[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1833-E1834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WEST COAST FISHING INTERESTS OPPOSE S. 39

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Saturday, September 28, 1996

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed S. 
39, ``The Sustainable Fisheries Act,'' and sent that measure to the 
President. I regret that this important fishery management bill was 
significantly altered, and weakened, by the Senate during a year of 
consideration, and that the House was denied any opportunity to improve 
on that version of the legislation.
  H.R. 39 as passed by the House last year was a much stronger bill for 
the fish and the fishermen. While I realize that S. 39 does include 
important conservation measures, these measures could have been 
stronger. They should have provided more protection for the fish 
stocks, the fishing communities, and for the taxpayers.
  The inferior version finally passed by the Senate contained many 
provisions that are unacceptable to the West Coast fishing industry, 
including commercial fishermen and processors. And it contains several 
provisions were particularly unacceptable, such as authorizing the 
Secretary to buy back fishing permits (that were granted for free) in 
biologically depressed fisheries and allowing violators of 
International Whaling Commission restrictions to gain access to U.S. 
territorial waters.
  The Senate also deleted provisions of the House bill to assure that 
smaller communities are fairly represented, and to prohibit the private 
profiting from the sale of fishing quotas, which could also allow the 
growing concentration of quotas in the hands of the large-scale 
industry at the expense of family fishermen.
  I am inserting in the Record two letters from fisheries industry 
groups in California, expressing their opposition to the House 
acceptance of S. 39 and their desire to see amendments made to the bill 
before it became law.
  Finally, I would just like to thank the fishing families of 
California for their support. During the past two years, they worked 
tirelessly with us to ensure that the best Magnuson bill possible was 
enacted into law. I regret that in the final analysis, the House 
leadership decided simply to accept the Senate's version that was 
negotiated with no input from the House. I salute the efforts of those 
families. In addition, I pledge to work with them in the years ahead to 
continue to seek the protections that our small fishing families and 
the fishery resources deserve.
         Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, 
           Inc.,
                                Sausalito, CA, September 23, 1996.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Natural 
         Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Re Reauthorization of the Magnuson Act.

       Dear Mr. Miller: The Pacific Coast Federation of 
     Fishermen's Association (PCFFA), representing working men and 
     women in the west coast commercial fishing fleet, 
     respectfully requests the House reject the effort to force 
     House adoption of the Senate bill, S.39, to reauthorize the 
     Magnuson Act. While PCFFA had encouraged the Senate to take 
     action on Magnuson, after nearly two years of delay, and 
     worked for inclusion of language giving California, Oregon 
     and Washington jurisdiction in federal waters over the 
     Dungeness crab fishery, it was with the understanding that 
     the two bills would be reconciled in conference. We 
     understand now that this may not happen due to the Senate's 
     delay.
       PCFFA fully supports the House bill; indeed, the only thing 
     missing from it was the Dungeness crab language. The Senate 
     version, on the other hand, we find seriously flawed and 
     suggest that no bill this session would be better than 
     adopting the measure passed last week by the Senate. There 
     are a number of concerns we have with the Senate version, 
     including:
       S. 39 would require any limited access fishery (most of our 
     west coast and Alaska fisheries are under limited entry, 
     including salmon, pink shrimp, herring, groundfish, halibut, 
     blackcod, swordfish/shark, Dungeness crab, sea cucumber, sea 
     urchin and abalone) to register their limited access permit 
     in a line registry and pay a fee every time they transfer it. 
     This provision, slipped in the Senate bill as an apparent 
     favor to Seattle bankers, was not discussed with fishermen 
     here on the west coast and, frankly, does not belong in a 
     statute governing the conservation and management of fish 
     stocks. Just who is the Senate concerned with here, the 
     fish and the fishing fleet, or the bankers?
       S. 39 allows the Secretary to impose limited access plans, 
     including ITQs, on any fishery that is not under regional 
     fishery management council jurisdiction. As mentioned, most 
     of our fisheries here on the west coast are under limited 
     access management, mostly under state-developed programs. 
     Moreover, most of the state programs are working well and, in 
     the case of California,

[[Page E1834]]

