[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10906-S10913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11 a.m.
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 39, which
the clerk will report.
[[Page S10907]]
The bill 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 resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Hutchison amendment No. 5383, to make certain modifications
to provisions with regard to regional fishery management
councils.
Amendment No. 5383
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The pending question is the
Hutchison amendment, No. 5383. There will be 4 minutes of debate,
equally divided, on the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, while we are waiting the manager on the
Democratic side, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Was the managers' amendment that was adopted last evening printed in
the Record?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is. It is on page S10844.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of
the managers' amendment be printed in the Record at this point, and
that it be printed in the permanent Record following the managers'
amendment of yesterday.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary of Manager's Amendment to S. 39
authorization of appropriation
The manager's amendment authorizes appropriations through
fiscal year (FY) 1999 for the purposes of carrying out the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.).
definitions
The amendment defines a number of new terms for the
proposes of the Magnuson Act and amends a number of existing
definitions. New defined terms include: ``bycatch'';
``charter fishing''; ``commercial fishing''; ``economic
discards''; ``essential fish habitat''; ``fishing
community''; ``individual fishing quota''; ``overfishing'';
``Pacific Insular areas''; ``recreational fishing'';
``regulatory discards''; ``special areas''; and ``vessel
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'' The
amendment amends the existing definition of ``optimum'' with
respect to the yield of fishery to mean the amount of fish
prescribed on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield ``as
reduced'' (rather than ``as modified'') by any relevant
economic, social, or ecological factor. This change prevents
the maximum sustainable yield of a fishery from being
exceeded.
bycatch reduction
The amendment adds a new national standard to the Magnuson
Act requiring that, to the extent practicable, conservation
and management measures minimize bycatch and minimize the
mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. The amendment
specifically requires the Councils to establish standard
reporting methods under fishery management plans to assess
the amount and type of bycatch occurring in each fishery, and
to include measures to minimize bycatch to the maximum extent
they can, and to minimize the mortality of bycatch that
cannot be avoided in the first place. The amendment provides
the Councils with the new tools of harvest preferences and
other harvest incentives to achieve this bycatch reduction.
In addition, the amendment requires the Councils to assess
the type and amount of fish being caught and released alive
in recreational fisheries, and include measures to ensure the
extended survival of such fish.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to
secure international agreements for bycatch standards and
measures equivalent of those of the United States.
The amendment requires the North Pacific Council, in
carrying out the new bycatch requirements, to reduce the
total amount of bycatch occurring in the North Pacific, and
authorizes the North Pacific Council to use, in addition to
harvest preferences or other harvest incentives, fines and
non-transferable annual allocations of regulatory discards
as incentives to reduce bycatch and bycatch rates. The
amendment requires the North Pacific Council to submit a
report on the advisability of requiring the full retention
and full utilization of the economic discards in the North
Pacific that cannot be avoided in the first place. The
Council must report on any measures it already has
approved, or approves during the period of the study, to
require full retention or full utilization, and is not
meant to preclude the Council from taking all actions that
it can to achieve these goals.
The amendment requires the Secretary to conclude within
nine months the collection of data in the program to assess
the impact on fishery resources of incidental harvest by
shrimp trawl fisheries, and to conduct additional data
collection and evaluation activities for stocks identified by
the program which are considered to be overfished. Within 12
months of enactment, the Secretary must complete a program to
develop technology, devices, and changes in fishing
operations necessary to minimize the incidental mortality of
bycatch in the course of shrimp trawl activity to the extent
practicable as measured against the level of mortality which
occurred in a fishery before November 28, 1990. Any measures
taken are required to be consistent with measures that are
applicable to fishing throughout the range within the United
States by the bycatch species.
overfishing
The amendment defines ``overfishing'' to 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. It requires the Councils to specify, in
each FMP, criteria for determining when a fishery is
overfished and to include measures to rebuild any overfished
fishery. It also requires the Secretary to report annually to
Congress and the Councils on the status of fisheries, and to
identify fisheries that are overfished or approaching a
condition of being overfished using the Council's overfishing
criteria. The Secretary is required to notify the Council
immediately if a fishery is overfished.
Within one year of the Secretary's annual report, the
appropriate Council must submit an FMP, amendment or
regulation to prevent overfishing in fisheries determined to
be approaching that condition, and to stop overfishing and
begin to rebuild fisheries classified as overfished. For an
overfished fishery, the Councils must specify as short a time
period as possible to stop the overfishing, taking into
account the harvest status and biology of the overfished
stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by
international organizations in which the United States
participates, and interaction between the stock and the
ecosystem. The duration cannot exceed 10 years except under
extraordinary circumstances. The Secretary is required to
prepare an FMP or amendment if a Council fails to take
sufficient action within one year on an FMP, amendment or
regulations to rebuild an overfished fishery. The amendment
allows the Secretary to recommend appropriate measures to the
Council, and requires that the allocation of both
overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits be fairly
and equitably distributed among sectors of the fishery.
The manager's amendment allows the Secretary to use interim
authority to reduce overfishing for up to 180 days, with one
additional 180 day period, provided that a public comment
period on the measure is provided.
habitat protection
The amendment defines ``essential fish habitat'' for the
purposes of the Magnuson Act as ``waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or growth to
maturity.'' It requires the Councils to identify essential
fish habitat under each FMP, to minimize, where practicable,
adverse impacts on the habitat caused by fishing, and to
identify actions that should be considered to encourage the
conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat. The
Secretary is required to establish guidelines to assist the
Councils in describing and identifying essential fish habitat
and to review programs administered by the Department of
Commerce to ensure they further the conservation and
enhancement of essential fish habitat. Federal agencies are
required to consult with the Secretary with respect to any
action authorized, funded or proposed to be undertaken that
may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified
under the Magnuson Act.
