
     expand the application of ecosystem principles in fishery 
     conservation and management activities.
       ``(b) Panel Membership.--The advisory panel shall consist 
     of not more than 20 individuals and include--
       ``(1) individuals with expertise in the structures, 
     functions, and physical and biological characteristics of 
     ecosystems; and
       ``(2) representatives from the Councils, States, fishing 
     industry, conservation organizations, or others with 
     expertise in the management of marine resources.
       ``(c) Recommendations.--Prior to selecting advisory panel 
     members, the Secretary shall, with respect to panel members 
     described in subsection (b)(1), solicit recommendations from 
     the National Academy of Sciences.
       ``(d) Ecosystem Report.--Within two years of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress a completed report of the fisheries ecosystem 
     management advisory panel, which shall include--
       ``(1) an analysis of the extent to which ecosystem 
     principles are being applied in fishery conservation and 
     management activities, including research activities;
       ``(2) proposed actions by the Secretary and by the Congress 
     that should be undertaken to expand the application of 
     ecosystem principles in fishery conservation and management; 
     and
       ``(3) such other information as may be appropriate.
       ``(e) Procedural Matter.--The procedural matters under 
     section 302(j) with respect to advisory panels shall apply to 
     the Fisheries Ecosystem Management advisory panel''.
       (b) Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Research.--Title IV of the 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1882) is amended by adding the following new 
     section.

     ``SEC. 407. GULF OF MEXICO RED SNAPPER RESEARCH.

       ``(a) The Secretary of Commerce Shall Ensure That--
       ``(1) no later than one year after the effective date of 
     the Sustainable Fisheries Act, an independent peer review is 
     completed of whether--
       ``(A) the fishery statistics of the Secretary concerning 
     the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico accurately and 
     completely account for all commercial and recreational 
     harvests and fishing effort on the stock;
       ``(B) the scientific methods, data and models used by the 
     Secretary to assess the status and trends of the Gulf of 
     Mexico red snapper stock are appropriate under this Act;
       ``(C) the scientific information upon which the fishery 
     management plan for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is 
     based is appropriate under this Act;
       ``(D) the management measures in the fishery management 
     plan for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico are appropriate 
     for conserving and managing the red snapper fishery under 
     this Act; and
       ``(E) the benefits and costs of establishing an individual 
     fishing quota program for the red snapper fishery in the Gulf 
     of Mexico and reasonable alternatives thereto have been 
     properly evaluated under this Act; and
       ``(2) commercial and recreational fishermen in the red 
     snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico are provided an 
     opportunity to--
       ``(A) participate in the peer review under paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(B) provide information to the Secretary of Commerce in 
     connection with the review of fishery statistics under 
     paragraph (a)(1) without being subject to penalty under this 
     Act or other applicable law for any past violation of a 
     requirement to report such information to the Secretary of 
     Commerce.
       ``(b) The Secretary of Commerce shall submit a detailed 
     written report on the findings of the peer review conducted 
     under subsection (a)(1) to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
     Management Council no later than one year after the effective 
     date of the Sustainable Fisheries Act.''.

     SEC. 208. 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(2) of the 
     Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 
     by section 103 of this Act.

     SEC. 209. STUDY OF IDENTIFICATION METHODS FOR HARVEST STOCKS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a 
     study to determine the best possible method of identifying 
     various Atlantic and Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks in 
     the ocean at time of harvest. The study shall include an 
     assessment of--
       (1) coded wire tags;
       (2) fin clipping; and
       (3) other identification methods.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall report the results of the 
     study, together with any recommendations for legislation 
     deemed necessary based on the study, within 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act to the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.

     SEC. 210. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The table of contents is amended by striking the matter 
     relating to title IV and inserting the following:

``Sec. 315. Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs.
``Sec. 316. Transition to sustainable fisheries.
``TITLE IV--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH
``Sec. 401. Registration and data management.
``Sec. 402. Data collection.
``Sec. 403. Observers.
``Sec. 404. Fisheries research.
``Sec. 405. Incidental harvest research.
``Sec. 406. Fisheries ecosystem management research.
``Sec. 407. Gulf of Mexico red snapper research.

[[Page S10808]]

                     TITLE III--FISHERIES FINANCING

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Fisheries Financing Act''.

     SEC. 302. FISHERIES FINANCING AND CAPACITY REDUCTION.

       Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1271 et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sections:
       ``Sec. 1111. (a) Pursuant to the authority granted under 
     section 1103(a) of this title, the Secretary may, under such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary shall prescribe by 
     regulation, guarantee and make commitments to guarantee the 
     principal of, and interest on, obligations which aid in 
     refinancing, in a manner consistent with the reduced cash 
     flows available to obligors because of reduced harvesting 
     allocations during implementation of a fishery recovery 
     effort, existing obligations relating to fishing vessels or 
     fishery facilities. Guarantees under this section shall be 
     subject to all other provisions of this title not 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this section. The 
     provisions of this section shall, notwithstanding any other 
     provisions of this title, apply to guarantees under this 
     section.
       ``(b) Obligations eligible to be refinanced under this 
     section shall include all obligations which financed or 
     refinanced any expenditures associated with the ownership or 
     operation of fishing vessels or fishery facilities, including 
     but not limited to expenditures for reconstructing, 
     reconditioning, purchasing, equipping, maintaining, 
     repairing, supplying, or any other aspect whatsoever of 
     operating fishing vessels or fishery facilities, excluding 
     only such obligations--
       ``(1) which were not in existence prior to the time the 
     Secretary approved a fishery rebuilding effort eligible for 
     guarantees under this section and whose purpose, in whole or 
     in part, involved expenditures which resulted in increased 
     vessel harvesting capacity; and
       ``(2) as may be owed by an obligor either to any 
     stockholder, partner, guarantor, or other principal of such 
     obligor or to any unrelated party if the purpose of such 
     obligation had been to pay an obligor's preexisting 
     obligation to such stockholder, partner, guarantor, or other 
     principal of such obligor.
       ``(c) The Secretary may refinance up to 100 percent of the 
     principal of, and interest on, such obligations, but, in no 
     event, shall the Secretary refinance an amount exceeding 75 
     percent of the unencumbered (after deducting the amount to be 
     refinanced by guaranteed obligations under this section) 
     market value, as determined by an independent marine surveyor 
     or other competent person for a fishery facility, of the 
     fishing vessel or fishery facility to which such obligations 
     relate plus 75 percent of the unencumbered (including but not 
     limited to homestead exemptions) market value, as determined 
     by an independent marine surveyor, of all other supplementary 
     collateral. The Secretary shall do so regardless of--
       ``(1) any fishing vessel or fishery facility's actual cost 
     or depreciated actual cost; and
       ``(2) any limitations elsewhere in this title on the amount 
     of obligations to be guaranteed or such amount's relationship 
     to actual cost or depreciated actual cost.
       ``(d) Obligations guaranteed under this section shall have 
     such maturity dates and other provisions as are consistent 
     with the intent and purpose of this section (including but 
     not limited to provisions for obligors to pay only the 
     interest accruing on the principal of such obligations during 
     the period in which fisheries stocks are recovering, with the 
     principal and interest accruing thereon being fully amortized 
     between the date stock recovery is projected to be completed 
     and the maturity date of such obligations).
       ``(e) No provision of section 1104A(d) of this title shall 
     apply to obligations guaranteed under this section.
       ``(f) The Secretary shall neither make commitments to 
     guarantee nor guarantee obligations under this section 
     unless--
       ``(1) the Secretary has first approved the fishery 
     rebuilding effort for the fishery in which vessels eligible 
     for the guarantee of obligations under this section are 
     participants and has determined that such guarantees will 
     have no adverse impacts on other fisheries in the region;
       ``(2) the Secretary has considered such factors as--
       ``(A) the projected degree and duration of reduced 
     fisheries allocations;
       ``(B) the projected reduction in fishing vessel and fishery 
     facility cash flows;
       ``(C) the projected severity of the impact on fishing 
     vessels and fishery facilities;
       ``(D) the projected effect of the fishery rebuilding 
     effort;
       ``(E) the provisions of any related fishery management plan 
     under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); and
       ``(F) the need for and advisability of guarantees under 
     this section;
       ``(3) the Secretary finds that the obligation to be 
     guaranteed will, considering the projected effect of the 
     fishery recovery effort involved and all other aspects of the 
     obligor, project, property, collateral, and any other aspects 
     whatsoever of the obligation involved, constitute, in the 
     Secretary's opinion, a reasonable prospect of full repayment; 
     and
       ``(4) the obligors agree to provide such security and meet 
     such other terms and conditions as the Secretary may, 
     pursuant to regulations prescribed under this section, 
     require to protect the interest of the United States and 
     carry out the purpose of this section.
       ``(g) All obligations guaranteed under this section shall 
     be accounted for separately, in a subaccount of the Federal 
     Ship Financing Fund to be known as the Fishery Recovery 
     Refinancing Account, from all other obligations guaranteed 
     under the other provisions of this title and the assets and 
     liabilities of the Federal Ship Financing Fund and the 
     Fishery Recovery Refinancing Account shall be segregated 
     accordingly.
       ``(h) For the purposes of this section, the term `fishery 
     rebuilding effort' means a fishery management plan, 
     amendment, or regulations required under section 304(e) of 
     the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to 
     rebuild a fishery which the Secretary has determined to be a 
     commercial fishery failure under section 316 of such Act.
       ``Sec. 1112. (a) The Secretary is authorized to guarantee 
     the repayment of debt obligations issued by entities under 
     this section. Debt obligations to be guaranteed may be issued 
     by any entity that has been approved by the Secretary and has 
     agreed with the Secretary to such conditions as the Secretary 
     deems necessary for this section to achieve the objective of 
     the program and to protect the interest of the United States.
       ``(b) Any debt obligation guaranteed under this section 
     shall--
       ``(1) be treated in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as other obligations guaranteed under this title, except with 
     respect to provisions of this title that by their nature 
     cannot be applied to obligations guaranteed under this 
     section;
       ``(2) have the fishing fees established under the program 
     paid into a separate subaccount of the fishing capacity 
     reduction fund established under this section;
       ``(3) not exceed $100,000,000 in an unpaid principal amount 
     outstanding at any one time for a program;
       ``(4) have such maturity (not to exceed 20 years), take 
     such form, and contain such conditions as the Secretary 
     determines necessary for the program to which they relate;
       ``(5) have as the exclusive source of repayment (subject to 
     the proviso in subsection (c)(2)) and as the exclusive 
     payment security, the fishing fees established under the 
     program; and
       ``(6) at the discretion of the Secretary be issued in the 
     public market or sold to the Federal Financing Bank.
       ``(c)(1) There is established in the Treasury of the United 
     States a separate account which shall be known as the fishing 
     capacity reduction fund (referred to in this section as the 
     `fund'). Within the fund, at least one subaccount shall be 
     established for each program into which shall be paid all 
     fishing fees established under the program and other amounts 
     authorized for the program.
       ``(2) Amounts in the fund shall be available, without 
     appropriation or fiscal year limitation, to the Secretary to 
     pay the cost of the program, including payments to financial 
     institutions to pay debt obligations incurred by entities 
     under this section, Provided that funds available for this 
     purpose from other amounts available for the program may also 
     be used to pay such debt obligations.
       ``(3) Sums in the fund that are not currently needed for 
     the purpose of this section shall be kept on deposit or 
     invested in obligations of the United States.
       ``(d) The Secretary is authorized and directed to issue 
     such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary to carry 
     out this section.
       ``(e) For the purposes of this section, the term `program' 
     means a fishing capacity reduction program established under 
     section 315 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act.''.

     SEC. 303. FISHERIES LOAN GUARANTEE REFORM.

       (a) Amendment of Merchant Marine Act, 1936.--Section 1104A 
     of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1274) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (a)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' and the end of paragraph (5);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; or'';
       (C) by inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) financing or refinancing, including, but not limited 
     to, the reimbursement of obligors for expenditures previously 
     made for, the purchase of individual fishing quotas in 
     accordance with section 303(d)(4) of the Magnuson Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1853(d)(4)).''; 
     and
       (D) in the last sentence, by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (6) and (7)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (b)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``equal to'' in the third proviso and 
     inserting ``not to exceed''; and
       (B) by striking ``except that no debt may be placed under 
     this proviso through the Federal Financing Bank:'' in the 
     third proviso and inserting ``and obligations related to 
     fishing vessels and fishery facilities under this title shall 
     be placed through the Federal Financing Bank unless placement 
     through the Federal Financing Bank is not reasonably 
     available or placement elsewhere is available at a lower 
     annual yield than placement through the Federal Financing 
     Bank:''.
       (b) Limit on Guarantees.--Fishing Vessel Obligation loan 
     guarantees may not exceed $40,000,000 annually for the 
     purposes of section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661c(b)).
       (c) Adjustment of Fees.--The Secretary of Commerce may take 
     such actions as necessary to adjust fees imposed on new loan 
     guarantee applicants to capture any savings from placement of 
     loan guarantee obligations through the Federal Financing Bank 
     if the total fees charged to applicants do not exceed the 
     percentage amounts paid before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Administrative Costs.--(1) Fees generated from the 
     adjustment in subsection (c) shall be deposited in the 
     appropriate account of the Federal Ship Financing Fund. The 
     Secretary of Commerce may transfer annually up to $1,700,000 
     from such account to pay for the administrative costs 
     associated with the Fisheries

[[Page S10809]]

     Obligation Guarantee Program if that program has resulted in 
     job cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit 
     Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 661a(5)).
       (2) Fees allocated to an individual fishing quota 
     obligation guarantee program pursuant to section 303(d)(4)(A) 
     (16 U.S.C. 1853(d)(4)(A)) shall be placed in a separate 
     account for each such program in the Federal Ship Financing 
     Fund for the purpose of providing budget authority for each 
     such program. Amounts in any such accounts shall be 
     identified in future fiscal year budget submissions of the 
     Executive Branch.
       (e) Prohibition.--Until October 1, 2001, no new loans may 
     be guaranteed by the Federal Government for the construction 
     of new fishing vessels if the construction will result in an 
     increased harvesting capacity within the United States 
     exclusive economic zone.
           TITLE IV--MARINE FISHERY STATUTE REAUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 401. MARINE FISH PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fisheries Information Collection and Analysis.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out fisheries information and 
     analysis activities under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 
     (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.) and any other law involving those 
     activities, $49,340,000 for fiscal year 1996, $50,820,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997, and $52,345,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Such activities may include, but 
     are not limited to, the collection, analysis and 
     dissemination of scientific data necessary for the management 
     of living marine resources and associated marine habitat.
       (b) Fisheries Conservation and Management Operations.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out activities relating to fisheries 
     conservation and management operations under the Fish and 
     Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.) and any other 
     law involving those activities, $28,183,000 for fiscal year 
     1996, $29,028,000 for fiscal year 1997, $29,899,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Such activities may 
     include, but are not limited to, development, implementation, 
     and enforcement of conservation and management measures to 
     achieve continued optimum use of living marine resources, 
     hatchery operations, habitat conservation, and protected 
     species management.
       (c) Fisheries State and Industry Cooperative Programs.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out State and industry cooperative 
     programs under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 
     742a et seq.) and any other law involving those activities, 
     $22,405,000 for fiscal year 1996, $23,077,000 for fiscal year 
     1997, and $23,769,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, and 2000. These activities include, but are not limited 
     to ensuring the quality and safety of seafood products and 
     providing grants to States for improving the management of 
     interstate fisheries.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations for Chesapeake Bay 
     Office.--Section 2(e) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration Marine Fisheries Program Authorization Act 
     (Public Law 98-210; 97 Stat. 1409) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1992 and 1993'' and inserting ``1996 and 
     1997'';
       (2) by striking ``establish'' and inserting ``operate'';
       (3) by striking ``306'' and inserting ``307''; and
       (4) by striking ``1991'' and inserting ``1992''.
       (e) Relation to Other Laws.--Authorizations under this 
     section shall be in addition to monies authorized under the 
     Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), the Anadromous Fish 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757 et seq.), and the 
     Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 4107 et seq.).

