[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6069-H6098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material in H.R. 200.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 965 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 200.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1457
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 200) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and
stability for fishermen, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bost in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of my legislation, H.R.
200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility
in Fisheries Management Act.
Mr. Chairman, as one of the sponsors of the original bill way back in
1975, and I fought to secure enactment in 1976, I can say it is
probably the most successful legislation that ever passed this House to
create a sustainable yield of fisheries for the United States of
America.
I first wrote what would become the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it
hasn't been reauthorized since 2006. For 6 years, I have worked with
Members of this body on both sides of the aisle to improve this
legislation.
I know some of my colleagues will say that I didn't do enough to
ensure the act retains the strong bipartisan nature of the original
bill. It is important to remember the legislative history. While it is
true that the version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that became law
passed the House under suspension of the rules, the original bill
passed the Natural Resources Committee after a long markup by a vote of
26-15, with only four Democrats voting in favor of the bill.
{time} 1500
So this point that the previous reauthorizations were
noncontroversial and nonpartisan is not true.
My legislation, H.R. 200, would make a number of improvements to the
original act in order to ensure a proper balance between the biological
needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen in coastal
communities.
The legislation tailors Federal fishery authorities in order to give
councils the proper tools and flexibility needed to effectively manage
their fisheries, and will support a more robust domestic seafood
industry and greater job creation across the country.
This legislation allows added flexibility for fishery managers to
rebuild depleted fisheries, more transparency for fishermen in science
and management, and a requirement for NOAA to provide better
accountability on how fees are collected and used. It also authorizes
appropriations for the act for 5 years.
[[Page H6070]]
I am proud to say my bill protects our commercial and recreational
fishing interests, and will allow councils to do their job in a more
streamlined and effective manner.
My bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act.
It allows for regional management of fisheries. The law gives guidance
through its national standards and creates the process that allows the
councils to develop fishery management plans.
This legislation was written for fishermen to ensure they are able to
catch sustainable yields of fish for the communities. It is critical
for the protection of coastal communities and for allowing the
stakeholders to be part of the management of the fisheries.
To address the ever-changing needs of fisheries and fishery
communities, Congress has passed various amendments to this act.
Changes were based on knowledge of the times gained through experience,
improvements in science, and better management techniques.
In the mid-1990s, Congress addressed overfishing, included
protections of habitat, improvements for fisheries science, and
reductions in bycatch. These were the issues of the time, and they were
addressed as needed. One of these problems also included the lack of
resources to fund stock assessments to provide needed data to the
regional fishery management councils, something that continues to be an
issue today.
The act was last amended in 2007. Congress included measures that set
science-based annual catch limits to prevent overfishing, including a
requirement to end overfishing within 2 years. Accountability measures
were adopted, which meant harvest reductions if harvest levels were
exceeded.
Work to develop H.R. 200 began 6 years ago. The committee held over a
dozen hearings, with testimony from over 100 witnesses. As with past
reauthorizations, and in line with a main purpose of the act--to
balance conservation with economic use of the resource--H.R. 200 takes
a middle-of-the-road approach to fisheries management.
While some today may complain the bill's flexibility rolls back
scientific protections, that statement is just not accurate. The
flexibility in the bill is based on science. Rebuilding of fish stocks
will be based on the biology of fish stock. Harvest levels will still
be based on science and set at levels where overfishing will not occur.
The regional councils will continue to follow recommendations of their
science and statistical committee.
During every reauthorization cycle, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is
updated to be closely in sync with current-day science, management
techniques, and knowledge. As the fishermen, communities, councils, and
fishery managers develop better techniques and learn lessons from
implementing the law, Congress can take that knowledge to improve that
law. Flexibility is a cornerstone of the law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
promotes regional flexibility that recognizes differing ocean
conditions, variations in regional fisheries, different harvesting
methods and management techniques, and distinct community impacts.
Again, I want to stress: this bill was written for fish and
communities, not for the interest groups. I will not stand by and watch
other interest groups hijack this piece of legislation, taking away the
sustainable concept of our fisheries and the healthy concept of our
fisheries and the healthy concept of our communities for other reasons
and other causes.
While my name will be on the bill as the sponsor, we all know that
bringing legislation to the floor is a group effort and we would not be
here today talking about fish without the support of other members and
a tremendous amount of hard work from staff. So I thank Chairman Bishop
and even Congressman Huffman and his staff--I had to say that--the
bill's cosponsors on both sides of the aisle; staff on the Natural
Resources Committee, Lisa Pittman, Charles Park, Richie O'Connell, Bill
Ball, and former staffer Dave Whaley; and members of my staff, Mike
DeFilippis and Martha Newell.
Mr. Chairman, I have to remind people that when we had this bill
passed originally, we were catching about, I would say, 2 percent of
our fish, and after the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we are
catching all but 1 percent and foreign countries are only catching 1
percent.
This is a good piece of legislation. It has worked in the past, and
it will work better in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act is our country's most important fisheries law. Magnuson
is the framework for governing fishing in Federal waters, which is big
business in this country: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration estimates that commercial and recreational fishing
generates roughly $200 billion in economic value and supports 1.7
million jobs.
This significant economic impact depends on sustainable management of
fish stocks and protecting the ocean ecosystems on which they depend.
Now, the 1996 and 2006 reauthorizations of Magnuson moved us in that
direction after decades of overfishing had led to the collapse of
fisheries and devastation for fishing communities in many parts of the
country.
Instead of building on that success, I am sad to say that H.R. 200,
which many have called the empty oceans act, would roll back the
important conservation and management standards that have helped us get
to this point, that have helped end overfishing, and that have helped
rebuild a record number of fish stocks. This attempt to return us to
the bad old days of failed fishery management policy and overfishing
that inevitably follows from loose standards should be seen as
unacceptable to everyone who cares about sustainable fisheries.
Now, Magnuson, as has been said, has traditionally been a bipartisan
effort. I have tried to work with Mr. Young in good faith to find a
path towards a bipartisan compromise, and I thank him for his efforts
to get there. We came close. I am disappointed that we fell short.
But we need to be very clear that Democrats are opposing H.R. 200 not
for partisan reasons, but for important policy grounds that, in the
past, have never been partisan and should not be partisan today.
That is also why many fishery stakeholders oppose this bill in its
current form. They don't want to see Magnuson's core conservation
provisions undermined. That is why letters have been pouring in in
opposition to this bill, because it does undermine the very heart of
our country's flagship fisheries law.
We have heard, for example, from the Alaska Longline Fishermen's
Association, Fishing Communities Coalition, Cape Cod Commercial
Fishermen's Alliance, Seafood Harvesters of America, Maine Coast
Fishermen's Association, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Northwest
Guides and Anglers Association, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders'
Alliance, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Gulf Restoration
Network, American Fly Fishing Tackle Association, and on and on,
including hundreds of chefs, scientists, and recreational anglers,
among others. In fact, the stack of letters that we have received is
quite voluminous, as I have them right here.
The changes my Republican colleagues are proposing to Magnuson are
irresponsible. I am disappointed that they are ignoring the concerns
that have been expressed from so many stakeholders who are telling them
to be more careful as we reauthorize this important bill. There is an
old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The bottom line with this Magnuson reauthorization is this: the law
is working as intended. Reauthorization is important, but it shouldn't
come at the expense of the law's core provisions that have made it so
successful.
Mr. Chairman, I have offered an alternate amendment to reauthorize
Magnuson. It contains constructive, bipartisan ideas on how to best
manage our fisheries by allowing for flexibility and modernizing
aspects of fisheries management, but doing so without undermining the
core provisions of the law.
As an angler myself, who represents many commercial and recreational
fishing interests in northern California, I strongly believe that there
[[Page H6071]]
needs to be a bipartisan path forward. I would still very much like to
have meaningful discussions with my colleagues across the aisle to
develop legislation in the spirit of previous bipartisan Magnuson
reauthorizations, while leaving the core conservation and management
provisions intact.
We can also make progress and do more to support recreational fishing
interests. We should do that together, without sacrificing the science-
based framework that is so important to the long-term sustainability of
fisheries management.
Unfortunately, H.R. 200 falls short in this regard, and I must
request that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the bill in its current form.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management
Act.
Not only does this bill reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, which is long overdue, but it also
updates the language of the act to put more power in the hands of local
councils to manage their fisheries effectively. One-size-fits-all
approaches rarely work, so I am proud to cosponsor this bill which
allows local councils to tailor management plans to the needs of their
regions.
Further, this bill would lift burdens of outdated, arbitrary
scientific practices and data which limit the American people's access
to affordable domestically caught fish. The seafood industry is
economically booming and it is past time that we lift these restricting
regulations and allow a win for not only the recreational fishermen,
which I have been a lifelong proponent of and a participant, but also
of our commercial fishermen, the American people will be a winner as
well, so I urge a vote for this bill.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his eloquent
defense of our oceans, and also for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 200.
I represent the great State of Maine, with a rich maritime heritage,
strong fisheries, and vibrant coastal communities that I am very proud
to represent.
The hardworking men and women who earn their livings on or near the
water in my State have been working for decades to follow the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and Federal fishery policy. They are responsible stewards
of our ocean resources. And while the current law could certainly be
improved, it has been successful in allowing Mainers and others to
support their families while restoring and preserving the health of
their fisheries. They want to pass this maritime heritage on to the
next generation, and I am afraid this bill would make that task even
harder for them.
The bill before us today, therefore, is a big disappointment to me
because it misses the opportunity to update the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
By reauthorizing Magnuson, we could work in a bipartisan way to address
the current needs of our fisheries and provide more flexibility. We
could bring Federal policy further into the 21st century.
This bill is the wrong approach for addressing fishery management. It
weakens rebuilding requirements, creates loopholes in some conservation
efforts, and has the effect of decreasing accountability that has been
put in place to prevent overfishing.
H.R. 200 undoes efforts that have been proven to work, while failing
to address some significant challenges in our fisheries. It is a lost
opportunity and a bill that I cannot support.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), my good friend.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. I am a cosponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, my State of Louisiana has a heavy presence of both
commercial and recreational anglers, and they all know that reforms
have been needed to our Federal fisheries data collection systems for
decades.
In some cases, especially in relation to the red snapper fishery in
the Gulf, rebuilding schedules, season lengths, and catch limits have
been based off data models from the 1980s. Technology has come a long
way since then, with universities and the Gulf States themselves
utilizing new methods of data collection that are producing positive
results that are at odds with the 1980s numbers that the Federal
Government has been using.
This bill will go a long way in promoting a modern science-backed
approach to management of our fisheries.
This reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation
Management Act provides flexibility and stability that will promote
economic expansion through enhanced public access and opportunity for
recreational fishing in saltwater.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Young, for
introducing this bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support its passage.
{time} 1515
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 200, the so-called
Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in
Fisheries Management Act, which would undermine the years of progress
made in rebuilding fish stocks and setting effective catch limits under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
My home State of Rhode Island is home to a vibrant fishing community
that relies on healthy fish populations in order to make a living.
Traditionally, reauthorization of fisheries management programs
through the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been done on a bipartisan basis
with the goal of strengthening sustainable fisheries. However, this
entirely partisan bill weakens critical tools, like annual catch
limits, which ensure that fisheries remain full for years to come.
This bill will gut science-based management for fisheries, roll back
development of effective fisheries management techniques, and reduce
accountability for recreational fisheries.
H.R. 200 removes several species from science-based quotas which help
ensure that catches are sustainable each year. Under this bill,
hundreds of species of fish would no longer have catch limits, which
would lead to drastic overfishing.
The bill also harms efforts to rebuild fish stocks by including
loopholes which remove rebuilding timeframes from many fish stocks and
would extend recovery timeframes for others, thereby endangering
healthy stocks of fish available to fishing communities.
In the last week, I have heard from fishermen from all over my
district, from Greenville to Portsmouth, who have reached out to my
office to tell me that H.R. 200 will harm their way of life by
threatening already depleted fish populations and increase the threat
of overfishing.
The fishermen in my State need legislation that would build on time-
tested tools to strengthen fisheries and prevent overfishing instead of
this bill, which would set management programs back and weaken
effective conservation tools.
I join with those fishermen in opposing this misguided approach to
reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on final passage.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the dean of
the House, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman
emeritus, I think, for most committees in the Congress and many other
great accomplishments for yielding time and for all the work on this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I find this whole debate interesting in that I have
heard speaker after speaker come up on the other side of the aisle
talking about the importance of their fisheries, talking about how this
bill is going to ruin
[[Page H6072]]
resource management and sustainability of fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, I ask you to take a look at this poster right here, and
I will also spout out just a few statistics.
Between my home State of Louisiana and the dean's home State of
Alaska, I believe we have more than half of the commercial fisheries
landings in the United States, and as demonstrated here, we have more
than half of the recreational fishing in the United States.
I appreciate the concerns that are being raised, but I am not sure
whom they are representing. We represent the recreational fishers. We
have the largest commercial fishing industries in the United States.
What this bill does is this bill simply updates the science. It
allows for updated science. It allows to build upon successful
practices that have been carried out by States for coastal fisheries,
for inland fisheries, allowing for better techniques, allowing for
better science to ensure the sustainability of the fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, how rational is it that someone who represents
Louisiana--and I also want to point to the comments that my colleague
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) made a few minutes ago. We both represent
the coast of Louisiana. How rational is it that the two of us and the
gentleman who represents the entire State of Alaska would come out and
advocate for policies that would undermine the sustainability of
fisheries in two incredibly important industries in our State? That is
completely nonsensical.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, this bill is bipartisan. It is why we have
bipartisan support for this legislation by those who have cosponsored
it. It is why the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; the National
Coalition for Fishing Communities; the National Marine Manufacturers
Association; the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; the
Coastal Conservation Association, or CCA; Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation;
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission; Center for Sport Fishing Policy;
Freezer Longline Coalition; Mississippi State Legislature; Johnny
Morris, who is the CEO of Bass Pro Shops; American Scallop Association;
Garden State Seafood Association; West Coast Seafood Processors
Association; Lund's Seafood; North Carolina Fisheries Association;
Florida Keys Commercial Fishing Association; Gulf Coast Seafood
Alliance; Southeastern Fisheries Association; and many, many others
that have a genuine stake in the sustainability of our fisheries, some
of the leaders in conservation in our fisheries, are supportive of this
legislation.
So let me say it again, Mr. Chairman, this bill improves science. It
uses updated science.
I am not going to point to the decades-long tenure of my friend, but
I think the original legislation perhaps could use some updating, and
so this updates the science, and it provides for more transparency in
the science and allows for public participation. These are all good
things that we need to be supporting.
I do appreciate the input by my friend from California on this
legislation, and I do hope that we can work together to get this to a
posture to where everyone is supportive; but I do think it is important
to refocus the fact that we are the ones who represent the majority of
this economic driver, the majority of these jobs around the country,
and they are the ones that represent these families that, for
generations, have fished recreationally and that we want to ensure can
fish for generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska for
including our Modern Fish Act, which I think helps to update some
practices where there is increased demand for recreational and
commercial fisheries and providing a little bit better balance there.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this important bill. It moves our
science and transparency and public participation in the right
direction. It is going to improve the sustainability of our fisheries,
the jobs associated with recreational and commercial fisheries, and the
economic activity that these sustainable fisheries support.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, while I certainly appreciate the size of the Louisiana
and Alaska fisheries--and to some extent, I am jealous of some of the
fishing opportunities that exist in those places. I have fished,
myself, in Alaska, but Mr. Graves has yet to invite me to Louisiana for
some fishing, and we hope to fix that going forward.
I don't want to leave the impression that the fishing industry and
fishing communities in other parts of the country are not just as
important. I also don't want to leave the impression that there is
universal support for H.R. 200 even in Alaska and Louisiana. So we are
going to have a little bit of a battle of the posters, Mr. Chairman.
This is a partial listing of the groups that oppose H.R. 200 in its
current form. They oppose it for the reasons that I have mentioned.
They consider it irresponsible to undermine the science-based catch
limits and rebuilding framework that have been so critical to the
success of this bill going forward, and they don't want to see us
backslide into the era of loose regulations and overfishing that will
inevitably follow. They have seen this movie before, and they know what
happens when we undermine core conservation provisions.
So among the many groups and organizations listed in opposition, we
certainly have the Alaska Long Line Fishermen's Association, over here,
the Gulf Fishermen's Association, and the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish
Shareholders Alliance, among many, many others in opposition to H.R.
200.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 200, which,
unfortunately, I believe, joining my colleagues, would undermine our
ability to responsibly manage our fisheries and would ultimately harm
our fishing industry in the United States.
Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and diligent science-based
fisheries management, the United States is viewed as an international
leader in the industry.
In my district, since 2000, more than 40 overfished stocks have
bounced back not by luck, Mr. Chairman, but because of commonsense
regulations that were put in place by the MSA.
The industry has put an emphasis on setting catch limits and
rehabilitating these stocks to ensure that the industry can continue to
thrive for generations to come. Since 2010, when just 28 of those 40
stocks had been rebuilt, we saw a 54 percent increase in commercial
gross revenues, which is income that goes directly back into our
communities.
In 2015, commercial fishing in my home State of Washington brought in
$1.7 billion, which was lower than some previous years because of those
very ongoing overfishing challenges in our oceans, especially in the
Pacific Northwest. These rollbacks that are proposed in this bill would
make things worse.
Locally, we are focused on increasing revenues by maintaining healthy
stocks and healthy oceans. We can grow opportunities for future
generations while also protecting our environment and strengthening our
economy.
I am so proud to be from the State of Washington, the State that
elected Warren Magnuson to this body, and of the fact that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act has demonstrated broad bipartisan support as well
as support, as my colleagues said, from the fishing industry,
environmentalists, scientists, chefs, and business owners. It is our
responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to continue to build on those successes,
and we can do that today by voting ``no'' on H.R. 200.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman
Young, the dean of the House, for his efforts on this.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 200, the Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management
Act.
As chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and an avid
recreational angler, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan
effort to provide much-needed reform to our Nation's fisheries
management.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the speakers that have gone before me on
the
[[Page H6073]]
other side of the aisle if any of them fish or are they a member of the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. Have they taken the opportunity to
educate themselves on the fishery issues that we are facing today?
Generations of folks have enjoyed one of America's greatest pastimes
in our coastal waters. Unfortunately, antiquated Federal policies have
unnecessarily limited the public's access to abundant marine fisheries.
Commercial and recreational fishing are different activities that
require different management strategies. The Magnuson-Stevens Act has
lacked the tools necessary to address the needs of recreational
fisheries management. H.R. 200 provides an opportunity to recognize the
alternative management approach in the Nation's principal fisheries law
to the benefit of 11 million saltwater anglers.
Despite what some have said, H.R. 200 does not roll back conservation
but, instead, provides Federal fishery managers with the tools to
effectively manage both recreational and commercial fisheries. It
provides for 21st century technologies to guide fishery management
decisions that will further ensure that our marine resources are
managed for abundance, long-term sustainability, and to the greatest
benefit of the Nation.
As a recreational angler for my entire life, I understand the
critical role that we play in conservation resource management. In
2016, anglers and boaters contributed $628 million in excise taxes for
sport fish conservation and management, boating safety, infrastructure,
and habitat restoration. In addition to that, anglers contributed $693
million through fish and license fees.
This bill will continue to ensure the conservation of our marine
fisheries and will restore the public's trust in fisheries management.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to respectfully push back on the idea
that you have to be a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus to
have standing in this debate.
The fact is, and we have shared some of the groups opposing this
legislation, the opposition includes many recreational fishing
interests, and opposing legislators include many of us who actually do
spend a lot of time on the water catching fish. So let's dispel that
notion.
Now, there are some in the recreational fishing sector who will argue
that Magnuson is broken, that it does not work for them, because, as
they explain, it requires recreational fisheries, just like other
fisheries, to abide by overall catch limits that are based on science.
In other words, the law doesn't work because they don't want to have to
stop fishing when their catch reaches unsustainable levels. That is a
situation not of a law that is broken. It actually shows that we have a
law that is playing a very, very important role.
Now, what would H.R. 200 do if it were enacted into law? It would
enable recreational anglers to take more fish right now without regard
for the future.
Proponents of the bill are advocating to increase recreational catch
limits, reallocate catch away from commercial fishermen with mandated
reallocation reviews, and water down the sustainable fishing mandates
in current law.
{time} 1530
That would mean taking more fish now, threatening fisheries with the
risk of overfishing in the future, which we know, because we have seen
this movie before, will lead to bans and closed fisheries in the
future.
Managing fisheries sometimes requires tough choices. It shouldn't be
about immediate gratification. And let's remember, the recreational
fishermen are not disadvantaged under the current management system. In
fact, in some regions, like the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishers
currently take home 70 percent of the Gulf's most popular fish.
Recreational anglers land an overwhelming majority of species like
amberjack, cobia, red drum, king mackerel, spotted sea trout, and
triggerfish. And for the Gulf red snapper, the division of quota
between the recreational and seafood sectors is a more balanced
situation, roughly 50/50.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friends on the other
side of the aisle, they are promoting the opposition to this bill from
interest groups that don't have any interest in commercial fishing,
period. Let's be real about this.