The amendment authorizes the Councils (similar to existing
law) to comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary
and other Federal or State agencies on any agency actions
that may affect habitat, including essential fish habitat,
and requires the Councils to comment on and make
recommendations on agency activities that in the view of the
Council are likely to substantially affect the habitat,
including essential fish habitat, of an anadromous fishery
resource.
Upon notification of any action authorized, funded,
undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or
undertaken by a Federal agency that may adversely affect
essential fish habitat, the Secretary is required to
recommend measures that can be taken to conserve the habitat.
Federal agencies must respond in writing to such
recommendations, and explain reasons for not following any
recommendations.
council reform
The amendment requires Council members to recuse themselves
from voting on Council decisions that would have a
``significant and predictable effect'' on their financial
interests. Such a decision is defined as one where there is
``a close causal link between the Council decision and an
expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the
financial interest of the affected individual relative to the
financial interests of other participants in the same gear
type or sector of the fishery.'' This language is intended to
prevent Council members from voting on decisions that
would bring substantially disproportionate financial
benefits to themselves, but not to prevent Council members
from voting on most matters on which they have expertise.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Council, is
required to select a ``designated official'' with Federal
conflict-of-interest experience to attend Council meetings
and make determinations on conflicts of interest. The
determinations will occur at the request of the affected
Council member or at
[[Page S10908]]
the initiative of the designated official. Any Council member
may request a review by the Secretary of a determination.
Regulations for the recusal process are required to be
promulgated by the Secretary within one year of enactment.
The amendment adds an additional seat to the Pacific
Council for Pacific Northwest Indian tribes, to be selected
by the Secretary from a list of 3 individuals from tribes
with Federally recognized fishing rights. The amendment adds
two additional seats to the Mid-Atlantic Council to provide
representation for the State of North Carolina.
The amendment requires the Councils to keep detailed
minutes of meetings. It also allows any voting member of the
Council to request that a matter be decided by roll call
vote, and requires all roll call votes to be identified in
the Council's minutes. All written data submitted to the
Council are required to include a statement of the
information's source. The reported bill allows the Councils
(and the Secretary with respect to Atlantic highly migratory
species) to establish fishery negotiation panels to assist in
the development of difficult conservation and management
measures.
fishery management plans
The amendment simplifies the review process by the
Secretary of proposed FMPs and amendments submitted by the
Councils, and includes a new section addressing proposed
regulations submitted by the Councils. It eliminates the
preliminary FMP evaluation required under current law. After
transmittal of an FMP or amendment by the Council to the
Secretary, the Secretary immediately must publish notice of
the plan in the Federal Register and provide a 60-day comment
period. The Secretary must approve, partially approve, or
disapprove a plan within 30 days of the end of the comment
period.
The amendment creates a new framework for the Secretary to
review proposed regulations from the Councils and allows the
Councils to submit proposed regulations simultaneously with
an FMP or amendment, or at any time after an FMP or amendment
has been approved. The Secretary has 15 days to review
proposed regulations for their consistency with an FMP. If
they are consistent, regulations must be published in the
Federal Register for a comment period of 15 to 60 days. The
Secretary must publish final regulations within 30 days of
the end of the comment period.
The amendment requires the Councils to describe the
commercial, recreational, and charter fishing occurring in
each fishery and to allocate any harvest restrictions or
recovery benefits fairly and equitably among these three
sectors. The amendment codifies existing authority of the
Councils to restrict the sale of fish for conservation and
management purposes, including to ensure that any fish that
is sold complies with federal and state safety and quality
requirements.
Individual Fishing Quotas
The amendment prevents Councils from submitting and the
Secretary from approving or implementing any new individual
fishing quota (IFQ) programs until after September 30, 2000,
and directs the National Academy of Sciences, in consultation
with the Secretary, Councils, and others, to submit a
comprehensive report on IFQs to the Congress by October 1,
1998.
The Academy report must address, among other things, IFQ
transferability, foreign ownership, processor quotas,
effective IFQ enforcement, IFQ auctions, windfall profits,
and potential economic impacts including capital gains
revenue. The report must additionally analyze IFQ programs
already in existence in the United States (wreckfish, surf
clam/ocean quahog, and halibut/sablefish), IFQs outside the
United States, and characteristics unique to IFQs as well as
alternative measures that accomplish the same objectives as
IFQs. Two working groups (West Coast/Alaska/Hawaii and East
Coast/Gulf) will assist in preparing the report. After
September 30, 2000, in the event that amendments to the
Magnuson Act have not been adopted to implement a national
IFQ policy, the councils will be allowed to submit new IFQ
programs to the Secretary following certain guidelines.
The amendment requires the Secretary to establish a fee of
up to three percent of the annual ex-vessel value of fish
harvested under IFQ programs to pay for management costs. The
surf clam/ocean quahog and wreckfish IFQ fisheries will not
begin paying fees until January 1, 2000. The amendment allows
the Councils to reserve up to 25 percent of these fees be
used for loan obligations for IFQs for small vessel fishermen
and entry level fishermen. The North Pacific Council is
required to reserve the full 25 percent for such a program in
the halibut and sablefish fisheries.