     SEC. 402. INTERJURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 308 of the 
     Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 4107) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) General Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Commerce for apportionment 
     to carry out the purposes of this title--
       ``(1) $3,400,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $3,900,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $4,400,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000.'';
       (2) by striking ``1994 and 1995,'' in subsection (b) and 
     inserting ``1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000''; 
     and
       (3) by striking ``$350,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, and $600,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1994 and 1995,'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting ``$650,000 for fiscal year 1996, $700,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997, $750,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, and 2000,''.
       (b) Amendment To Implement the Northeast, Northwest, and 
     Gulf of Mexico Disaster Relief Programs.--Section 308(d) of 
     the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 
     4107(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``award grants to persons engaged in 
     commercial fisheries, for uninsured losses determined by the 
     Secretary to have been suffered'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``assist persons engaged in commercial fisheries, 
     either directly through assistance to persons or indirectly 
     through assistance to State and local government agencies and 
     non-profit organizations, for projects or other measures 
     designed to alleviate impacts determined by the Secretary to 
     have been incurred'';
       (2) by striking ``a grant'' in paragraph (3) and inserting 
     ``assistance'';
       (3) by inserting ``, if provided directly to a person,'' in 
     paragraph (3) after ``subsection'';
       (4) by striking out ``gross revenues annually,'' in 
     paragraph (3) and inserting ``net annual revenue from 
     commercial fisheries,'';
       (5) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Assistance may not be provided under this subsection 
     as part of a fishing capacity reduction program in a fishery 
     unless the Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) adequate conservation and management measures are in 
     place in that fishery; and
       ``(B) adequate measures are in place to prevent the 
     replacement of fishing capacity eliminated by the program in 
     that fishery.''; and
       (6) by striking ``awarding'' and all that follows in 
     paragraph (5) and inserting ``assistance provided under this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 403. ANADROMOUS FISHERIES AMENDMENTS.

       Section 4(a)(2) of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 757d(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``and 1995.'' and 
     inserting ``1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.''.

     SEC. 404. ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT 
                   ACT AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definition.--Paragraph (1) of section 803 of the 
     Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 5102) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in 
     subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking ``States; and'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``States.''; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (b) Implementation Standard for Federal Regulation.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 804(b)(1) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
     5103(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``necessary to 
     support'' and inserting ``compatible with''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 809 of such 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 5108) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after ``1995,''; and
       (2) striking ``1996.'' and inserting ``1996, and $7,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.''.

     SEC. 405. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO MARITIME BOUNDARY 
                   AGREEMENT.

       (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) hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``FGB Act'', section 301(b) of that Act (adding a definition 
     of the term ``special areas'') shall take effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (b)  Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 301(h)(2)(A) of the FGB Act is repealed.
       (2) Section 304 of the FGB Act is repealed.
       (3) 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 other 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.''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his courtesy and 
for his support in moving forward on this bill. The statement made by 
the leader is correct. As I understand it, there could be, possibly, 
three votes tomorrow. We are going to try to work that out tonight and 
see what happens. It is my intention this evening to offer the 
managers' amendment to S. 39, which is a bill to reauthorize and 
strengthen the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation Management Act.
  This managers' amendment will replace the substitute that was 
approved and reported by the Commerce Committee and will be adopted as 
original text when it is adopted by the Senate. This is bipartisan 
legislation that has been in the works now for over 3 years. We called 
it the ``Sustainable Fisheries Act.'' It is the most significant 
revision of the Magnuson Act since that bill was enacted in 1976.
  I first introduced that 200-mile limit concept in the Senate, Mr. 
President, in 1971. We never envisioned the problems that exist today. 
I was very grateful to my friend from the State of

[[Page S10810]]

Washington--I used to call him my ``southern neighbor''--Senator 
Magnuson, for having worked on that bill for a period of time. It was 
my motion, made after the bill was passed, that named the bill after 
the former Senator from Washington, who had been chairman of the 
Commerce Committee and of the Appropriations Committee.
  At that time, in the 1970's, we had two primary goals--to Americanize 
the fisheries off our shores within a 200-mile limit and to protect the 
U.S. fishery resources, or to protect the capability of the fisheries 
to sustain themselves.
  We thought Americanization would go a long way toward conserving the 
fishery resources of this Nation. Foreign vessels have now given way to 
U.S. vessels that are capitalized now far beyond what we ever 
envisioned in the seventies, and the fisheries waste continues to get 
worse in many areas.
  This bill, S. 39, revitalizes the conservation measures of the 
Magnuson Act. Senators Kerry, Pressler, Hollings, Murkowski, Inouye, 
Lott, Simpson, and Pell have cosponsored this bill that I have 
introduced.
  I ask unanimous consent that these and others who may wish to be 
added as cosponsors to this bill be added for the Record if their 
request is made before the close of business today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. S. 39, for the first time, would require: First, the 
reduction of bycatch in fisheries; require the fishery management 
councils and the Secretary of Commerce to prevent overfishing; 
authorize a vessel and permit reduction program to help eliminate 
overcapacity in our fisheries capability; require council members to 
recuse themselves from voting on matters they would personally benefit 
from; require fishing communities to be considered in fishery 
management decisions; create a lien registry to keep track of 
encumbrances on limited access permits; and create a new registration 
system to keep track of fishing vessels themselves.
  This bill, S. 39, will strengthen existing sections of the Magnuson 
Act to protect essential fish habitat; streamline the approval process 
for fishery management plans and regulations; strengthen emergency 
regulatory authority, and expand research activities.
  The waste reduction provisions of S. 39 are particularly needed now, 
Mr. President. Under S. 39, the regional councils will be required to 
include measures in every fisheries management plan to prevent 
overfishing. If a council allows a fishery to become overfished, the 
Secretary of Commerce will be required to step in and stop it.
  We continue to support having management decisions made in the 
regions themselves. But if the fisheries management councils have 
allowed a fishery to become overfished, we want it to be stopped 
immediately. And this bill will authorize the Secretary of Commerce to 
step in at that point.
  But I remind the Senate that the management decisions may be made and 
should be made by the councils themselves, and this bill preserves that 
authority.
  Under S. 39, the councils will also be required to reduce the amount 
of bycatch in every fishery around our country. This bill will give the 
councils new tools, including harvest incentives and penalty fees, to 
stop wasteful practices.
  The bycatch problem is of great concern in my State of Alaska, where 
over half of the Nation's fish are harvested each year off our shores.
  In 1995, 60 factory trawlers discarded nearly as much fish in the 
Bering Sea as was kept in the New England lobster fishery, the Atlantic 
mackerel fishery, the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, the Pacific 
sablefish fishery, and the North Pacific halibut fishery combined.
  The waste in that area was as great as the total catch of all the 
major fisheries off our shores. These 60 factory trawlers threw 
overboard--dead and unused--about one out of every four fish they 
caught.
  I have a chart here to call to the attention of the Senate. Last 
year, the Bering Sea trawl vessels--this is all the trawl vessels and 
not just factory trawlers that are committing waste-- 
threw 17 percent of their catch overboard, dead and not used. That 
total catch, as you can see by the chart, exceeds by almost 500 million 
pounds the total catch of all five of the major fisheries of the United 
States.
  That is the way we are trying to find to reduce their bycatch. 
Bycatch is the harvest of fisheries that are not in the targeted 
fishery area; not the fish that a vessel is trying to catch, but the 
fish that is caught incidentally.

  I hope that this bill will bring a stop to this inexcusable amount of 
waste.
  This bill also addresses the divisive issue of individual fisheries 
quotas, the so-called IFQ's, or CTQ's.
  The ``individual fishing quota'' as defined in S. 39 means both the 
transferable and nontransferable quotas that are known as IFQ's. We 
place a moratorium on new IFQ programs until September 30 in the year 
2000.
  In the meantime, the National Academy of Sciences will study IFQ's 
with the Secretary of Commerce, the councils, the regional councils, 
and two regional working groups to address many unresolved issues.
  There are only three IFQ plans in our Nation today. Two of them are 
on the east coast: the wreckfish IFQ program and the surf clam IFQ 
program.
  The largest IFQ program went into effect last year in the halibut/
black cod fisheries off my State of Alaska. The Alaska program involves 
almost 100 times as much fishing vessels as the two east coast 
programs.
  IFQ's are a new tool that we did not even consider in 1990, the last 
time we reauthorized the Magnuson Act. They were not even dreamed of 
when we first passed the Magnuson Act.
  Unlike other limited access systems, IFQ's allow the potential 
consolidation of fishing efforts in a fishery. This characteristic may 
provide a useful tool to allow the market to drive a reduction in 
fishing capacity when needed, Mr. President. However, it has potential 
negative and other unknown effects.
  We are worried about the new level of capital requirements of IFQ's. 
We are worried that fisheries will become investor owned totally under 
IFQ's and not the family traditional fishing that has been the hallmark 
of America's fisheries. We are worried about the impact of IFQ's on the 
fishing communities themselves. And we are worried about foreign 
control of IFQ's, once they are established, and the fisheries 
themselves if a rigid U.S. ownership standard is not set for them.
  In other words, we Americanized the system. And, now, if we really 
let IFQ's go unrestrained, we could really end up with more ownership 
of the IFQ's and destroy the whole purpose of the Magnuson Act to 
create an Americanized zone within which we would protect our fisheries 
and have a conservation ethic to be the major goal of the Magnuson Act.
  The Magnuson Act, this bill, would permanently ban transferable IFQ's 
in the House version that we received. That was H.R. 39.
  Our Senate bill puts a 4-year moratorium on both transferable and 
nontransferable IFQ's. We just do not have enough information yet, Mr. 
President, to decide what limitations ought to be put on the IFQ's, if 
any. We need facts, and we need a study.
  I believe the House will agree with this approach, Mr. President.
  The academy's IFQ report will be due in the year 1998, one year 
before the next reauthorization of the Magnuson Act.
  S. 39 includes measures important to predominantly Native and 
aboriginal communities in both Alaska and Hawaii. For Alaska, this bill 
will codify the community development quota programs already adopted by 
the North Pacific Council. For Hawaii, it will provide CDQ authority 
based on the concepts that have already been developed in Alaska.

  As I mentioned, this bill has been a bipartisan effort. It has not 
been an easy job, Mr. President, to bring together all of the diverse 
views in this body on this issue. But it is the best of what this body 
should be doing--responding together to the devastating, wasteful 
practices that we know of, and making every vessel follow sound 
conservation practices.
  I want to take the time to specifically thank my good friend from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, who has worked with me for some time on 
this issue. Through the change of political control, we find ourselves 
working together with very slight difference. This time I was chairman. 
The last time he

[[Page S10811]]

was. But in purpose we have had a singular purpose, and that is to stop 
the wasteful practices.
  Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings, the chairman and ranking 
member of our committee, and Senators Lott, Snowe, Inouye, Murkowski, 
Gorton, Hutchison, Breaux, and Murray, and all their staffs, have been 
very cooperative in this effort.
  As I said, it has been contentious. Anyone that has ever dealt with 
fisheries and fishermen know the issues will get contentious. It takes 
a long time to work out these disputes.
  I thank the staff involved: Trevor McCabe and Earl Comstock, who have 
worked with me; Tom Melius, who worked with Senator Pressler; Penny 
Dalton, who worked with Senator Kerry and Senator Hollings; and Glenn 
Merrill and Alex Elkan, Sea Grant fellows in the Commerce Committee who 
worked with us this year.
  Mr. President, this bill is the product of hearings we have held 
throughout this country.
  We went to Maine; we went to Massachusetts, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Louisiana; we went into Seattle; several places in my State, 
and we have held several hearings right here in Washington. This is the 
way I think the Senate should work. We should go out to the people, get 
their views and come back and try to find a way to meet the major 
contentions that have been pressed on us from out in our country.
  It is not an easy bill for us to handle in the way we are now 
compelled to handle it because of the timeframe as we close the 
session. It has taken the cooperation of the majority and minority 
leader--and I do congratulate Senator Daschle for his role in this 
also--to make certain that we have had the time to proceed.
  Where we are now is we have a time agreement and we have a specific 
allocation of opportunities for Members to offer their amendments. I 
believe most of those amendments have been cared for in our revisions 
of the managers' amendment which is a bipartisan effort by myself and 
Senator Kerry and our staffs, working with all the staffs of the Senate 
that were interested in this issue.
  It is my intention now to yield to my good friend, and I know he has 
a statement to make. But we are hopeful that Senators who may have some 
interest in making comments realize what the leader has said. We will 
debate this tonight. We will debate the amendments that are offered 
pursuant to the agreement tonight but tomorrow there will be no debate. 
We have not asked for debate tomorrow. We just want to vote on the 
amendments that might be presented to us tonight and then final passage 
of this bill.
  To me this is the most significant piece of legislation to be 
presented to this Congress. It will be the hallmark of conservation of 
fisheries throughout the world. I hope the Senate does not miss that. 
The world is looking to us to see what we are going to do with regard 
to protecting the fisheries within our 200-mile limit. These are strong 
measures, Mr. President. The authorizations going to these councils are 
very strong. The regional fisheries councils were a creature of this 
Congress, as a matter of fact of this Senate. They amount to delegation 
of authority from the Federal Government to a new body created by 
Federal legislation and requests the States to delegate similar 
authority to those bodies. That has been carried out, and nowhere has 
the council been more involved in the daily lives of people than in my 
State through the activities of the North Pacific Fisheries Council. It 
is a unique council. It is totally off the waters of one State but it 
has members from the States of Washington and Oregon and a national 
representative also.
  So it is something I hope the Senate realizes means a very great deal 
to me personally and to my State. Half of the coastline of the United 
States is off our shores. More than half of the fisheries are off our 
shores. More than half of the fish that our people consume come from 
the waters off the shores of Alaska. We want to preserve the 
reproductive capability of those fisheries. We do not want to see a 
continuation of the numbers on this chart.
  When we see the possibility of hundreds of millions of pounds of fish 
being wasted because of fishing practices that could be avoided, we 
believe it is time for the Congress to act. I am glad that we have 
reached the point now where I believe the Congress will act, and I am 
hopeful that the House of Representatives will be willing to accept our 
changes and modifications to this bill.
  Again, I commend my good friend who has traveled with me throughout 
the country for hearings on this measure, and I yield to the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska not just 
for his comments but I particularly thank him for the great personal 
friendship that we have built over the course of these years working 
together on this and also for the great bipartisan approach to this.
  This is tough legislation. There are enormous competing interests all 
across this country--sport fishermen, commercial fishermen, 15 
different kinds of commercial fishermen in one particular area, all of 
them tugging at each other, a huge amount of vendors and others with 
interests to each of those fishermen, processors, foreign export 
involvement. The competing interests are as broad and as complicated as 
almost any that I have confronted in the course of my time in the 
Senate, perhaps with the exception of the Clean Air Act or something 
that similarly brings every part of the country against another.