What hurts me, I have heard them say that it removes science from
fisheries. Let's explore this. No one is listening, but that is okay.
For starters, the words ``science'' and ``data'' appear 34 times
throughout the bill. Section 207 directs the councils to establish a
plan for cooperative research that brings together a wide variety of
high-quality, non-Federal data to support existing data.
This is about States, coastal areas, villages, communities, fishermen
making decisions instead of the Federal Government, and I know they
don't like that.
Section 208 directs the Secretary to work with the States to find the
best way to incorporate State data, just not their own data.
Section 301 directs the Secretary to develop a strategic plan for
conducting stock assessments for every stock in a fishery's management
plan.
Again, science.
Section 303 replaces an arbitrary 10-year rebuilding requirement. If
the fish come back quicker under this bill, H.R. 200, they could be
fished at a sustainable yield level. Under the present law, which I
wrote, they can't do that. Otherwise, we lose years and management of
the fish for a period of time. That is up to the councils under H.R.
200.
Section 306 directs the Secretary to expedite approval of high-
quality State data in the Gulf of Mexico to better advantage those
recreational-heavy fisheries.
Finally, everything in this bill continues to be bound by the
scientific principle of the Magnuson mandate to utilize the best
available science for management decisions. There is nothing in this
bill that weakens it, nothing. Yet I keep hearing the constant waves of
dissension on the other side because they don't want to renew and make
a better bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I again would like to talk about this legislation, the H.R. 200 bill.
I am disappointed in the other side. It is a partisan issue, and,
unfortunately, it is.
I was listening to the speakers on the other side, and they really
don't have a concrete reason to object to this bill other than what
they are being told by those who don't want commercial fishing, and
they don't want recreational fishing. They may not say that, but in
reality, that is really what they are seeking.
Now, I again go back to myself and the period of time when the 200-
mile limit occurred. Why did it happen?
I was in Kodiak, Alaska. None of you were even born, probably, at
that time. I was in Kodiak, Alaska, looked out 12 miles off the shore
of Kodiak, and there was a wall of lights. I said: What is that?
This was before I was a Congressman.
He said: That is foreign fishermen catching our fish--catching our
fish, America's fish.
When I got elected to Congress, one of the first things I did was try
to develop the Magnuson-Stevens Act with Gerry Studds from
Massachusetts. He was in the majority; I was the minority; and I
explained to him what was happening.
He went back home to a fishing district and then said: You have got a
good idea. Let's develop an economic zone 200 miles out, and we will
control the fisheries in that area.
So we worked together bipartisanly, wrote a bill with a concrete
suggestion for sustainable yield for fish, fishermen, communities for
America, and for our coastal States that are involved in commercial
fisheries and recreational fisheries.
We passed that bill, yes, out of the House, I believe, pretty much
unanimously. Went to the Senate side, and the Senate sided with
Magnuson-Stevens and decided to do the same thing.
[[Page H6074]]
Out of that, after we had opposition from just about every liberal in
the business--for what reason, I don't know, other than they thought it
would affect the international sea--it was finally signed into law by
President Ford.
From there, we have gone to the best managed fisheries in the world.
From there, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have been able to
achieve what we should do. But we have grown in science. We have grown
in more knowledge about how and where we should fish and when.
People talk about the species that were depleted. There were no
species until this bill was established. And we rebuilt them, and we
are still rebuilding them under our science under this bill. But it
gives that flexibility to States to help manage.
Now, I know on that side of the aisle, they believe that the Federal
Government can do everything--in fact, they should do everything
because we don't know what we are doing. The States aren't really
States, they are part of the Federal Government, instead of the other
way around.
I argue that knowledge within States with science available and
science under present law under this bill, which we do not extinguish,
is really the crux of this issue, that the 200-mile limit, the H.R. 200
bill, my bill today--not because of me. I did not write this bill for
myself. I wrote it for the communities, for the fish, and the fishermen
for America.
Those that oppose it, I said: Uh-uh. They are not listening to the
communities. They believe Big Government can do best for them and
States should not be involved. I argue it is the States' issue to
protect their fish, yes, with supervision of the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, of course I have great respect for my colleague from
Alaska. In fact, in many ways, he deserves credit for helping craft the
original Fishery Conservation and Management Act, for bringing to the
Nation what could be considered the Alaska model of fisheries
management through subsequent Magnuson Act reauthorizations. So I find
myself, ironically, in the position of defending the framework that he
essentially created against my colleagues' attempts to make changes
that I believe are fundamentally threatening to that very framework.
It is this Alaska model that we support, complete with science-based
catch limits, industry accountability for sustainable harvest, and the
constant march towards sustainable practices. That is what has made
U.S. fisheries, under the Magnuson Act, a model for the world, and that
is what we are trying to continue.
Now, it has been suggested that rebuilding timeframes are too rigid
and too restrictive. We will talk more about this when we get to some
of the specific debate on amendments. But it is important to know that
there is flexibility on rebuilding goals in the Magnuson Act and that
flexibility is being used. It is also working. And a great example of
that is what has happened with sea scallops under the Magnuson Act.
Fishery managers implemented a rebuilding plan for sea scallops in
1998. Within a couple of years, the fishery had been rebuilt, and now
the scallop fishery is one of the country's most valuable fisheries.
In 1998, a little over 13 million pounds of scallop were landed. By
2016, that amount had tripled to 40 million pounds, resulting in more
money in fishermen's pockets.
So there is a lot at stake with these issues, and we should bear in
mind not only the numbers we talked about regarding the many jobs, the
billions of dollars contributed to the economy from commercial and
recreational fishing, but the potential to do even more and to do even
better if we manage our fisheries carefully.
NOAA has estimated that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would
generate an additional $31 billion in seafood sales, support an
additional 500,000 jobs, and increase the revenue that fishermen
receive at the dock by $2.2 billion. That is why we want to keep these
critical provisions that have worked so well, because we can do even
better if we stay the course.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Young for his
leadership.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said during this debate that recreational
fishermen aren't being disadvantaged under the current system. Our
fishermen, both commercial and recreational, are absolutely being
disadvantaged, and that is exactly why we must pass this bill. I will
give you one example.
If you are a commercial fisherman in New York, you could catch 50
pounds of fluke once per day for 7 days. You have to go out. You can
catch 50 pounds. That is 350 pounds for the week.
Now, it would make more sense if we were able to have a system in
place where they were catching 350 pounds maybe in 1 day, like maybe
New Jersey, where you could do 500 pounds for 3 days.
Or if we want to talk about the science where you have black sea
bass, 240 percent over the target biomass, yet we are seeing a quota
reduction, compared to other States, in New York. Our fishermen are
getting disadvantaged under the current system.
Or the NOAA observer program, where you have a fisherman who is
taking someone out to go to an area where they know there is not going
to be any fish and they end up collecting flawed data that is sitting
on a shelf and not even ending up getting used.
The reality right now is that we have fishermen in my district who
are desperate to survive 365 days of the year, from early in the
morning until late at night, barely making ends meet, on a boat that
barely works, with overhead where they are having trouble being able to
pay their own bills to get by. They are looking for people to fight for
them in this Chamber, to fight for that business owner, to fight for
them so that they can make ends meet.
It is about protecting the fishery as those very fishermen care so
much about. But they know that the system could get better, and that is
why we are here, fighting for them. That is why I thank Don Young for
his leadership, because they are watching right now on C-SPAN.
In my district, those fishermen are watching on the internet, they
are watching on TV, and they are looking for people to fight for them
because they have been struggling for years and decades, and they are
desperate to get this passed so that they can afford to pay their
bills, so that when they are going out at 3 a.m. tomorrow and they are
going to come back late at night, that they know that things are going
in the right direction, that their government is going to start working
for them at the Federal level, the State level, the regional level, we
are doing our part.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my longtime friend,
Congressman Young, our dean of the House, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 200, the Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management
Act. This bipartisan bill reauthorizes one of the most successful
conservation programs in Magnuson-Stevens in a way that recognizes many
of the successes of the program.
Magnuson-Stevens was established in 1976 with one primary goal: to
reduce overfishing. With a successful update in the 1990s and 2000s, we
have now met many of the goals the program was established to meet.
Compared to when the law was established, 84 percent of the stocks
are no longer overfished, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Yet we still treat many of these healthy
fish stocks as if nothing has changed.
I am an avid sportsman. I have hunted and fished with both my son and
my grandchildren. There is no one who
[[Page H6075]]
cares more about conservation and protection of endangered species than
hunters and recreational fishers. It is time that Magnuson-Stevens
reflects a healthy balance between commercial and recreational
fishermen.
All too often, recreational fishers take a backseat to the commercial
interests. This bill recognizes the unique space that recreational
anglers occupy and gives them the certainty they need to enjoy our
natural resources.
{time} 1545
Saltwater anglers contribute $70 billion annually to the Nation's
economy and support jobs all over the country, and there is no one who
cares more about the health of our oceans either. In 2016, anglers,
through excise taxes, contributed $628 million in support of
conservation programs and resource management.
This bill will set catch limits in 3-year time periods to give
anglers certainty so they know when to plan trips. All too often,
arbitrary changes to seasons have caused problems up and down the Gulf
Coast of Texas.
This bill recognizes that technology has advanced in many ways in
measuring the health of our fish stocks. State agencies, universities,
and local conservation groups have come with up with many innovative
ways to measure the health of fish stocks. I am glad that this bill
includes language that I worked on to make sure that we had the most
scientifically accurate data possible when it comes to determining the
number of certain stocks.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a cosponsor to this bill and urge all of
my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Alaska for the
time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, we certainly support recreational fishing. I do. I have a
lot of it in my district, and that is one of the reasons why, as I
worked with Mr. Young to try to achieve a bipartisan reauthorization
bill, we were willing to accept many of the provisions regarding
recreational fishing. But you don't help recreational anglers when you
go too far in relaxing annual catch limits or when you go too far in
rolling back the rebuilding framework. Because when these fisheries
crash, as inevitably they will, it is not just commercial fishing boats
that are going to be out of the water. Everyone suffers. These
fisheries will be closed.
And that is why so many recreational fishing interest groups and
individuals have weighed in in opposition to H.R. 200. They have
concluded, as we have, that the short-term gratification for some is
not worth the long-term damage to all.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the full
committee who allowed me to bring this outstanding bill to the floor of
the House.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, this bill is the result of more than 6
years of work with commercial and recreational fishing groups, the
seafood industry, coastal communities, and both sides of the aisle. It
is a bipartisan bill that codifies the Obama-era guidelines and
provides flexibility for fishery managers.