The amendment requires the Secretary to collect a fee under
the authority of a new section 304(d)(2)(A)(i) to recover the
actual costs directly related to the management and
enforcement of any IFQ program, including any program that
may be created under section 313(g)(2) in the North Pacific
to reduce per vessel bycatch and bycatch rates. It is
expected that the fee collected under any program created
under section 313(g)(2) would not exceed one percent of the
estimated annual value of the target species in the fishery
in which the program is created.
state jurisdiction
The manager's amendment restates in greater detail existing
law with respect to a state's ability to regulate fishing
vessels registered in that state in federal waters. It allows
states to regulate all fishing vessels in a fishery in the
EEZ off that State if a fishery management plan delegates
such authority to the State. Further, it allows the State of
Alaska to regulate fishing vessels not registered under
Alaska laws in the EEZ off Alaska if there is no fishery
management plan in place for a fishery, and allows the states
of California, Oregon and Washington to enforce certain state
laws in the EEZs off their respective coasts with respect to
dungeness crab fishing until October 1, 1999, or if a fishery
management plan for that species is implemented.
lien registry
The amendment requires the Secretary to establish a central
registry system for limited access permits (including IFQ
permits), 6 months after the enactment of the Act, and
requires the Secretary to charge a fee of not more than one
half of one percent of the value of a permit upon
registration and transfer to pay for the system. The
amendment requires the Secretary to determine whether the
Secretary of the Treasury has placed any liens against
limited access system permits and to provide this information
to both the buyer and seller of any permit before collecting
a fee on the transfer of a permit. Consistent with the
requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the
Secretary of the Treasury may withdraw a notice of lien filed
against a limited access system permit if the withdrawal will
facilitate the collection of a tax liability by allowing the
owner of the permit to derive income from the use of the
permit. The amendment establishes a Limited Access System
Administration Fund in the Treasury. Funds from this fund are
available without appropriation to the Secretary to
administer the central lien registry system and manage the
fishery in which IFQ fees were collected. Any fees collected
on the ex-vessel value of the fish harvested under an IFQ
system can be spent only in the fishery in which they were
collected.
pacific community fisheries
The amendment requires the North Pacific Council and
Secretary to establish a western Alaska community development
quota (CDQ) program under which a percentage of the total
allowable catch of each Bering Sea fishery is allocated to
western Alaska communities that participate in the program.
The amendment prevents the North Pacific Council from
increasing the percentage of any CDQ allocation approved by
the Council prior to October 1, 1995 until after September
30, 2001. The amendment includes a sentence at the end of a
new section 305(i)(1)(C)(i) making clear that this cap
through September 30, 2001 does not prevent the extension of
the pollock CDQ allocation beyond 1998. In complying with the
western Alaska CDQ requirement, a percentage of the pollock
fishery (and each Bering Sea fishery) must be allocated to
the program every year. In the event that the North
Pacific Council fails to submit an extension of the
pollock CDQ in 1998, it is the intent that the Secretary
continue to allocate to the western Alaska CDQ program the
percentage of pollock approved by the Council for previous
years until the Council submits an extension.
The Council retains the ability to revise CDQ allocations,
except as provided in the amendment for crab fisheries,
provided that the allocations not exceed the levels approved
by the Council prior to October 1, 1995 (after September 30,
2001, the Councils retains the full ability to revise CDQ
allocations). The Secretary is required to phase in the CDQ
percentage already approved by the North Pacific Council for
the Bering crab fisheries, allocating 3.5 percent in 1998, 5
percent in 1999 and 7.5 percent in 2000 and thereafter,
unless the Council submits a percentage no greater than 7.5
percent for 2001 or any other percentage on or after October
1, 2001. CDQ allocations already approved by the Council
(pollock, halibut, sablefish, crab and groundfish) do not
need to be resubmitted by the Council or reapproved (if
already approved) by the Secretary.
The amendment requires the National Academy of Sciences to
submit a report to Congress on the performance and
effectiveness of the community development quota programs
under the authority of the North Pacific Council. The
amendment requires CDQ fees collected by the Secretary to be
reduced by the amount of costs imposed on CDQ program
participants that are not imposed on other participants in
the fishery. The Secretary is required to transfer to the
State of Alaska up to 33 percent of any CDQ fees to reimburse
the State for its costs in the CDQ program.
The amendment authorizes the Western Pacific Council to
establish a western Pacific community development program. It
additionally authorizes the Secretary and Secretary of
Interior to make direct grants, not to exceed a total of
$500,000 annually, to eligible western Pacific communities to
establish from three to five fishery demonstration projects
which foster and promote the involvement of western Pacific
communities.