  I think the distinguished Senator from Alaska has done a terrific job 
of helping to build that bipartisan effort here. We started out 4 years 
ago when I was chairman of the subcommittee, and at that time we held 
hearings in various parts of the country. At the time that the Senate 
switched control this bill basically stayed the same. The names 
switched, Senator Stevens took over the subcommittee, but we continued 
to work in the same bipartisan way, and I think it is a tribute to his 
efforts and to Senator Hollings' efforts as the ranking member of the 
full committee that we are now able to be here and able to proceed.
  It is with great satisfaction that I am able to commend to my 
colleagues this piece of legislation which is appropriately called the 
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. It is without question the most 
important rewrite of our fishing laws, the Federal fishing laws since 
1976 when the Magnuson Fisheries and Conservation Management Act was 
enacted, and at that time as many remember we Americanized the 
fisheries within 200 miles of our shore. We reached out and said we are 
going to try to manage that 200-mile coastline better.
  It has been a long time in coming, but this bill is going to result 
in a significantly improved regime for the management of the Nation's 
marine fishery resources. These amendments improve and strengthen the 
standards upon which the current management regime is based, and it 
enables us to further enhance our capacity to be able to restore and 
maintain healthy and sustainable fisheries.
  The amendments that are offered in this bill were developed in 
conjunction with and for the most part supported by a diverse 
representation of groups, all of them with an interest in the marine 
fisheries including the commercial and recreational fishermen, the 
environmental community, coastal communities, and States.
  In recent months we have all read many editorials that have been 
building up support around the country for the passage of this bill. I 
will share a quick piece from my hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe 
which wrote that ``Before U.S. Senators go home . . . they have an 
obligation to complete legislation extending the Magnuson Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, the foundation for rescuing America's 
troubled fishing industry.''
  Enactment of S. 39 is critical if we are going to put our fisheries 
back onto a sustainable path and literally avert an environmental 
catastrophe on a national level.
  Of the 157 fishery resources for which the National Marine Fisheries 
Service manages, 36 percent--51 different stocks--are overfished; 44 
percent or 69 stocks are fully harvested, and 20 percent are 
underutilized. The main point illustrated by these figures is that

[[Page S10812]]

many of the fishery resources that have provided the greatest economic 
benefit to fishermen and to this Nation are just simply overfished or 
approaching the overfished level. This situation is being exacerbated 
by the demands of a population with an increasing appetite for eating 
fish. The net effect has been that we have too many fishermen chasing 
too few fish.
  We are precariously close to fisheries failures in many of our most 
commercially important fish stocks, and it is imperative that we take 
immediate action if we are to avert disasters such as the one that we 
are currently experiencing, literally living in, off the waters of New 
England. S. 39 provides guidance and the tools necessary to help ensure 
that fishery failures will be avoided and the fish stocks can be 
rebuilt to provide the greatest possible economic benefit to our 
Nation.
  As I mentioned earlier, this bill came neither easily nor quickly. It 
is the result of 4 years of work, the subject of 15 hearings and 
countless staff hours and meetings among Senators and interested 
parties. I commend all of those parties for the fact that we are now on 
the floor, able to pass this legislation, as I am confident we will in 
a matter of hours. I would like to point out that, from the start, it 
has been the willingness to be bipartisan that has brought all of us to 
this point, and I think that is a tribute to the way in which the 
Senate can work when people set their minds to it.
  It has been my sense that Senator Stevens' own commitment to this 
obviously came out of the fact, which many may not realize, that he was 
one of the original crafters of the Magnuson bill when it was first 
passed in 1976. He has had a long-time commitment to achieving this. 
Obviously, because he represents the State of Alaska, he has enormous 
interests in what we are doing here today.
  I also would like to express my gratitude to Senators Gorton and 
Murray for their recognition of the importance of this bill and the 
benefit that it holds out to our Nation as a whole. Fishery issues 
rarely lend themselves to unanimous agreement, as both Senator Stevens 
and I have described, and the scope and breadth of the changes that are 
offered in this bill are such that the competing interest groups have 
had to fight fiercely to try to reach accommodation and compromise. The 
Senators from Washington have, quite rightly, represented the interests 
of their State. That is what they are supposed to do and that is how we 
are supposed to work through this process. I commend both of them for 
having done that diligently and tenaciously in this effort.
  But in the end, it is our final responsibility to balance all of the 
parochial interests with the interests of the Nation as a whole. I 
believe that, while there may be parts of this bill which may not 
provide the full level of benefits that one particular group or another 
may want, in the end this bill provides an overall benefit and balance 
to the Nation that greatly exceeds the sum of its parts.
  Fishing has been and continues to be an extraordinarily important 
part of this Nation's heritage. We know that very, very well in 
Massachusetts, in New Hampshire--the Chair's State--in Maine, and all 
down our coastline. Since the first settlers came to this country, we 
have been dependent on the sea. We have, however, found that as Federal 
data on the overutilization of fish stocks has increased, we now 
understand there is a growing problem in the management of these 
resources. That growing problem threatens the sustainability of these 
recreationally and commercially valuable resources. So, before I 
elaborate on the benefits of S. 39, I would just like to highlight for 
a moment the economic asset that the fishing industry carries to this 
country.
  Directly or indirectly, the seafood industry contributes nearly $50 
billion annually to the U.S. economy. According to data for 1994, U.S. 
commercial fishermen landed 10.5 billion pounds of fish and seafood 
products, producing a record $3.8 billion in dockside revenues. By 
weight of catch, we are now the world's fifth leading fishing nation, 
and the United States is also the world's top seafood exporter, with 
exports valued at $7.4 billion. Millions of salt water anglers have 
turned marine recreational fisheries into a multimillion dollar 
industry that caught an estimated 361.9 million fish--that includes 
those caught and released alive--and an estimated 66.1 million fishing 
trips; an extraordinary amount of activity. As an economic asset, 
recreational fisheries and related industries generate over $7 billion 
annually to our economy.

  In New England, we have, tragically, become all too familiar with the 
downside of all of this. We have seen the collapse of the cod and the 
haddock fisheries. It has come about principally because of overfishing 
and, as a result of that overfishing, our fishermen have fallen on hard 
times. In 1992, overfishing was estimated to cost Massachusetts alone 
about 88 million pounds of groundfish harvests worth at least $193 
million annually. For all of New England, annual losses total at least 
$350 million and 14,000 jobs. While we do not have specific numbers for 
New England, at the national level the Department of Commerce estimates 
that rebuilding our fisheries to a more productive level could create 
300,000 new jobs and billions of dollars in additional revenues.
  So, I want to emphasize what we are doing here today is not the 
signal of the end of the fishing era, it is not the signal of a 
continuing decline in fisheries; it is our effort to guarantee that 
there is a growth industry, that there is an industry for the future. I 
repeat, the national estimates are, if we do this properly, we can 
create 300,000 new jobs, billions of dollars of additional revenue, and 
we can have sustainable fisheries for generations to come.
  The testimony of Nantucket fisherman Capt. Mark Simonitsch at a 
hearing I held in New Bedford summarizes the cost of overfishing very, 
very well. Let me just share his words. He said:

       You sit there and you think over the years that, if you can 
     finally pay your mortgage off, that the money is all going to 
     go into your pocket. This year, I've yet to catch 50,000 
     pounds of fish. I have lost thousands of dollars. And my crew 
     has made so little, a crew that has been with me, believe it 
     or not, for 17 years, they may not come back next year. So I 
     have chosen today to talk about solving the hard problem, 
     Senator, and that's getting fish back.

  That statement was from a Massachusetts fishing captain who called 
this crisis to the attention of all of us.
  The Sustainable Fisheries Act goes a long way toward solving the 
problem of getting the fish back. In addition, the bill calls for 
monitoring the health of fisheries and limits on harvests to prevent 
overfishing from recurring. To quote Captain Simonitsch again, he said 
it's time to stop ``all this wheelhouse thinking and tire kicking'' and 
get the bill enacted.
  The bill also continues my fight for assistance to New England 
fishermen, extending Federal authority for fisheries disaster relief 
and authorizing vessel and permit buyout programs to reduce excess 
fishing capacity and pressure on the fishing industry itself.
  In addition to preventing overfishing, the Sustainable Fisheries Act 
calls for action to address two other important environmental 
concerns--reducing bycatch and waste, and protecting fish habitat.
  As the director of the New England Aquarium pointed out in a recent 
letter:

       At least 20 percent of our total fishery catch is thrown 
     overboard dead or dying. In 1994, the U.S. fishing fleet off 
     Alaska dumped a staggering 750 million pounds of bycatch, 
     more fish [was dumped overboard and thrown away] than was 
     caught by the entire New England fleet last year.

  The letter goes on to say:

       The greatest long-term threat to the viability of our 
     nation's marine resources could be the continuing loss and 
     degradation of coastal marine habitat. Louisiana alone has 
     lost half a million acres of wetland since the mid-1950's. 
     The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that $200 
     million is lost annually in reduced catches due to ongoing 
     habitat loss.

  As all of us know, if you destroy the habitat, you destroy the 
nurseries and you destroy the ecosystem on which those nurseries are 
dependent, which then diminishes the ability to have a sustainable 
fishery. We need to understand the linkage of those wetlands and the 
role they play in the spawning of fish and of the ecosystem to the 
total catch that will ultimately be available.
  I might add that a couple of years ago, the Senator from Alaska and I 
took steps through the United Nations to end driftnet fishing. 
Driftnets, 30,000

[[Page S10813]]

miles of monofilament nets were being laid out at night in the 
northwest Pacific. These nets would break off and fish on their own. 
They would be what are called phantom nets or ghost fisheries where 
they would float to the surface as plastic and trap fish, mostly salmon 
coming out of the Columbia River, and they would sink to the bottom 
where the scavengers would eat the carcasses until it was light enough 
and drift some more.
  There are still some individuals in certain nations who are 
continuing this outlawed practice of driftnet fishing. That is the kind 
of example of protection we need to be involved with to deal with the 
concerns of habitat and of bycatch and waste. This bill would require 
the fishery management plans to assess bycatch levels in each fishery 
and take steps to minimize the bycatch and the mortality of bycatch 
which cannot be avoided.
  In addition, fishery managers are required under this bill to 
identify essential fish habitat and to minimize the adverse effects on 
habitat due to fishing.
  In summary, Mr. President, the bill before us addresses many of the 
problems affecting the management of our fisheries and provides 
essential tools to reversing the damaging trends that I have outlined. 
Our Nation's fisheries are literally at a crossroads, and significant 
action is required to remedy our marine resource management problems 
and preserve the way of life of our coastal communities.
  I believe that this bill goes a long way toward solving the hard 
problems and providing help for fishermen and coastal communities 
during the difficult rebuilding period. The opportunity to fish and to 
have fish on the dinner table is something that many Americans have 
simply taken for granted in the past. But unless we take the steps that 
are set forth in this bill to ensure that these vital resources are 
conserved, they will not be there for future generations.
  This is a vital bill. It is a good bill for the environment, as 
Senator Stevens said, and I share the view it is the most important 
environmental legislation that we will pass in this session. It is good 
for fishermen, it is good for economic welfare of this Nation, and I 
remain committed to the goal that fishing will continue to be a part, 
an essential part, of the culture of our coastal communities of the 
United States and of Massachusetts and of our economies. It is that 
important, and it means that much
  Finally, Mr. President, I would just like to say that there has been 
an extraordinary effort by both the majority staff and the minority 
staff who have labored literally for years, but particularly in the 
last few months, and an extraordinary amount of time has been put into 
developing this bill.
  I would like to thank, on the Democratic side, Penny Dalton, Lila 
Helms, and Kate English, who each have done just a tremendous job. On 
the Republican side, I would like to thank Trevor McCabe, Earl 
Comstock, and Tom Melius. And during the past 2 years there have been a 
number of people on my staff who have served as legislative fellows on 
my staff or on the Commerce Committee and who have put in an enormous 
amount of time and energy to make this bill possible. Particularly I 
would like to thank Steve Metruck, Alex Elkan, Peter Hill, and Tom 
Richey for their contribution to this legislation.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, are we under controlled time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Are we divided equally?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, 60 minutes equally divided. The Senator 
from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining. The Senator from Alaska 
has 14 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there being relatively few people here, I 
ask unanimous consent that that time be extended at least for those 
Members who are willing to speak on this issue tonight.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in order to keep an agreement here so we 
can know the time, I ask how much time the Senator from Washington 
needs.
  Mr. GORTON. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. How much time does Senator Murray need?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Approximately 10 minutes or less.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in addition to the 
time allotted to both sides, the Senators from Washington be allowed to 
speak: Senator Gorton for 15 minutes and Senator Murray for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, our journey to this point on this bill has 
been long and tortured. And at the end of the road I find a product 
that, from the Washington State perspective, is greatly improved from 
the measure that passed out of committee and immeasurably better than 
H.R. 39, which was rejected by every Member of the Washington 
delegation, Republican and Democrat alike, and which has my support. 
Let me make absolutely clear, however, that even though I will vote for 
S. 39, as amended by the manager's amendment, any unilateral changes 
made by the House will be the death knell to the Sustainable Fisheries 
Act in this Congress.
  The Sustainable Fisheries Act has been sold, and bought hook, line, 
and sinker, by the national press and the majority of my colleagues, as 
the strongest environmental bill of this Congress. That is, I am 
afraid, an overly simplistic characterization.
  I do not, and have not, taken issue with the true conservation 
measures in S. 39. But the act is as much a social and economic 
manifesto as an environmental one. The bill is as much about the 
allocation of fishery resources--the allocation between commercial and 
recreational fishers, between processors and harvesters, between on-
shore and offshore processors, and yes, between Washington and Alaska, 
as it is about the conservation of fish.
  Before I comment on what I think is wrong with this measure, I would 
like to recognize those aspects that are sound. I generally endorse the 
measure's conservation provisions; its treatment of individual fishing 
quotas; and its efforts to mitigate the effects of the Federal court's 
allocation of shellfish resources to Indian tribes in Washington State.


                   Conservation of Fishery Resources

  The conservation provisions in S. 39 are the only aspect of the bill 
that most of the public knows or cares about. Contrary to reports, I 
join my colleagues in lauding those provisions that aim to reduce waste 
and bycatch in the fisheries, to prevent overfishing, and to restore 
overfished fisheries to health. But I take a more cautious view of the 
extent to which these worthy goals will be achieved than do most of my 
colleagues and members of the national press.
  This bill pushes the regional fishery management councils, some of 
which have proven unwilling to practice sound management, in the 
direction of responsible conduct. In fact, I don't believe that the 
Sustainable Fisheries Act empowers the fishery management councils, or 
the Secretary of Commerce, to do much more than these entities already 
are empowered to do. Rather, the Sustainable Fisheries Act is a 
statement by Congress that conservation of the resource must be a 
priority, and the bill highlights the tools that councils and the 
Secretary can use to achieve this goal.
  I approve of inviting fishery managers to act more responsibly, but I 
urge vigilance. Regional politics and short-term interests have 
conspired in the past to undermine responsible resource management to 
certain fisheries. It is naive to think that this bill alone can 
correct this condition. It cannot. So while I support the conservation 
provisions in S. 39, I caution that the work of ensuring responsible 
conservation and management of fishery resources does not end with the 
passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act--it only begins.

  Ironically, the fishery that has been singled out in S. 39 for 
particularly stringent waste and bycatch reduction measures is the 
North Pacific groundfish fishery. I do not now object, and have never 
objected to the bill's prescriptions for this Washington State-
dominated trawl fishery, but it is important to note that the singling 
out of this fishery is a function of politics and not sound science.
  Despite its Alaska-heavy composition, the North Pacific Council, to

[[Page S10814]]

which many of the bill's waste and bycatch reduction provisions are 
addressed, has been praised for its resource conservation measures. 
Despite its recent dramatic public demonstrations, even GreenPeace 
acknowledged in 1992 that ``The North Pacific * * * provide[s] a model 
for the way other [regional fishery management] Councils should be 
managing the fisheries in this nation and probably in the world.'' 
Again, I do not oppose strong and sensible bycatch and waste reduction 
measures in the North Pacific groundfish fishery, but only so long as 
the singling out of any sector of a fishery is supported by scientific 
evidence. I note that recently, GreenPeace launched a public relations 
attack on the Seattle-based factory trawlers in the Bering Sea pollock 
fishery. Certainly GreenPeace is within its rights to do so. I 
sincerely hope, however, that as we continue to strive toward 
responsible management of our fisheries, that we do not allow policy to 
be set by meretricious activists whose often uninformed rantings drown 
out the voices of scientists, fishery managers, and environmentalists 
who properly place conservation ahead of a radical social agenda.


                                 ifq's

  My opposition to this bill has often mistakenly been reduced only to 
a disagreement over the treatment of individual fishing quotas. 
Ironically, I believe that Senator Stevens and I were, from the 
beginning, more in agreement on this issue than on a number of others 
that affect the allocation of resources in the North Pacific.
  Although I am not an unqualified supporter of IFQ's, it is hard to 
ignore the success of the North Pacific halibut-sablefish IFQ program 
that was implemented last year. The program has not been flawless, but 
its initial effectiveness in improving safety, providing fresh fish 
year round to consumers, and reducing overcapitalization in a fishery--
without a regional epidemic of bankruptcies or a hemorrhage of the 
Federal budget in the form of Federal buy-out assistance--is promising. 
Throughout this process, I have tried to ensure that this infant 
program will continue without interruption. I sincerely appreciate 
Senator Stevens' support on this issue.
  I believe that Senator Stevens and I agree that IFQ's are a powerful 
tool, and that it is reasonable to adopt a moratorium to suspend, for a 
time, the implementation of new IFQ programs until we have had the 
chance further to study and better to understand the social and 
economic effects of IFQ's on the conservation and management of 
resources, on participants in all sectors of the industry--harvesters 
and processor alike, and on the American public.
  Senator Stevens and I have disagreed, however, on the duration of 
this moratorium. We also had a critical disagreement over whether or 
not IFQ's should be barred indefinitely in the North Pacific by 
requiring a supermajority vote of a council to adopt new IFQ's in the 
absence of further congressional action on this subject.
  Despite these disagreements, the Senate has reached a reasonable 
compromise. The moratorium on the implementation of new IFQ's is longer 
than I would have liked--it is 4 years--but it is finite, and requires 
no supermajority vote of councils after the moratorium expires. The 
compromise provisions also permit councils to study and develop IFQ's 
during the moratorium. Moreover, the moratorium on IFQ's will not 
preclude the implementation of a new bycatch accountability system that 
should help to reduce bycatch by holding every vessel accountable for 
what it catches.
  Significantly, the Sustainable Fisheries Act provides for a 
comprehensive study of IFQ's by the National Academy of Sciences, which 
study which will be available to educate Congress when we next consider 
this issue. Education is critical: despite my reservations about 
implementing new IFQ's in the North Pacific at this time, I consider it 
pure folly to adopt the House approach of crippling all prospective 
quota programs before we have had the chance to assess them adequately.


