[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 78 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3491-H3496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1335, STRENGTHENING FISHING 
   COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 274

         Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1335) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for 
     fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, 
     it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 114-16. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any

[[Page H3492]]

     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). The gentleman from 
Alabama is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 274 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing 
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. The rule makes in order eight 
amendments, five of which are from Democratic sponsors. One of the 
amendments is a Democrat substitute, which will be debated for twice as 
long as the other amendments.
  As someone who has lived his whole life on the Gulf Coast, I can tell 
you just how important this bill is. For many people who live on our 
Nation's coast, this bill is about a way of life.
  This bill is for our Nation's commercial fishermen, who depend on a 
reliable fishing stock in order to make a living. This bill is also for 
our Nation's charter boat fleets, which are an important source of 
tourism. That means jobs, Mr. Speaker, and all too often people in this 
town and government scientists seem not to care about that.
  Just as importantly, this bill is for our recreational fishermen and 
everyday anglers who just enjoy spending time on the waters. For my 
family, this is a lifelong tradition. I remember fishing with my dad on 
the Gulf of Mexico. I treasured opportunities to fish with my four 
children, and as a new grandfather, I look forward to fishing with my 
grandson.
  This is a good bill, and as a former member of the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Natural Resources Committee, I can tell you that a 
great amount of time and effort have gone into this bill. This process 
started over 2 years ago, and there was a lot of work to bring our 
parties together to get a bill that everyone can agree on.
  Unfortunately, as happens far too often here in Washington, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to make this 
into a partisan fight. President Obama has said he will veto this bill. 
All this despite real efforts to work together, across the aisle, to 
get a bill that works for everyone.
  Now I want to briefly talk about the idea of science that the 
President and my colleagues on the other side claim the bill 
undermines. All too often here in D.C., what passes for science is just 
political ideology dressed up with some technical language with no real 
basis in observable data.
  I don't know if the gentleman from Colorado has ever been fishing for 
red snapper in the Gulf Coast--if he hasn't, then I invite him to do 
so--but I can tell you that there are more red snapper there than there 
has ever been before. Despite that good news, NOAA and the Federal 
Government is consistently undercounting the number of fish in the Gulf 
of Mexico.
  Here is the craziest part of all: NOAA is not sampling for red 
snapper on reefs, despite the fact that the red snapper is a reef fish. 
That is simply absurd. If you look for red snapper somewhere other than 
the reefs, you are not going to find them because they live on reefs.
  Now, NOAA is also overestimating the number of red snapper caught 
each year. For example, last year the Federal Government estimated that 
1,041,000 pounds of red snapper were caught off the coast of Alabama, 
where I am from. The Alabama red snapper reporting system, which is run 
by the State, only estimated a catch of 418,000 pounds. That is a 
remarkable disparity.
  So what has happened is a very dangerous combination of NOAA 
underestimating how many fish are actually out there and overestimating 
the number of fish caught each year. This has resulted in a 
dramatically shortened season for our red snapper fisherman. Last 
year's red snapper season was only 9 days. This year it has been 
increased to 10 days. That is simply unacceptable.
  I support science-based management, and the committee supports 
science-based management, but I don't support and the committee doesn't 
support flawed science-based management. And this House shouldn't 
either.
  So that is why I get so frustrated when I hear my colleagues say that 
this bill undermines good science. Come tell that to my fishermen on 
the Gulf Coast. Come tell that to the marine scientists on the Gulf 
Coast who have done extensive scientific research on this.

