[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.

                          ____________________