            Mitigating the effects of U.S. versus Washington

  I fully support the provisions of the bill that attempt to mitigate 
the loss to Washington's commercial crabbers caused by the adjudication 
of tribal claims to shellfish in a subproceeding of U.S. versus 
Washington. Last year, a decision by a district court, a decision that 
is now on appeal, allocated a large portion of the catch to Indian 
tribes and threatens to deprive nontribal fishermen, who have been 
fishing for generations, of their livelihoods.
  We have amended S. 39 in two ways to try to mitigate the loss to 
nontribal commercial crabbers in Washington. First, the manager's 
amendment now authorizes State-managed fisheries, such as the 250-
vessel inner Puget Sound dungeness crab fishery, to obtain Federal 
funds for a license buy-out program.
  Second, for the coastal dungeness fishery, the manager's amendment 
gives Washington, for a limited time until a Fishery Management Plan is 
in place, tools to regulate all crabbers equally in the exclusive 
economic zone adjacent to the State. This new regulatory authority will 
help to ensure that the cost of the tribal allocation will be borne 
more fairly by all commercial crabbers who fish in the EEZ adjacent to 
Washington, not just crabbers whose vessels are registered in the 
State.
  The managers amendment permits the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, among other things, to set pot limits to slow the pace of 
fishing by all nontribal commercial crabbers to help facilitate 
management or settlement with the tribes.
  Although this provision gives Washington, Oregon, and California new 
powers to regulate vessels not registered in these respective States, 
and restates these States' ability to regulate landings, the provision 
is intentionally silent on whether the limited access program in each 
State can be enforced in the EEZ. I anticipate, however, that when it 
prepares a Fishery Management Plan for dungeness crab, the Pacific 
Council will be guided by the limited access programs already in place 
on the west coast.
  Having just described those aspects of the bill that I support 
heartily, I would like to speak for a moment to those that I believe 
are subject to serious reservations.
  There are three provisions in this bill that I think are misguided. 
They are: The provision regarding fishing communities; the demotion of 
the role of efficiency in fishery management; and the creation of a 
permanent entitlement program for Native Alaskans in the form of 
community development quotas.


                          fishing communities

  The managers' amendment corrects a fundamental inequity in the 
original S. 39, that would have further skewed the allocation of North 
Pacific fishery resources in Alaska's favor by giving economic 
protections and preferences to fishing communities, and by defining 
these communities so as apparently to exclude any in the State of 
Washington.
  While my parochial concerns have been fully addressed in the 
manager's amendment by redefining ``fishing communities'' to include 
the communities of tens of thousands of Washingtonians employed in the 
fishing industry, I continue to believe that establishing a national 
standard to protect fishing communities is bad policy. It authorizes 
nothing certain except for bad policy and litigation.
  Moreover, it seems to me to be contrary to the purported conservation 
goals of this bill to attempt to insulate fishing communities from the 
economic effects of instituting sound management and restoring healthy 
stocks. Correcting years of irresponsible management and concern for 
short-term profit cannot be accomplished painlessly, though we should 
strive to minimize that pain. Continuing to delay the inevitable, 
however, by giving councils another excuse for ineffective conservation 
measures will only make more likely the total demise of our fisheries.


                               efficiency

  The Sustainable Fisheries Act demotes the role of efficiency in 
fishery management and conservation by changing national standard five 
from one of promoting efficiency in the use of fishery resources, where 
practicable, to merely considering efficiency. Again, this change was 
made on the pretext of improving conservation, but the provision's 
authors have never been able to explain how the current standard 
undermines conservation efforts, and why this change is needed.

[[Page S10815]]

  Under the guise of promoting conservation, this provision promotes a 
foolish social agenda--one that fails to reorganize a sensible balance 
between the legitimate interests of traditional small-vessel fishers, 
the interests of consumers, and the need to improve productivity to 
remain competitive in a global economy.
  There is, I believe, a perception that an attack on efficiency is a 
triumph for small vessels and a blow to what are perceived to be the 
larger, more cost-effective vessels such as those in Washington's 
factory trawlers fleet. This perception reveals a disturbing trend 
toward unfairly demonizing more productive, more efficient fleets. I 
repeat my earlier adomination--we need to recognize that good 
management, not small vessels or large vessels, leads to sound 
conservation and healthy fisheries, and that there is room in a healthy 
and efficient fishery for both.


                                 CDQ's

  Without a doubt, the allocation-related provision in this bill that I 
find most objectionable is the provision mandating a permanent 
entitlement program for Native Alaskans through community development 
quotas--an entitlement program that will be paid for largely by the 
Washington fishing industry. Codifying this assistance program is not 
only inappropriate in a bill that purports to deal with resources, not 
social management, but is inappropriate in this Congress, which just 
recently succeeded in reforming another entitlement program called 
welfare.
  CDQ's are set-aside programs that reserve a sizable percentage of 
various fisheries for Native Alaskan communities. Currently, CDQ's are 
not authorized by the Magnuson Act. Nevertheless, the Alaska-dominated 
North Pacific Council has reserved 7\1/2\ percent of the largely 
Washington-fished Bering Sea pollock stock for Native Alaskan 
communities, and even larger percentages in the halibut and sablefish 
fisheries. Recently, the council recommended CDQ's for crab and 
groundfish, but this recommendation has not yet been approved by the 
Secretary of Commerce. Not surprisingly, the council has not imposed 
CDQ's on fisheries dominated by Alaskans.
  The fundamental unfairness of CDQ's was certainly appreciated by 
other Members of this body, for the Sustainable Fisheries Act, while 
going after fishermen from Washington State, protects other fishermen 
from this particular poison by specifically prohibiting CDQ programs in 
almost every other part of the country.
  But since CDQ's would be a reality even in the absence of a Magnuson 
Act reauthorization, our ability to limit this unfair practice was 
slight indeed.
  In exchange for allowing this bill to proceed, I have exacted 
concessions on the issues of CDQ's. But these concessions are small. 
First, to provide relief for the Bering Sea crabbers who, even before 
the implementation of CDQ's are struggling to survive amid record low 
stocks, the managers' amendment provides for a graduated phase-in of 
development quotas. In addition, the manager's amendment provides for a 
study of CDQ's to determine if these development quotas are meeting 
their stated purpose of facilitating participating communities' entry 
into commercial fisheries, and to recommend how long this social 
assistance program should last.
  Having commented on some of the substantive provisions in this bill, 
I would like to speak for a moment on the process that brought us to 
this point. As I stated in my opening remarks, getting here has not 
been easy. And I have come as far as I intend to go.
  The committee mark of S. 39 was sprinkled with sweeteners for most 
interested parties--except Washington harvesters. Washington's sizable 
fishing fleet was presented with a poison pill more palatable only than 
the outrage our House delegation was forced to swallow last October.
  Despite this strategic isolation, I had two invaluable assets--time, 
and the unwavering support of Senator Murray. As much as I would like 
to avoid having to repeat this process, I have truly appreciated the 
opportunity to work so closely with my colleague form Washington State.

  When it became clear that Senator Murray and I had no intention of 
succumbing to the attack on our State's fishing industry, a sincere 
effort was made to address our concerns. Much of the credit for this 
final compromise is due to the tireless and creative efforts of Senator 
Kerry and his staff, Senator Pressler and his staff, and the majority 
leader and his assistants. Credit is due, too, to Senator Stevens and 
his staff. Because of the different composition of our industries and 
our constituencies, the Senators from Washington and Alaska may rarely 
agree on the substance of fishery bills. But although we may lack 
agreement, I have never lacked trust and respect--I sincerely 
appreciate the constructive manner with which Senator Stevens and his 
staff have worked with me and my office even as he resolutely protected 
the interests of his constituents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate this afternoon 
is the Sustainable Fishery Act, the Magnuson Act, and is the outcome of 
a very long and very difficult process. Only great willingness to 
compromise on everyone's part has enabled this bill to reach the Senate 
floor this evening.
  This bill has been almost 4 years in the making, and it has gone 
through many changes, and improvements have been made along the way. I 
want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for their willingness to work through the 
difficult allocation issues in this bill so that the strong 
conservation provisions of this bill can move forward.
  Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to thank my 
senior Senator, Senator Gorton, for his tremendous work on this bill 
and the opportunity to work with him on an issue of natural resources. 
His tenacity and perseverance throughout this debate has been very 
instructive and very much appreciated. I also want to take this 
opportunity to thank both his staff and my staff, Justin Le Blanc and 
Jeanne Bumpus, for their tireless work on this bill, as well.
  Mr. President, we have reached a fair and reasonable compromise on 
this bill. As we send this bill to the House, I urge them not to 
undermine this bill by altering it to reflect parochial interests.
  This bill serves two purposes: to conserve fishery resources and to 
preserve the fishing industry. It contains new provisions to address 
overfishing, bycatch, and impacts on fish habitat.
  These provisions will strengthen our ability to conserve fish 
resources, and they will allow us to develop long-term, sustainable 
fisheries. This bill will enable us to turn around depleted fisheries 
and ensure we have fish for the future.
  The help of the fishing industry is directly related to the health of 
the resource. The conservation provisions will, therefore, benefit the 
fisheries as well. By protecting the fish, the bill also protects jobs.
  The bill sustains the fishing industry in other ways, as well. 
Natural standards promoting efficient use of fishing resources and 
promoting the safety of life at sea will help our fishers continue 
fishing. New consideration for fishing communities recognizes all 
fishers, no matter where they live, depend upon the fish.
  Detailed studies of controversial fishery quota programs will be 
conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. A study of individual 
fishing quota programs will allow us to evaluate the potential benefits 
of such programs. A short moratorium on IFQs will allow us to review 
this study and to evaluate the success of existing programs. We should 
not prejudge the appropriateness of IFQ's at this time. Let's allow the 
study to provide us guidance on this important issue.
  The Academy will also study community development quotas. The impacts 
of the new mandate for CDQ's on the fishing industry in the North 
Pacific need to be evaluated.
  These programs will transfer considerable sums of money from 
Washington's distant water fleet to Alaskan coastal communities. The 
study will allow us to discern the effectiveness and appropriateness of 
this social assistance program.
  The bill provides authority for fishery disaster relief programs, 
particularly buy-back programs which will

[[Page S10816]]

help stabilize fishing fleets. Many fishing fleets are suffering from 
tremendous harvest reductions as a result of natural disasters or man-
made situations.
  The recent Federal court decision in Washington State awarding native 
American tribes 50 percent of the shellfish has severely impacted the 
non-Indian shellfish harvesters. These provisions will provide an 
opportunity to help these fishers.
  The temporary extension of Washington State jurisdiction into Federal 
waters will also allow the State to implement the reduction in non-
Indian shellfish harvests fairly and equitably. I thank the junior 
Senator from Oregon for his willingness to reach an agreement on this 
issue.
  In its original form, this bill could well have undermined the 
fishing industry of Washington State. But thanks to compromise and 
concession on all sides we have reached an agreement. We are now 
debating a bill that, in many ways, will benefit the Washington State 
fishing industry.
  It keeps options open for Washington State fishers, and it ensures 
that we will have a strong, vital, sustainable industry long into the 
future. I support passage of this legislation and look forward to its 
timely submission to the President for his signature.
  This bill will reauthorize the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act. The Magnuson Act was first passed in 1976 to 
Americanize the fisheries off the coasts of the United States and to 
ensure that the bountiful harvests being extracted from these seas were 
benefiting U.S. citizens and our economy. Over the last 20 years, this 
goal has by and large been achieved. In 1996, a new challenge faces us: 
The development of sustainable fishing practices that will guarantee a 
continued abundance of fish and continued opportunities for U.S. 
fishers.
  The Sustainable Fisheries Act will improve the conservation and 
management of our fishery resources by re-emphasizing both. While the 
original intent of the Magnuson Act was to Americanize the fisheries 
and invest the management of the resources in those who know them best, 
the fishers; the outcome has not always been sound management or 
longterm conservation. This bill will help improve this situation. With 
provisions to prevent overfishing, to ensure the rebuilding of 
overfished stocks, to minimize bycatch, and to consider fish habitat, 
this bill places a greater degree of focus on the long-term 
sustainability of both the resource and the fishers harvesting the 
resource.
  Strong new measures to reduce bycatch, the catching of unwanted or 
prohibited fish, and new considerations of essential fish habitat will 
help to maintain healthy fish stocks. The distant water fleet of the 
North Pacific, based in my State, is often accused of wasting an 
incredible amount of fish. Estimates suggest that up to 580 million 
pounds a year of fish are dumped overboard dead or dying.
  Federal fishery scientists have determined that the total population 
of Bering Sea groundfish alone is 44 billion pounds. Of that 44 billion 
pounds, scientists have determined that the acceptable biological 
catch, that is, the sustainable harvest level, is nearly 6.6 billion 
pounds. As an extra precaution, the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council has established an annual groundfish harvest cap of 4.4 billion 
pounds, leaving one-third of the allowable biological catch 
unharvested.
  With a total groundfish harvest of 4.4 billion pounds, 580 million 
pounds of discards suggests a bycatch rate of approximately 13 percent. 
The largest fishery in the United States, the North Pacific pollack 
fishery, is one of the cleanest fisheries in the world, with a bycatch 
rate of only 2 percent according to the United Nations Food and 
Agriculture Organization [FAO]. Compare these numbers with the average 
discard rate in world fisheries of 30 percent.
  It is also important to note that the discarded fish in the North 
Pacific are quantified by Federal Fishery Observers and are counted 
against to the total allowable catch levels of the various species. To 
reduce bycatch is to make more efficient and responsible use of fishery 
resources. That is why this bill seeks to reduce bycatch in our 
Nation's fisheries. And that is why participants in the North Pacific 
groundfish fisheries have proposed requiring all fishers to retain all 
pollack and cod caught, regardless of what species the fishers are 
targeting. This step alone should reduce the amount of fish discarded 
in the North Pacific by one-half.
  The amount of bycatch in the North Pacific is still very high. While 
the participants in those fisheries are beginning to address the 
problem, this bill will create new and stronger incentives to fish more 
cleanly. I strongly support the conservation provisions of this bill. I 
look forward to the improvement management of our fishery resources 
they will allow.