  This bill is important because it includes real reforms that are 
designed to get some better science for all of our fisheries, not only 
as it relates to red snapper, but as it relates to the fisheries all 
around the United States of America. Why don't we encourage stronger 
partnerships with local colleges and universities that have done great 
work in the past?
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to touch on that red snapper issue a little 
more because it is so important to the people I represent, and it is 
very important to debate on this bill. This bill includes three 
important reforms that local scientists, stakeholders, and I believe 
will get us a real red snapper season. Number one, it repeals 
inflexible quotas that have been in place up to this point. Number two, 
it creates jurisdictional parity by expanding State waters out to 9 
nautical miles gulfwide. Number three, it shifts the stock assessment 
and data collection responsibilities from the Federal Government and 
gives those responsibilities to the Gulf States so we can get some real 
science, not flawed science.
  Far too often people in Washington think we know best; people in 
Washington think we have all the answers. This is an issue where that 
simply is not the case. This bill empowers our Nation's fishing 
communities and gives them the flexibility they need.
  So regardless of whether or not you go fishing, this issue should 
matter to all Americans because this issue is about freedom and 
limiting the role of the Federal Government in areas where it just 
doesn't belong.
  This is an extremely fair rule. I urge its support, Mr. Speaker, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Alabama said there are more red snapper 
than there have ever been before, and that would seem to indicate that 
the policies are working, and I don't think it is a time to reverse 
course.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans and the author of 
the Democratic substitute, which is a cleaner reauthorization.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Like the gentleman from Alabama, I do represent a coastal district, a 
fishing district. In fact, the Second District of California includes 
about one-third of the California coastline and many working harbors 
and ports where fishing men and women have been catching fish with 
their families for many, many generations, as well as the Native 
American tribes that I represent, who have been depending on healthy 
fisheries for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
  So this is important to me. I share the gentleman's concern that we 
continue to make fishing available for ourselves and for future 
generations. We have some disagreements on how to get there, and we 
will talk about that.
  I think the thing that we have to recognize at the outset of this 
debate is that the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been a great success by 
just about any measure. It succeeded initially in helping us protect 
and rebuild fisheries from the threat of foreign fleets that were 
coming into U.S. waters and overfishing and harming our American 
fishing communities and fishing families. It then went on to succeed in 
preventing overfishing by U.S. fishermen

[[Page H3493]]

by a number of mechanisms in the bill that we will talk about in a 
moment.
  The other way in which Magnuson-Stevens has been a huge success is 
that it has always been bipartisan. Both the original act and the 
subsequent reauthorizations of Magnuson-Stevens have always been 
strongly bipartisan. And unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are departing 
from that positive history with the bill we have before us today, and 
we need to get it back on track.

                              {time}  1930

  The keys to Magnuson-Stevens' success have included strict rules on 
rebuilding of fishery stocks and also very strict fishery specific 
quotas, so that we can make sure that we prevent overfishing and ensure 
a sustainable fishery population. This is not so that we stop fishing, 
quite the contrary. The purpose of these mechanisms is so that we can 
continue to fish for future generations by maintaining sustainable 
populations.
  Absent these mechanisms, these very successful provisions in 
Magnuson-Stevens' history teaches us what would happen. We have a 
history that is played out over and over again in this country and, 
frankly, around the world--that, without strict protections for 
sustainable fish populations, we will overfish them, we will deplete 
them.
  It puts us on a path where the tragedy of the commons plays out over 
and over again, and the end result of that is fisheries closures. We 
are not helping the folks who want to fish. When we don't manage these 
populations, we are actually hurting them in the long run.
  Now, Democrats have put forward a substitute amendment that is much 
closer to a clean reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens. We think that is 
really the conversation we need to be having. What kind of clean 
reauthorization can we have? And are there consensus areas where we can 
actually improve Magnuson-Stevens?
  The gentleman from Alabama might be surprised to find Democrats 
strongly agreeing with him, that we could benefit from additional 
science, better science. There may be better data available on the red 
snapper in the Gulf. We are also working with Republicans to try to get 
that science and make it available to the decisionmakers who set those 
rules for that fishery.
  There is also more than meets the eye, even for that red snapper 
fishery because, while you are talking about a small number of days for 
recreational fishermen in Federal waters, you have got a much greater 
number of days in State waters.
  You also can fish for red snapper and any other species just about 
any day you want. When you are in Federal waters, you can only keep 
them during those certain number of days. The reason for that is 
because approximately half the fish caught are reserved for commercial 
fishermen who have made their case to the regional council that it is 
only fair that about half the fish ought to be available to them and 
about half the fish are allocated to recreational fishermen.
  In those small number of days, believe it or not, the recreational 
folks catch almost the same amount of fish that the commercial 
fishermen catch during a much greater number of days. There is always a 
little more than meets the eye. You hear sensational statistics perhaps 
about the very small number of days available. There is, frankly, much 
more to the story.
  Where we do agree is, if we can get better data, better science, 
better monitoring, all of this should be subject to discussion and 
revision in the councils. That is the flexibility of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and that ought to be something that we can work on here 
together.
  Unfortunately, though, Mr. Speaker, we have a Republican bill that is 
taking away some of the key provisions of the act that have actually 
been the very source of its great success over the years, so that heads 
in a wrong direction.
  Then, unfortunately, we have the obligatory runs at NEPA and various 
environmental laws, including the Antiquities Act. This is no place to 
be carrying out that endless assault on America's environmental laws.
  Let's get back to that point of consensus, sustainable management of 
our fisheries. If we can do that, I think we have something we can work 
on together in this House.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comments. It is very important that we 
try to find ways to try to work together when the form of this bill 
that we worked on in the committee last year, which is almost identical 
to the one that we adopted this year, was before the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  In Mr. DeFazio's opening statement, he said:

