[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 130 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9969-S9976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr.
Warner, and Mr. Robb):
S. 1219. A bill to require the establishment of a research and grant
program for the eradication or control of Pfiesteria pisicicida and
other aquatic toxins.
the pfiesteria research act of 1997
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill I am
introducing today, the Pfiesteria Research Act of 1997. I thank my
colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill:
Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Paul Sarbanes and Senator John
Warner.
This bill is the first Federal legislative response to this
mysterious microbe which has been linked to fish kills and also to
human health problems all along the east coast, but particularly in the
Chesapeake Bay area and along the coast of North Carolina.
Pfiesteria has become more than a problem affecting one State and, as
such, a Federal, broader response is necessary. The No. 1 need is
research into this mystery, what causes it, why it occurs, and how it
can be stopped.
We need to involve the best research laboratories in the country, at
Government agencies, at universities, and at State agencies, to study
the problem and to find a solution.
Specifically, this bill does two things. First, it authorizes the
EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
[[Page S9970]]
the National Institute of Environmental Health Services, the Centers
for Disease Control, and the Department of Agriculture to establish a
research program for the eradication or control of Pfiesteria and other
aquatic toxins.
Second, the bill directs these agencies to make grants to
universities and other such entities in affected States for the
eradication or control of Pfiesteria and other aquatic toxins.
Given the potentially serious health and environmental effects--and
they have clearly been demonstrated by the number of people who have
gotten sick in the Maryland-Virginia area because of it, and it has
been deadly to hundreds of thousands of fish--significant Federal
action needs to be taken to eradicate it and make sure this regional
threat does not become a national threat.
I hope this bill will be passed in the very near future and funds
will then be appropriated to fully fund it. I look forward to working
with my colleagues on this matter, and I particularly thank my
colleague from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, for her assistance with the
bill.
I send the bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1219
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pfiesteria Research Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. PFIESTERIA AND OTHER AQUATIC TOXINS RESEARCH AND
GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce (acting through
the Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (acting through the
Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention), and the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
(1) establish a research program for the eradication or
control of Pfiesteria piscicida and other aquatic toxins; and
(2) make grants to colleges, universities, and other
entities in affected States for the eradication or control of
Pfiesteria piscicida and other aquatic toxins.
(b) Grants.--In carrying out subsection (a)(2), the heads
of the agencies referred to in subsection (a) shall make
grants to--
(1) North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North
Carolina, for the establishment of an Applied Aquatic Ecology
Center and for research conducted by the Center relating to
aquatic toxins;
(2) the University System of Maryland and the Agricultural
Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland, for the
establishment of a cooperative Agro-Ecosystem Center for
research and demonstration projects related to aquatic
toxins, such as Pfiesteria piscicida, including projects that
relate to dietary, waste management, and other alternative-
use related strategies that reduce the undesirable nutrient
and other chemical content from waste into waterways; and
(3) the Virginia Institute of Marine Science of the College
of William and Mary in Gloucester Point, Virginia, for the
establishment of a Marine Pathology and Applied Ecology
Center and for research conducted by the Center relating to
the effect of algal toxins on marine fish and shellfish and
to understanding human influences on estuarine planktonic
communities with an emphasis on harmful algal species, except
that a portion of the grants made under this paragraph shall
be allocated to Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia,
for research support.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section, of which not less than--
(1) $1,883,619 for fiscal year 1998, and $655,890 for
fiscal year 1999, shall be used to carry out subsection
(b)(1);
(2) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 shall
be used to carry out subsection (b)(2); and
(3) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 1998, and $545,000 for
fiscal year 1999, shall be used to carry out subsection
(b)(3).
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am delighted to join my
colleagues Senator Faircloth, Senator Mikulski and Senator Warner as a
principal cosponsor of this proposal providing additional Federal
assistance to efforts combating Pfiesteria outbreaks in the Chesapeake
Bay and other Atlantic coast waterways.
The micro-organism Pfiesteria piscicida, linked to fish kills and
human health problems this summer in the Pocomoke River on Maryland's
Eastern Shore, is a matter about which we are all deeply concerned. The
Governor has recently closed down two Eastern Shore waterways in
Maryland, and fish with lesions characteristic of Pfiesteria have also
been discovered in Delaware, Virginia, and other Atlantic coast
waterways.
Since the Pfiesteria outbreaks began, we, in Congress, have worked
individually and collectively on a variety of initiatives to assist the
States in battling this toxic micro-organism. The Federal agency
response team, led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is providing valuable
funding and technical assistance to the States.
The Federal assistance thus far includes habitat and water quality
monitoring and fish lesion assessment. At my and Senator Mikulski's
request, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
National Institute of Environment Health Sciences are providing
scientific teams and technical assistance for human health risk-
assessment efforts. In Maryland, the Cooperative Laboratory at Oxford
is playing an especially key role by coordinating ongoing fisheries-
related investigations.
The Pfiesteria Research Act of 1997 would add a critical dimension to
the Federal response, one that would assist farmers with agricultural-
related research and demonstrations related to outbreaks of Pfiesteria
and other aquatic toxins. This measure would provide this assistance by
establishing a cooperative Agro-Ecosystem Center between the University
System of Maryland and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, and
authorizing not less than $2 million in grants to the center. The
University System of Maryland and the Beltsville Center are world
leaders in conducting agricultural research and demonstration projects.
I am confident that both have the substantial scientific and technical
expertise necessary to lead the dietary, waste management, and other
nutrient-reduction efforts authorized in this measure to combat
Pfiesteria.