Reducing Fishing Capacity
The amendment authorizes the Secretary to implement a
vessel and/or permit buyout program at the request of a
Council (or Governor for a fishery under a State's authority)
if adequate steps are taken to ensure that vessels and
permits are removed permanently and the program is needed for
conservation and management. Eligible funding sources could
include Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, funds appropriated for the
purpose of
[[Page S10909]]
the buyout section, funds provided by an industry fee system
(which cannot exceed 5 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish
harvested), of funds provided by a State or other source. The
amendment authorizes the Secretary to provide direct loan
obligations of up to $100 million per fishery to finance
buyout programs, which must be paid back over a twenty year
period. Any catch history must be forfeited by the owner
of a vessel or permit that is purchased under a buyout
program.
fisheries disaster relief
At the discretion of the Secretary or at the request of an
affected state or fishing community, the Secretary must
determine whether a commercial fishery failure has occurred,
caused by natural causes; man-made causes beyond the control
of a Council; or undetermined causes. If the Secretary
determines that a commercial fishery failure has occurred,
the Secretary may make funds available to an affected State,
fishing community or other activity the Secretary determines
appropriate to restore the fishery or prevent a similar
failure in the future. The Federal share of the cost of any
activity under the authority of the section cannot exceed 75
percent of the total cost. The amendment authorizes such sums
as are necessary for each fiscal year for fisheries disaster
relief.
research
The amendment creates a new title IV of the Magnuson Act,
titled ``Fishery Monitoring and Research'' that contains
existing Magnuson sections (with some modifications) dealing
with information collection, confidentiality, fisheries
research, shrimp trawl incidental harvest research,
observers. It also contains new sections dealing with vessel
registration, and the creation of an advisory panel to
develop recommendations to expand the application of
ecosystem principles in fishery conservation and management
activities. The amendment requires the National Academy of
Sciences to complete a peer review of the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan by February 1, 1997.
vessel registration
The amendment requires the Secretary to develop
recommendations for implementation of a standardized vessel
registration and data management system, centralized on a
regional basis, that would be required to integrate and
standardize all federal marine resource vessel registration
and data collection requirements, as well as State
requirements if a State chooses to participate. The system
must avoid duplication with any existing State or other
systems. Within 16 months of the date of enactment, and after
providing for public comment, the Secretary must transmit the
proposal to Congress. Within 15 months of enactment, the
Secretary must report to Congress on the need to include
private recreational fishing vessels in a national fishing
vessel registration and data collection system.
observers
The Secretary is required to promulgate regulations for
vessels required to carry observers, including guidelines to
determine when the facilities of a vessel are not safe or
adequate for an observer, or how to reasonably make them safe
or adequate. The Secretary also must establish, in
cooperation with States and Sea Grant College Programs,
programs to train and ensure the competence of observers. The
Secretary is required to use university training facilities,
such as the North Pacific Observer Training Center, where
possible, to carry out the observer section. The amendment
treats observers as Federal employees for the purposes of
compensation under the Federal Employee Compensation Act.
Data collectors are protected from being forcibly assaulted,
impeded, intimidated, sexually harassed, interfered with, or
bribed, while carrying out responsibilities under the
Magnuson Act.
other reauthorizations
The amendment extends the authorization of appropriations
for several other marine statutes, including the Inter
Jurisdictional Fisheries Act, the Atlantic Coastal
Cooperative Fisheries Management Act, the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act and an authorization for other NOAA marine
fisheries programs. The amendment requires the Secretary to
submit a report reviewing New England fishing capacity
reduction programs.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 5383, As Modified
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 5383), as modified, is as follows:
On page 142, line 7, strike ``Any'' before ``conservation''
and insert in lieu thereof ``To the extent practicable,
any''.
On page 148, beginning on line 14, strike ``specified in
part 641.24 and 641.25 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations (as revised as of October 1, 1995),''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I don't even need to take my 2
minutes. I will just say that this amendment has been agreed to by both
sides. I want to especially thank Senators Lott, Stevens, Breaux, and
Kerry for helping me to make sure that the management of bycatch
applies in the Gulf of Mexico like it will apply to the rest of the
bill and to the other waters contiguous to our country. Everybody is
satisfied with this.
I appreciate so much the cooperation and the staff cooperation. We
could not have come to this agreement without a lot of hard work late
last night and early this morning. I appreciate it very much. I ask for
consideration of my amendment.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is correct. I am
informed that this matter was worked out. I should explain to the
Senate that we had in the managers' amendment one amendment--the one
from the Senator from Texas--that could not be agreed to at the time we
offered that amendment last night. We pulled it out and asked unanimous
consent that the Senator from Texas be able to offer her amendment. It
has now been worked out through the night. I am informed by the leader,
and by the representatives of the other Senators involved, that it is
acceptable. Therefore, I am prepared to accept this amendment and would
ask that it be adopted on a voice vote.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of the
Hutchison-Shelby amendment to S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
Over the past several years, it has become increasingly clear that
our marine fisheries are in serious trouble. The Sustainable Fisheries
Act will significantly improve the management and conservation of our
marine resources by allowing the regional councils to adopt measures to
reduce overfishing, bycatch, and waste.
What is clear to all who have been involved in the reauthorization of
the Magnuson Act is that decisionmaking authority over the adoption and
implementation of bycatch reduction programs must lie with the
councils. For the most part, the bill before us today furthers this
insight. However, there is a provision which will significantly impair
the authority of one of the councils, the Gulf Council, to manage the
bycatch program of the red snapper.
The Hutchison-Shelby amendment corrects this oversight and restores
the necessary discretion to the Gulf Council. I want to be clear that
we are not adding additional powers. Our amendment merely brings the
Gulf Council in line with the authority of the other regional councils.
Without the Hutchison-Shelby amendment, the red snapper fishery will
be closed, which will shut down recreational fishermen and a thriving
charter boat industry. In the city of Gulf Shores alone, red snapper
fishing generates approximately $80 million annually. Salt water
fishing in my State will soon become a billion dollar industry, and
limiting the authority of the Gulf Council to manage these waters will
devastate the economy of Alabama.