It is a good bill, but I do want to address some of the
inconsistencies that have been circulated by Members or NGOs. At least
let me hit some of the most gross inaccuracies. In dissenting views, it
was written that:
Don Young agreed to work with Democratic Members and the
staff to develop a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, Chairman
Bishop pulled the plug on promising negotiations and rushed
to markup with a half-baked mash-up of bad ideas.
This bill was a year in negotiation. Our efforts of trying to put
numerous provisions on the table and accepting additional Democratic
provisions were simply labeled as nonstarters. Every time Mr. Young
agreed to a change, another issue came up. It is a perfect example of
Lucy pulling the ball out from under Charlie Brown. Mr. Young is
Charlie Brown.
Mr. Chair, I am appreciative, though, of certain off-committee
Democrats who jumped at the opportunity to compromise. I especially
want to thank Mr. Veasey and Mr. Green for their willingness to work
across the aisle and assist with cosponsoring this particular bill.
Opponents of this bill said there is no science; that it is being
taken out of the management decisions. Science and data appear 34 times
throughout the bill. Sections 207, 208, 301, 303, and 306, all require
the Secretary to use science, which means, if Mr. Young were trying to
remove science from his bill and the process, he really did a crappy
job at it.
This bill is also coming with the old canard that we are going to
start overfishing. There is nothing in this bill that removes basic
requirements that prevent overfishing, and it is consistent with
guidelines for fishery management that were put forth in the Obama
administration.
Another dissenting point that was made says that this bill is nothing
more than a partisan measure. It is a cute idea, but something that is
simply not there. Letters from scientists, many of them--in fact, most
of them--do not conduct the type of research that underpins fisheries
management. All have said that all of these agencies, the ESA, NEPA,
and the Antiquities Act, whatever, are going to be destroyed because of
this bill.
There was one specifically from the Seafood Harvesters of America
that was brought to my attention because in that particular letter that
was dated in June of this year, the group claimed that section 12
repealed sections of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That is really cute
because there is no section 12 in this act.
Section 12 hasn't been a part of this bill since November of 2017. In
the opposition letters to this particular bill, there have always been
references to previous versions of the bill, or they failed to
recognize significant changes that were added, compromises that were
added by both Mr. Young and Mr. Graves in their manager's amendment.
The kind of rhetoric that is opposed to this particular bill that we
are seeing, in the past from NGOs, embodies what is wrong with
Washington. I hope that everyone can see these kind of glaring
inaccuracies
I am proud to support this bill. This bill does provide science. This
bill does go through the process. This bill does move us forward. This
bill does help commercial fishing and recreational fishing and the
communities that are involved there. It is a good step forward. It has
been 6 years in the coming. It has been 1 year of heavy work right now.
It needs to go forward.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking and supporting
this bill.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, while we have some differences in the two sides, I
don't believe that I have been injecting hyperpartisan rhetoric in this
debate. Our differences, as I have emphasized multiple times, are about
policy. This is not about which party we are on. In fact, it used to be
very bipartisan, that this Congress would defend science-based catch
limits and rigorous rebuilding timeframes because we all knew that
those were very, very important provisions for sustainable fisheries,
whether you were a Democrat or a Republican.
Now, if there is some group out there who has written a letter that
refers to the wrong section, or includes inflammatory rhetoric because
they feel like they were kept out of the loop as this bill developed,
maybe that is an indication that they were kept out of the loop as this
bill developed. And maybe that should have been considered along with
the pile of letters that have come into my office and into other
offices expressing fierce opposition to some of these irresponsible
changes being proposed in this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization.
Rather than disparage the stakeholders who are opposing this bill, I
think we should listen to them.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a list of
supporters of this legislation.
[[Page H6076]]
Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Coalition (115th-H.R. 200)
Letters of Support
Organization
State of Florida; State of Mississippi; AFTCO Manufacturing
Co., Inc; Banks, Inc.; Alliance Sports Group; Bass Pro Shops;
American Fishing Wire/Hi-Seas; Beach Marine Products;
American Tackle Company; Big Rock Sports, LLC; Anglers
Journal TV; Billfish Inc.; Anglers Resource, LLC; Bluefin
USA; B.A.S.S., LLC; Bob Sands Fishing Tackle; Bonnier
Corporation; Brunswick Boat Group; Classic Fishing Products,
Inc.; Bullet Weights, Inc.
Compass 360; Cabin Creek Bait Company; Composites One;
Calderone & Associates; Crappie USA, Inc.; Capt. Harry's
Fishing Supply; Crook & Crook, Inc.; Careco Multimedia
Entertainment LLC; Dave's Bait, Tackle & Taxidermy; Catalyst
Marketing Services; DL Ventures, LLC; CB's Saltwater
Outfitters; Do-It Corporation; Chris Craft; Marine Division--
Americas Dometic Corporation; Don
Coffey Company; FLW, LLC; Eposeidon Outdoor Adventures, Inc.;
Forest River Inc.; Etic USA; Formula Boats.
F.J. Neil Company, Inc.; G-Rods International; Faria/Beede
Instruments; G5 Products LLC; FISH307, LLC; GEM Products,
Inc.; Fishidy, Inc.; Grady-White Boats; Fishunt Essentials,
LLC; Hook & Gaff Watch Company; Fluid Motion LLC; Hook &
Tackle Outfitters; iAngler Tournament Systems, LLC; Magic
Tilt Trailers, Inc.; IMTRA Corporation; Malin Company; INDMAR
Products; Marble, LLC; Jay's Sporting Goods; Marine
Accessories Corporation; Jones & Company.
Maui Jim Sunglasses; Kureha America, LLC/Seaguar; Maverick
Boat Group; L & S Bait Company; Maxima USA; Lew's Fishing
Tackle; MCBC Holding Inc.; Lucas Oil Products Inc.; Mercury
Marine; Millers Boating Center, Inc.; Pitman Creek Wholesale;
Mud Hole Custom Tackle; PRADCO-Fishing; NauticStar Boats;
Pro-Troll Fishing Products; Northland Fishing Tackle, LLC;
ProNav Marine; On The Water Media Group; Rapala; Outdoor Pro
Shop, Inc.; Realtree Active.
Outdoor.media; Red Drum Tackle Shop, Inc.; OutdoorFlics
Digital Studios + Media Lab; Robalo Boats; Pacific Catch;
Rockfish Sports; Rod-N-Bobb's, Inc.; Southeastern Fishing
Tackle Liquidators; Rogers Sports Marketing; Southwick
Associates, Inc.; Rome Specality Company, Inc.; Sport
Outdoors TV; Rudow's FishTalk Magazine; Sportco Marketing,
Inc.; Seasonal Marketing, Inc.; Sportsman Boats
Manufacturing, Inc.; SeaStar Solutions; Springfield Marine;
Shimano North American Holding, Inc; St. Croix Rods.
Skeeter Boats; Stealth Products, LLC; Smoker Craft, Inc.;
SteelShad Fishing Company; Strike King Lure Company; Throw
Raft LLC; Syntec Industries LLC; Tim Bailey & Associates; T-H
Marine Supplies, Inc.; Tom Posey Company; Tackle Warehouse;
Top Brass Tackle; Temple Fork Outfitters; Trik Fish LLC; The
Fisherman Magazine; TTI-Blackmore Fishing Group; The Hammond
Group; Uncle Josh Bait Company; Thomas F. Gowen & Sons; Vapor
Apparel.
Thomas Spinning Lures, Inc.; Vectorply Corporation; Water
Gremlin Company; ZEBCO Brands; Water Sports Industry
Association; Zee Bait Co.; What The Fin Apparel & Purple Tuna
Tees Inc.; White River Marine Group; Wholesale Buying Group;
Wright & McGill Co.; Yakima Bait Company; Yamaha Marine
Group; Z-Man Fishing Products, Inc.; American Scallop
Association; Atlantic Red Crab Company; Atlantic Capes
Fisheries; BASE Seafood; California Wetfish Producers
Association; Cape Seafood.
Garden State Seafood Association; Inlet Seafood; Long
Island Commercial Fishing Association; Lunds Fisheries, Inc.;
North Carolina Fishers Association; Rhode Island Commercial
Fishermen's Alliance; Seafreeze Ltd.; Town Dock; West Coast
Seafood Processors Association; Western Fishboat Owners
Association; Freezer Longline Coalition; Florida Keys
Commercial Fishing Association; Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance;
Southeastern Fisheries Association.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, we have some very critical differences of opinion on
whether this bill is a good idea after years of success in rebuilding
depleted fish stocks, after all of the economic value that we have
created by allowing commercial and recreational fishing to resume in
places all over this country, where at one time it was shut down
because we failed to properly manage our fisheries.
We think, fundamentally, it is a bad idea at this point to declare
mission accomplished and start rolling back the very bedrock provisions
that have enabled us to achieve this success. It is with that in mind
that I request Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I
have no more speakers, and I am going to close by saying this is good
legislation. We may have differences of opinion. It should be done. I
am quite proud of the original act. I am proud of this act, too.
Because I believe in the fisheries, not only commercial, and
recreational, but sustainable; sustainable for the communities, the
fish, and everybody in America.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 200
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 ``Strengthening Fishing
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
Management Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. References.
TITLE I--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS AMENDMENTS AND
REAUTHORIZATION
Sec. 101. Amendments to findings.
Sec. 102. Amendments to definitions.
Sec. 103. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FLEXIBILITY AND MODERNIZATION
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Process for allocation review for South Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico mixed-use fisheries.
Sec. 203. Alternative fishery management measures.
Sec. 204. Modifications to the annual catch limit requirement.
Sec. 205. Limitation on future catch share programs.
Sec. 206. Study of limited access privilege programs for mixed-use
fisheries.
Sec. 207. Cooperative data collection.
Sec. 208. Recreational fishing data.
Sec. 209. Miscellaneous amendments relating to fishery management
councils.
TITLE III--HEALTHY FISHERIES THROUGH BETTER SCIENCE
Sec. 301. Healthy fisheries through better science.
Sec. 302. Transparency and public process.
Sec. 303. Flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks.
Sec. 304. Exempted fishing permits.
Sec. 305. Cooperative research and management program.
Sec. 306. Gulf of Mexico fisheries cooperative research and red snapper
management.
Sec. 307. Ensuring consistent management for fisheries throughout their
range.
TITLE IV-- STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES
Sec. 401. Estimation of cost of recovery from fishery resource
disaster.
Sec. 402. Deadline for action on request by Governor for determination
regarding fishery resource disaster.
