[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.

                          ____________________