I thank the Senator from Texas for her leadership on this important
issue, and I urge adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5383), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby from
Alabama be added as a prime cosponsor of my amendment to this bill, to
the managers' amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I make clear my strong support for S.
39, I also extend my congratulations to the distinguished Senator from
Alaska [Mr. Stevens] and to his fine staff for their efforts in
crafting S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. This legislation
strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of the various sectors
of the U.S. fishing community while giving both commercial and
recreational fishermen adequate opportunities to fish.
S. 39 is exceedingly important to our fishermen in North Carolina. I
was very pleased last July when Senator
[[Page S10910]]
Stevens and I flew together to eastern North Carolina to hold hearings
in Morehead City on this legislation. We heard many concerns and
opinions from all sectors of the fishing community in my State. I
appreciate Ted Stevens making the trip and also his allowing me to
participate in those hearings.
Mr. President, testimony in that hearing indicated widespread support
for adding North Carolina as a voting member on the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. My State has long participated in council
proceedings as an observer and as nonvoting participant in council
technical committees--but never before as a full-fledged voting member.
So I am grateful that this legislation allots to North Carolina
voting memberships on the Mid-Atlantic Council. There have been so many
decisions made by the Mid-Atlantic Council that have affected my
fishermen; it is good that they will now be able to vote on decisions
that affect our State.
Fish and fish products have become a greater staple of the diets of
all Americans. Statistics gathered by the National Marine Fisheries
Service in 1995, revealed that U.S. consumption of fish and fish
products was 15 pounds of edible meat per capita. In 1992 Americans
consumed 14.8 pounds of edible meat.
Mr. President, I greatly enjoy seafood. I have dined in many seafood
restaurants in coastal North Carolina and many fish houses further
inland. North Carolinians want to maintain a steady supply of good,
high-quality seafood well into the future. We can do that if our
fishery resources are well managed in an environmentally responsible
manner.
At the same time, fishery regulations must not be allowed to
hamstring North Carolina's hand-working, tax-paying fishermen in their
efforts to earn a honest daily wage. The National Marine Fisheries
Service should be put on notice that the Congress will not tolerate
unfair and unreasonable regulatory practices that single out one sector
of the fishing community for penalties.
Mr. President, this is a good bill. We must preserve our fisheries
for future generations. If we don't, this country will face great
adverse consequences.
None of us here wants to see entire areas closed to fishing, as has
occurred off the coast of Massachusetts. Senators from that State are
painfully aware that three areas near Georges Bank have been
permanently closed to fishing, due to overfishing the resource. That
situation must not be duplicated off the North Carolina coast--or any
other State's coast for that matter. This bill will go a long way in
preventing that from happening.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend and thank the Senator from
Alaska, Senator Stevens, for his many months of hard work in getting
this vitally important environmental legislation to the floor. I know
that in writing and bringing this bill to the floor, Senator Stevens
has had to contend with a great many competing interests that were
often at odds on some very complex issues. Despite this obstacle, he
has been able to fashion what I believe to be a strong but fair piece
of legislation. There remain several changes I would like to see in
this bill, but on balance I support S. 39, legislation which should
help our fisheries recover from years of overfishing, mismanagement and
other negative factors. I would like to briefly share with my
colleagues our unfortunate experience with the decline of fishing in
New England, and hope that this experience and others like it might
convince all Senators on the importance of passing this bill.
Commercial fishing has long been a great source of pride for Rhode
Island and New England, its history in our region stretching back
several hundred years. Explorers of the New World returned to England
with reports of codfish so plentiful that men actually scooped them
from the sea by the bucket. In addition, early colonists relied on fish
for subsistence during their first, difficult years of settlement. More
recently, commercial fishing remained a fruitful and profitable
industry in New England throughout the 20th century. Fishing and all of
its associated businesses have employed tens of thousands of New
Englanders in ports along the coast, making it one of our region s most
important industries.
But beginning in the 1960's, distant-water factory trawler fleets
from more than a dozen countries were decimating fish stocks off New
England. In response, Congress in 1976 passed the Magnuson Act, which
sought to Americanize our fishing grounds within 200 miles of the U.S.
coast and let stocks recover from foreign overfishing.
Unfortunately, though, the Americanization of our fishing grounds 20
years ago has not resulted in the intended conservation of this
valuable national resource. Domestic fishermen have more than made up
for the departure of foreign fleets--the introduction of more boats and
the use of increasingly sophisticated fishing technology has resulted
in destructive overfishing throughout New England's prime fishing
grounds. In 1976, there were 775 New England boats licensed to catch
groundfish. Today there are 4,000, of which 1,800 still actively fish.
Overfishing and the resulting sharp downturn in our fishing industry,
particularly in New England, is nothing short of a genuine tragedy.
A look at some of the consequences of years of fisheries
mismanagement in New England is staggering: in 1980, Georges Bank cod
biomass totalled about 90,000 metric tons; by last year it had declined
to under 20,000 metric tons. Georges Bank haddock biomass was nearly
70,000 metric tons in 1978, while today it is under 20,000. Many of
these once abundant fish stocks, which have been such a major influence
on New England's economy and heritage, are now, sadly, at or near
commercial extinction.
The question we now face in the context of the legislation before the
Senate today is how do we best restore this sadly declining industry
and bring life back to a marine resource that is disappearing?