       Thank you, Chairman, and I appreciate the changes that were 
     negotiated on a number of provisions in the bill.

  Then he said:

       This has been traditionally a very bipartisan exercise, and 
     this is, in good part, bipartisan.

  Mr. Pallone, same time, his opening statement in the committee last 
year on a virtually identical bill was:

       I do want to say that I do appreciate the fact that you 
     reach out to us on the Democratic side of the aisle; and many 
     of the provisions, as you mentioned, that are in the bill did 
     come from input from the Democratic side.

  The gentleman referenced the substitute:

       The substitute has been made in order and has given more 
     time than anything else for us to debate.

  We have really leaned over backwards, particularly when you consider 
that the majority of amendments that we have made in order in this rule 
are amendments offered by the Democrats.
  Now, I appreciate that the gentleman has a substitute--and we are 
going to give him an opportunity to talk about it--but if you look at 
his substitute, we might as well call his substitute ``The 
Environmental Litigation and Fisheries Disaster Creation Act of 2015'' 
because that is what it is going to do.
  This amendment would allow the Secretary of Commerce to accept 
outside funds from NGOs to support cooperative research projects. This 
gives the litigation community of the world an avenue to influence NOAA 
decision making.
  This amendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to ignore current 
procedure and forces the Secretary to retroactively declare a fishery 
disaster in California from a January 2004 emergency proclamation on 
California drought.
  Mr. Huffman's amendment seems to single out and blame the Central 
Valley Project for a fishery disaster. As we all know, there are many 
factors for fish declines, mainly including ocean conditions.

  This amendment seeks to blame farmers for a fishery disaster. Above 
all, this amendment erases the flexibilities, transparency, and science 
improvements made in the underlying bill, but we give him the 
opportunity to make his case before this House to show our willingness 
to work with them.
  I was greatly surprised when I read the Statement of Administration 
Policy that we received from the administration when we were marking 
this bill up in Rules Committee yesterday, and I was most surprised at 
what they had to say about the snapper language. Now, that language 
came from me. I asked the committee to put it in the bill, and I am 
greatly appreciative of the fact that they did.
  Remember what I said about what the science has done to our fishery 
in the Gulf of Mexico. Here is what the administration says:

       H.R. 1335 would also severely undermine the authority of 
     the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Council by 
     extending State jurisdiction over the recreational red 
     snapper fishery to 9 miles in the Gulf of Mexico. We intend 
     to give the States more authority by going out.

  Now, yes, that would give us some flexibility for the fishing out 
there, but a lot of the reefs that these red snappers grow on are 
further out than 9 miles, so it doesn't solve the whole problem.
  The administration goes on to say:

       This proposed extension of jurisdiction would create an 
     untenable situation where recreational and commercial 
     fishermen fishing side by side would be subject to different 
     regulatory regimes.

