[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S10900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S10900]]



                       SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the measure, S. 39, 
which is a bill to reauthorize and revitalize the Fisheries 
Conservation and Management Act, also known as the Magnuson Act. This 
is without a doubt one of the most important conservation bills that 
has come before this Congress, along with the nuclear waste bill.
  The text of the bill before us, which was discussed at some length 
last night, has changed a good deal since the bill that I had the honor 
to cosponsor along with Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry, in the final 
days of the 103d Congress. And almost 2 years since that day, Senator 
Stevens and Senator Kerry have led, I think, a remarkable, bipartisan 
effort to resolve other Members' problems with the bill as originally 
introduced. I would like to commend both of them. I would like to also 
recognize the cooperation of Senator Murray, Senator Gorton, of course 
our leader, Senator Lott, and many others who worked to bring this 
about.
  I cannot say I am completely satisfied with all the changes that have 
been necessary to accommodate the interests of various Members but that 
how the process of legislating works. However, I can say that I have 
watched and participated in the evolution of this legislation with very 
close attention. I am confident the managers have made every possible 
effort to make those accommodations without violating the intent of and 
the integrity of the bill.
  I also want to recognize the tremendous efforts that have been made 
by others, including Bill Woolf of my staff, and the staffs of Senator 
Stevens and others, to bring this to fulfillment.
  The fishing industry itself, the industry groups, the environmental 
community, and others who have participated in this bill to this point 
also deserve recognition. For without that cooperative effort, we would 
not be where we are today, ready to culminate this effort in a floor 
vote.
  My efforts in connection with this bill have largely focused on 
certain issues that have recently exploded in national prominence: 
fisheries bycatch and discard--in other words, the incidental catch 
that is picked up as the preferred species is pursued, and the disposed 
of by discarding it over the side of the fishing vessel.
  My first association with that came as a consequence of being 
appointed by Senator Dole to represent the U.S. Senate at the United 
Nations. I learned of a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization 
of the United Nations that indicated that a world total fishery landing 
figures of about 83 million metric tons did not include the 27 million 
metric tons of incidental catch discarded overboard. The grand total of 
fish caught, I learned, could easily exceed the sustainable harvest 
level of the world's oceans by as much as 10 million metric tons.
  Such incidental catch, Mr. President, is simply thrown over the side, 
back into the ocean. And it is not thrown over alive, it is thrown over 
dead. While it makes food for other fish, it is still an excessive 
waste. So what we are looking at is a total catch of about 110 million 
metric tons of which we discard 27 million metric tons and retain and 
consume 83 million metric tons.
  The scientists tell us the ocean is capable of producing--on a 
renewable basis--about 100 million metric tons. Well, one can quickly 
see the possibility that we are overfishing the oceans of the world by 
about 10 million metric tons.
  If we could just address the discard, to reduce that tonnage, we 
could get this thing in balance. That was of particular interest and a 
role that I played. I introduced the first bill to address bycatch and 
discard back in 1993. Today, almost 3 years later, I am pleased to say 
that we are finally on the verge of taking action. The bill before us 
follows the lead of my earlier efforts 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 fisheries 
mortalities. We focused in on this issue. This will put us on the road 
to reducing and, hopefully, stopping the shameful waste that is 
currently occurring in many fisheries.
  Following this principle, my good friend, Senator Stevens, has also 
authored a separate section of the bill for Alaska only, which calls 
for annual bycatch reductions in the Gulf of Alaska and in the 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 
small 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 will not 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--that is 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 our 
support as a Senate body.
  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.
  Finally, 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 the opportunity.
  Finally, let me note that my good friend and colleague, the senior 
Senator, Senator Stevens, worked with the late Senator Magnuson on the 
original formulation of this bill. I personally feel that this 
legislation should be referred to as the Magnuson-Stevens legislation, 
but recognizing the lateness of the date for such a change, I will 
reserve that name for my own thoughts about it.
  I do want to congratulate my senior colleague for his tireless 
efforts, and that of his staff, as well as many other Senators, to 
bring this bill before the Senate today. Needless to say, I urge its 
successful passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are now in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak no more than 5 minutes, but I 
ask unanimous consent Senator Kennedy follow me for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 2092 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  
                            ____________________