Unfortunately, efforts thus far to halt this collapse of fish stocks in
New England have met with limited success at best. In fact, in 1991 it
actually took a lawsuit by two Massachusetts environmental groups to
force the notoriously slow New England Fishery Management Council to
draft and implement a fishery management plan that contained the teeth
needed to stem continued overfishing and stock decimation. And this
plan, entitled amendment 5, did not even take effect until some 3 years
after the lawsuit was filed.
But amendment 5, while its ground-breaking restrictions on fishing
effort were significantly stronger than previous efforts, proved to be
insufficient to stem the continuing decline in New England fish stocks.
So amendment 7, which further restricts fishing off New England in
several ways, was proposed and approved by the Department of Commerce
several months ago. Those of us who are committed to restoring New
England's fisheries are hopeful that amendment 7 might begin to reverse
the tremendous damage that has been done to this resource.
Unfortunately, though, the New England and other regional fishery
management councils, while their efforts have improved during recent
years, still require additional tools to address the many conservation
needs of our Nation s fisheries. Through a long series of hearings and
a tremendous amount of hard work and patient listening, the Commerce
Committee has succeeded in producing a far-reaching bill, S. 39, that
provides the Councils these tools. I strongly endorse this legislation,
and urge all of my colleagues, both from coastal and inland regions, to
do so as well.
S. 39 defines ``overfished'' and ``overfishing'' in the Magnuson Act
and requires fishery management plans to specify criteria
for determining when a fishery is overfished and include measures to
rebuild any overfished fishery. A council would have 1 year to come up
with a plan to stop overfishing and rebuild the fishery, and the
Secretary of Commerce would be required to step in if the council fails
to act.
This bill also adds a new national standard to the Magnuson Act
requiring that conservation and management measures minimize what we
call bycatch, which is the incidental harvest of nontarget fish.
Bycatch has caused much damage to many fisheries in the United States
as unintentionally caught fish are often thrown back in the water dead
or dying.
In addition, S. 39 imposes several significant reforms on the council
process, including conflict-of-interest procedures and new mechanisms
to push
[[Page S10911]]
councils to develop difficult conservation and management measures. Our
experience in New England, where an industry-dominated council for
years stymied effective management, certainly illustrates the need for
these council reforms.
Mr. President, the Sustainable Fisheries Act includes many other
provisions aimed at restoring and sustaining some of our Nation's most
valued resources. I look with amazement at the array of fishing and
conservation organizations that have endorsed this vitally important
legislation. These groups range from industry to environmental to
recreational. I commend the work done by Senator Stevens to obtain this
wide-ranging level of support, and urge all of my colleagues to join me
in voting for this bill.
Thank you.
Jurisdiction Over Fisheries in the EEZ
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to commend the distinguished
chairman for his dedication to the conservation of our Nation's
fisheries, the industry, and its beneficiaries. The chairman and his
staff have worked very hard to steer this important legislation through
the tedious legislative process. I look forward to working with the
chairman and the committee in working toward this bill's ultimate
success.
Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman a clarifying question
regarding an issue that is of great importance to many States,
including the State of Florida.
Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to respond to a question from my
friend, the senior Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. The State of Florida has been firmly committed to the
conservation of the State's natural resources. In the past year, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Regional Fishery Management
Council had proposed giving authority to the State over certain
fisheries, such as stone crab and spiny lobster, but could not do so
because Federal courts have ruled that the States are preempted by the
Magnuson Act from regulating in the EEZ. I am pleased, therefore, that
the distinguished chairman has included in this reauthorization
legislation, a provision which would allow a fishery management council
to delegate jurisdiction over certain fisheries in the EEZ to a State,
if the State has regulations consistent with the fishery management
plan for that area.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Florida is correct in his understanding
of what is in the reauthorization bill. His interpretation is
consistent with the drafter's intent.
Mr. GRAHAM. It is my understanding that the legislation give states
the right to regulate any vessels in a fishery that the regional
council has designated as being under State jurisdiction, including
vessels registered outside that particular State. Is that correct?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Florida is again correct in his
understanding of what is in the legislation.
Mr. GRAHAM. Now in the case of my State, if the council designates
jurisdiction of a particular fishery to the State, the officials in
Florida would be able to regulate out-of-State vessels, in that portion
of the EEZ, regardless of which ports it utilizes or chooses not to
utilize.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the State of Florida has been
designated as having jurisdiction over a fishery in the EEZ, they would
be entitled to regulate any vessel in that fishery, no matter where it
comes from or what facilities it utilizes, so long as it does so
consistent with the fishery management plan that delegates authority to
the State.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the distinguished chairman for his clarification
of the issue.
state jurisdiction
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and the author of this bill, Senator
Stevens, in a brief colloquy.
Mr. STEVENS. I would be pleased to join Senator Snowe in a colloquy.
Ms. SNOWE. As the Senator knows, section 112 of the manager's
amendment amends the Magnuson Act to clarify that the existing
provision which allows a State to impose State laws and regulations on
its State-registered vessels, even if those vessels fish in the
exclusive economic zone. This provision greatly interests Maine
because, in addition to the Federal rules, Maine imposes stringent
State lobster conservation regulations on all of its vessels,
regardless of where they fish. These State regulations are certainly
consistent with the Federal lobster management plan in conserving and
sustainably managing the lobster resource. But some of Maine's
regulations do differ in design from some of the regulations currently
in force in the Federal zone. For instance, Maine prohibits the
possession or landing of lobsters by State vessels that do not use
traps to harvest lobster, imposes a maximum-size lobster possession
limit, prohibits the possession of egg-bearing female lobsters, and
requires the v-notching technique to ensure the identification of these
lobsters. The Federal lobster management plan does not contain
conservation and management measures of the same design.