Mr. President, the Federal Government has worked closely with
affected States as they respond to Pfiesteria outbreaks. I urge my
colleagues to support this measure and to provide much-needed
assistance to farmers to battle Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay and
along other Atlantic coast waterways.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bumpers, and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 1220. A bill to provide a process for declassifying on an
expedited basis certain documents relating to human rights abuses in
Guatemala and Honduras; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
the human rights information act
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Human Rights
Information Act--legislation designed to facilitate the
declassification of certain United States documents that relate to past
human rights abuses in Guatemala and and Honduras. This act would
ensure the prompt declassification of information by all relevant U.S.
Government agencies concerning human rights abuses, while providing
adequate protection to safeguard U.S. national security interests.
Timely declassification of relevant materials would be of enormous
assistance to the Guatemalan and Honduran people who are at this moment
confronting past human rights violations as part of ongoing efforts to
strengthen democratic institutions in those countries, particularly
their judiciaries.
This bill would ensure prompt and complete declassification within
the necessary bounds of protection of national security. It would
require Government agencies to review for declassification within 120
days all human rights records relevant to inquiries by the Honduran
human rights commissioner and the Guatemalan Clarification Commission.
An interagency appeals panel would review agencies decisions to
withhold information. The bill follows declassification standards
already enacted by Congress in the JFK Assassination Records Act but is
much simpler and less expensive than that law.
Honduran Human Rights Commissioner Leo Valladares has already made a
request of the United States
[[Page S9971]]
Government for any relevant documents concerning Honduran human rights
violations and particularly those alleged to have been perpetrated by
Honduran military Battalion 3-16 that resulted in more than 184
killings or disappearances in the early 1980's.
The Guatemalan Clarification Commission, which was set up by the
December 1996 peace accords to establish a historical record of the
massive human rights violations that occurred during more than three
decades of civil war, is expected shortly to make a similar request for
relevant United States documents concerning this period. The U.S.
Government is, properly, offering financial assistance to the
clarification commission. The United States should also support the
commission's important work to end impunity by providing relevant
declassified documents.
While it is true that the Clinton administration has already
declassified some documents related to Honduras and Guatemala, by
Executive order, such declassifications have been very narrowly
focused. And, despite a number of letters from Congress requesting
prompt action, the administration's response to the longstanding
request by Honduran Human Rights Commissioner Valladares, which was
first submitted in 1993, has been slow and partial.
Moreover, although the administration officially agreed to honor the
Honduran request, many of the documents released to date have been
heavily excised, yielding little substantive information. The State
Department has turned over 3,000 pages, but other agencies have been
much less forthcoming. For example, the CIA has released 36 documents
concerning Father Carney, a United States priest killed in Honduras,
and 97 documents pertaining to 5 other key human rights cases. Most are
heavily excised. The Department of Defense has released 34 heavily
excised documents, but almost nothing that relates to the activities of
Battalion 3-16.
The administration has also declassified numerous documents on
Guatemala in response to public demands. These focus, however, on
approximately 30 cases of human rights abuses directed against
Americans in Guatemala. The cases of Guatemalan anthropologist Myrna
Mack and guerrilla leader Efrain Bamaca, husband of American lawyer
Jennifer Harbury, were exceptions. In May of this year, the CIA also
released an important batch of documents concerning its 1954 covert
operation in Guatemala. However, thousands of documents on human rights
violations that could be of interest to the clarification commission
remain classified. Many of the documents already declassified were
heavily excised, and, as in the Honduran case, the intelligence and
defense agencies were less forthcoming than the State Department.
Mr. President, I would hope that my colleagues can join me in voting
for the Human Rights Information Act. This will send a very powerful
signal of support for efforts to strengthen democracy and the rule of
law throughout the hemisphere. It will also greatly assist Latin
Americans who are currently bravely working to shed light upon a dark
period of their recent pasts so that they can prevent such heinous
abuses from occurring in the future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1220
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Human Rights Information
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Agencies of the Government of the United States have
information on human rights violations in Guatemala and
Honduras.
(2) Members of both Houses of Congress have repeatedly
asked the Administration for information on Guatemalan and
Honduran human rights cases.
(3) The Guatemalan peace accords, which the Government of
the United States firmly supports, has as an important and
vital component the establishment of the Commission for the
Historical Clarification of Human Rights Violations and Acts
of Violence which have Caused Suffering to the Guatemalan
People (referred to in this Act as the ``Clarification
Commission''). The Clarification Commission will investigate
cases of human rights violations and abuses by both parties
to the civil conflict in Guatemala and will need all
available information to fulfill its mandate.
(4) The National Commissioner for the Protection of Human
Rights in the Republic of Honduras has been requesting United
States Government documentation on human rights violations in
Honduras since November 15, 1993. The Commissioner's request
has been partly fulfilled, but is still pending. The request
has been supported by national and international human rights
nongovernmental organizations as well as members of both
Houses of Congress.
(5) Victims and survivors of human rights violations,
including United States citizens and their relatives, have
also been requesting the information referred to in
paragraphs (3) and (4). Survivors and the relatives of
victims have a right to know what happened. The requests have
been supported by national and international human rights
nongovernmental organizations as well as members of both
Houses of Congress.
(6) The United States should make the information it has on
human rights abuses available to the public as part of the
United States commitment to democracy in Central America.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Human rights record.--The term ``human rights record''
means a record in the possession, custody, or control of the
United States Government containing information about gross
human rights violations committed after 1944.
(2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency of the
United States Government charged with the conduct of foreign
policy or foreign intelligence, including the Department of
State, the Agency for International Development, the
Department of Defense (and all of its components), the
Central Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance
Office, the Department of Justice (and all of its
components), the National Security Council, and the Executive
Office of the President.
SEC. 4. IDENTIFICATION, REVIEW, AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF
HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS REGARDING GUATEMALA AND
HONDURAS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the provision of this Act shall govern the
declassification and public disclosure of human rights
records by agencies.