Sec. 403. North Pacific Fishery management clarification.
Sec. 404. Limitation on harvest in North Pacific directed pollock
fishery.
Sec. 405. Arctic community development quota.
Sec. 406. Reallocation of certain unused harvest allocation.
Sec. 407. Prohibition on shark feeding off coast of Florida.
Sec. 408. Restoration of historically freshwater environment.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, any term used that is defined in section 3 of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1802) shall have the same meaning such term has
under that section.
SEC. 4. REFERENCES.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a provision, the reference shall
be considered to be made to a provision of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.).
TITLE I--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS AMENDMENTS AND
REAUTHORIZATION
SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO FINDINGS.
Section 2(a) (16 U.S.C. 1801) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``cultural well-being,''
after ``economy,''; and
(2) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``and traditional ways
of life'' after ``economic growth''.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``management program'';
(2) in paragraph (34), by striking ``The terms
`overfishing' and `overfished' mean'' and inserting ``The
term `overfishing' means''; and
[[Page H6077]]
(3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(8a) The term `depleted' means, with respect to a stock
of fish or stock complex, that the stock or stock complex has
a biomass that has declined below a level that jeopardizes
the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce maximum
sustainable yield on a continuing basis.''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (43) the following:
``(43a)(A) The term `subsistence fishing' means fishing in
which the fish harvested are intended for customary and
traditional uses, including for direct personal or family
consumption as food or clothing; for the making or selling of
handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts taken for
personal or family consumption, for barter, or sharing for
personal or family consumption; and for customary exchange or
trade.
``(B) In this paragraph--
``(i) the term `family' means all persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, or any person living within the
household on a permanent basis; and
``(ii) the term `barter' means the exchange of a fish or
fish part--
``(I) for another fish or fish part; or
``(II) for other food or for nonedible items other than
money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial
nature.''.
(b) Substitution of Term.--The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in the heading of section 304(e), by striking
``Overfished'' and inserting ``Depleted''; and
(2) by striking ``overfished'' each place it appears and
inserting ``depleted''.
(c) Clarity in Annual Report.--Section 304(e)(1) (16 U.S.C.
(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
report shall distinguish between fisheries that are depleted
(or approaching that condition) as a result of fishing and
fisheries that are depleted (or approaching that condition)
as a result of factors other than fishing. The report shall
state, for each fishery identified as depleted or approaching
that condition, whether the fishery is the target of directed
fishing.''.
SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1803) is amended--
(1) by striking ``this Act'' and all that follows through
``(7)'' and inserting ``this Act''; and
(2) by striking ``fiscal year 2013'' and inserting ``each
of fiscal years 2018 through 2022''.
TITLE II--FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FLEXIBILITY AND MODERNIZATION
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of implementing this title:
(1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Limited access privilege program.--The term ``limited
access privilege program'' means a program that meets the
requirements of section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a).
(3) Mixed-use fishery.--The term ``mixed-used fishery''
means a Federal fishery in which two or more of the following
occur:
(A) Recreational fishing.
(B) Charter fishing.
(C) Commercial fishing.
SEC. 202. PROCESS FOR ALLOCATION REVIEW FOR SOUTH ATLANTIC
AND GULF OF MEXICO MIXED-USE FISHERIES.
(a) Study of Allocations in Mixed-use Fisheries.--Not later
than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Commerce shall seek to enter into an arrangement
with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of
South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico mixed-use fisheries--
(1) to provide guidance to each applicable Council on
criteria that could be used for allocating fishing
privileges, including consideration of the conservation and
socioeconomic benefits of the commercial, recreational, and
charter components of a fishery, in the preparation of a
fishery management plan;
(2) to identify sources of information that could
reasonably support the use of such criteria in allocation
decisions;
(3) to develop procedures for allocation reviews and
potential adjustments in allocations; and
(4) that shall consider the ecological, economic and social
factors relevant to each component of the mixed-use fishery
including but not limited to: fairness and equitability of
all current allocations; percent utilization of available
allocations by each component; consumer and public access to
the resource; and the application of economic models for
fully estimating the direct and indirect value-added
contributions of the various commercial and recreational
fishing industry market sectors throughout chain of custody.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date an
arrangement is entered into under subsection (a), the
National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report on the study conducted under
that subsection.
(c) Process for Allocation Review and Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, an
applicable Council shall perform a review of the allocations
to the commercial fishing sector and the recreational fishing
sector of all applicable fisheries in its jurisdiction.
(2) Considerations.--In conducting a review under paragraph
(1), an applicable Council shall consider, in each allocation
decision, the conservation and socioeconomic benefits of--
(A) the commercial fishing sector; and
(B) the recreational fishing sector.
(d) Definition of Applicable Council.--In this section, the
term ``applicable Council'' means--
(1) the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; or
(2) the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
SEC. 203. ALTERNATIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT MEASURES.
Section 302(h) (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)(C), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (7), the following:
``(8) have the authority to use alternative fishery
management measures in a recreational fishery (or the
recreational component of a mixed-use fishery), including
extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, and harvest
control rules, in developing a fishery management plan, plan
amendment, or proposed regulations; and''.
SEC. 204. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT
REQUIREMENT.
(a) Regional Fishery Management Councils.--Section 302 (16
U.S.C. 1852) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Considerations for Modifications to Annual Catch
Limit Requirements.--
``(1) Annual catch limit requirement for certain data-poor
fisheries.--Notwithstanding subsection (h)(6), in the case of
a stock of fish for which the total annual catch limit is 25
percent or more below the overfishing limit, a peer-reviewed
stock survey and stock assessment have not been performed
during the preceding 5 fishing years, and the stock is not
subject to overfishing, a Council may, after notifying the
Secretary, maintain the current annual catch limit for the
stock until a peer-reviewed stock survey and stock assessment
are conducted and the results are considered by the Council
and its scientific and statistical committee.
``(2) Consideration of ecosystem and economic impacts.--In
establishing annual catch limits a Council may, consistent
with subsection (h)(6), consider changes in an ecosystem and
the economic needs of the fishing communities.
``(3) Limitations to annual catch limit requirement for
special fisheries.--Notwithstanding subsection (h)(6), a
Council is not required to develop an annual catch limit
for--
``(A) an ecosystem-component species;
``(B) a fishery for a species that has a life cycle of
approximately 1 year, unless the Secretary has determined the
fishery is subject to overfishing; or
``(C) a stock for which--
``(i) more than half of a single-year class will complete
their life cycle in less than 18 months; and
``(ii) fishing mortality will have little impact on the
stock.
``(4) Relationship to international fishery efforts.--
``(A) In general.--Each annual catch limit, consistent with
subsection (h)(6)--
``(i) may take into account management measures under
international agreements in which the United States
participates; and
``(ii) in the case of an annual catch limit developed by a
Council for a species, shall take into account fishing for
the species outside the exclusive economic zone and the life-
history characteristics of the species that are not subject
to the jurisdiction of the Council.
``(B) Exception to annual catch limit requirement.--If
fishery management activities by another country with respect
to fishing outside the exclusive economic zone may hinder
conservation efforts by United States fishermen for a fish
species for which any of the recruitment, distribution, life
history, or fishing activities are transboundary, and for
which there is no informal transboundary agreement with that
country in effect, then--
``(i) notwithstanding subsection (h)(6), no annual catch
limit is required to be developed for the species by a
Council; and
``(ii) if an annual catch limit is developed by a Council
for the species, the catch limit shall take into account
fishing for the species outside the exclusive economic zone
that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Council.
``(5) Authorization for multispecies complexes and
multiyear annual catch limits.--For purposes of subsection
(h)(6), a Council may establish--
``(A) an annual catch limit for a stock complex;
or`including'
``(B) annual catch limits for each year in any continuous
period that is not more than three years in duration.
``(6) Ecosystem-component species defined.--In this
subsection the term `ecosystem-component species' means a
stock of fish that is a nontarget, incidentally harvested
stock of fish in a fishery, or a nontarget, incidentally
harvested stock of fish that a Council or the Secretary has
determined--
``(A) is not subject to overfishing, approaching a depleted
condition or depleted; and
``(B) is not likely to become subject to overfishing or
depleted in the absence of conservation and management
measures.
``(7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed as providing an exemption from the
requirements of section 301(a) of this Act.''.
(b) Action by the Secretary.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1854)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``(i) International Overfishing.--'' and
inserting ``(j) International Overfishing.--'';
(2) in subsection (j)(1), as redesignated, by inserting
``shall'' before ``immediately''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H6078]]
``(k) Stock Surveys and Assessments.--Not later than 2
years after the date that the Secretary receives notice from
a Council under section 302(m), the Secretary shall complete
a peer-reviewed stock survey and stock assessment of the
applicable stock of fish and transmit the results of the
survey and assessment to the Council.''.
SEC. 205. LIMITATION ON FUTURE CATCH SHARE PROGRAMS.
(a) Catch Share Defined.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is
amended by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(2a) The term `catch share' means any fishery management
program that allocates a specific percentage of the total
allowable catch for a fishery, or a specific fishing area, to
an individual, cooperative, community, processor,
representative of a commercial sector, or regional fishery
association established in accordance with section
303A(c)(4), or other entity.''.
(b) Catch Share Referendum Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 303A(c)(6)(D) (16 U.S.C.
1853a(c)(6)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Catch share referendum pilot program.--
``(i) The New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and
Gulf of Mexico Councils may not submit a fishery management
plan or amendment that creates a catch share program for a
fishery, and the Secretary may not approve or implement such
a plan or amendment submitted by such a Council or a
Secretarial plan or amendment under section 304(c) that
creates such a program, unless the final program has been
approved, in a referendum in accordance with this
subparagraph, by a majority of the permit holders eligible to
participate in the fishery. For multispecies permits in the
Gulf of Mexico, any permit holder with landings from within
the sector of the fishery being considered for the catch
share program within the 5-year period preceding the date of
the referendum and still active in fishing in the fishery
shall be eligible to participate in such a referendum. If a
catch share program is not approved by the requisite number
of permit holders, it may be revised and submitted for
approval in a subsequent referendum.
``(ii) The Secretary may, at the request of the New England
Fishery Management Council, allow participation in such a
referendum for a fishery under the Council's authority, by
fishing vessel crewmembers who derive a significant portion
of their livelihood from such fishing.
``(iii) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum under this
subparagraph, including notifying all permit holders eligible
to participate in the referendum and making available to
them--
``(I) a copy of the proposed program;
``(II) an estimate of the costs of the program, including
costs to participants;
``(III) an estimate of the amount of fish or percentage of
quota each permit holder would be allocated; and
``(IV) information concerning the schedule, procedures, and
eligibility requirements for the referendum process.
