[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.
____________________