(b) Identification of Records.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, each agency shall
identify, review, and organize all human rights records
regarding activities occurring in Guatemala and Honduras
after 1944 for the purpose of declassifying and disclosing
the records to the public. Except as provided in section 5,
all records described in the preceding sentence shall be made
available to the public not later than 30 days after a review
under this section is completed.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 150 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the President shall report to
Congress regarding each agency's compliance with the
provisions of this Act.
SEC. 5. GROUNDS FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF
RECORDS.
(a) In General.--An agency may postpone public disclosure
of a human rights record or particular information in a human
rights record only if the agency determines that there is
clear and convincing evidence that--
(1) the threat to the military defense, intelligence
operations, or conduct of foreign relations of the United
States raised by public disclosure of the human rights record
is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest, and
such public disclosure would reveal--
(A) an intelligence agent whose identity currently requires
protection;
(B) an intelligence source or method--
(i) which is being utilized, or reasonably expected to be
utilized, by the United States Government;
(ii) which has not been officially disclosed; and
(iii) the disclosure of which would interfere with the
conduct of intelligence activities; or
(C) any other matter currently relating to the military
defense, intelligence operations, or conduct of foreign
relations of the United States, the disclosure of which would
demonstrably impair the national security of the United
States;
(2) the public disclosure of the human rights record would
reveal the name or identity of a living individual who
provided confidential information to the United States and
would pose a substantial risk of harm to that individual;
(3) the public disclosure of the human rights record could
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy, and that invasion of privacy is so
substantial that it outweighs the public interest; or
(4) the public disclosure of the human rights record would
compromise the existence of an understanding of
confidentiality currently requiring protection between a
Government agent and a cooperating individual or a foreign
government, and public disclosure would be so harmful that it
outweighs the public interest.
(b) Special Treatment of Certain Information.--It shall not
be grounds for postponement of disclosure of a human rights
record that an individual named in the
[[Page S9972]]
human rights record was an intelligence asset of the United
States Government, although the existence of such
relationship may be withheld if the criteria set forth in
subsection (a) are met. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term an ``intelligence asset'' means a covert
agent as defined in section 606(4) of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 426(4)).
SEC. 6. REQUEST FOR HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS FROM OFFICIAL
ENTITIES IN OTHER LATIN AMERICAN CARIBBEAN
COUNTRIES.
In the event that an agency of the United States receives a
request for human rights records from an entity created by
the United Nations or the Organization of American States
similar to the Guatemalan Clarification Commission, or from
the principal justice or human rights official of a Latin
American or Caribbean country who is investigating a pattern
of gross human rights violations, the agency shall conduct a
review of records as described in section 4 and shall
declassify and publicly disclose such records in accordance
with the standards and procedures set forth in this Act.
SEC. 7. REVIEW OF DECISIONS TO WITHHOLD RECORDS.
(a) Duties of the Appeals Panel.--The Interagency Security
Classification Appeals Panel (referred to in this Act as the
``Appeals Panel''), established under Executive Order No.
12958, shall review determinations by an agency to postpone
public disclosure of any human rights record.
(b) Determinations of the Appeals Panel.--
(1) In general.--The Appeals Panel shall direct that all
human rights records be disclosed to the public, unless the
Appeals Panel determines that there is clear and convincing
evidence that--
(A) the record is not a human rights record; or
(B) the human rights record or particular information in
the human rights record qualifies for postponement of
disclosure pursuant to section 5.
(2) Treatment in cases of nondisclosure.--If the Appeals
Panel concurs with an agency decision to postpone disclosure
of a human rights record, the Appeals Panel shall determine,
in consultation with the originating agency and consistent
with the standards set forth in this Act, which, if any, of
the alternative forms of disclosure described in paragraph
(3) shall be made by the agency.
(3) Alternative forms of disclosure.--The forms of
disclosure described in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) Disclosure of any reasonably segregable portion of the
human rights record after deletion of the portions described
in paragraph (1).
(B) Disclosure of a record that is a substitute for
information which is not disclosed.
(C) Disclosure of a summary of the information contained in
the human rights record.
(4) Notification of determination.--
(A) In general.--Upon completion of its review, the Appeals
Panel shall notify the head of the agency in control or
possession of the human rights record that was the subject of
the review of its determination and shall, not later than 14
days after the determination, publish the determination in
the Federal Register.
(B) Notice to president.--The Appeals Panel shall notify
the President of its determination. The notice shall contain
a written unclassified justification for its determination,
including an explanation of the application of the standards
contained in section 5.
(5) General procedures.--The Appeals Panel shall publish in
the Federal Register guidelines regarding its policy and
procedures for adjudicating appeals.
(c) Presidential Authority Over Appeals Panel
Determination.--
(1) Public disclosure or postponement of disclosure.--The
President shall have the sole and nondelegable authority to
review any determination of the Appeals Board under this Act,
and such review shall be based on the standards set forth in
section 5. Not later than 30 days after the Appeals Panel's
determination and notification to the agency pursuant to
subsection (b)(4), the President shall provide the Appeals
Panel with an unclassified written certification specifying
the President's decision and stating the reasons for the
decision, including in the case of a determination to
postpone disclosure, the standards set forth in section 5
which are the basis for the President's determination.
(2) Record of presidential postponement.--The Appeals Panel
shall, upon receipt of the President's determination, publish
in the Federal Register a copy of any unclassified written
certification, statement, and other materials transmitted by
or on behalf of the President with regard to the postponement
of disclosure of a human rights record.
SEC. 8. REPORT REGARDING OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS.
Upon completion of the review and disclosure of the human
rights records relating to Guatemala and Honduras, the
Information Security Policy Advisory Council, established
pursuant to Executive Order No. 12958, shall report to
Congress on the desirability and feasibility of
declassification of human rights records relating to other
countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The report
shall be available to the public.
