[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2742-S2743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. Smith of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 2432. A bill to permit the catcher vessel Hazel Lorraine to 
conduct commercial fishing activities; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


  eligibility of the fishing vessel hazel lorraine under the american 
                             fisheries act

 Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing, 
with my colleague from Oregon, legislation which will correct an 
oversight in the American Fisheries Act of 1998. Some of my colleagues 
will recall that the American Fisheries Act was passed as part of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act in the closing days of the 105th Congress.
  Let me speak briefly first to the American Fisheries Act, or AFA, 
itself. The AFA was a major revision of management policies for the 
valuable Bering Sea pollock fishery, raising domestic vessel ownership 
standards, while bringing greater stability to the pollock fishery by 
allowing fishers and processors to engage in limited cooperatives. 
Months of intense negotiations between interested congressional offices 
and a number of Alaskan and West Coast fishing interests resulted in 
the compromise that was passed into law.
  Oregon certainly does not have as great an interest in the Bering Sea 
pollock fishery as other states do. Nevertheless, Oregon-based vessels 
do participate in this and other distant-water fisheries. Many of these 
vessel owner-operators pioneered the development of the Alaskan pollock 
fishery during the Americanization of the Exclusive Economic Zone in 
the 1980s. The American Fisheries Act was supposed to allow these, and 
other fishing vessels with substantial history, to stay in the fishery 
while excluding new or speculative entrants. The language used in the 
AFA to achieve this purpose requires that qualified vessels must have 
delivered at least 250 metric tons of pollock in 1996, 1997, or an 
eight month period in 1998, to the shore-based processing plants that 
compose the ``inshore sector'' of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. 
Alternatively, the AFA requires vessels to have delivered at least 250 
metric tons of pollock in 1997 and have had at least 75 percent of 
their catch delivered to the ``offshore sector'' of factory trawlers in 
order to qualify for that sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
  While it was thought that this qualification language in the American 
Fisheries Act would carry over all vessels with a substantial history 
in the fishery, this has turned out not to be the case. An Oregon-based 
vessel named the Hazel Lorraine--a vessel with years of Bering Sea 
pollock landings on record--has found itself locked out of both the 
inshore and offshore sectors of the Bering Sea pollock fishery due to 
the way the qualifications are worded in the AFA. On the one hand, the 
Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the inshore sector. The fact that 
the then-Tyson Seafood plant in Kodiak was destroyed by a fire in 1997 
also impacted the Hazel Lorraine's deliveries during this period. On 
the other hand, the Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the offshore 
sector either--also as a direct result of the Tyson fire.

[[Page S2743]]

In short, the Hazel Lorraine does not meet the AFA requirements for 
either the inshore or offshore sector for Bering Sea pollock despite a 
substantial record of deliveries in the fishery that stretches back 
more than fifteen years.
  Ironically, the owners of the Hazel Lorraine actively supported the 
American Fisheries Act as it had first been introduced in the 105th 
Congress. However the bill changed dramatically during a series of 
backroom negotiations before being tucked into an omnibus 
appropriations package. The AFA that actually passed the Congress 
differed substantially from the drafts that had been widely circulated 
in the fishing industry earlier that year.
  Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Hazel Lorraine is recognized 
in the North Pacific as a vessel that can legitimately claim a long 
history in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. It would be a terrible 
mistake if the Congress were to allow this vessel to continue to be 
shut out of its historic fishery. A number of industry leaders and 
associations, such as United Catcher Boats and the Midwater Trawlers 
Cooperative, have also recognized this and have stated their support 
for restoring the right of the Hazel Lorraine to fish in this pollock 
fishery.
  Over the course of the past year, Senator Wyden and I have discussed 
this issue with our colleagues, and have come to the conclusion that 
the best course of action is to introduce authorizing legislation that 
would clearly place the Hazel Lorraine among those vessels eligible to 
participate in the inshore sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. 
This legislation will do just that. I think my colleagues will find 
that those in the North Pacific fisheries who know the circumstances 
surrounding the Hazel Lorraine will be supportive of this legislation. 
I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee to 
bring this issue to a resolution during this session of the Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2432

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF VESSEL AS AN ELIGIBLE VESSEL.

       Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 
     208(a) of the American Fisheries Act (title II of division C 
     of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
     624)), the catcher vessel HAZEL LORRAINE (United States 
     Official Number 592211) shall be considered to be a vessel 
     that is eligible to harvest the directed fishing allowance 
     under section 206(b)(1) of that Act pursuant to a Federal 
     fishing permit in the same manner as, and subject to the same 
     requirements and limitations on that harvesting as apply to, 
     catcher vessels that are eligible to harvest that directed 
     fishing allowance under section 208(a) of that Act.
                                 ______