  How do they know in advance what the States are going to do? Why do 
they presume that that is going to be the case? They do so because they 
have such an aversion to the States having any control, any input, in 
the way that this fishery is governed.

[[Page H3494]]

  They go on to say:

       Absent an agreement among the States as to how to allocate 
     recreationally caught red snapper, the bill would encourage 
     interstate conflict and jeopardize the sustainability of this 
     gulfwide resource.

  No one has a greater stake in making sure we keep this fish stock 
healthy than those of us that live on the Gulf Coast do. Whether we are 
in commercial fishing, whether we are in charter boat fishing, whether 
we are in recreational fishing, if we overfish this stock, it is gone; 
I won't get to fish it with my grandson.
  Future commercial fishermen won't get to make money off of this and 
provide jobs. Charter boat people won't be able to come down to the 
beach and enjoy themselves. No one wants that to happen.
  The administration presumes that we are going to be so self-defeating 
that we would allow that to happen. I am greatly disappointed that, 
after all the work we did to solve this problem that was created by the 
government scientists, that still the administration is attacking us, 
still they are trying to keep us from solving this problem.
  I appreciate what the gentleman had to say. I think we should try to 
work together on every bill we try to pass in this House; but, at some 
point, we have got to stand up for people who fish in this country. We 
have a right to fish in the waters of the United States, and the waters 
of the United States don't belong to the government scientists; they 
belong to the people of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here we are debating the gutting of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which 
both sides agree has successfully helped restore some of our counts of 
wild stock, including snapper. It hardly seems the time to reverse 
course without any scientific evidence that, somehow, we will get to a 
different place than we were when Congress wrote the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act to address the very issue, which it seems to be successfully 
addressing.
  The gentleman from Alabama mentioned some remarks from Mr. DeFazio. I 
wanted to be clear that then-Ranking Member DeFazio opposed a similar 
bill, this similar bill, in the last Congress. I am not sure of the 
context of the remarks he made, but he stood here on the floor urging 
his colleagues to oppose the bill. He opposed it as well in committee.
  He was not happy with the result last time; he is not happy with the 
result this time, nor is our new ranking member of either the 
subcommittee or the committee. I should add it passed out of committee 
without a single Democratic vote. To be clear, there was not a 
bipartisan effort in committee to talk about the best policy with 
regard to fisheries.
  Now, before I jump into the debate about fish populations and 
fisheries in our oceans--something I have to admit, as representing the 
landlocked State of Colorado, I had to take a crash course on in the 
last few days--I want to talk about some of the events from the last 
week that I think should merit congressional attention.
  One item that happened in the last week is a 16-year-old student from 
the Atlanta Public School system in Georgia was attacked in his 
courtyard just because he was gay. A crowd surrounded to watch as 15 
people beat this young person into a bloody pulp while yelling 
derogatory slurs at him.
  Again, we could be addressing that through passing the Student Non-
Discrimination Act or the antibullying act from Representative Sanchez, 
but instead, we are talking about gutting Magnuson-Stevens' protections 
of our fisheries.
  Also this week, a south Texas family detention facility, similar to 
facilities in other parts of the country for immigrants who were caught 
in the wrong place at the wrong time, testimony came out that women and 
children were severely punished, abused, and neglected. We could be 
pursuing detention reform or immigration reform; but, again, we are 
not.
  This last week, Los Angeles raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour. 
Now, in LA, that puts families closer to a living wage, but the bad 
news is this Congress refuses to take up any minimum wage hike. Whether 
it is a $12 proposal, which Democrats put forward, whether it is a 
$10.10 proposal, whether it is even a $9 proposal, this Congress has 
not, instead of bringing forward a bill to increase the minimum wage--
by the way, when somebody works full time at minimum wage, they earn 
about $14,500 a year. I don't know what we are saying to people where 
you work full time and we are forcing you to rely on government 
programs to subsist.
  Republicans are keeping people on public housing, on food stamps, on 
welfare, rather than helping them support their own way and regaining 
their dignity in the process, which is what raising the minimum wage 
would do; but, no, we are not talking about that here today. We are 
talking about gutting the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  21,000 gallons of oil spilled in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of 
Santa Barbara County--that is probably not good for the fish there 
either--following the eruption of an 11-mile long underground pipeline; 
but, instead of talking about a renewable energy future, instead of 
talking about ending our reliance on fossil fuels or a national 
renewable energy portfolio standard, we are talking about gutting our 
fisheries protection and gutting the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  Tragically, we had funerals for eight people who were killed in the 
derailment of the Amtrak train in Pennsylvania; our House observed a 
moment of silence earlier on that, but rather than discussing measures 
that can prevent future derailment accidents--and I understand there is 
some technology that, when implemented, could have helped avoid this 
kind of accident--here we are again, discussing gutting the Magnuson-
Stevens Act that has successfully protected our wild fisheries and 
helped restore some of the stock so that precisely the recreational and 
charter fishermen and the gentleman from Alabama can continue to enjoy 
fishing. Absent the support of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it is likely 
we would not be able to support the level of recreational and 
commercial fishing that we can today.
  Seven people were shot in Baltimore yesterday amid a recent spike in 
violence following the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody; 
but, instead of addressing nonlethal use of force or video cameras on 
police officers, we are discussing gutting the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  We all know that the Federal highway reauthorization is running up 
against the May 31 deadline. The body of this Congress chose to renew 
it for 60 days and just created another crisis in another 59 days; yet 
we are not discussing what a deal would look like, a bipartisan deal, 
for a longer-term reauthorization of the Federal highway trust fund.