SEC. 9. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Freedom of Information Act.--Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to limit any right to file a request with any
executive agency or seek judicial review of a decision
pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Judicial Review.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to preclude judicial review, under chapter 7 of
title 5, United States Code, of final actions taken or
required to be taken under this Act.
SEC. 10. CREATION OF POSITIONS.
For purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act,
there shall be 2 additional positions in the Appeals Panel.
The positions shall be filled by the President, based on the
recommendations of the American Historical Association, the
Latin American Studies Association, Human Rights Watch, and
Amnesty International, USA.
______
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr.
Hollings):
S. 1221. A bill to amend title 46 of the United States Code to
prevent foreign ownership and control of United States flag vessels
employed in the fisheries in the navigable waters and exclusive
economic zone of the United States, to prevent the issuance of fishery
endorsements to certain vessels, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the american fisheries act
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk a bill
that is called the American Fisheries Act to raise the U.S. ownership
standard for U.S.-flag fishing vessels operating in U.S. waters, to
eliminate the exemptions and loopholes interpreted into the existing
ownership and control standard, and to phase out large fishing vessels
that are destructive to U.S. fishery resources because of their size
and power.
As I said, this bill is called the American Fisheries Act.
Let me point out, these factory trawlers we are talking about make
trucks look like tiny bugs. They certainly waste a tremendous amount of
fish. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistics
for 1995--that is the most recent year for which we have statistics--
the 55 factory trawlers in the Bering Sea off my State threw overboard
483 million pounds of groundfish, wasted and unused.
That is more fish than the targeted fisheries of New England lobster,
Atlantic mackerel, Gulf of Mexico shrimp, and Pacific Northwest salmon
combined. It is the most horrendous waste of fishery resources in the
history of man. And this bill is designed to stop that.
Mr. President, as I said, the bill I am introducing today would:
First, raise U.S. ownership standard for U.S.-flag fishing vessels
operating in U.S. waters; second, eliminate the exemptions and
loopholes interpreted into the existing ownership and control standard;
and third, phase out large fishing vessels that are destructive to U.S.
fishery resources because of their size and power.
The bill is called the American Fisheries Act. Senators Kerry,
Murkowski, Breaux, and Hollings join me as original cosponsors.
Last year, we enacted major revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act to improve the conservation of the
fishery resources. The other primary goal of the original Fishery
Conservation and Management Act in 1975 was to Americanize the
fisheries. We tried to complete that process through the Commercial
Fishing Industry Anti-Reflagging Act--Public Law 100-239--in 1987. Due
to exemptions in the act and to misinterpretations by the Coast Guard,
this act has not been effective.
The bill we introduce today would correct the basic controlling
interest and foreign rebuilding requirements for U.S.-flag vessels that
participate in our fisheries.
closing the loopholes
The bill would require at least 75 percent of the controlling
interest of all vessels that fly the U.S. flag and engage in the
fisheries in the navigable waters and exclusive economic zone to be
owned by citizens of the United States.
The Commercial Fishing Industry Anti-Reflagging Act--Public Law 100-
239--imposed a 50 percent controlling interest standard, which has
become meaningless because of exceptions in the bill and
misinterpretations by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's
misinterpretation of one provision of that
[[Page S9973]]
act allowed at least 14 massive factory trawlers to enter the fisheries
off Alaska.
As many here know, the House of Representatives recently passed a
bill to keep one factory trawler out of the Atlantic herring and
mackerel fisheries. Similar bills have been introduced in the Senate.
In Alaska, we got stuck with at least 14 factory trawlers that should
never have been allowed into our fisheries. Talk about loopholes you
can drive a truck through--these factory trawlers make trucks look like
tiny little bugs. And they waste fish.
According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistics for 1995,
the most recent year for which data is available, the 55 factory
trawlers in the Bering Sea threw overboard 483 million pounds of
groundfish wasted, and unused. That is more fish than the target
fisheries for New England lobster, Atlantic mackerel, Gulf of Mexico
shrimp, and Pacific Northwest salmon combined.
The bill we introduce today draws heavily from the controlling
interest standard in the Jones Act for vessels operating in the
coastwide trade. Under our bill, vessel owners would have 18 months
from the date of enactment to comply with the new 75 percent
controlling interest standard.
For vessels above 100 gross registered tons--which are more likely to
have multiple owners or layers of ownership--the bill would require the
Maritime Administration to closely scrutinize who actually controls the
vessel before the vessel receives or can renew a fishery endorsement.
The Maritime Administration already reviews the controlling interest
of entities applying for title XI loan guarantees and maritime security
program payments. MarAd has the best expertise among Federal agencies
to do the thorough job we intend.
The Secretary of Transportation would be required to revoke the
fishery endorsement of any vessel above 100 gross tons that MarAd
determines does not meet the new standard for controlling interest.
The bill gives the Secretary of Transportation flexibility in
establishing the requirements for the owners of vessels equal to or
less than 100 gross registered tons to show compliance with the new
standard. Vessels of this size generally do not exceed 75 feet in
length, are usually owner-operated, and are less likely to have
multiple layers of ownership that must be scrutinized.
If the Secretary decides that compliance with the new 75 percent
standard can be demonstrated by vessels 100 tons or less using the
existing process through the Coast Guard, the Secretary could continue
to use this process for those vessels.
As the findings point out, international law--including Article 62 of
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea--gives coastal nations the
clear sovereign right to harvest and process the entire allowable catch
of fishery resources in their exclusive economic zone [EEZ] if their
citizens have the harvesting capacity to do so. International law
requires that other nations be given access if the coastal nation
cannot harvest and process the entire allowable catch in its EEZ.