``(iv) For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term
`permit holder eligible to participate' only includes the
holder of a permit for a fishery under which fishing has
occurred in 3 of the 5 years preceding a referendum for the
fishery, unless sickness, injury, or other unavoidable
hardship prevented the permit holder from engaging in such
fishing.
``(v) The Secretary may not implement any catch share
program for any fishery managed exclusively by the Secretary
unless first petitioned by a majority of those permit holders
eligible to participate in the fishery.''.
(2) Limitation on application.--The amendment made by
paragraph (1) shall not apply to a catch share program that
is submitted to, or proposed by, the Secretary of Commerce
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Regulations.--Before conducting a referendum under the
amendment made by paragraph (1), the Secretary of Commerce
shall issue regulations implementing such amendment after
providing an opportunity for submission by the public of
comments on the regulations.
SEC. 206. STUDY OF LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAMS FOR
MIXED-USE FISHERIES.
(a) Study on Limited Access Privilege Programs.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Commerce shall seek to enter into an arrangement
under which the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall--
(1) study the use of limited access privilege programs in
mixed-use fisheries, including--
(A) identifying any inequities caused by a limited access
privilege program;
(B) recommending policies to address the inequities
identified in subparagraph (A); and
(C) identifying and recommending the different factors and
information a mixed-use fishery should consider when
designing, establishing, or maintaining a limited access
privilege program to mitigate any inequities identified in
subparagraph (A); and
(2) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report on the study under paragraph (1), including the
recommendations under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph
(1).
(b) Temporary Moratorium.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), there
shall be a moratorium on the submission and approval of a
limited access privilege program for a mixed-used fishery
until the date that the report is submitted under subsection
(a)(1)(B).
(2) Exception.--Subject to paragraph (3), a Council may
submit, and the Secretary of Commerce may approve, for a
mixed- use fishery that is managed under a limited access
system, a limited access privilege program if such program
was part of a pending fishery management plan or plan
amendment before the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Mandatory review.--A Council that approves a limited
access privilege program under paragraph (2) shall, upon
issuance of the report required under subparagraph (a),
review and, to the extent practicable, revise the limited
access privilege program to be consistent with the
recommendations of the report or any subsequent statutory or
regulatory requirements designed to implement the
recommendations of the report.
(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to affect a limited access privilege program
approved by the Secretary of Commerce before the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 207. COOPERATIVE DATA COLLECTION.
(a) Improving Data Collection and Analysis.--Section 404
(16 U.S.C. 1881c) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Improving Data Collection and Analysis.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop, in
consultation with the science and statistical committees of
the Councils established under section 302(g) and the Marine
Fisheries Commissions, and submit to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives a report on facilitating greater
incorporation of data, analysis, stock assessments, and
surveys from State agencies and nongovernmental sources
described in paragraph (2) into fisheries management
decisions.
``(2) Nongovernmental sources.--Nongovernmental sources
referred to in paragraph (1) include the following:
``(A) Fishermen.
``(B) Fishing communities.
``(C) Universities.
``(D) Research and philanthropic institutions.
``(3) Content.--In developing the report under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) identify types of data and analysis, especially
concerning recreational fishing, that can be reliably used
for purposes of this Act as the basis for establishing
conservation and management measures as required by section
303(a)(1), including setting standards for the collection and
use of that data and analysis in stock assessments and
surveys and for other purposes as determined by the
Secretary;
``(B) provide specific recommendations for collecting data
and performing analyses identified as necessary to reduce
uncertainty in and improve the accuracy of future stock
assessments, including whether such data and analysis could
be provided by nongovernmental sources, including fishermen,
fishing communities, universities, and research institutions;
``(C) consider the extent to which it is possible to
establish a registry of persons collecting or submitting the
data and performing the analyses identified under
subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
``(D) consider the extent to which the acceptance and use
of data and analyses identified in the report in fishery
management decisions is practicable.''.
(b) Deadline.--The Secretary of Commerce shall develop and
publish guidelines under the amendment made by paragraph (a)
by not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(c) NAS Report Recommendations.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall take into consideration and, to the extent feasible,
implement the recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences in the report entitled ``Review of the Marine
Recreational Information Program (2017)'', including--
(1) prioritizing the evaluation of electronic data
collection, including smartphone applications, electronic
diaries for prospective data collection, and an Internet
website option for panel members or for the public;
(2) evaluating whether the design of the Marine
Recreational Information Program for the purposes of stock
assessment and the determination of stock management
reference points is compatible with the needs of in-season
management of annual catch limits; and
(3) if the Marine Recreational Information Program is
incompatible with the needs of in-season management of annual
catch limits, determining an alternative method for in-season
management.
SEC. 208. RECREATIONAL FISHING DATA.
Section 401(g) (16 U.S.C. 1881(g)) is amended by
redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and by
inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Federal-state partnerships.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
partnerships with States to develop best practices for
implementation of State programs established pursuant to
paragraph (2).
``(B) Guidance.--The Secretary shall develop guidance, in
cooperation with the States, that details best practices for
administering State programs pursuant to paragraph (2), and
provide such guidance to the State.''.
SEC. 209. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FISHERY
MANAGEMENT COUNCILS.
(a) Council Jurisdiction for Overlapping Fisheries.--
Section 302(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), in the second sentence--
(A) by striking ``18'' and inserting ``19''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end ``and a
liaison who is a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council to represent the interests of fisheries
under the jurisdiction of such Council''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), in the second sentence--
[[Page H6079]]
(A) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``22''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end ``and a
liaison who is a member of the New England Fishery Management
Council to represent the interests of fisheries under the
jurisdiction of such Council''.
(b) Council Seat.--Section 302(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(2))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or recreational''
and inserting ``, recreational, or subsistence fishing''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C), in the second sentence, by
inserting ``, and in the case of the Governor of Alaska with
the subsistence fishing interests of the State,'' after
``interests of the State''.
(c) Purpose.--Section 2(b)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(3)) is
amended by striking ``and recreational'' and inserting ``,
recreational, and subsistence''.
(d) Prohibition on Considering Red Snapper Killed During
Removal of Oil Rigs.--Any red snapper that are killed during
the removal of any offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico
shall not be considered in determining under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.) whether the total allowable catch for red
snapper has been reached.
(e) Prohibition on Considering Fish Seized From Foreign
Fishing.--Any fish that are seized from a foreign vessel
engaged in illegal fishing activities in the exclusive
economic zone shall not be considered in determining under
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) the total allowable catch for that
fishery.
TITLE III--HEALTHY FISHERIES THROUGH BETTER SCIENCE
SEC. 301. HEALTHY FISHERIES THROUGH BETTER SCIENCE.
(a) Definition of Stock Assessment.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C.
1802), as amended by section 102(a) of this Act, is further
amended by redesignating the paragraphs after paragraph (42)
in order as paragraphs (44) through (53), and by inserting
after paragraph (42) the following:
``(43) The term `stock assessment' means an evaluation of
the past, present, and future status of a stock of fish, that
includes--
``(A) a range of life history characteristics for such
stock, including--
``(i) the geographical boundaries of such stock; and
``(ii) information on age, growth, natural mortality,
sexual maturity and reproduction, feeding habits, and habitat
preferences of such stock; and
``(B) fishing for the stock.''.
(b) Stock Assessment Plan.--
(1) In general.--Section 404 (16 U.S.C. 1881c), as amended
by section 207(a) of this Act, is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(f) Stock Assessment Plan.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and publish
in the Federal Register, on the same schedule as required for
the strategic plan required under subsection (b) of this
section, a plan to conduct stock assessments for all stocks
of fish for which a fishery management plan is in effect
under this Act.
``(2) Contents.--The plan shall--
``(A) for each stock of fish for which a stock assessment
has previously been conducted--
``(i) establish a schedule for updating the stock
assessment that is reasonable given the biology and
characteristics of the stock; and
``(ii) subject to the availability of appropriations,
require completion of a new stock assessment, or an update of
the most recent stock assessment--
``(I) every 5 years; or
``(II) within such other time period specified and
justified by the Secretary in the plan;
``(B) for each stock of fish for which a stock assessment
has not previously been conducted--
``(i) establish a schedule for conducting an initial stock
assessment that is reasonable given the biology and
characteristics of the stock; and
``(ii) subject to the availability of appropriations,
require completion of the initial stock assessment within 3
years after the plan is published in the Federal Register
unless another time period is specified and justified by the
Secretary in the plan; and
``(C) identify data and analysis, especially concerning
recreational fishing, that, if available, would reduce
uncertainty in and improve the accuracy of future stock
assessments, including whether such data and analysis could
be provided by fishermen, fishing communities, universities,
and research institutions, to the extent that use of such
data would be consistent with the requirements in section
301(a)(2) to base conservation and management measures on the
best scientific information available.
``(3) Waiver of stock assessment requirement.--
Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(ii), a stock
assessment is not required for a stock of fish in the plan if
the Secretary determines that such a stock assessment is not
necessary and justifies such determination in the Federal
Register notice required by this subsection.''.
(2) Deadline.--Notwithstanding section 404(f)(1) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as
amended by this section, the Secretary of Commerce shall
issue the first stock assessment plan under such section by
not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 302. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PROCESS.
(a) Advice.--Section 302(g)(1)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(B))
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Each
scientific and statistical committee shall develop such
advice in a transparent manner and allow for public
involvement in the process.''.
(b) Meetings.--Section 302(i)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1852(i)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(G) Each Council shall make available on the Internet Web
site of the Council--
``(i) to the extent practicable, a Webcast, an audio
recording, or a live broadcast of each meeting of the
Council, and of the Council Coordination Committee
established under subsection (l), that is not closed in
accordance with paragraph (3); and
``(ii) audio, video (if the meeting was in person or by
video conference), or a searchable audio or written
transcript of each meeting of the Council and of the meetings
of committees referred to in section (g)(1)(B) of the Council
by not later than 30 days after the conclusion of the
meeting.
``(H) The Secretary shall maintain and make available to
the public an archive of Council and scientific and
statistical committee meeting audios, videos, and transcripts
made available under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph
(G).''.
(c) Fishery Impact Statements.--
(1) Requirement.--Section 303 (16 U.S.C. 1853) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (9) and
redesignating paragraphs (10) through (15) as paragraphs (9)
through (14), respectively; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Fishery Impact Statement.--
``(1) Any fishery management plan (or fishery management
plan amendment) prepared by any Council or by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), or proposed regulations
deemed necessary pursuant to subsection (c), shall include a
fishery impact statement which shall assess, specify and
analyze the likely effects and impact of the proposed action
on the quality of the human environment.