As I understand the amendment, section 112 would allow Maine to
continue imposing its more stringent State lobster regulations on all
of its State-registered fishing vessels because the regulations are
consistent with the Federal lobster management plan. Am I correct in
stating that it is the intent of the author and manager of this bill
that section 112 of the manager's amendment dealing with State
jurisdiction would permit a State like Maine to continue applying more
stringent rules on its State-registered vessels that operate in the
exclusive economic zone?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Maine is correct. Section 112 of my
amendment protects the existing authority of States to impose more
stringent regulations which are not inconsistent with a management plan
on its vessels in the Federal zone. Maine's more stringent regulations
were consistent with the management plan for lobster before this
amendment, and they would continue to be viewed that way after its
enactment. Because regulations such as Maine's are not irreconcilable
with the management plan, they will be viewed as consistent with it
under my amendment.
Herring Transshipment
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from
Maine, Senator Snowe, and the chairman of the Oceans and Fisheries
Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, in a colloquy.
Ms. SNOWE. I would be pleased to join the Senator from Rhode Island
in a colloquy.
Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to join Senator Chafee in a colloquy.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, section 105(e) of the manager's amendment
directs the Secretary of Commerce to provide transshipment permits for
up to 14 Canadian vessels for the purposes of transporting Atlantic
herring caught off the coast of Maine in the sardine processing trade.
I would like to ask the Senators whether the manager's amendment would
also require this herring transshipment practice to be consistent with
any applicable regulations, including fishery allocations, approved by
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The ASMFC has
management authority for Atlantic herring.
Ms. SNOWE. I sponsored and worked on, with other Commerce Committee
members, the provision to which Senator Chafee refers, and I can assure
the Senator that the provision does require these transshipment permits
to be consistent with all relevant herring management measures approved
by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I would simply
mention that the ASMFC has expressed support for this provision.
Mr. STEVENS. I agree with Senator Snowe's interpretation of this
provision.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senators for the clarification.
central registry
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my manager's amendment to S. 39, the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, adds a new section to the Magnuson Act
requiring the Secretary of Commerce to create a central lien registry
system for limited access permits. Among other things, the Secretary is
required to notify both the buyer and seller of a permit if a lien has
been filed by the Secretary of the Treasury against the permit.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have reviewed the central lien registry
provisions in the amendment offered by the
[[Page S10912]]
Senator from Alaska. He has removed language that involved matters
within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. We do hope, however, that
the Secretary of the Treasury will work with the Secretary of Commerce
as the Secretary of Commerce carries out the new requirement my friend
from Alaska has described.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his help with this
new subsection. My amendment no longer contains the language that was
within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I would, however, like to
ask my friend from Delaware about his understanding of section
6323(j)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code--26 U.S.C. 6323(j)(1)(C), a
provision he helped write. Is that section intended to allow the
Secretary of the Treasury to withdraw a notice of lien filed against a
limited access fishing permit if such withdrawal will facilitate the
collection of a tax liability by allowing the owner of the permit to
derive income from the use of the permit?
Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Alaska is correct. Section 6323(j)(1)(C)
gives the Secretary of the Treasury discretionary authority to withdraw
a notice of lien filed against a fishing permit if the withdrawal will
facilitate the collection of a tax liability by allowing the owner to
derive income from the use of the permit.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased we have been able to bring
to the Senate S. 39, a bill to amend and reauthorize the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. This bill, introduced
by Senator Stevens and cosponsored by Senators Kerry, Murkowski,
Hollings, Lott, Inouye, Simpson, and myself, is crucial to continuing
the sound management of our Nation's fishery resources.
On March 28, 1996, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported this legislation. The report was filed on May
23, 1996, and a cost estimate for the bill as prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office was printed in the Congressional Record on
July 10, 1996. Under the leadership of Senator Stevens, chairman of our
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, seven field hearings were conducted
last year gathering testimony from fishermen, industry representatives,
Federal and State managers, and environmental organizations, throughout
the Nation. While this legislation may not be perfect, the language we
have before us today is an attempt to address the concerns raised at
those hearings as well as issues brought to our attention by many of
our colleagues in the Senate. This has been no small feat and I commend
Senator Stevens for his efforts.
Commercial fisheries are very important to many States and the Nation
as a whole. In 1995, commercial landings by U.S. fishermen were over
9.9 billion pounds and valued at $3.8 billion. The State of Alaska led
the Nation in value of landings with $1.4 billion. Other regions of the
country have a similar dependency on commercial fisheries, some are
strong and robust, others have not fared as well--their fish stocks
have declined and communities in those regions are feeling that
economic impact. Hopefully, provisions in this bill that call for
reductions in bycatch, measures to prevent overfishing, and
requirements for the protection of habitat, will again bring about
healthy fisheries and healthy fishing communities.
Twenty years ago the Magnuson Act was enacted in direct response to
the depletion of U.S. fishery resources by foreign vessels. The
Magnuson Act secured U.S. jurisdiction and management authority over
the fisheries out to 200 miles from our shores. It was intended that
this action would provide long-term stability and sustainable
fisheries, though today in many areas we are again overcapitalized and
the stocks face a crisis similar to that of the 1970's.