  This bill also recognizes that the health and sustainability of fish 
stocks are more than just conservation issues, they are also economic 
and social issues. The people who take part in U.S. fisheries, the 
fishers, processors, and supporting industries, are all vitally 
dependent upon the fishery resources, their abundance and 
sustainability. This bill recognizes that dependence by requiring new 
considerations of the impacts of fishery management decisions on 
fishing communities.
  The definition of fishing communities in this bill will work well. 
Fishing communities are those communities ``substantially dependent 
upon or substantially engaged in the harvest of fishery resources.'' 
This definition recognizes that fishers are fishers no matter where 
they live. An individual fisher and his or her family, whether they 
work on a big boat and or a small boat, are equally dependent upon the 
fish for their livelihoods no matter where they live. The fisher from a 
small New England port, an Alaska coastal town, or a metropolitan area 
like Seattle all make their living from the sea, their lives are all 
tied to the health and abundance of the fish they catch. They all 
deserve to be considered when difficult and painful fishery management 
practices need to be implemented. Under this bill, they will be.
  In addition, this bill preserves the National Standard to promote 
efficiency in fishery management plans. According to the National 
Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], an efficient fishery harvests fish 
with a minimal use of labor capital, interest, and fuel. Management 
regimes that allow a fishery to operate at the lowest possible cost are 
considered efficient. In encouraging efficient use of fishery 
resources, this National Standard highlights one way that a fishery can 
contribute to the Nation's benefit with the least cost to society. To 
weaken the efficiency standard would be to suggest that 
overcapitalization, too many boats fishing for too few fish, is 
acceptable when we all know it is not. It is in the Nation's best 
interest to promote efficient and sustainable use of our natural 
resources. Methods of efficiently harvesting fish within acceptable 
conservation limits should be the norm if the United States wants to 
continue to be competitive in the growing global market for fish 
products.
  This bill places a 4-year moratorium on a somewhat controversial 
fishery management tool, individual fishing quotas or IFQ's. IFQ's 
allocate percentages of the total allowable catch of a fishery to 
individual participants. If they are transferable, they can be bought 
and sold either among participants or in a larger market. While 
opponents of IFQ's feel they are a privatization of a public resource 
and will result in large corporations owning the bulk of U.S. 
fisheries, proponents view IFQ's as an important fishery management 
tool that can address a number of the problems plaguing U.S. fisheries 
today.
  Under current open access systems, there is a race for fish. Those 
who fish fast and furious win. This management style leads participants 
to fish inefficiently, catching as much fish as they can as quickly as 
they can without consideration for high bycatch rates or the harvest of 
lower value target fish. It creates incentives to invest in excess 
harvesting and processing capacity--bigger and better boats, bigger 
nets, more gear, and larger plants--than are needed to efficiently and 
sustainably harvest and process the allowable catch. This 
overcapitalization, while not creating huge conservation issues, 
weakens the economic viability of the fleet, threatening participants 
with bankruptcy and ruin. While it hasn't been much of an issue in the 
North Pacific, overcapitalization can create

[[Page S10817]]

enormous pressure to increase harvest levels beyond acceptable limits.

  In addition, this race for fish creates serious safety considerations 
in many fisheries. Under this race, fishers feel compelled to keep 
fishing even when the weather or the conditions of the vessel or the 
health of the captain or crew would suggest otherwise. Unless fishery 
management plans provide opportunities and incentives for fishers to 
sit out storms and return to port for repairs or medical attention, 
lives will continue to be lost. The crab fishery in the North Pacific 
is the most dangerous occupation in the Nation. According to the U.S. 
Coast Guard, the 1990-94 average annual fatality rate in the crab 
fishery is 350 deaths per 100,000 workers, with a 1990-94 annual 
average of 7 deaths among 2,000 crabbers. The fatality rate for all 
U.S. fisheries over the same time is only 71 deaths per 100,000 
workers. The all occupations rate is only 7 deaths per 100,000 workers.
  For this very reason we included the promotion of safety of life at 
sea in the National Standards of the Magnuson Act. This provision 
remains in the bill. Fishery management plans will now be required to 
promote safe fishery practices. The Fishery Management Councils will 
not only have to consider safety, they will have to promote it to 
extent practicable. There are many ways to promote safety, and IFQ's 
may be one way.
  When the halibut fishery in the North Pacific was conducted under 
open access, the fatality rate was almost as bad as crab, with 250 
deaths per 100,000 workers. Under the IFQ plan of the last two seasons, 
the halibut fishery fatality rate dropped to zero. While two seasons of 
data is certainly not proof, it does suggest that IFQ's can address the 
safety issue by eliminating the race for fish.
  Because of their potential to address issues such as waste, 
overcapitalization, and safety, IFQ's are considered by fishery 
managers in academia and State and Federal Government agencies, as well 
as environmental groups such as the Center for Marine Conservation, 
Environmental Defense Fund, and the World Wildlife Fund, as a promising 
fishery management tool that should be available to the Fishery 
Management Councils for their consideration. I agree. I believe that 
IFQ's should remain in the Councils' toolbox. Many of the concerns 
raised by opponents of IFQ's can be addressed within the design of any 
given IFQ system, much as they have been in the halibut/sablefish IFQ 
program. Issues such as entry-level quota share opportunities, 
ownership requirements, and caps on consolidation of shares can and 
have been incorporated into IFQ plans at the Council level.
  Despite all this, I understand a fair degree of controversy remains 
over IFQ's. Because of that, I have agreed to a short moratorium on the 
implementation of IFQ's while the Councils consider, discuss, and 
develop potential IFQ plans. However, I objected to provisions that 
prejudged the appropriateness of IFQ's as a management tool and created 
undue hurdles for IFQ's plans to overcome. This bill includes a 
comprehensive study of IFQ's by the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]. 
The assessment of IFQ's by the NAS will allow us, if it is determined 
necessary, to develop a broadly supported national policy on IFQ's 
during the next reauthorization of the Magnuson Act in 1999. This study 
should provide us the guidance we need in our assessment of IFQ's as a 
fishery management tool. We should withhold from determining their fate 
now, before we have the insights of the NAS study.

  However, there are a number of issues regarding IFQ's on which there 
is currently agreement and these have been included in the bill. IFQ's 
may be revoked or limited at any time in accordance with procedures 
under the Magnuson Act. They shall not confer the right of compensation 
to the holder if revoked or limited. They shall not create a private 
property right to the fish before the fish are harvested. IFQ 
allocations should be fair and equitable and opportunities should be 
provided for small vessel owners and entry-level fishers. These are 
broadly-supported provisions on IFQ's and have appropriately been 
included in the bill
  Unresolved issues regarding IFQ's will be assessed by the NAS. Issues 
such as transferability, duration, corresponding processor quotas, 
conservation impacts, fishery characteristics, and potential social and 
economic costs and benefits to the Nation and to participants in the 
fishery all will be analyzed by the NAS. The NAS will also study 
mechanisms to prevent foreign control of our Nations fishery resources 
and should investigate foreign ownership in both the harvesting and 
processing sectors. In addition, the NAS is required to study the 
appropriate level of U.S. ownership of fishery vessels with particular 
reference to a relatively high U.S. ownership threshold. The NAS should 
consider this threshold in light of existing requirements for 
participation in U.S. fisheries.
  I look forward to the outcome of this study of IFQ's by the NAS and 
to the discussion with my colleagues that will undoubtedly ensue upon 
the report's release.
  While this bill imposes a moratorium on IFQ's, it mandates the 
development of another quota program: Community Development Quotas or 
CDQ's. CDQ's are guaranteed allocations of Bering Sea fishery resources 
to Native Alaskan coastal communities. It is argued that these 
communities have had a historical and traditional participation in 
these fisheries and were excluded from the Americanization of the 
fisheries during the late 1970's and the 1980's. While these 
communities certainly engaged in the harvest of near-shore fish 
species, it is less clear that they participated in the Deep Ocean 
fisheries of the North Pacific. The existing CDQ program in pollock has 
transferred approximately $25 million from the participants in the 
fishery, predominantly the distant water fleet from Washington state, 
to the CDQ communities. The mandated expansion of CDQ's will increase 
this cash transfer almost 5 times to $117 million.
  CDQ's were originally proposed as a temporary program to provide 
these communities with the capital and expertise to venture into the 
fisheries on their own. Under this bill, the CDQ program has been 
turned into a permanent entitlement. I want to make myself clear on 
this issue. I think it is laudable to empower these impoverished 
communities to develop independent business ventures and sustainable 
economies. The question arises as to whom should bear the burden of 
such efforts. Unfortunately, under the CDQ programs mandated under this 
bill, the participants in the Bering Sea fisheries, Washington State 
fishers fishing in Federal waters, bear the entire burden alone. A 
burden that should be borne by society at large, and particularly by 
the neighbors of those communities, other Alaskans.
  However, this bill contains a study of CDQ's, again by the NAS, to 
investigate the implications of these programs for the Native Alaskan 
communities and fishery participants. The study will evaluate the 
effectiveness of the program in meeting the stated objectives of 
developing self-sustaining commercial fishing activities in the 
communities and employing community residents in commercial fishing 
operations. The study shall evaluate the social and economic conditions 
in the communities. I think it is important for this evaluation to 
include an assessment of what other types of assistance programs are or 
could be made available to these communities. This study will provide 
valuable insights into the effectiveness and appropriateness of the CDQ 
program.
  In addition, this bill recognizes that not all of the Bering Sea 
fisheries can bear the full burden of the proposed CDQ programs at this 
time. The Bering Sea crab fishery is in a serious state of decline at 
this time and the crabbers are suffering under the strain of reduced 
catches. This bill recognizes the state of affairs in the crab fishery 
by phasing in the CDQ percentage allocation over the next several 
years, to ease the crab fishery into the larger CDQ allocations.
  This bill contains important provisions that will enable Washington 
State to mitigate the impacts on shellfish harvesters of the recent 
Federal court decision allocating 50 percent of shellfish to the treaty 
tribes of Washington State in their usual and accustomed areas. These 
provisions include a limited extension of State management authority 
into the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] for Dungeness crab. This 
extension, although

[[Page S10818]]

rather limited in scope and time, provides the State of Washington the 
authority it must have to effectively implement the court order to 
comanage the shellfish resources such that the tribes may harvest 50 
percent of the resource.
  In addition, this bill contains authority to implement fishing 
capacity reduction programs, or buy-back programs. These programs will 
allow fishing fleets severely impacted by a natural disaster or some 
man-made decision beyond the control of fishery managers, such as the 
recent Federal court order regarding tribal shellfish harvests, to 
mitigate the impacts of such situations by buying people out of the 
fishery in order to restore viability to the fleet. It is anticipated 
that the state of Washington could use such authority to develop a buy-
back program for the Inner Sound Dungeness crab fleet so severely 
impacted by the recent shellfish decision.
  We have all come a long way on this bill. I reiterate my support for 
passage of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces that, by leadership 
agreement, previous time restraints have been removed.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to make comments 
about a bill that I have been fooling around with for almost as many 
years as I have served in the Congress. I remember quite well when I 
was in the other body and served as chairman of the Fisheries Committee 
back in 1972, I hate to say how long it has been that we started 
working on the concept, over 20 years ago, to say that the fishing 
areas around the United States belong to the people of the United 
States.
  At that time, we were being literally inundated by foreign fishing 
fleets from Japan and other nations which saw the areas around the 
coastal waters of the entire United States off of our 30 coastal States 
as very valuable areas. They were coming in and really displacing our 
own American fishing men and women, and doing it at a rate that would 
have soon, I think, destroyed the areas of the United States as far as 
fisheries is concerned.
  We came up with the Fisheries Management Conservation Act. It was a 
very long and drawn-out process that we entered into to come up with 
this legislation that said that these waters are going to be reserved 
for the U.S. industry first, and that you could only fish if you are a 
foreigner if you had a fishing agreement with our country that gave you 
an allocation of how much you could fish for.
  It was an interesting effort to try and get the foreign fishermen 
out. We came up with an acronym, one that I was proud of coming up 
with. The whole premise of the bill was to ``phase out foreign 
fishermen.'' We called it POFF. Puff--they were gone. Today, the 
foreign fishermen have been essentially removed from our U.S. waters. 
It is mainly now being fished by American fishing men and women, and 
the industry is really an American industry. So now the great challenge 
is not to keep the foreigners out, but rather to manage the stocks in a 
way that preserves them for the U.S. industry. This is what this 
legislation is about.
  All of the councils that we have around the country are composed of 
experts in the fishing area, men and women who represent recreational 
fishermen, commercial fishermen, scientists, who serve on the fishing 
council, and their job is to come up with management programs for the 
various species. It took a long time to reach the point where we are 
today. Today, the challenge is sound management. You can only have good 
management if you have good science. You cannot come up with a fishery 
plan that makes sense if you do not know how many fish you have in the 
waters off of our coasts.
  Therefore, the science is incredibly important, to have the best 
available scientific information about the conditions of the stock. 
This legislation moves in that direction to allow for even better 
science to be obtained, to make these decisions. I applaud the Members 
who have been involved in insisting this be what our standard is.
  In addition, the question of bycatch, something that every fisherman 
is affected by: If you are fishing for shrimp and catching a lot of 
other fish that you are not targeting, you have a bycatch, an extra 
catch that you are not trying to do. We need a lot more studies on 
bycatch, on how to prevent bycatch without destroying the fishermen who 
are going after a targeted species. In this legislation, there is more 
work in that area as well.
  By and large, we have to resist the temptation for us to try and 
manage fisheries from here in Washington. I don't think we have a fish 
biologist as a Member of the Senate. We are not biologists. I don't 
think anybody has that background. We should make sure that the 
councils do the management plans, working with the National Marine 
Fishery Service. We have to be very careful if we try and say that the 
councils cannot do this or that because we in Washington know better. 
The councils have the first obligation of coming up with management 
plans based on science. Now and then, we get inundated by one 
particular group of fishermen, maybe recreational fishermen, that say, 
``You have to ban all catches of red snapper,'' and then the commercial 
boys say, ``No, you need to catch more red snapper because there are a 
lot more out there.''

  We are tempted to enact amendments to legislation here in Washington 
that would do fishery management from the floor of the Senate or from 
the Commerce Committee. I suggest that that is the wrong way to do it. 
We ought to strengthen the councils and not weaken them, and let them 
come up with the proper management plans. This is an issue that never 
has been Democratic or Republican; it's where you are from, the 
different areas of the northeast, the southeast, the gulf coast, and 
the Northwest. We have intermural battles here between Alaska and 
Oregon and Washington, between Texas and Louisiana and the gulf and 
Florida. But we have come together with this piece of legislation.
  I commend John Kerry and Ted Stevens for their ability to bring this 
product to the floor. Is it perfect? Of course not. Nothing here ever 
will be. But it is a good bill and one that makes sense. I congratulate 
the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for their work. 
I support this legislation. We will monitor how it is implemented very 
carefully to see if further improvements can be made in the future. It 
has been a long time since 1976 and all those years since we tried to 
put this together. It is working. We can take a lot of credit and be 
proud of the work we have done. There is a lot more that needs to be 
done, and this legislation moves us in that direction. I support the 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. How much time is remaining?
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining. 
The Senator from Alaska has 14 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Oregon requests how much time?
  Mr. WYDEN. Does the Senator have 5 or 6 minutes?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 39, the Sustainable 
Fisheries Management Act. This bill is a good step forward in the 
management of our Nations' fisheries, addressing important areas of 
concern such as rebuilding over-fished stocks and collecting better 
data so we can manage our fisheries more effectively. I guess I'm the 
only Member of Congress in the position of voting for this legislation 
in both Houses of the Congress.
  I want to thank Senators Stevens and Kerry, and their staffs 
especially, for their help and guidance to me, the newest member on the 
Commerce Committee, on issues of great importance to the fishermen, 
fishing communities, and the fishing industry in Oregon. I commend them 
for their hard work on this legislation and hope that we will be 
signing this bill into law in the very near future.
  I would also like to thank Senators Murray and Gorton for their 
willingness to address an issue critical to the Oregon crab fishery. I 
am satisfied that the compromise we have reached will go a long way to 
helping the State of Washington address its crab management concerns, 
and assure Oregon crab fishermen continued access to crab fishing areas 
off of the Washington coast.