``(2) The fishery impact statement shall describe--
``(A) a purpose of the proposed action;
``(B) the environmental impact of the proposed action;
``(C) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposed action be implemented;
``(D) a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
action;
``(E) the relationship between short-term use of fishery
resources and the enhancement of long-term productivity;
``(F) the cumulative conservation and management effects;
and
``(G) economic, and social impacts of the proposed action
on--
``(i) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities
affected by the proposed action;
``(ii) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent
areas under the authority of another Council, after
consultation with such Council and representatives of those
participants; and
``(iii) the safety of human life at sea, including whether
and to what extent such measures may affect the safety of
participants in the fishery.
``(3) A substantially complete fishery impact statement,
which may be in draft form, shall be available not less than
14 days before the beginning of the meeting at which a
Council makes its final decision on the proposal (for plans,
plan amendments, or proposed regulations prepared by a
Council pursuant to subsection (a) or (c)). Availability of
this fishery impact statement will be announced by the
methods used by the Council to disseminate public information
and the public and relevant government agencies will be
invited to comment on the fishery impact statement.
``(4) The completed fishery impact statement shall
accompany the transmittal of a fishery management plan or
plan amendment as specified in section 304(a), as well as the
transmittal of proposed regulations as specified in section
(b).
``(5) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the
Secretary, establish criteria to determine actions or classes
of action of minor significance regarding subparagraphs (A),
(B), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2), for which
preparation of a fishery impact statement is unnecessary and
categorically excluded from the requirements of this section,
and the documentation required to establish the exclusion.
``(6) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the
Secretary, prepare procedures for compliance with this
section that provide for timely, clear, and concise analysis
that is useful to decisionmakers and the public, reduce
extraneous paperwork and effectively involve the public,
including--
``(A) using Council meetings to determine the scope of
issues to be addressed and identifying significant issues
related to the proposed action;
``(B) integration of the fishery impact statement
development process with preliminary and final Council
decision making in a manner that provides opportunity for
comment from the public and relevant government agencies
prior to these decision points; and
``(C) providing scientific, technical, and legal advice at
an early stage of the development of the fishery impact
statement to ensure timely transmittal and Secretarial review
of the proposed fishery management plan, plan amendment, or
regulations to the Secretary.''.
(2) Evaluation of adequacy.--Section 304(a)(2) (16 U.S.C.
1854(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end of subparagraph (B), striking the period
at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and'', and
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) evaluate the adequacy of the accompanying fishery
impact statement as basis for fully considering the
environmental impacts of implementing the fishery management
plan or plan amendment.''.
(3) Review of regulations.--Section 304(b) (16 U.S.C.
1854(b)) is amended by striking so much as precedes
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Review of Regulations.--
[[Page H6080]]
``(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of
proposed regulations prepared under section 303(c), the
Secretary shall immediately initiate an evaluation of the
proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent
with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, this Act
and other applicable law. The Secretary shall also
immediately initiate an evaluation of the accompanying
fishery impact statement as a basis for fully considering the
environmental impacts of implementing the proposed
regulations. Within 15 days of initiating such evaluation the
Secretary shall make a determination and--''.
(4) Effect on time requirements.--Section 305(e) (16 U.S.C.
1855(e)) is amended by inserting ``the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),'' after ``the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),''.
SEC. 303. FLEXIBILITY IN REBUILDING FISH STOCKS.
(a) General Requirements.--Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C.
1854(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``possible'' and
inserting ``practicable'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (A)(ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) may not exceed the time the stock would be rebuilt
without fishing occurring plus one mean generation, except in
a case in which--
``(I) the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental
conditions, or management measures under an international
agreement in which the United States participates dictate
otherwise;
``(II) the Secretary determines that the cause of the stock
being depleted is outside the jurisdiction of the Council or
the rebuilding program cannot be effective only by limiting
fishing activities;
``(III) the Secretary determines that one or more
components of a mixed- stock fishery is depleted but cannot
be rebuilt within that time- frame without significant
economic harm to the fishery, or cannot be rebuilt without
causing another component of the mixed- stock fishery to
approach a depleted status;
``(IV) the Secretary determines that recruitment,
distribution, or life history of, or fishing activities for,
the stock are affected by informal transboundary agreements
under which management activities outside the exclusive
economic zone by another country may hinder conservation and
management efforts by United States fishermen; and
``(V) the Secretary determines that the stock has been
affected by unusual events that make rebuilding within the
specified time period improbable without significant economic
harm to fishing communities;'';
(C) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (B), by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C)
as subparagraphs (C) and (D), and by inserting after
subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) take into account environmental condition including
predator/prey relationships;''; and
(D) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
(as so redesignated) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding
at the end the following:
``(E) specify a schedule for reviewing the rebuilding
targets, evaluating environmental impacts on rebuilding
progress, and evaluating progress being made toward reaching
rebuilding targets.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) A fishery management plan, plan amendment, or
proposed regulations may use alternative rebuilding
strategies, including harvest control rules and fishing
mortality-rate targets to the extent they are in compliance
with the requirements of this Act.
``(9) A Council may terminate the application of paragraph
(3) to a fishery if the Council's scientific and statistical
committee determines and the Secretary concurs that the
original determination that the fishery was depleted was
erroneous, either--
``(A) within the 2-year period beginning on the effective
date a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed
regulation for a fishery under this subsection takes effect;
or
``(B) within 90 days after the completion of the next stock
assessment after such determination.''.
(b) Emergency Regulations and Interim Measures.--Section
305(c)(3)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1855(c)(3)(B)) is amended by striking
``180 days after'' and all that follows through ``provided''
and inserting ``1 year after the date of publication, and may
be extended by publication in the Federal Register for one
additional period of not more than 1 year, if''.
SEC. 304. EXEMPTED FISHING PERMITS.
(a) In General.--Before the approval and issuance of an
exempted fishing permit under section 600.745 of title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, the
Secretary of Commerce shall--
(1) direct a joint peer review of the application for the
exempted fishing permit by the appropriate regional fisheries
science center and State marine fisheries commission; and
(2) certify that the Council or Federal agency with
jurisdiction over the affected fishery has determined that--
(A) the fishing activity to be conducted under the proposed
exempted fishing permit would not negatively impact any
management measures or conservation objectives included
within existing fishery management plans or plan amendments;
(B) the social and economic impacts in both dollar amounts
and loss of fishing opportunities on all participants in each
sector of the fishery expected to occur as a result of the
proposed exempted fishing permit would be minimal;
(C) the information that would be collected through the
fishing activity to be conducted under the proposed exempted
fishing permit will have a positive and direct impact on the
conservation, assessment, or management of the fishery; and
(D) the Governor of each coastal State potentially impacted
by the proposed exempted fishing permit, as determined by the
Secretary, has been consulted on the fishing activity to be
conducted.
(b) Clarification.--The Secretary may not issue an exempted
fishing permit under section 600.745 of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation that--
(1) establishes a limited access system as defined in
section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802);
(2) is consistent with section 303A of such Act (16 U.S.C.
1853a); or
(3) establishes a catch share program as defined in section
206(a) of this Act.
(c) Savings Provision.--Except for subsection (b)(2),
nothing in this section may be construed to affect an
exempted fishing permit approved under section 600.745 of
title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 305. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 318 (16 U.S.C. 1867) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(1)'' before the
first sentence, and by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Within one year after the date of enactment of the
Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility
in Fisheries Management Act, and after consultation with the
Councils, the Secretary shall publish a plan for implementing
and conducting the program established in paragraph (1). Such
plan shall identify and describe critical regional fishery
management and research needs, possible projects that may
address those needs, and estimated costs for such projects.
The plan shall be revised and updated every 5 years, and
updated plans shall include a brief description of projects
that were funded in the prior 5-year period and the research
and management needs that were addressed by those
projects.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Funding'' and inserting
``Priorities''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``including'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``including--
``(A) the use of fishing vessels or acoustic or other
marine technology;
``(B) expanding the use of electronic catch reporting
programs and technology; and
``(C) improving monitoring and observer coverage through
the expanded use of electronic monitoring devices.''.
SEC. 306. GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND
RED SNAPPER MANAGEMENT.
(a) Federal Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Management.--Section
407 (16 U.S.C. 1883) is amended by striking all after the
section heading and inserting the following:
``(a) Certification of State Surveys.--
``(1) Inclusion of certified state surveys.--In
establishing the acceptable biological catch and total
allowable catch for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Secretary shall include--
``(A) Gulf State recreational fisheries surveys that are
certified under subsection (b); and
``(B) data related to red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico
collected by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission,
nongovernmental organizations, and other nongovernmental
sources, including universities and research institutions.
``(b) State Surveys.--
``(1) Submission.--A Gulf State that conducts a
recreational fisheries survey in the Gulf of Mexico to make
catch estimates for red snapper landed in such State may
submit such survey to the Secretary for certification.
``(2) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a certification
or a denial of certification for any survey submitted under
paragraph (1) not later than the end of the 6-month period
beginning on the date the survey is submitted.
``(B) Deemed certified.--A recreational fisheries survey is
deemed to be certified effective upon the expiration of such
period if the Secretary has not made a certification or
denial of certification.
``(3) Modification of surveys denied certification.--
``(A) In general.--If a survey of a Gulf State is denied
certification under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, not
later than 60 days after the date of the denial, provide the
Gulf State a proposal for modifications to the survey.
``(B) Proposal.--A proposal provided to a Gulf State for a
survey under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall be specific to the survey submitted by such
Gulf State and may not be construed to apply to any other
Gulf State;
``(ii) shall require revision to the fewest possible
provisions of the survey; and
``(iii) may not unduly burden the ability of such Gulf
State to revise the survey.
``(C) Modified survey.--
``(i) Authority to submit.--If a survey of a Gulf State was
denied certification under paragraph (2), the Gulf State may
modify the survey and submit the modified survey to the
Secretary for certification or denial of certification.
``(ii) Schedule.--The Secretary shall make a certification
or denial of certification for any modified survey not later
than the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the
modified survey is submitted.
``(iii) Deemed certified.--A modified survey is deemed to
be certified effective upon the expiration of the period
described in clause (ii) if the Secretary has not made a
certification or denial of certification.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
[[Page H6081]]
``(1) Gulf state.--The term `Gulf State' means each of the
States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida.
``(2) Red snapper.--The term `red snapper' means the
species Lutjanus campechanus.''.