                              {time}  1945

  One hundred eighty Democrats signed a discharge petition for a bill 
that seeks to renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank, a critical 
driver for job creation and American competitiveness, fully permissible 
under WTO rules, under proposed trade agreement rules. Other countries 
have these kinds of banks, and to unilaterally disarm would cost 
American jobs. But instead of talking about how Congress gets out of 
this political box on the Export-Import Bank, we are discussing gutting 
the Magnuson-Stevens fisheries protection legislation.
  This Congress could do a lot better with regard to dealing with 
issues that I hear about from my constituents every day, day in and day 
out, whether that is fixing our broken immigration system, whether it 
is protecting our country from terrorism, whether it is preventing 
future Amtrak derailments. Those are the kinds of topics that, I think, 
the American people want to see us discussing here today rather than 
gutting an important piece of legislation which many charter fishermen, 
recreational fishermen, and commercial fishermen applaud in having 
successfully sustained their livelihoods or their passions for the last 
generation.
  Let's talk about fish.
  The bill we are looking at today would devastate our wild fisheries. 
It would make our waters much more of a ``free for all.'' Under the 
guise of flexibility, it would allow for the overfishing of critical 
species, risking not only their sustainability and the future enjoyment 
of recreational fishermen but also the health of entire ecosystems that 
rely on the fish stocks that we are debating.

[[Page H3495]]