[[Page S10819]]

  The State of Washington is currently struggling to address management 
issues arising from a recent Federal court decision that requires the 
State of Washington to provide Washington's Indian tribes with 50 
percent of the Washington crab fishery. Historically, Oregon crabbers 
have also fished off of Washington's coast and it is easy to see how 
this new situation could create conflict.
  Historically as well, Oregon, Washington, and California have enjoyed 
an excellent working relationship with regard to the crab fishery. So, 
it was with concern that I reviewed the original proposal to extend 
state jurisdiction into the Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] for all 
fisheries without a Federal management plan. In my view, this original 
proposal had the potential to restrict many Oregon fishermen from 
fishing in their traditional areas.
  With respect to the crab fishery alone, the potential effects were 
ominous for all segments of the crab fishery in Oregon, crab fishermen, 
the coastal communities of Astoria and Warrenton and the crab 
processors in those communities who provide employment to hundreds of 
workers.
  The Oregon crabbers fishing off the Washington coast represent a 
significant percentage of the crab landings to Astoria and Warrenton: 
these boats land almost 85 percent of the crab processed in these two 
ports. To say that this fishery is significant to these communities 
barely coveys the vital importance of this fishery to the economy of 
Oregon's north coast. Fishermen, equipment suppliers, crab processors, 
and their employees are all intimately tied to this natural resource.
  The compromise Senators Murray, Gorton, and I have reached restricts 
the extension of State jurisdiction to conservation measures within the 
crab fishery only. These restrictions would apply equally to all boats 
fishing in the same waters. Each State's limited entry programs and 
landing laws are respected. To address the harvest requirements of 
Federal Court Order, U.S. v. Washington 89-3, the State of Washington 
may close areas or restrict the number of crab pots laid by crabbers. 
Our intent is to give the State of Washington flexibility in meeting 
requirements of the Federal court order while minimizing the 
restrictions on Oregon's crabbers.
  Perhaps the most important part of the State jurisdiction provisions 
is a clause stating that the Pacific Fisheries Management Council 
should develop and submit a fishery management plan for Dungeness crab 
and other shellfish. The timely development of a Federal fishery 
management plan for Dungeness crab is essential if we are to avoid 
inter-State conflicts in the future. To this end, the bill also 
requires the Pacific Fisheries Management Council to report to the 
relevant Senate and House Committees within a year regarding their 
progress on a plan.
  Again, I appreciate the willingness of the Senators from Washington 
to address this issue. I look forward to working with them on these 
issues in the future.
  As I mentioned above, I have voted on both the House and Senate 
versions of this bill. Not only did I support the House bill, I voted 
for key conservation amendments that were adopted as floor amendments, 
including those on over-fishing and habitat protection. The 
conservation provisions of S. 39 are also significant, several of which 
are of particular importance to Oregon. Reauthorization of the Magnuson 
Act is a high priority for Oregon fishermen and conservation groups 
alike.
  The new mandatory provisions requiring fishery management councils to 
develop criteria for determining when a fishery is over-fished, and for 
rebuilding those fisheries, will help us set a solid target for 
rebuilding over-fished stocks both in the Pacific Northwest.
  Likewise the measure adding a new national standard to the Magnuson 
Act requiring that conservation and management measures minimize by-
catch--the incidental harvest of nontarget fish--makes a good effort at 
reducing one of the most distressing aspects of our fisheries.
  The bill also defines essential fish habitat and requires the 
councils to minimize adverse effects on habitat due to fishing.
  I shall note at this time some disappointment with regard to the 
communities provisions. While in the House I supported Congressman 
Miller's proposal on communities. The Oregon fishery is in large 
measure family owned and shore-based, and I would have preferred to 
have communities language in the bill that recognized and protected our 
fishing communities more fully.
  During our discussions on passage of the bill, it was made clear to 
me that a protracted fight over the communities language would 
jeopardize the entire Magnuson reauthorization. In my view this would 
have hurt Oregon more than it would have helped. Reluctantly, I have 
for now agreed not to insist on stronger communities language and get 
this reauthorization done.
  Mr. President, although S. 39 is not perfect, it is one of the 
strongest pieces of conservation legislation to pass the Senate this 
year. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this year marks the 20th anniversary of 
the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, our Nation's 
primary law to protect and develop the wealth of fishery resources 
found off American coasts. Those resources are a valuable national 
heritage. In 1995, U.S. commercial fishermen landed a record 9.9 
billion pounds of fish, producing over $3.7 billion in dockside 
revenues. By weight of catch, the United States is the fifth largest 
fishing nation. We are also the world's top seafood exporter, with 
exports valued at $3.3 billion in 1995.
  Over the past two decades, the Magnuson Act has guided the 
development of the U.S. fishing industry, as we successfully 
Americanized our fisheries. However, in some regions we unfortunately 
were more successful in promoting fishing than in preserving fish. As 
the competition among U.S. fishermen grew, the unique and participatory 
process established by the Magnuson Act began to show a few signs of 
aging. Three years ago the Commerce Committee began a systematic review 
of Federal programs and regulations that affect marine fisheries 
management. Since then we have held over a dozen hearings here in 
Washington and in fishing communities around the Nation. We have heard 
from almost 200 witnesses from South Carolina to Maine and from Hawaii 
to Alaska. The final result of that review is the bill before the 
Senate today. S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, represents the 
efforts of Senators Stevens and Kerry, myself and other Members to 
address the issues identified. This reauthorization of the Magnuson Act 
builds upon our past experience to stop overfishing and waste, protect 
essential marine habitat, and streamline the management process.

  Turning to the Southeast, where commercial fishermen landed over 275 
million pounds of seafood--valued at $238 million--in 1995, fishing 
plays a vital role in the economies of many coastal communities like 
Murrells Inlet, Charleston, McClellanville, and Beaufort. In addition, 
the sportfishing industry is an important part of the regional and 
local economies. In 1995, an estimated 2.3 million anglers participated 
in marine recreational fisheries in the south Atlantic region. These 
fishermen made over 18 million fishing trips, catching more than 65 
million fish, including seatrout, catfish, and red drum.
  The south Atlantic Spanish mackerel fishery, in particular, has been 
cited as a Magnuson Act success story. Prior to the 1980's, mackerel 
catches essentially were unregulated, leading to over-harvesting by 
both commercial fishermen and sport anglers. The South Atlantic Council 
then stepped in to implement quotas, bag limits, and trip limits and 
this once-depleted population now seems well on its way to rebuilding. 
Unfortunately, for every success story like Spanish mackerel or striped 
bass, we still hear all too many tragedies.
  In addition, we have seen growing interest in reducing waste and 
unnecessary bycatch in our fisheries. The United Nations estimates that 
about 27 million tons of fish each year--about a third of world 
harvests--are caught and thrown back because they are too small, there 
is no market, or a quota has been exceeded. South Carolina shrimpers 
are far too familiar with this issue and have struggled for years to 
prevent endangered sea turtles from drowning in their nets. The spirit 
of cooperation and innovation that they have shown in working with 
State and

[[Page S10820]]

Federal managers to successfully tackle the sea turtle problem 
demonstrates an approach which should be effective in dealing with 
other bycatch problems.

  Habitat protection also has become a greater concern in recent years 
as coastal development and marine pollution threaten the environment 
and subsequently the health of many fish stocks. Half of the world's 
population now lives within 40 miles of the coastline, and scientists 
estimate that by the turn of the century, more than three-quarters of 
Americans will live within 50 miles of the U.S. coastline. Essential 
fish habitat must be identified and conserved if we are going to 
maintain healthy fish stocks in the future.
  Finally, while the growing frustration with large government 
bureaucracies and overregulation is not confined to marine fisheries, 
we certainly need to take steps to streamline the process and eliminate 
unnecessary redtape. The goal of the council process established under 
the Magnuson Act was to ensure the participation of all those affected 
by fishery regulations. However, we cannot allow that process to become 
so cumbersome that it fails to effectively conserve our fisheries 
resources, and we must have in place reasonable safeguards against 
conflicts of interest.
  Those of us who are interested in the protection and responsible use 
of our marine resources have learned a lot about managing marine 
fisheries over the past two decades. We recognize that the days of 
superabundant fish stocks are gone forever, and we are confronting a 
basic fact of life--there aren't enough fish to go around. We also have 
seen that rebuilding efforts, like the plan for Spanish mackerel, can 
be successful. And we now understand the importance of ecological 
considerations like habitat and bycatch in managing our fisheries.

  Building on that increased understanding, S. 39, the Sustainable 
Fisheries Act, extends the authorization of appropriations for the 
Magnuson Act through fiscal year 1999. The bill also: First, caps 
fishery harvests at the maximum sustainable levels and requires action 
to prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries; second, broadens 
existing Federal authority to identify and protect essential fish 
habitat; third, minimizes waste and discards of unusable fish; fourth, 
streamlines the approval process for fishery management plans and 
regulations; fifth, tightens financial disclosure and conflict-of-
interest requirements for council members; sixth, establishes a 
moratorium on management plans that allow private ownership of harvest 
quotas and fees to cover the administrative costs of such a plan; and 
seventh, reauthorizes other fishery programs and statutes, including 
the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, the Anadromous Fish Conservation 
Act, and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.
  Mr. President, S. 39 is the result of extensive bipartisan efforts by 
Senator Kerry and Senator Stevens. As a result of their hard work, we 
have before us a good bill that furthers the goals and policies of the 
Magnuson Act. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this vital 
legislation today.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I very strongly support the passage of 
S. 39, a bill to reauthorize and revitalize the Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act, also known as the Magnuson Act. This is without a 
doubt the single most important conservation bill that has come before 
this Congress.
  The text before us today has changed greatly since the bill I had the 
honor to cosponsor, along with Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry, in 
the final days of the 103d Congress. In the almost 2 years since that 
day, Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry have led a remarkable bipartisan 
effort to resolve other Members' problems with the bill as originally 
introduced.
  I cannot say, Mr. President, that I am completely happy with all of 
the changes that have been necessary to accommodate the interests of 
various Members. However, Mr. President, I can say that I have watched 
the evolution of this legislation with very close attention, and am 
confident that the managers have made every possible effort to make 
those accommodations without violating the integrity of the bill.
  I also want to recognize the tremendous effort that has been made by 
by fishing industry groups, the environmental community and others, all 
of whom participated in bringing this bill to this point, just steps 
from completion.
  My own efforts in connection with this bill have largely focused on 
certain issues that have recently exploded into international 
prominence--fishery bycatch and discard.
  Worldwide, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations reports that with total fishery landings of 83 million metric 
tons, plus discards of up to 27 million metric tons, we may be taking 
as much as 10 million tons per year more than the oceans can sustain.
  I introduced the first bill to address bycatch and discard back in 
1993. Today, almost 3 years later, I am very pleased to say we are 
finally on the verge of taking action. The bill before us follows the 
lead of my early bill by establishing a new national standard calling 
for bycatch to be avoided where possible, and where it cannot be 
avoided, for steps to minimize the resulting fishery mortalities. This 
will put us on the road to stopping the shameful waste that is 
currently occurring in many fisheries.
  Following this principle, Senator Stevens has authored a separate 
section of the bill for Alaska only, which calls for annual bycatch 
reductions for the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea off Alaska.
  Among other provisions, this bill will improve fisheries conservation 
and utilization, on which so many individuals in our coastal 
communities depend. It will for the first time address the problem of 
overfishing by requiring corrective action to be taken when a fishery 
is or is in danger of becoming overfished. It will also strengthen the 
fisheries management process by improving the way that regional fishery 
councils function, improve the way fisheries research is conducted and 
make many other changes of great importance and urgent need.
  Mr. President, two issues which have been most contentious during 
this reauthorization process are the prospects for a new type of 
fishery limitation called an individual fishing quota program, and for 
a community development quota program intended to pass through some of 
the benefits from fisheries in the Bering Sea to disadvantaged, largely 
Native communities in that area.
  In Alaska, and elsewhere, there has been considerable debate on 
redesigning fishery management using an individual fishing quota 
system. I won't attempt to get into the level of detail necessary to 
explain how this would differ from the existing system of management. 
Suffice it to say that supporters believe this would solve most of 
today's problems of overcapitalized fisheries with the least government 
interference, and opponents claim it would not only be costly to the 
government but hugely unfair to those who are excluded and to 
communities dependent on fishing.
  The bill before us represents a compromise between these two 
positions. It contains a moratorium on new individual fishing quota 
systems, and a comprehensive study of their potential--both good and 
bad--and of their actual impacts in those cases where they have already 
been used. I believe this is a compromise worthy of the Senate's 
support.
  In the case of the community development program proposal, we also 
see the results of sensible, needed compromise. The bill before us 
today provides a mechanism to assign some of the volume of fish coming 
from Bering Sea fisheries to the task of helping provide a stable, 
permanent economic base for some of the poorest, most disadvantaged 
communities in the country. This is a very worthy goal, and it is also 
one that I believe deserves the support of my colleagues.
  There are far too many other specifics in this bill to recount them 
all, or to provide my views on each and every issue the bill addresses. 
Instead, let me close with this: if there is anything on which we can 
agree, it is the need for productive, healthy oceans. That is the goal 
of this bill, and this bill is Congress' farthest ever reach toward 
reaching it. Let's not waste it.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Alaska, in support of the manager's substitute for the 
Committee on

[[Page S10821]]

Commerce, Science and Transportation's amendment to S. 39. I wish to 
thank my colleagues Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry for their 
leadership in accommodating a multitude of diverse concerns and 
requests and bringing this monumental legislation to the Senate floor. 
S. 39 represents a truly bipartisan approach to fisheries issues that 
are of vital importance to our nation's economy and environment.
  There are many commendable features to the manager's amendment 
including a section which provides authority for the western Alaska and 
western Pacific community development quota (CDQ) programs.
  Mr. President, for 190 years the United States limited its authority 
to regulate fishing in the waters surrounding its coast to the three-
mile territorial sea. Exploiting that forbearance, by the mid-1930s, 
foreign fishing vessels routinely fished for salmon, crab, and other 
fish stocks within sight of the Alaska coast.
  In 1976, in order to end foreign fishing within 200 miles of the 
coast of the United States, the Congress enacted the Magnuson Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA). Section 302 of the Act divides 
the 200-mile zone--which today is known as the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ)--into eight subzones and establishes a fishery management council 
for each subzone. The Act authorizes each council to prepare a fishery 
management plan and authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to approve and 
by regulation implement each fishery management plan (FMP) for each 
fish stock located within its subzone that the council determines 
``requires conservation and management.''
  In addition to preventing overfishing, the Congress intended the 
Secretary's implementation of fishery management plans to advance an 
equally important policy objective--the transfer of the economic 
benefits derived from fishing inside the EEZ from foreign fishermen to 
United States fishermen. When the Magnuson Act was enacted, with little 
exception, American fishermen were not participating in fisheries 
beyond the territorial sea.
  In the EEZ Alaska subzone, for example, in 1975 Japanese and Soviet 
fishermen harvested 1,310,000 metric tons of pollock, while United 
States fishermen harvested less than 3,000 metric tons. And Japanese 
fishermen harvested 30,000 metric tons of sablefish, while United 
States fishermen harvested 1,000 metric tons. By 1987, United States 
fishermen had replaced foreign fishermen in the Alaska subzone. And by 
1991, United States processors had replaced foreign processors. As a 
consequence, in 1992, U.S. fishermen harvested pollock and other 
groundfish in the Alaska subzone that had an ex-vessel value of $675 
million.

  Between 1984 and 1992, the catch of pollock by U.S. fishermen 
increased from 8,400 metric tons to 1,402,300 metric tons, and the 
catch of sablefish by U.S. fishermen increased from 9,900 metric tons 
to 23,700 metric tons.
  The revenues realized by U.S. fishermen who replaced foreign 
fishermen in the pollock fishery conducted in the Alaska subzone 
increased from $1.4 million in 1984 to $388.8 million in 1992. And the 
earnings of U.S. fishermen who replaced foreign fishermen in the 
sablefish fishery increased from $7 million to $53.5 million.
  However, there was one group of U.S. fishermen--the Eskimo and Aleut 
fishermen residing in 55 Native villages scattered along the windswept 
coast of the Bering Sea--who, through no fault of their own, were 
precluded from participating in the fisheries which the Secretary's 
implementation of fishery management plans in the Alaska subzone had 
forced open.
  For generations, life in the Native villages had revolved around 
subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering. Isolated by their distant 
locations and indigenous cultures, between the entry of Alaska into the 
Union in 1959 and the enactment of the Magnuson Act in 1976, residents 
of the 55 villages were left out of Alaska's poststatehood rush to 
economic and social modernity. In 1990, the median population of the 55 
villages was 278 persons.
  In 1968, the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in 
Alaska described the situation in the region in which most of the 
villages are located as follows:

       Bluntly put, the region has no apparent base for economic 
     growth. It has a rapidly growing population without local 
     employment prospects and generally without the cultural, 
     educational, and skill prerequisites for successful out-
     migration. In the foreseeable future, outside of the 
     conversion of the present subsistence [salmon] fishery in the 
     Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers to a more efficient commercial 
     operation, any growth of opportunity either for employment or 
     for enterprise in the region, will result directly from 
     government action. The only prospect for expansion of the 
     public sector, in turn, can be anticipated as a result of 
     efforts to overcome the cultural and economic handicaps of 
     the region's population.

  The Field Committee's assessment accurately described the underlying 
cause of a growing social crisis in Bering Sea coastal villages that, 
over the succeeding 20 years, intensified. In 1970-71, for example, the 
village of Nome experienced 9 suicides and 22 suicide attempts in 24 
months, committed primarily by Eskimo adolescents. A knowledgeable 
local physician described the epidemic of self-destruction as ``the end 
result of a long series of problems'' caused by ``the traditional 
village life dying out and the [subsistence] culture becoming 
nonexistent;'' a social upheaval that young Natives returning home 
``from outside schools to find their skills unneeded in the village'' 
exacerbated.