In the United States, we have established a framework that fulfills
these two basic principles. Through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we gave
U.S. fishermen first priority in the harvesting and processing of our
fishery resources. Foreign fishing is allowed under that act, however,
if U.S. vessels cannot harvest the entire allowable catch.
For obvious reasons, the priority works only if U.S.-owned vessels
can be distinguished from foreign-owned vessels in the fisheries. I am
sad to report that our current law--the way it has been
misinterpreted--fails to allow for this differentiation. In the
Nation's largest fishery by volume (Bering Sea pollock) Norwegian and
Japanese companies control the vessels that take over half the
allowable catch.
There is not enough fish to support the existing harvesting capacity
in this and other fisheries, yet the line to differentiate true U.S.-
controlled vessels from foreign-controlled vessels is not adequate to
protect the first priority for U.S. citizens. The American Fisheries
Act will clear up this blurred line and give U.S. fishermen the top
priority to harvest fishery resources, consistent with the historical
intent of our laws.
phase out of large vessels
When the Senate passed my bill last year to strengthen the
conservation measures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I said on the Senate
floor that I would seek a ban on factory trawlers if those measures did
not work. It is too early to tell whether those measures will be
sufficient.
We propose today a phase out--not a ban--of factory trawlers and
other fishing vessels that are longer than 165 feet, greater than 750
tons, or that have greater than 3,000 shaft horsepower.
By fishing vessel, we mean factory trawlers and other vessels that
harvest fish. Existing fishing vessels above these thresholds are
grandfathered--and can stay in the fisheries for their useful lives,
provided the 75 percent controlling interest standard is met, and the
vessel does not surrender its fishery endorsement at any time.
Gradually, the useful lives of these large fishing vessels will end,
however, and a smaller fleet--more able to avoid bycatch and waste and
more likely to be owner-operated--will replace them.
I reserve the option to accelerate this process through an immediate
ban on factory trawlers if the management and conservation measures
enacted last year in the Sustainable Fisheries Act are not effective.
The phase out of large fishing vessels does not apply to vessels that
fish exclusively for highly migratory fish species primarily outside
U.S. navigable waters and the exclusive economic zone.
Earlier this year--we enacted comprehensive legislation to achieve
conservation under the International Dolphin Conservation Program--in
part with the hope that some of the eastern tropical tuna fishing
vessels would re-flag to the Unites States.
These vessels are subject to stringent international conservation
measures, and are able to harvest tuna in a way safer for the overall
ecosystem than smaller vessels. These vessels were dealt with
differently under the Anti-Reflagging Act as well.
foreign rebuilds
The bill specifically addresses the foreign rebuilding provision of
the Anti-Reflagging Act that was misinterpreted by the Coast Guard and
abused by speculators who did exactly what Congress tried to avoid with
this act. This misinterpretation and abuse resulted in at least 14
factory trawlers entering the fisheries off Alaska that should have
been prohibited by the Anti-Reflagging Act.
Section 4(a)(4)(A) of the Act was meant to protect a specific group
of owners who relied on pre-existing law in planning to convert U.S.-
built fishing vessels abroad for use in the U.S. fisheries.
This provision was not intended to protect speculators who entered
contingent contracts to purchase vessels with the intent to profit by
the coming change in the law. To avoid this, Congress specifically
required under section 4(a)(4)(A) and section 4(b) that the owner had
to:
First, have purchased or contracted to purchase a vessel by July 28,
1997; second, have demonstrated his/her/its specific intent to enter
the U.S. fisheries through the purchase of the contract itself or a
Coast Guard letter ruling; and third, have accepted delivery of the
vessel by July 28, 1990 and entered it into service.
Under the Act, all three conditions had to be met by the same owner
before a fishery license could be issued to the vessel.
The Coast Guard erroneously allowed the vessel to be redelivered to
any owner by July 28, 1990, and created freely transferable and
valuable rights to enter the fishery that Congress specifically
intended to avoid.
The American Fisheries Act would correct this problem by putting the
burden on those who benefited from the loophole to help with the
reduction in the overcapacity that resulted. Specifically, from the
date of the introduction of this act--September 25, 1997--if the
controlling interest a vessel that used this loophole materially
changes, another active vessel of equal or greater length, tonnage, and
horsepower in the same region will have to permanently surrender its
fishery endorsement.
The capacity in the Bering Sea would be reduced on the backs of those
who caused the problem and who argued for
[[Page S9974]]
and benefited from an interpretation clearly contrary to congressional
intent.
federal loan guarantees
The bill would permanently prohibit Federal loan guarantees for any
vessel that is intended for use as a fishing vessel, and that will be
greater than 165 registered feet, 750 gross registered tons, or 3,000
shaft horsepower when the construction or rebuilding is completed.
We mean to prevent the Federal Government from subsidizing or
assisting in any way in the: No. 1, construction of vessels above these
thresholds; No. 2 extension of the useful life of vessels above these
thresholds; or No. 3 expansion of vessels so that they exceed these
thresholds--where the vessel will be used as a fishing vessel.
For the purposes of this measure, fishing vessel has the same
definition as under section 2101 of title 46, United States Code,
meaning a vessel that engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting of
fish or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the
catching, taking, or harvesting of fish. This obviously includes
factory trawlers and other fishing vessels above the thresholds listed
above.
summary
With the American Fisheries Act, we will clean up the mess caused by
the exceptions and misinterpretation of the Anti-Reflagging Act. We
will also serve notice that entities that do not meet the 75
controlling interest standard will not likely receive individual
fishing quota's [IFQ's] or other limited access permits under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act--Public Law 104-297--requires the
National Academy of Sciences to study how to prohibit entities that
don't meet the standard from owning IFQ's. We will analyze the
Academy's report during the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
in 1999. I do not want any foreign-controlled entities to be surprised
when that process begins.