  It would set an alarming precedent for the circumvention of our 
bedrock environmental laws by allowing fishery management councils to 
supersede NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act; the Endangered 
Species Act; the Antiquities Act; and the National Marine Sanctuaries 
Act.
  The Fishery Conservation and Management Act was introduced in 1976 to 
stop unregulated fishing that had demonstrably led to the depletion 
across a number of wild fisheries. In both 1996 and 2007, the 
legislation was reauthorized--bipartisan bills again. This bill passed 
committee without a single Democratic vote. Each time, through a 
comprehensive drafting process, good ideas from both sides of the aisle 
were put to paper.
  Ironically, the one thing that, I think, the gentleman from Alabama 
and I can agree on is that the 2007 authorization has been successful. 
We have shown the increased health of our wild fish stocks. So the 
question is: Do we want to reverse course and jeopardize that, or do we 
want to move forward with scientific-backed evidence?
  Unfortunately, the Republicans are trying to make sweeping changes to 
gut the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Protection Act. This iteration of 
the bill was drafted with almost no Democratic input, and it passed out 
of committee without a single Democratic vote.
  Look, if we want to go through this kind of exercise with a bill that 
the President has said he would veto--a bill that breaks with the proud 
bipartisan tradition of fisheries protection--why aren't we spending 
time on some of the issues I mentioned earlier, like immigration 
reform, like protecting LGBT students from discrimination, like 
socioeconomic disparities in our country, how we can deal with mental 
health among returning veterans who fought overseas, or the risk of 
terrorism here at home? Let's do that.
  If we are going to talk fish, Mr. Speaker, let's at least bring up a 
bill that has been drafted by all stakeholders. Let's at least bring up 
a bill that ensures that the fishing community will have an industry in 
10 years, in 20 years, in 50 years--a bill that protects the interests 
of our recreational fishermen and that preserves the health of our 
oceans for the enjoyment of all Americans and for the health of our 
planet now into the future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was listening to the gentleman from Colorado speak. We heard about 
immigration, minimum wage, LGBT, renewable energy, highways, the Ex-Im 
Bank, and a little bit about fish. This is a bill about fish. It is not 
about all of that stuff.
  We have heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle that we 
in the majority are using too many combined rules, where you have more 
than one bill in the rule, which they say confuses the debate and 
distracts from the individual merits of each bill and the process by 
which it will be considered. I have just got to tell you that it seems 
to me we had a lot of confusion and distraction with the interjection 
into this debate of a bunch of issues that have nothing to do with 
fishing. Today, we have one rule covering one bill; yet the gentleman 
just spent the majority of his time discussing issues not covered in 
the rule before us.
  Let me tell you that the people in my area are suffering. Charter 
boat people have lost their boats. Dads who want to take their children 
fishing can't take their children fishing. It is destroying a way of 
life for people. I am not saying those other issues aren't important, 
that they are not serious, but they are not covered by this rule, and 
they are not in this bill. We need to debate that.
  The gentleman said something about the 2007 act, that it was 
successful. Let me tell you what it has been successful in doing. It 
has taken a summer red snapper season and reduced it to 10 days. That 
is what it has been successful in doing. It has been successful in 
almost decimating our charter boat fleets and in putting a lot of 
people out of work. I hear a lot from the other side about needing to 
put people to work. The people on these charter boats work. They lost 
their jobs because of this. It was successful all right. It was 
successful in destroying something that worked for people for 
generations.
  I have great respect for my fellow colleague from Colorado who is on 
the Rules Committee. I know he doesn't get to fish much in the Gulf of 
Mexico, but I extend an invitation to him. I will take him out there 
and let him catch some red snapper. I believe, Mr. Speaker, once he 
does that, he will be as enthusiastic for this bill as I am.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has 
any further speakers or is prepared to close.
  Mr. BYRNE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I invite the gentleman from Alabama to come to Colorado to fish our 
wonderful mountain trout, which we have in our streams and rivers. 
Obviously, he is no stranger to a different kind of fisheries 
management policy where, of course, our economy in Colorado relies on 
fishing and sportsmen as well, and I certainly understand that driver 
of jobs locally.
  I think the disconnect here is that the gentleman talks about what 
the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens bill has accomplished in that it has reduced 
the number of days that people can fish. That was the action that 
was taken. The effect of that is that the wild stocks are up, so there 
are more snapper. I think both sides agree on that. I believe there is 
a direct causal link to the fact that there are more snapper because 
there have been fewer that have been taken out of the water. If we 
manage our fisheries for the short term, if we throw caution to the 
wind, people might have a good season or two, but it simply won't be 
there either for the future generation of recreationists or for those 
whose livelihoods depend on a viable commercial fishing stock.