  Seventeen years later, the situation both in Bering Sea coastal 
villages and in other Native villages had deteriorated to the point 
that as the Anchorage Daily News, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its 
coverage, explained in 1988:

       Across the state, the Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts of Bush 
     Alaska are dying in astonishing numbers. By suicide, accident 
     and other untimely, violent means, death is stealing the 
     heart of a generation and painting the survivors with despair 
     . . . An epidemic of suicide, murder and self-destruction 
     threatens to overwhelm cultures that have for centuries 
     survived and prospered in the harshest environments on earth 
     . . . The village of Alakanuk [one of the 55 Bering Sea 
     coastal villages referred to above] lived on the razor's 
     edge: a town of 550 with eight suicides, dozens of attempts, 
     two murders and four drownings in 16 months. This was Eskimo 
     Armageddon. But while Alakanuk's experience has been the 
     worst, it is by no means an isolated example. The pace of 
     suicide, self-destruction and abuse is accelerating all over 
     Alaska.

  The Daily News series, which was entitled ``People in Peril,'' drew 
public attention to a social crisis of which Native leaders long had 
been aware. Seizing the opportunity, the Alaska Federation of Natives 
[AFN], a statewide organization representing Native interests, prepared 
a report documenting the conditions and challenges confronting the 
Native people, entitled ``A Call for Action,'' that was submitted to 
the Congress. In pertinent part, ``A Call to Action'' concluded that:

       [L]arge numbers of Natives who want to work in their home 
     villages or region have no possibility of doing so. In most 
     Native villages, the prospects for private sector economic 
     development are limited, and due to declining oil revenues, 
     state spending is projected to steadily decline throughout 
     the 1990s. The projected decline in economic activity in 
     rural Alaska coincides with the steadily increasing number of 
     young Native adults who will be seeking to enter the work 
     force. Every effort to take advantage of limited 
     opportunities for private economic development should be 
     encouraged.
  For Eskimo and Aleut residents of Bering Sea coastal villages, AFN's 
admonition was particularly ironic because, due in large part to the 
Magnuson Act, the ocean lapping at their doorsteps was roiling with 
private economic activity that for 16 years had been regulated by the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council [Council] and the Secretary in 
a manner that had for the most part excluded their participation, even 
though section 301(a)(4)(A) of the act required the Council and the 
Secretary to regulate the opportunity to participate in Bering Sea 
fisheries in a manner that was ``fair and equitable'' to all fishermen, 
including Eskimo and Aleut fishermen who reside in Bering Sea coastal 
villages.
  The Council and the Secretary's failure to regulate Bering Sea 
fisheries in a manner that provided fishermen in Bering Sea coastal 
villages a ``fair and equitable'' opportunity to participate was 
particularly troubling given the fact that the Council and the 
Secretary both have a fiduciary obligation to exercise their regulatory 
authority in a manner that advances the well-being of Alaska Natives.

[[Page S10822]]

  Two months after the Alaska Federation of Natives presented A Call 
for Action to Congress, in May of 1989, the Council planning committee 
recommended that the Council amend its relevant fishery management 
plans to establish a western Alaska community development quota 
program. The objective of the program was to facilitate access to 
Bering Sea fisheries by Eskimo and Aleut residents of Bering Sea 
coastal villages by providing the villages in which they reside an 
opportunity to harvest a small portion of the total allowable catch of 
certain fish stocks.
  After careful review and numerous opportunities for public comment, 
in June of 1991, the Council approved an amendment to the Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries management plan that 
established a western Alaska community development quota program for 
Bering Sea pollock and allocated 7.5 percent of the Bering Sea pollock 
total allowable catch to ``communities of the Bering Sea coast'' that 
participate in the program. In May of 1992, the Secretary approved the 
amendment and in November of that year promulgated a rule adopting 
regulations which established a procedure for village participation in 
the program.
  The regulations identified 55 eligible Bering Sea coastal villages. 
To be eligible, a village was required to be located within fifty miles 
of the Bering Sea coast and to have been determined by the Secretary of 
the Interior, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to 
be a ``Native village.'' In addition, the residents of an eligible 
village must have conducted more than half of their commercial or 
subsistence fishing effort in the waters of the Bering Sea. Finally, an 
eligible village ``must not have previously developed harvesting or 
processing capability sufficient to support substantial'' participation 
in the Bering Sea groundfish fishery.

  To participate in the western Alaska pollock community development 
quota program, the 55 villages formed six organizations: the Yukon 
Delta Fisheries Development Association, the Bristol Bay Economic 
Development Corporation, the Norton Sound Economic Development 
Corporation, the Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative, the Aleutian 
Pribilof Island Development Association, and the Central Bering Sea 
Fishermen's Association. Each organization then submitted a community 
development plan to the Governor of Alaska. When the Governor approved 
the plans, in December of 1992, the Secretary issued each organization 
the share of the 7.5 percent of the pollock total allowable catch that 
the Governor had determined was needed by the organization to implement 
its community development plan.
  Each community development quota organization has entered into a 
joint venture with an experienced fishing company to assist in the 
harvesting of its share of the pollock community development quota 
allocation. These joint venture efforts have provided employment for 
village residents on joint venture fishing vessels, in the processing 
of the pollock catch, and in the management of the joint ventures. Of 
coequal importance, the sale of the catch has provided working capital 
that each organization has used to finance village fishery-related 
economic development activities that otherwise would not be occurring.
  To what extent has the western Alaska pollock community development 
quota program contributed to alleviating the social problems described 
in ``A Call for Action''?
  Alarmed by ``A Call for Action's'' documentation of the accelerating 
social disintegration taking place in Native villages, in 1990, the 
Congress established a Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and 
Programs Affecting Alaska Natives to conduct ``a comprehensive study'' 
of ``the social and economic status of Alaska Natives,'' and to 
recommend actions that the Congress and the State of Alaska should take 
to better address the needs of Alaska Natives for ``economic self-
sufficiency * * * and reduced incidence of social problems.''
  In 1994, the Commission published a three-volume report that 
summarized the results of its investigation. Among the recommendations 
listed in its report, the Commission urged the Council ``to expand the 
community development quota [program] to other fisheries in the 
future.''

  In fact, while the Commission was studying the community development 
quota program, the Council had already acted upon the Commission's 
report by recommending to the Secretary that he establish a western 
Alaska community development quota program for Bering Sea halibut and 
sablefish, in which the six community development quota organizations 
are presently participating. And in June of 1995, the Council 
recommended to the Secretary that he establish a third western Alaska 
community development quota program for Bering Sea crab species and 
other groundfish species.
  To facilitate the efficient implementation of the programs, the 
substitute amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act amends the 
Magnuson Act to require the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
and the Secretary to establish a single western Alaska community 
development quota program and to annually allocate a percentage of the 
total allowable catch and guideline harvest levels of each Bering Sea 
fishery to the program. The eligibility standards for participating in 
the program are the same standards that the Secretary previously 
established by regulation.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the substitute amendment 
also authorizes the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 
and the Secretary to establish a western Pacific community development 
program.
  Much like their brothers and sisters in Alaska, those indigenous 
people who for centuries had traditionally fished in the waters of the 
Western Pacific, have been increasingly foreclosed from access to the 
fishery, largely due to the fleets of foreign fishing vessels whose 
number, vessel size, and methods of harvesting have dominated the 
Western Pacific fishery.
  The Western Pacific community development quota program would be 
applied in the Western Pacific Region but would not, in all likelihood, 
employ a percentage of the total allowable catch of any particular 
species. Accordingly, while there is a section of the substitute bill 
that addresses fees associated with the allocation of a percentage of 
total allowable catch, it is not anticipated that the requirements of 
the section addressing fees would apply. Rather, it is anticipated that 
the Western Pacific program would place a priority on enabling access 
to the fishery for those that have been economically-fore closed from 
such access. Measures to enhance access might include regulation of 
limited entry permits, area closures, fishing zones, and vessel size. 
Joint venture agreements for the harvesting and processing of fish 
might also be employed as they are in the north Pacific region.

  In addition, under the western Pacific program authority, the Western 
Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council would be authorized to take 
into account traditional indigenous fishing practices in preparing any 
fishery management plan.
  The substitute also establishes authority for the Secretary of 
Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior to make direct grants to 
eligible western Pacific communities, as recommended by the Western 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, for the purpose of establishing 
fishery demonstration projects to foster and promote traditional 
indigenous fishing practices. The demonstration projects are intended 
to foster and promote the involvement of western Pacific communities in 
the conservation and management of fisheries through the application of 
traditional fishing practices as a means for developing or enhancing 
western Pacific community-based fishing opportunities, the preservation 
of the island-based cultural values that shape their historical 
conservation ethic, and the development and implementation of 
community-based research and education programs.
  I am also pleased that the manager's substitute includes a provision 
authorizing Pacific Insular Area Fisheries Agreements for the purpose 
of enhancing fisheries conservation and management in the Pacific. This 
program will be funded under terms similar to those imposed on U.S. 
fishermen who seek access to fish resources in foreign waters. This 
program will greatly benefit

[[Page S10823]]

our Nation and fisheries resources throughout the Pacific Ocean.
  I congratulate Senator Stevens, Senator Kerry and their staff, 
particularly Penny Dalton, Alex Elkan, Trevor McCabe, Earl Comstock, 
Glenn Merrill and Tom Melius for this great accomplishment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 14 minutes under 
his control.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to maintain 
the control of the time we have on the bill and that the Senator from 
Maine now be able to present her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  There will be 30 minutes, equally divided, on this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 5381

    (Purpose: To limit lobstering other than by pots or traps if no 
regulations to implement a coastal fishery management plan for American 
             lobster have been issued by December 31, 1997)

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5381.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 161, line 21, strike ``810 and 811,'' and insert 
     ``811 and 812,''.
       On page 163, line 4, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the second period.
       On page 163, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 810. TRANSITION TO MANAGEMENT OF AMERICAN LOBSTER 
                   FISHERY BY COMMISSION.

       ``(a) Temporary Limits.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act or of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), if no 
     regulations have been issued under section 804(b) of this Act 
     by December 31, 1997, to implement a coastal fishery 
     management plan for American lobster, then the Secretary 
     shall issue interim regulations before March 1, 1998, that 
     will prohibit any vessel that takes lobsters in the exclusive 
     economic zone by a method other than pots or traps from 
     landing lobsters (or any parts thereof) at any location 
     within the United States in excess of--
       ``(1) 100 lobsters (or parts thereof) for each fishing trip 
     of 24 hours or less duration (up to a maximum of 500 
     lobsters, or parts thereof, during any 5-day period); or
       ``(2) 500 lobsters (or parts thereof) for a fishing trip of 
     5 days or longer.
       ``(b) Secretary to Monitor Landings.--Before January 1, 
     1998, the Secretary shall monitor, on a timely basis, 
     landings of American lobster, and, if the Secretary 
     determines that catches from vessels that take lobsters in 
     the exclusive economic zone by a method other than pots or 
     traps have increased significantly, then the Secretary may, 
     consistent with the national standards in section 301 of the 
     Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1801), and after opportunity for public comment and 
     consultation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
     Commission, implement regulations under section 804(b) of 
     this Act that are necessary for the conservation of American 
     lobster.
       ``(c) Regulations to Remain in Effect Until Plan 
     Implemented.--Regulations issued under subsection (a) or (b) 
     shall remain in effect until the Secretary implements 
     regulations under section 804(b) of this Act to implement a 
     coastal fishery management plan for American lobster.''.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank Senator 
Stevens for giving me the opportunity to offer this amendment. Before 
discussing some of the provisions of this amendment, I want to commend 
Senator Stevens for his achievement in bringing this bill before the 
Senate and for ultimate passage.
  As those of us from coastal States know, fisheries management issues 
can be extremely complex in both technical and political senses. These 
complexities are greatly heightened at the present time when so many of 
our fisheries are either fully or overexploited.
  That is why the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act has been a long 
and arduous process. But Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry have been 
able to work through the complexities and conundrums and resolve 
seemingly intractable disputes in an effort to fashion compromise 
legislation that we are considering today. It is truly a monumental 
achievement. Senator Stevens in particular has been a leader in 
fisheries issues for a decade and, as a framer of the original Magnuson 
Act, deserves our appreciation.
  Mr. President, if you ask any American what they think of when they 
think of Maine, they will tell you lobsters. Maine is indelibly linked 
with its lobster industry, and with good reason. Lobstering is a proud 
and historic tradition in our State. It exemplifies some of the best 
qualities of Maine, and indeed, the American character--rugged 
independence, a willingness to work hard, and a profound respect for 
mother nature.
  Of course, lobstering is also an essential element of the Maine and 
New England economies. If you drive along the coast of Maine and see 
the lobster boats moored in the harbors of our 144 fishing villages, 
and the lobster traps spread out in the yards of the homes nearby, it 
won't take you long to understand how many people depend on the lobster 
industry for a living.
  My amendment is designed to protect the lobstering tradition in Maine 
and New England. It is a very important amendment, Mr. President, 
because the lobster resource now faces a serious threat. And if this 
threat remains unaddressed, our lobstering tradition could be 
jeopardized.
  My amendment deals with a wasteful and destructive form of lobster 
harvesting known as dragging. The original amendment I was prepared to 
offer would have imposed tough new restrictions on dragging within 60 
days. But after listening to concerns expressed by other Senators, I 
have agreed to substantially revise the amendment. This is a true 
compromise, and it is very deserving of the Senate's support.
  Most people know that lobstering is general conducted with traps that 
are baited and rest on the ocean bottom. This is the time honored and 
sustainable method of catching lobsters. The trap method permits the 
lobstermen to bring lobsters to the surface alive and unharmed, and 
then to safely discard those lobsters that should not be retained, such 
as juveniles, egg-bearing females, and older brood stock lobsters--
lobsters that are essential to replenishing the resource.
  There are other ways to catch lobsters, however. Some fishermen drag 
nets, like those used to catch finfish such as cod, along the ocean 
bottom to scoop up the lobsters. But these nets are indiscriminate. 
Undersized and oversized lobsters, along with egg-bearing females, get 
swept into the nets. When the nets are dragged across the bottom, and 
they hauled up to the surface, many lobsters are broken and crushed, 
including those that should be protected and returned to the water 
safely to reproduce.
  This method of harvest is very damaging to the resource. That's why 
Canada, the world's largest lobster producer, and Maine, the United 
States' largest producer, prohibit any of their vessels from dragging 
for lobsters. That's why Massachusetts, America's second largest 
lobster producer, just enacted a new law to sharply restrict dragging 
by any of its vessels. And it's why Massachusetts and New Hampshire 
prohibit dragging for lobsters in State waters.
  Inexplicably, however, dragging for lobsters is permitted under the 
status quo in Federal waters. And because Federal lobster management is 
currently in a state of limbo, we do not have comprehensive and active 
lobster management in the Federal zone at this time. The Commerce 
Department has turned Federal lobster management over to the Atlantic 
States Marine Fisheries Commission [ASMFC], a State-based organization. 
But the commission is not expected to complete a plan until sometime 
late in 1997.