Non-U.S. citizens simply should not be given what, for all practical
purposes, are permanent access privileges to U.S. marine resource when
there are U.S. citizens that can harvest these fish. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act allows these foreign-controlled entities to harvest the
portion of the allowable catch that U.S. citizens cannot.
In Alaska, some of the foreign participants are doing what they can
to patch up their relationship with Alaska and Alaskans--but I question
their long-term commitment.
The North Pacific Council is reviewing the inshore/offshore pollock
allocation right now--which will substantially impact them. They have
been good partners this year in anticipation of this council debate--
but where were they last year? They were here in Washington, DC,
lobbying against our bill to protect fishing communities, reduce
bycatch, and prevent foreign entities from receiving a windfall
giveaway through IFQ's.
If Congress or the North Pacific Council gives away permanent access
to our fisheries, I believe these entities will go back to their
tactics of the last 10 years.
Flannery O'Connor explained this well in her short story ``A Good Man
Is Hard to Find.'' In that story, the ``Misfit'' says of another
character that ``She would of been a good woman, if [there] had been
somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.''
The foreign-controlled factory trawlers have the inshore/offshore gun
to their head right now, and are being good. But their track record
without this gun has been poor, both with respect to the conservation
and to protecting fishing communities.
In the Bering Sea pollock, specifically, I am concerned that a single
Norwegian entity controls an excessive share of the harvest in
violation of National Standard Four of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am
also concerned about the expansion of the ownership of catcher vessels
and factory trawlers by Japanese entities.
Will we have the strength in the Congress or at the council level to
prevent a giveaway of IFQ's to foreign-controlled entities in 2000 or
beyond if they are the only ones left in the fishery?
The time has come to put Americanization back on the track as we
first envisioned when we extended U.S. jurisdiction over the fisheries
out to 200 miles.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator
Stevens in sponsoring this important legislation.
This is a necessary follow-on to legislation I first introduced in
1986, the Commercial Fishing Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act, which was
enacted in 1987. That act attempted to control an anticipated influx of
foreign-owned fishing vessels by prohibiting them from reflagging as
U.S. vessels except in certain circumstances. At the time, I backed a
move to impose, for the first time, an American ownership provision
that would ensure U.S. control of corporations owning such vessels.
Had that legislation been implemented the way it was intended,
today's bill would probably not be necessary. Our intention was to
gradually eliminate foreign control by requiring new owners to be U.S.-
controlled. Unfortunately, in making a decision on implementation, the
Coast Guard decided to rely primarily on its past practice, and
permitted all vessels with U.S. documentation to continue fishing
regardless of existing or new ownership.
That, as much as any one factor, led to today's crisis, in which
there are far too many large vessels operating. Something has to give,
and the laws of nature and economics say that it has to be one of two
things: either the resource itself or the number of vessels.
This bill will help insure that the resource will be held harmless;
if change occurs, it will come to the number of large vessels allowed
to operate in U.S. fisheries.
The bill we are introducing today will increase the American
ownership requirement for vessels to 75 percent from the 51-percent
level required by current law. This new level is consistent with other
laws affecting ownership of vessels involved in the coastwise trade,
which are also required to meet the 75-percent test.
It will also correct the mistake made by the Coast Guard a decade ago
by requiring fishery endorsements to be removed from vessels which do
not qualify for the ownership criterion within a reasonable period of
time--18 months under this bill.
Under this bill, the Coast Guard will no longer be responsible for
reviewing the ownership of fishing vessels. This authority will rest
more appropriately with the Maritime Administration, which currently
has the same responsibility for vessels seeking title XI loan
guarantees and Maritime Security Program assistance, among other
things.
The bill will also begin the process of restoring the number of large
fishing vessels operating off our shores to a reasonable and manageable
level, by eliminating the entry of new vessels, regardless of
ownership, and by allowing attrition to take its toll on the existing
fleet. Large vessels are those over 165 registered feet in length,
greater than 750 gross registered tons, or with engines totaling more
than 3,000 horsepower. The bill also eliminates Federal loan guarantees
that have been used to subsidize and accelerate the unrestrained growth
of this fleet.
Further, currently operating vessels which were rebuilt for fishing
in foreign shipyards using the loophole created by the Coast Guard's
interpretation of the earlier act, and which are sold to new owners in
the future, will not be eligible to fish under the new owners unless a
similarly sized vessel is also removed from the fishery.
Taken together, these provisions will help to move us away from a
fleet that is only nominally U.S.-controlled to one which is truly
U.S.-controlled.
Moreover, in reducing the total number of these large vessels over
time, this measure will also provide tremendous benefits to the many
small communities which depend not on these large vessels, but on the
far greater numbers of small fishing vessels and shore-based processing
plants that hire locally, deliver locally, process locally, and support
their communities through local taxes.
Mr. President, I enthusiastically support this legislation, and urge
my colleagues to do the same.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. Robb, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. D'Amato, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, Mr. Reed, Ms. Landrieu,
[[Page S9975]]
Mr. Graham, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr.
Mack):
S. 1222. A bill to catalyze restoration of estuary habitat through
more efficient financing of projects and enhanced coordination of
Federal and non-Federal restoration programs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
the estuary habitat restoration partnership act of 1997
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Breaux and
Senators Lieberman, Faircloth, Robb, Sarbanes, Murray, D'Amato,
Murkowski, Warner, Reed, Landrieu, Graham, Mikulski, Dodd, Moynihan,
and Mack to introduce the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act
of 1997. Estuaries, those bays, gulfs, sounds, and inlets where fresh
water meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean, provide some of
the most ecologically and economically productive habitat in the world.
They benefit our economy, they benefit our health, in short, they are
good for the soul.