  Now, this bill is about fish. If this rule allowed for the discussion 
of some of the other bills I mentioned, I could support it. If this 
bill allowed a debate of #raisethewage, either to our Democratic 
proposal of a $12 an hour minimum wage or to whatever number the 
gentleman from Alabama would like--if he would like to propose $9 an 
hour, $8.50--I would be willing to support this rule, or if it even 
allowed 2 minutes of debate for raising the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, I would support this bill if it allowed for us to 
consider our bipartisan immigration reform measure. If we allowed that 
debate under this bill, I would do that. I would support this rule if 
it allowed debate about the Student Nondiscrimination Act to make sure 
that LGBT students don't face bullying in our schools and so that it is 
a safe learning environment for all students. I would support this rule 
if it addressed what we have learned from the Amtrak derailment and 
prevented future derailments and saved lives.
  None of those items, along with countless others, are included under 
this rule. In fact, all of the amendments under this rule, as well as 
the underlying bill, are related to fish.
  No, I don't know deny that fish are important. We might be discussing 
our mountain trout someday here on the floor of the House and defending 
the President's efforts around clean water or on protecting some of our 
watersheds in Colorado. We have a lot of interest in protecting our 
fishing stock as well. But I would be proud to be able to bring forth 
some of the priorities that I hear from my constituents that are so 
critical.
  Rather than continually bringing up bills that attack the integrity 
of our environment--in this case, a bill that would gut the fisheries 
protections that have been afforded under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
that both sides have acknowledged have successfully helped restore the 
red snapper population--I would hope that perhaps our next rule will 
allow us to raise the minimum wage, that perhaps our next rule will 
allow us to consider immigration reform, that perhaps our next rule 
will help us deal with the bullying in schools, that perhaps our next 
rule will save lives and prevent future derailments, and so many other 
issues.
  I say to my colleagues that this particular bill needs to go back to 
the drawing board. It needs to go back to the drawing board to have a 
bipartisan effort in a committee I serve on, the Natural Resources 
Committee, to include priorities from both sides and good science and 
continue to build upon the legacy of success that the 2007

[[Page H3496]]

bipartisan reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act has had in 
increasing the health of our wild fishing stocks. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I was listening very carefully to the gentleman from Colorado, and I 
accept his invitation to go trout fishing. I would love to do that. 
Fishing of all kind is great for everybody to do, and I appreciate his 
invitation.
  The reason we have the problem we have today is not because the 
Federal Government knows how many fish are out there. It doesn't. 
Remember what I said earlier--this is a reef fish, and they don't 
sample for reef fish on reefs. So, if you don't sample for reef fish on 
reefs, you are not going to find the fish. Now, we know there are so 
many fish out there because we haven't been allowed to fish them and 
that snapper are not only eating other species but they are eating 
other snapper.
  What our scientists have done is they have actually gone out there 
with submersible vehicles with high-def cameras, and they count the 
fish on the reef and sample them that way. They have a real number. 
They do a real sampling so they get accurate data, and these government 
scientists don't.
  My friend said that we should go back to the drawing board. We have 
waited too long already. We should have done this last year so that we 
could have had a real snapper season this year. If we wait again, we 
won't have a snapper season next year, and that is not acceptable. We 
have enough fish out there--and the science from our region has proven 
it--to have a real snapper season. It is not just about snapper. We 
have these problems in other areas of the fishery that need to be taken 
care of and taken care of in a responsible way. No one is more 
environmentally conscious than someone who hunts and fishes, because 
that is where we get our enjoyment, and we want it to be there for us 
and for our children and, now that I have a grandson, for my 
grandchildren.
  I have appreciated this debate today. I always welcome the 
opportunity to draw attention to some of the real issues which are 
affecting my constituents back on the Gulf Coast. To some people up 
here, this issue doesn't mean much. To some people, they only listen to 
the political talking points put out by lobbyists or by political 
parties or by environmental groups. But to the small restaurant 
employees in Gulf Shores or to the charter boat captain in Orange Beach 
or to the gas station in Foley or to the condo owners on Dauphin Island 
or to the thousands of families who spend time fishing on the Gulf 
Coast and all around our country, this bill is critically important. 
This bill is about getting the Federal Government off our backs so that 
we can fish.
  Let's not fall back into another political debate. Let's come 
together on behalf of our Nation's coastal communities. Let's get some 
real relief for our fishermen. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this rule and to support this commonsense bill and to support the 
people of America and their freedom to fish in our waters.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________