The Magnuson Act is administered by the National Marine Fisheries
Service and eight Regional Fishery Management Councils that manage the
fisheries in their geographic areas through specific fishery management
plans. Their actions provide the rules under which the fishing industry
operates. They determine the harvest quotas, season length, gear
restrictions, and license limitations. This is where tough management
decisions need to be made.
One of the overall goals of the Magnuson Act is to provide a
mechanism to determine the appropriate level of harvest to maximize the
benefit to the Nation while still protecting the long-term
sustainability of the fisheries. It is a balancing act among competing
interests of commercial and recreational fishermen and even competing
gear groups within the commercial industry.
Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Stevens, Senator Gorton, and
others have been able to resolve any differences they may have had with
the bill as reported. A manager's amendment that I fully support has
been developed that addresses these issues. The amendment shortens the
authorization period through fiscal year 1999, thereby reducing the
time that a moratorium will be in effect concerning individual fishing
quotas [IFQ's]; it requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
a study on the value of IFQ's and community development quotas or
CDQ's; it includes consideration for the sustained participation of
fishing communities, and it also addresses the issue of State
jurisdiction into Federal waters absent any applicable fishery
management plan.
Mr. President, many of the provisions in this bill will strengthen
the administration of the Magnuson Act and, in turn, the conservation
and management of our fishery resources. I say to my Senate colleagues
that this bill is a bipartisan effort to accommodate the interests of
fishermen throughout the Nation. I again commend the leadership efforts
of Senator Stevens as well as many other members of the Commerce
Committee in moving this legislation.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we are obliged to be responsible
stewards of our environment, both here and abroad. Even in these times
of fiscal restraint, it would be counterproductive to cut back on the
investment we have made in our environment and indeed in our own
future. Growing concern over the deterioration of our global resources
and environment has forced us to examine ways in which we can redouble
our efforts to protect and conserve these valuable resources. However,
protection need not be at the expense of our ability to enjoy, enhance,
and utilize our resources. There are few industries whose future is as
directly dependent on the conservation of a resource as commercial
fishing.
As residents of Oregon's coastal communities recently learned, due to
the closing of a commercial salmon season, when fish populations suffer
that hardship is passed along to fishermen, processors, and consumers.
The problem of dwindling fishery resources is not unique to the Pacific
Northwest. Virtually every region of the country has experienced some
form of decay in the commercial fishing industry. Therefore, it is
critical that we fulfill our obligation to protect and responsibly
manage our Nation's fisheries.
The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act has been our
Nation's principal offshore fisheries conservation policy since it was
enacted in 1976. I am gratified the Senate has overcome the substantial
barriers that were preventing this important legislation from being
considered. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed its
version of this measure last year and it is my hope we will send a
Magnuson reauthorization bill to the President for his signature this
year. However, I recognize there are a number of outstanding issues
which must be resolved before we can complete action on this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I would like to take a brief moment to congratulate
the sponsors of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, Senators Stevens
and Kerry. They have crafted a bill which enjoys support on a
bipartisan basis in the Senate and is also endorsed by numerous
conservation and industry groups. It has taken impressive dedication on
the part of the sponsors of this bill and cooperation with many Members
of the Senate to bring this measure before us today. I commend them for
their leadership on this matter.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, S. 39, would extend the
authorization of appropriations for the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
Management Act through fiscal year 2000 and build on the policy
objectives of that landmark legislation. In the 20 years since
[[Page S10913]]
its enactment, the Magnuson Act has provided a national framework for
conserving and managing U.S. marine fisheries.
In addition to reauthorizing several important appropriations for
marine statutes, the Sustainable Fisheries Act includes significant
fishery conservation and management provisions. The bill contains
language which requires fishery management plans to specify criteria
for establishing when a fishery has been overfished and include methods
to rebuild an overfished fishery. Additionally, the issue of bycatch,
taking of nontarget fish in the process of catching marketable seafood,
is also addressed by this legislation. It adds a national standard
which would require measures to minimize bycatch and minimize the
mortality of unavoidable bycatch. The legislation also mandates the
eight regional fishery management councils to identify essential fish
habitat and reduce negative effects on habitat due to fishing.
As with all natural resource policy matters, effective conservation
and management of fisheries must be based on sound science and accurate
research. The Sustainable Fisheries Act maintains existing Magnuson Act
sections dealing with data collection and fisheries research.
Additionally, it includes a section which establishes guidelines for
fishing vessel observers and fishing vessel registration. The
legislation also incorporates the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a review of the contentious individual fishing quota and
community development quota programs.
Many individuals within my State have contacted me to express concern
about specific provisions contained in this legislation. I recognize
each issue within this bill may not be resolved to the satisfaction of
all interested parties. However, the compromise package is a reasonable
attempt to address these concerns and the accommodations made by the
managers of the bill represent our best opportunity to see this overdue
legislation enacted this year. Therefore, I will vote in favor of the
Sustainable Fisheries Act.
Once again, I applaud the work of the sponsors of this legislation
and thank them for their efforts on behalf of our Nation's fisheries
and those who depend upon them. It is my hope the Senate will
overwhelmingly pass this important measure and that action will be
taken quickly by the White House to sign it into law.
____________________