More than 75 percent of the commercial fish and shellfish harvested
in the United States depend on estuaries at some stage in their
lifecycle. Estuaries are also home to a large percentage of the
Nation's endangered and threatened species and half of its neotropical
migratory birds. Moreover, the livelihood of 28 million Americans
depends on estuaries and coastal regions.
Regrettably, estuaries are in danger. Within the last 30 years,
coastal regions have become home to more than half of the Nation's
population. This population explosion has taken its toll. Fish catches
are at their lowest, shellfish beds have been closed, and the economic
livelihood and quality of life of our coastal communities is
threatened.
The increase in nonpoint source pollution, such as agricultural
runoff, also has made its mark. And in the Chesapeake Bay, the recent
pfiesteria outbreak that has killed hundreds of fish and even harmed
human health is an unfortunate example of what can happen when the
balance between harmful nutrients that pollute the waters take over.
The habitats estuaries provide for an extraordinary diversity of fish
and wildlife are shrinking fast, jeopardizing jobs in fishing and
tourism. The many values that estuaries bring to our lives could one
day be gone.
The future of estuary habitat need not be a gloomy one. Estuaries can
be restored. A variety of efforts, ranging from school classrooms
planting eel grass in a coastal inlet to the restoration of freshwater
flows into an entire bay area, have brought estuaries back to life. The
demands on Federal funding for estuary restoration activities exceed
available resources. We therefore must make the most of limited public
resources by enlisting the support of our States, communities, and the
private sector.
The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997 will help
rebuild these national treasures by focusing these limited resources on
the restoration of vital estuary habitat. This bill is unique, in that
it builds a renewed commitment to community-driven restoration. It is
not a regulatory measure. Rather than provide mandates, it provides
incentives and gives concerned citizens more of an opportunity to get
involved in the effort.
Also, it is flexible. Every community's approach to restoring
estuaries will vary depending upon the unique needs of the particular
area. What works well in Rhode Island's waters may not work in a more
temperate areas like coastal California and Louisiana.
The bill also creates strong and lasting partnerships between the
public and private sectors, and among all levels of government. It
brings together existing Federal, State, and local restoration plans,
programs, and studies. To ensure that restoration efforts build on past
successes and current scientific understanding, the bill encourages the
development of monitoring and maintenance capabilities.
Above all, this bill will benefit the environment, the economy, and
the quality of life of the Nation. Estuaries are ecologically unique.
The complex variety of habitats--river deltas, sea grass meadows,
forested wetlands, shellfish beds, marshes, and beaches--supports a
fluorishing range of wildlife and plants. Because fish and birds
migrate, the health of these habitats is intertwined with the health of
other ecosystems thousands of miles away. Estuaries also are perhaps
the most prolific places on Earth.
Economically, this bill will benefit those Americans whose
livelihoods depend on coastal areas. The commercial fishing industry,
which depends heavily on these areas, contributes $111 billion per year
to the national economy. Tourism and recreation also stand to benefit.
Finally, estuaries are essential to our quality of life. Listen to
this figure: In 1993, 180 million Americans, approximately 70 percent
of the population, visited estuaries to fish, swim, hunt, dive, view
wildlife, hike, and learn.
I urge my colleagues to support this important effort to restore the
marshes, wetland and aquatic life that nourish our fish and wildlife,
enhance water quality, control floods, and provide so many lasting
benefits for the Nation. Before I conclude, I want to thank my
colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for all of his help on this
issue. I also want to give a special thanks to Restore America's
Estuaries and to Rhode Island Save the Bay for all of their hard work,
without which this effort would not have been possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Section-by-Section Analysis
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997
Sec. 1.--Short Title
This section designates the title of the bill as the
``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997''.
Sec. 2.--Findings
This section cites Congress' findings on the ecological and
economic value of estuaries.
Sec. 3.--Purposes
The purposes of this Act are to: provide a voluntary,
community-driven, incentive-based program to catalyze the
restoration of one million acres of estuary habitat by the
year 2010; assure the coordination and leveraging of existing
Federal, State and local restoration programs, plans and
studies; create effective restoration partnerships among
public agencies at all levels of government, and between the
public and private sectors; promote the efficient financing
of estuary habitat restoration activities to help leverage
limited federal funding; and develop monitoring and
maintenance capabilities to assure that restoration efforts
build on the successes of past, current efforts, and sound
science.
Sec. 4.--Definitions
This section defines several terms used throughout the Act.
Among the most important definitions:
``Estuary'' is defined as a body of water and its
associated physical, biological and chemical elements, in
which fresh water from a river or stream meets and mixes with
salt water from the ocean.
``Habitat'' is defined as the complex of physical and
hydrologic features and living organisms within estuaries and
their associated ecosystems, including salt and fresh water
coastal marshes, coastal forested wetlands and other coastal
wetlands, tidal flats, natural shoreline areas, shellfish
beds, sea grass meadows, kelp beds, river deltas, and river
and stream banks under tidal influence.
``Restoration'' is defined as an activity that results in
improving an estuary's habitat, including both physical and
functional restoration, with a goal towards a self-
sustaining, ecologically based system that is integrated with
its surrounding landscape.
Sec. 5.--Establishment of a Collaborative Council
This section establishes a Collaborative Council chaired by
the Secretary of the Army; with the participation of the
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of
Commerce; the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; and the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Transportation. It sets forth the decision
making procedures to be followed by the Council in its two
principal functions, which are: (1) the development of a
habitat restoration strategy and (2) the selection of habitat
restoration projects.
Sec. 6.--Functions of the Collaborative Council
This section creates a process to coordinate, streamline
and leverage existing Federal, State and local resources and
activities directed toward estuary habitat restoration.