     most were industry-developed. As we read the Senate language, 
     the Secretary could impose his/her own will over state 
     fisheries under S. 39.
       S. 39 perverts the fishing community language, which in the 
     House bill gives consideration of local, community-based 
     fleets, by including the home ports of the distant water, 
     corporately-held, factory trawlers under the definition of 
     ``community-based fleets.'' About the only thing the Senate 
     version did not do was define the corporate headquarters for 
     these fleets as a ``fishing community'' and that's probably 
     only because Arkansas is land-locked.
       S. 39's language on bycatch is much weaker than your House 
     version and actually makes reducing mortality of bycatch co-
     equal with avoiding or reducing bycatch. The Senate bill also 
     exempts the East Coast large pelagic fishery from the bycatch 
     provision of the bill. The shark bycatch in the East Coast 
     fishery is giving the whole of the commercial fishing 
     industry a black eye. We have dealt with shark and shark 
     bycatch issues here on the west coast (through state 
     regulation) in an effort to ensure the resource was protected 
     and the fishery is sustainable; surely it's not too much to 
     ask that bycatch requirements be put in place for the 
     Atlantic.
       S. 39, moreover, fails to address the issue of windfall 
     profits from ITQs. The problem of profiteering on permits has 
     to be addressed, first to dissuade nonfishing speculators 
     from seeking or gaining quota shares; second to assure quota 
     shares are affordable for fishermen/women seeking to enter a 
     fishery (by preventing windfall profits and restricting quota 
     sales to those directly engaged in the harvest of fish--not 
     bankers or processors); and third to assure the public a fair 
     return on this publicly-held resource.
       The House is to be commended for its bi-partisan effort in 
     developing H.R. 39, which is a very good bill. The only 
     reason we had for pressing a Senate bill was to get in the 
     Dungeness crab language, offered by Senator Widen, and get 
     the two bills into conference with the idea of getting a 
     measure out this year. If the choice now, however, is between 
     the Senate version and no bill at all, PCFFA recommends 
     waiting until next year.
       Thank you for all your efforts this year on Magnuson and 
     please convey to your colleagues our dissatisfaction with S. 
     39.
           Sincerely,
                                        W.F. ``Zeke'' Grader, Jr.,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____
                                  
                                                West Coast Seafood


                                       Processors Association,

                                 Portland, OR, September 18, 1996.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, Rayburn Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Don: As you know, over the past two years our 
     Association has worked with you, other members of the House, 
     and your counterparts in the Senate to develop a Magnuson 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act bill that will 
     conserve and manage our fisheries and still provide an 
     opportunity for our members to conduct their business and 
     employ thousands of workers in Alaska, California, Oregon, 
     and Washington. The House bill, while not perfect, did a good 
     job of accomplishing these goals. The most current version of 
     the Senate bill (which I realize is still being changed) 
     improves the House bill in some areas, but is worse in many 
     others. We had hoped that the Senate would act in time to 
     allow a conference committee to develop a final product that 
     we could all embrace. Unfortunately, time will not permit 
     that to occur.
       I have spoken to all of the members of my board of 
     directors. Collectively, they represent the majority of shore 
     based processors of Pacific groundfish, Dungeness crab, and 
     shrimp--along with many other species in California, Oregon, 
     and Washington. In addition, they represent shore based 
     processors of salmon, king crab, tanner crab, pollock, cod, 
     sole, sablefish, halibut, herring, and razor clams with 
     plants on the Kenai Peninsula and in Bristol Bay, Kodiak, 
     Cordova, and Petersburg. They unanimously agree that--absent 
     a regular conference committee--the House should amend the 
     Senate bill and return it to the Senate.
       This decision was not made lightly. All of my members 
     recognize the risks that this action would entail. However, 
     they would rather make a fresh start in the next Congress 
     than have a bill signed into law which has the potential to 
     put them out of business.
       To give you just a few examples, here are some of the 
     Senate provisions which need to be addressed:
       The Senate provisions on overfishing and bycatch do not 
     take into account the realities of commercial fishing, 
     leaving the industry, the Councils, and NMFS open to 
     crippling lawsuits that could shut down fishing;
       The Senate enforcement provisions could subject a fisherman 
     or processing worker to criminal penalties if they get into 
     an argument with a port sampler under contract to NMFS;
       The Senate bill would allow the Secretary to impose a 
     federal limited entry plan--not reviewable by the Council--on 
     fisheries such as Gulf of Alaska king crab, Pacific Dungeness 
     crab, and Atlantic striped bass;
       A fisherman writing a letter to a Council who does not 
     provide complete documentation for his views could be subject 
     to a $100,000 fine;
       The Senate bill could allow a State to allocate Dungeness 
     crab through area closures and pot limits at the expense of 
     traditional fishermen legally harvesting crab in federal 
     waters; and
       Every groundfish fisherman in the Pacific Council area woul 
     be required to register their limited entry permit with a 
     newly established lien identification system and pay a fee 
     every time the permit was transferred--a provision that was 
     never discussed with affected fishermen in California, 
     Oregon, and Washington.
       This is not an all-inclusive list of troublesome 
     provisions, but it demonstrates the additional work that is 
     needed on the Senate bill before it becomes law. On behalf of 
     our members and their employees in San Luis Obispo, the San 
     Francisco area, Sacramento, Fort Bragg, Eurkea, Crescent 
     City, Brookings, Charleston, Newport, Astoria, Warrenton, 
     Portland, Chinook, Westport, Seattle, Bellingham, Petersburg, 
     Cordova, the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak, and Bristol Bay, I urge 
     you to improve S. 39 when it arrives in the House and return 
     it to the Senate for final action.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Rod Moore,
     Executive Director.

                          ____________________