  Obviously, lobsters don't recognize the State-Federal line. They 
cross it at will. So anything that happens on one side of the line 
affects the lobster resource on the other side. It's the same stock. 
Thus, lobstermen in State waters can abide by the strictest regulations 
possible, but their conservation efforts will be undermined as long as 
dragging occurs right across the State line--and there is no doubt that 
it is occurring.
  Reports in New England indicate that there are increasing numbers of

[[Page S10824]]

dragging vessels engaged in directed fishing for lobsters in the 
Federal zone just outside State waters. The Maine Marine Patrol has 
seen an increase in directed dragging in the Federal zone. And lobster 
industry officials from Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire are 
reporting it.
  And these officials expect dragging activity to increase further over 
the next couple of years as new groundfishing restrictions take effect 
and prompt more displaced groundfishermen to seek alternative fishing 
opportunities.
  My original amendment sought to control the unwise practice of 
directed, or intentional, dragging for lobsters. A dragger would have 
been prohibited from landing more than 100 lobsters per 24-hour fishing 
day, with a maximum limit of 500 lobsters for a fishing trip of 5 days 
or longer. These landings limits were taken straight from the law 
enacted this summer by Massachusetts and signed by the Governor. States 
could have set the tighter limits, but landings would have been capped 
at the levels in the amendment.
  These landings limits were intended to make it economically 
infeasible for dragger vessels to intentionally target lobsters, while 
permitting draggers that unintentionally catch lobsters when they are 
fishing for other species, like cod, to sell their incidental by-catch. 
It would have prevented draggers from easily circumventing the 
conservation laws of Maine and Massachusetts.
  While I thought the amendment was a very reasonable one, other States 
expressed concern about the abrupt imposition of new Federal 
regulations on them, so I agreed to a substantial compromise. Instead 
of imposing the landings limits immediately, the amendment I am 
offering today permits the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 
and the Secretary of Commerce to develop and issue regulations for a 
Federal management plan for American lobster by December 31, 1997.
  If a plan is not completed by the end of 1997, then the amendment 
would require the Secretary to implement the landings limits that were 
contained in the earlier amendment. To prevent an explosion in new 
dragging effort before the deadline, the amendment directs the 
Secretary to monitor lobster landings, and if he determines that a 
substantial increase in dragging is occurring, he is given 
discretionary--and I repeat, discretionary--authority to issue interim 
regulations to control the increase.
  Mr. President, the deadline in my amendment is obviously more than a 
year away and it gives the ASMFC and the Secretary ample time to get a 
handle on Federal lobster management. In fact, the commission has said 
that it can complete a plan by the fall of 1997, so the deadline is 
realistic. My amendment will simply help to ensure that the commission 
meets its own schedule for a plan, which will, hopefully, address the 
dragging issue. If the commission fails to meet this deadline, then and 
only then will the dragging restrictions go into effect. Once the 
commission completes its plan, the restrictions would be voided.
  This is a very fair amendment, Mr. President, and, frankly, it 
represents a substantial compromise on the part of the American lobster 
industry. It provides plenty of time for the management process to 
work, while sending a message to the appropriate authorities that the 
issue of dragging for lobsters must be addressed. But if that process 
bogs down, and we're faced with the prospect of more and more dragging 
for lobsters, then responsible lobstermen will receive some interim 
protection until the commission completes its plan.
  Lobster dragging is not only inconsistent with the conservation of 
this fully exploited resource, it discourages conservation efforts 
aimed at trap lobstermen. Trap lobstermen in Maine are facing stringent 
new State regulations. All lobstermen who fish in the Federal zone will 
have to reduce fishing effort by at least 20 percent in order for the 
ASMFC to meet its goals. How can we expect these responsible lobstermen 
to sacrifice and accept burdensome new regulations when wasteful and 
destructive dragging is allowed to continue unabated just across the 
State line?
  The answer is that we can't. What we can expect is that these 
lobstermen will resist new regulations imposed on them, and the 
conservation program for the entire resource will be undermined.
  Mr. President, this amendment is about responsible fishing practices. 
And it is about equity for responsible fishermen. With the substantial 
concessions that I have agreed to, this amendment gives the appropriate 
authorities plenty of time to work out a comprehensive plan. But if the 
process fails, then we have to act.
  The amendment is pro-conservation, and it is pro-lobsterman. It is 
strongly supported by the State of Maine, the State of Massachusetts, 
and the entire lobster industry throughout New England and the 
Northeast.
  Mr. President, my amendment presents an opportunity for Senators to 
cast a vote for equity for the great majority of America's lobstermen 
who fish the right way, and for a healthy lobster resource. It would be 
the height of irony if the Senate passed this Magnuson reauthorization 
bill, whose hallmark is the protection of America's fisheries, without 
approving this modest amendment. We can't let that happen, Mr. 
President. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
efforts. As she knows, we had a number of issues for a number of 
different Senators. But I think she has gone a long way in helping to 
get resolved any of those issues, and we are delighted to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5381) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator's amendment be made a part of the managers' amendment when I 
present it later this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I could extend comments at length because 
of some of the comments made by the Senators from Washington. I do not 
intend to prolong the debate.
  I want to state, however, that the provisions for the community 
development quotas are based in part on the authority of Congress to 
regulate the commerce of the Indian tribes. The communities of the west 
coast of Alaska are predominantly Alaska Native people. They were there 
and fishing a long time before anyone else came on the fishing scene. 
As a matter of fact, there were no factory trawlers off Alaska from the 
State of Washington until about 9 years ago. During the period of time 
since then the amount of fish taken by those trawlers has come up from 
zero to at one time as high as 65 percent. As a result of negotiations, 
there is now allocated 65 percent to the fisheries offshore and 35 for 
the onshore fisheries.
  We are allocating a portion of the fisheries to the communities 
involved that are historic native communities along our coast. I am sad 
that the Members from Washington do not agree with that concept. We 
have watched, I might say, with awe the development of the Indian law 
in the State of Washington that leads to a substantial claim by the 
Indians of Washington on the fish of the rivers, particularly the 
Columbia.
  This is not the place to get into the argument about it, but we have 
worked out in Alaska a basis of allocation to protect the species. The 
Magnuson Act was designed to protect the fish, not fishermen. The 
amendments for CDQ allocation are to protect communities, not 
fishermen. They are to protect the traditional fishing communities 
along the west coast, and as I said half the coastline of the United 
States is involved and very few communities are protected under the 
provisions of the CDQ concept.
  I do appreciate the comments they made and the attitude that has been 
demonstrated here by all Senators to try to get this bill resolved in 
the Senate and get it to the House and hopefully to the President 
before this Congress adjourns. I do want the Senate to know, however, 
that this is not a subject that will go away. We will be involved in 
fisheries legislation, I am sure, as long as the Senate and the 
Congress are in being and as long as there are fisheries because it is 
a matter of Federal jurisdiction. Whether we

[[Page S10825]]

like it or not, we have to exercise our responsibility and we have to 
find a way to accommodate the claims of persons who are entitled to 
fish in the waters off our shores.
  We have tried our best to do that while at the same time protecting 
those people who have traditionally relied upon the sole source for 
their income, and that is the fish resources off the State of Alaska. 
That is the case for those Native communities. They are devastated now, 
Mr. President, and we are trying to find a way to protect their future.
  I do believe we have the right as the Congress of the United States 
to pass a law which commits a portion of the fish resources to those 
communities under the constitutional powers of the United States 
Congress to deal with the rights of Indian people, and that is why I am 
pleased to have the provisions in this bill which I think confirm the 
action of our regional council. The fisheries development quotas were 
first put into being by action of the council itself. We are now 
confirming that that is legitimate action under the concept of the 
Magnuson Act.
  Mr. President, it is my intention now to offer the managers' 
amendment. I would like to ask at the same time that the clerk under 
the direction of the staffs of myself and Senator Kerry be authorized 
to make the technical amendments necessary to incorporate the 
amendments that have already been adopted. The amendments that were 
covered by the time agreement are to be put into the managers' 
amendment, and we are doing that at the present time. And the amendment 
of Senator Snowe will also be put in the managers' amendment.
  So I suggest the absence of a quorum, if I might just do it for a 
moment. I will yield to my friend from Massachusetts if he wishes to 
make some comment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5382

(Purpose: To amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
 to authorize appropriations to provide for sustainable fisheries, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk the managers' 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 5382.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this amendment be 
adopted now as original text, and if the Senator from Texas wishes to 
offer an amendment, that that be in order when she arrives----
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. And the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas be 
subject to a time agreement we have already entered into, 30 minutes in 
the usual form, subject to the restrictions contained in the time 
agreement that has already been entered into on S. 39.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Alaska?
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts reserves the 
right to object.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous-consent 
request is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5382) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, but I do want to request a time agreement 
with respect to----
  Mr. STEVENS. We did. Subject to the consideration--30 minutes was 
allowed on any amendment in the first degree. It will not be subject to 
second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do now ask that we have the agreement I 
sought previously; the clerk, working with the staffs of the two 
managers, myself and Senator Kerry, be permitted to make technical 
changes necessary to conform this amendment. I have sent to the desk 
the managers' amendment with the Snowe amendment. We will now have 
another amendment offered, which I intend to oppose, by the way, but it 
will be offered. Should it be adopted tomorrow, then it would be 
inserted into this amendment. So it would be an amendment to this 
managers' amendment we offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now ask no further amendments be in order, other than 
the one amendment of the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee 
substitute and of S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, as amended.
  Before discussing some of the provisions of the bill, I wanted to 
commend Senator Stevens for his achievement in bringing this bill to 
the verge of Senate passage. As those of us from coastal States know, 
fisheries management issues can be extremely complex, in both the 
technical and political senses. And these complexities are greatly 
heightened at the present time when so many of our fisheries are either 
fully exploited or overexploited.
  That is why the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act has been a long 
and arduous process. But Senator Stevens, working with Senator Kerry, 
have been able to plow through the complexities and the conundrums, and 
to resolve seemingly intractable disputes, in an effort to fashion the 
compromise legislation that we are considering today. It's truly a 
monumental achievement. And Senator Stevens, in particular, who has 
been a leader on fisheries issues for decades, and a framer of the 
original Magnuson Act, deserves our appreciation.
  Mr. President, as other Senators have mentioned, this bill 
strengthens the conservation provisions of the Magnuson Act, and it 
will lead to the elimination of overfishing and fisheries rebuilding in 
all our our marine fisheries. Consistent with the title, letter, and 
spirit of the bill, I firmly believe that our fisheries must be 
sustainably managed. And sustainable management will require 
regulation.
  Given the state of many of our fisheries, we cannot avoid 
conservation measures. But in the course of developing these measures, 
it is also equally important that the Federal Government consider the 
economic costs of fisheries conservation. In some cases, those costs 
can be severe, as in the case of the New England groundfish industry, 
which is now facing a mandatory 80 percent fishing effort reduction in 
2 years. Yet despite the importance of economic considerations, there 
is no requirement in the Magnuson Act to require fishery management 
councils to try to minimize the adverse economic impacts of fisheries 
regulations on fishing communities.
  During markup in the Commerce Committee, I offered an amendment which 
establishes a new national standard requiring all fishery management 
plans to minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote. This provision is retained in the 
bill on the floor today, although we have modified it to make clear 
that these economic considerations are not designed to trump 
conservation considerations in the process of developing fishery 
management plans.
  In addition to the economic impacts language, the bill before us 
contains other provisions that I had offered as amendments during the 
committee process. One directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish 
an advisory panel consisting of scientists, State officials, fishermen, 
and conservationists to study and explore ways that the National Marine 
Fisheries Service can expand the application of ecosystems

[[Page S10826]]

principles in its fisheries research and management programs.
  Currently, the service takes a narrow approach that focuses primarily 
on individual fish populations. I, along with many scientists, believe 
that the Government should take a more holistic approach that looks at 
fisheries in the context of the ecosystems in which they live. The 
report required by my amendment would be completed within 2 years.

  Another of my provisions from the committee bill would preserve the 
existing ban on the sale of undersized lobsters in the United States. 
This language insures that the ban will remain in place even after the 
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission assumes responsibility for 
lobster management in the Federal zone. Obviously, this ban protects 
juvenile lobsters that must, if we are going to conserve this resource, 
be given an opportunity to reach sexual maturity.
  Negotiated rulemaking was the subject of another of my amendments in 
committee, and the bill retains those provisions. Negotiated rulemaking 
is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which representatives of 
all of the stakeholders in a dispute hold a series of negotiations with 
a professional facilitator to achieve consensus. Negotiated rulemaking 
provides an opportunity to overcome some of the divisiveness that we 
have seen in some fisheries controversies. My amendment would authorize 
the Councils, as well as the Secretary, to use negotiated rulemaking 
when they develop fishery management plans.
  Mr. President, I would also like to mention three amendments that I 
offered prior to floor consideration, and that have been included in 
the manager's amendment.
  The first directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an 
independent scientific peer review of the scientific information which 
forms a basis of the northeast multispecies fishery management plan. 
This is the plan that covers the New England groundfish industry.
  As I noted earlier, due to serious concerns about the health of the 
groundfish resource, the New England Council has implemented a 
management plan that will reduce fishing effort by 80 percent within 2 
years. This science has been controversial within the industry in the 
New England region, and before moving forward with such draconian 
regulations, I think we owe it to those most affected by the plan to 
get a second opinion on this science before it's too late. This peer 
review amendment will give us that second opinion.
  My other amendments allow the State of Maine to permit Maine-licensed 
lobstermen to continue to fish in four pockets of Federal water that 
are surrounded on three sides by State waters, and make transshipment 
permits available to certain Canadian transport vessels involved in the 
sardine trade between Maine and Canada.
  Mr. President, the bill is a fair product which resolves many 
competing concerns. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5383

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5383.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 142, line 7, ``insert ``To the maximum extent 
     practicable'', before ``Any''.
       On page 142, line 10, ``strike ``must'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``should''.
       On page 148, strike lines 1 through 17.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are going to try to work to see if 
we can get these amendments in a form that is acceptable to the others 
that are interested in this bill. It is very important to many of the 
recreational fishermen in my State that we try to have a level playing 
field for the recreational fishing people. I would like to try to work 
this out, and hopefully put off the vote until tomorrow.
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Just to inquire of the Chair, under the existing 
agreement of the managers, is there time to discuss the amendment 
before the vote would occur tomorrow?
  Mr. STEVENS. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Currently there are 49 seconds left. Under the 
current guidelines we are operating under, there is no time set aside 
for debate tomorrow, the Chair is advised.
  Mr. BREAUX. I will suggest at least a couple minutes on each side, 
for the author of the amendment and those who oppose the amendment, to 
make comments before we vote tomorrow.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I notified the Senator from Texas it is 
my intention, and I believe it is the intention of the Senator from 
Massachusetts, to join together to oppose this amendment in its present 
form. Should it be modified in a way that is acceptable, it would, of 
course, be acceptable to the Senator from Louisiana. At the present 
time it is my understanding there is not the opportunity to debate the 
amendment, but it is my understanding the Senator has offered the 
amendment with the hopes that through the night that this can be 
negotiated out to be acceptable to all concerned, including the Senator 
from Louisiana.
  I state, it would be my intention, if there is to be any discussion 
of this tomorrow, it would be by whatever agreement we make now. And if 
the Senator wishes some time tomorrow, I do not think that is 
impossible.
  How much time would the Senator like tomorrow?
  Mr. KERRY. Two minutes on each side.
  Mr. BREAUX. I think we have more than one amendment at the desk in 
its current form.
  Mr. STEVENS. One amendment that hits the bill in two spots. The 
Senator is correct. Again, we intend to oppose this amendment, and ask 
the Senate to oppose it in its present form. If it is modified, it will 
be modified to meet the Senator's acceptance. It would have to take 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, obviously, the purpose of the agreement 
which we entered into previously was to set aside time tonight for the 
purposes of debate. And it is my understanding, the majority leader 
said there would be no debate tomorrow, there would only be votes.
  I think it is fair to allow both sides 2 minutes, but I would be 
adverse to opening it up to a whole process of debate tomorrow. I mean, 
if they reach agreement, then there is no need for debate. If they do 
not reach agreement, then it is going to take a very quick explanation 
of the two sides because both managers are going to be opposing this. I 
do not think we ought to open it up for a lengthy period.
  Mr. BREAUX. Two minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes for each side tomorrow prior to a vote, if there is to be a 
vote, in order to explain both positions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to 4 minutes equally 
divided?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall not object, but I want to make it 
clear in the Record, if we can, that the Senator from Texas has the 
right to modify her amendment tomorrow in any form she wishes to do so. 
We will oppose it in its present form, and we will oppose it unless it 
meets an agreement of the managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent before the Senate is a 
request for 4 minutes equally divided between the two sides, with the 
Senator from Texas retaining the right to modify her amendment. Is 
there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks recognition.

[[Page S10827]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know of no further business to come 
before the Senate on this bill. As I understand it, all of the 
amendments that were to be considered by the time agreement have now 
been brought before the Senate, and there is no more time left--I yield 
back whatever time I have.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cohen be added as 
a cosponsor of the amendment of Senator Snowe, which was previously 
adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts yields back his 
time. The Senator from Alaska yields back his time. All time has been 
yielded back.
  Mr. STEVENS. If all time is yielded back, Mr. President, I would like 
to move on now to the matter of closing. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________