Habitat Restoration Strategy.--The Council is required to
draft a strategy to provide a national framework for estuary
habitat restoration by identifying existing restoration
plans, integrating overlapping restoration plans, and
identifying appropriate processes for the development of
restoration plans, where needed. In developing the strategy,
the Council shall consider: the contribution of estuary
habitat to wildlife, fish and shellfish, surface and ground
water quantity and
[[Page S9976]]
quality, flood control, outdoor recreation, and other areas
of concern; estimated historic, current, and future losses of
estuary habitat; the most appropriate method for selecting
estuary restoration projects; and procedures to minimize
duplicative application requirements for landowners seeking
assistance for habitat restoration activities.
Selection of Projects.--The Council is required to
establish application criteria for restoration projects based
on a number of criteria, including: the level of support from
non-Federal persons for the development and long-term
maintenance and monitoring of the project; whether the
project criteria fall within the habitat restoration strategy
developed by the Council and are set forth in existing
estuary habitat restoration plans; whether the State has a
dedicated fund for estuary restoration; the level of private
funding for the restoration project; and the technical merit
and feasibility of the proposal.
Priority Projects.--Among the projects that meet the
criteria listed above, the Council shall give priority for
funding to those projects that: are part of an approved
Federal estuary management or habitat restoration plan;
address a restoration goal outlined in the habitat
restoration strategy; have a non-Federal share that exceeds
50 percent; and are subject to a nonpoint source program that
addresses upstream sources that would otherwise re-impair the
restored habitat.
The Council may not select a project under this section
until each non-Federal interest participating in the project
has entered into a written cooperation agreement to provide
for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed project.
This section authorizes $4,000,000 for the operating expenses
of the Council.
Sec. 7.--Habitat Restoration Project Cost-Sharing
This section strengthens local and private-sector
participation in estuary restoration efforts by building
public-private restoration partnerships. It establishes a
non-Federal share match requirement of no less than 35
percent but no more than 75 percent of the cost of a project.
A project applicant may waive the 35 percent minimum
requirement; however, if the applicant demonstrates a need
for a reduced non-Federal share in accordance with the
requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Land easements, services, or other in-kind contributions may
be used to meet the Act's non-Federal match requirements.
Sec. 8.--Monitoring and Maintenance of Habitat Restoration Projects
This section assures that available information will be
used to improve the methods for assuring successful long-term
habitat restoration. To that end, it requires the Under
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA) to maintain a
database of restoration projects carried out under this Act,
including information on project techniques, project
completion, monitoring data, and other relevant information.
This section also requires the Collaborative Council to
publish a biennial report to Congress that includes program
activities, including the number of acres restored; the
percent of restored habitat monitored under a plan; the types
of restoration methods employed; the activities of
governmental and non-governmental entities with respect to
habitat restoration; and the effectiveness of the
restoration.
Sec. 9.--Memoranda of Understanding
This section authorizes the Council to enter into
cooperative agreements and execute memoranda of understanding
with Federal and State agencies, private institutions, and
Indian tribes, as necessary to carry out the requirements of
this Act.
Sec. 10.--Distribution of Appropriations for Habitat Restoration
Projects
This section authorizes the Secretary to disburse funds to
the other agencies responsible for carrying out the
requirements of this Act.
Sec. 11.--Authorizations
This section provides that funds currently authorized to be
appropriated for the Corps of Engineers for land acquisition,
environmental improvements and aquatic ecosystem restoration
may be used to implement habitat restoration projects
selected by the Council. This section also authorizes
appropriations of $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and $75,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to carry out this Act.
Sec. 12.--General Provisions
This section provides the Secretary with the authority to
carry out responsibilities under this Act, and it clarifies
that habitat restoration is one of the Corps' primary
missions. It further clarifies that nothing in this Act
supersedes existing Federal or State laws, and that agencies
are required to carry out activities in a manner consistent
with the provisions of this Act and other existing laws.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my
friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee, chairman of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, to introduce legislation to
restore America's estuaries. Our bill is entitled the ``Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act of 1997''.
Estuaries are a national resource and treasure. As a nation,
therefore, we should work together at all levels and in all sectors to
help restore them.
I am also pleased that 15 other Senators have joined with Senator
Chafee and me as original cosponsors of the bill. Together, we want to
draw attention to the significant value of the Nation's estuaries and
the need to restore them.
It is also my distinct pleasure today to say with pride that
Louisianians have been in the forefront of this movement to recognize
the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to restore them.
The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, an organization which is
well known for its proactive work on behalf of the Louisiana coast, has
been from the inception an integral part of the national coalition,
Restore America's Estuaries, which has proposed and supports the
restoration legislation.
The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's
Estuaries are to be commended for their leadership and initiative in
bringing this issue to the Nation's attention.
In essence, the bill introduced today proposes a single goal and has
one emphasis and focus. It seeks to create a voluntary, community-
driven, incentive-based program which builds partnerships between the
Federal Government, State, and local governments and the private sector
to restore estuaries, including sharing in the cost of restoration
projects.
In Louisiana, we have very valuable estuaries, including the
Ponchartrain, Barataria-Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems.
Louisiana's estuaries are vital because they have helped and will
continue to help sustain local communities, their cultures and their
economies.
I encourage Senators from coastal and noncoastal States alike to
evaluate the bill and to join in its support with Senator Chafee, me
and the 15 other Senators who are original bill cosponsors.
I look forward to working with Senator Chafee and other Senators on
behalf of the bill and with the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
and Restore America's Estuaries.
By working together at all levels of government and in the private
and public sectors, we can help to restore estuaries. As important, we
can, together, help to educate the public about the important roles
which estuaries play in our daily lives through their many
contributions to public safety and well-being, to the environment, and
to recreation and commerce.
____________________