(b) Stock Surveys and Stock Assessments.--The Secretary of
Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries
Service Regional Administrator of the Southeast Regional
Office, shall for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)--
(1) develop a schedule of stock surveys and stock
assessments for the Gulf of Mexico Region and the South
Atlantic Region for the 5-year period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this Act and for every 5-year period
thereafter;
(2) direct the Southeast Science Center Director to
implement such schedule; and
(3) in such development and implementation--
(A) give priority to those stocks that are commercially or
recreationally important; and
(B) ensure that each such important stock is surveyed at
least every 5 years.
(c) Use of Fisheries Information in Stock Assessments.--The
Southeast Science Center Director shall ensure that fisheries
information made available through fisheries programs funded
under Public Law 112-141 is incorporated as soon as possible
into any fisheries stock asessments conducted after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(d) State Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Mexico With
Respect to Red Snapper.--Section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Notwithstanding section 3(11), for the purposes of
managing the recreational sector of the Gulf of Mexico red
snapper fishery, the seaward boundary of a coastal State in
the Gulf of Mexico is a line 9 miles seaward from the
baseline from which the territorial sea of the United States
is measured.''.
SEC. 307. ENSURING CONSISTENT MANAGEMENT FOR FISHERIES
THROUGHOUT THEIR RANGE.
(a) In General.--The Act is amended by inserting after
section 4 the following:
``SEC. 5. ENSURING CONSISTENT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER
CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.
``(a) National Marine Sanctuaries Act and Antiquities Act
of.--In any case of a conflict between this Act and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) or
the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. 320301 et seq.), this
Act shall control.
``(b) Fisheries Restrictions Under Endangered Species Act
of.--To ensure transparency and consistent management of
fisheries throughout their range, any restriction on the
management of fish in the exclusive economic zone that is
necessary to implement a recovery plan under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be
implemented--
``(1) using authority under this Act; and
``(2) in accordance with processes and time schedules
required under this Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first
section is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 3 the following:
``Sec. 4. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 5. Ensuring consistent fisheries management under certain other
Federal laws.''.
TITLE IV-- STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES
SEC. 401. ESTIMATION OF COST OF RECOVERY FROM FISHERY
RESOURCE DISASTER.
Section 312(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
(2) by redesignating existing subparagraphs (A) through (C)
as clauses (i) through (iii), respectively, of subparagraph
(A) (as designated by the amendment made by paragraph (1));
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The Secretary shall publish the estimated cost of
recovery from a fishery resource disaster no later than 30
days after the Secretary makes the determination under
subparagraph (A) with respect to such disaster.''.
SEC. 402. DEADLINE FOR ACTION ON REQUEST BY GOVERNOR FOR
DETERMINATION REGARDING FISHERY RESOURCE
DISASTER.
Section 312(a) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (3)
through (5), and by inserting after paragraph (1) the
following:
``(2) The Secretary shall make a decision regarding a
request from a Governor under paragraph (1) within 90 days
after receiving an estimate of the economic impact of the
fishery resource disaster from the entity requesting the
relief.''.
SEC. 403. NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT CLARIFICATION.
Section 306(a)(3)(C) (16 U.S.C. 1856(a)(3)(C)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``was no'' and inserting ``is no''; and
(2) by striking ``on August 1, 1996''.
SEC. 404. LIMITATION ON HARVEST IN NORTH PACIFIC DIRECTED
POLLOCK FISHERY.
Section 210(e)(1) of the American Fisheries Act (title II
of division C of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 1851 note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) Harvesting.--
``(A) Limitation.--No particular individual, corporation,
or other entity may harvest, through a fishery cooperative or
otherwise, a percentage of the pollock available to be
harvested in the directed pollock fishery that exceeds the
percentage established for purposes of this paragraph by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
``(B) Maximum percentage.--The percentage established by
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council shall not exceed
24 percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the
directed pollock fishery.''.
SEC. 405. ARCTIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA.
Section 313 (16 U.S.C. 1862) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(k) Arctic Community Development Quota.--If the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council issues a fishery
management plan for the exclusive economic zone in the Arctic
Ocean, or an amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for
Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area issued by such
Council, that makes available to commercial fishing, and
establishes a sustainable harvest level, for any part of such
zone, the Council shall set aside not less than 10 percent of
the total allowable catch therein as a community development
quota for coastal villages located north and east of the
Bering Strait.''.
SEC. 406. REALLOCATION OF CERTAIN UNUSED HARVEST ALLOCATION.
(a) Reallocation.--
(1) In general.--Effective January 1, 2018, and thereafter
annually, if the Regional Administrator receives receipt of
written notice that the allocation holder named in section
803 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law
108-199, 16 U.S.C. 1851 note), will not harvest some or all
of the Aleutian Islands directed pollock, the Regional
Administrator, as soon as practicable, shall--
(A) if the allocation as designated in section 803 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 does not exceed the
total allowable catch for the Bering Sea subarea, reallocate
the projected unused Aleutian Islands directed pollock to the
Bering Sea subarea for harvest by the allocation holder named
in section 803 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004;
or
(B) if the allocation exceeds the total allowable catch for
the Bering Sea subarea, reallocate a portion of the
allocation, up to the total allowable catch for the Bering
Sea Subarea.
(2) The allocation shall be provided to the Aleut
Corporation for the purposes of economic development in Adak,
Alaska, pursuant to the requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.).
(b) Implementation.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) the allocation holder described in subsection (a) shall
retain control of the allocation referenced in such
subsection, including such portions of the allocation that
may be reallocated pursuant to this section; and
(2) the allocations in section 206(b) of the American
Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 1851 note) apply to the Bering Sea
portion of the directed pollock fishery and not to the
allocation holder under section 803 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004.
(c) Consent Requirement.--The Aleut Corporation will
provide written consent for other vessels to take or process
the allocation, a physical copy of which must be present on
the vessel.
(d) Revision of Regulations and Management Plans.--
(1) In general.--The North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, shall modify all applicable regulations and
management plans so that the allocation holder named in
section 803 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, may
harvest the reallocated Aleutian Islands directed pollock
fishery in the Bering Sea subarea as soon as practicable.
(2) Management of allocation.--The National Marine
Fisheries Service, in consultation with the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council, shall manage the Aleutian Islands
directed pollock fishery to ensure compliance with the
implementing statute and with the annual harvest
specifications.
(3) Enforcement.--Taking or processing any part of the
allocation made by section 803 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004, and reallocated under this section
without the consent required under subsection (c) shall be
considered in violation of section 307 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1857) and subject to the penalties and sanctions under
section 308 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1858), and any fish
harvested or processed under such taking or possessing shall
be subject to forfeiture.
SEC. 407. PROHIBITION ON SHARK FEEDING OFF COAST OF FLORIDA.
Section 307 (16 U.S.C. 1857) is amended--
(1) by striking ``It is unlawful--'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--It is unlawful--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Prohibition on Shark Feeding Off Coast of Florida.--
``(1) In general.--It is unlawful--
``(A) for any diver to engage in shark feeding in covered
waters; and
``(B) for any person to operate a vessel for hire for the
purpose of carrying a passenger to a site if such person knew
or should have known that the passenger intended, at that
site, to be a diver--
``(i) engaged in shark feeding in covered waters; or
``(ii) engaged in observing shark feeding in covered
waters.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Covered waters.--The term `covered waters' means
Federal waters off the coast of Florida.
``(B) Diver.--The term `diver' means a person who is wholly
or partially submerged in covered water and is equipped with
a face mask, face mask and snorkel, or underwater breathing
apparatus.
``(C) Shark feeding.--The term `shark feeding' means--
``(i) the introduction of food or any other substance into
covered water for the purpose of feeding or attracting
sharks; or
[[Page H6082]]
``(ii) presenting food or any other substance to a shark
for the purpose of feeding or attracting sharks.
``(3) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to shark
feeding conducted--
``(A) by a research institution, university, or government
agency for research purposes; or
``(B) for the purpose of harvesting sharks.''.
SEC. 408. RESTORATION OF HISTORICALLY FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT.
Section 3(10) (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting ``,
except that such term shall not include any area previously
covered by land or a fresh water environment in a State where
the average annual land loss of such State during the 20
years before the date of the enactment of the Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
Management Act exceeds 10 square miles'' after ``maturity''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
786. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 115-786.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 17, strike lines 17 through 23 (and redesignate the
subsequent quoted clauses).
Page 23, strike lines 20 through 23 and insert the
following:
(b) Publication.--The Secretary of Commerce shall make
available on the Internet Website of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration the report required under the
amendment made by subsection (a) by not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Beginning at page 31, strike line 23 and all that follows
through page 36, line 25.
Beginning at page 40, line 17, strike section 304 and
insert the following:
SEC. 304. EXEMPTED FISHING PERMITS.
(a) Objections.--If the relevant Council, the Interstate
Marine Fisheries Commission, or the fish and wildlife agency
of an affected State objects to the approval and issuance of
an exempted fishing permit under section 600.745 of title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, the
Regional Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries
Service who issued such exempted fishing permit shall respond
to such entity in writing detailing why such exempted fishing
permit was issued.
(b) 12-month Finding.--At the end of the 12-month period
beginning on the date the exempted fishing permit is issued
under section 600.745 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor regulation, the Council that
prepared the fishery management plan, or the Secretary in the
case of a fishery management plan prepared and implemented by
the Secretary, shall review the exempted fishing permit and
determine whether any unintended negative impacts have
occurred that would warrant the discontinuation of the
permit.
(c) Clarification.--The Secretary may not issue an exempted
fishing permit under section 600.745 of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation that--
(1) establishes a limited access system as defined in
section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802);
(2) is consistent with section 303A of such Act (16 U.S.C.
1853a); or
(3) establishes a catch share program as defined in section
206(a) of this Act.
(d) Savings Provision.--Except for subsection (b), nothing
in this section may be construed to affect an exempted
fishing permit approved under section 600.745 of title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, before the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Beginning at page 44, line 1, strike section 306 and insert
the following:
SEC. __. FEDERAL GULF OF MEXICO RED SNAPPER MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 407 (16 U.S.C. 1883) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 407. CERTIFICATION OF STATE SURVEYS.
``(a) Submission.--A Gulf State that conducts a marine
recreational fisheries statistical survey in the Gulf of
Mexico to make catch estimates for red snapper landed in such
State may submit such survey to the Secretary for
certification.
``(b) Certification Standards.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of the Strengthening Fishing
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
Management Act, the Secretary shall establish and provide the
Gulf States with standards for certifying State marine
recreational fisheries statistical surveys that shall--
``(1) ensure that State marine recreational fisheries
statistical surveys are appropriately pilot tested,
independently peer reviewed, and endorsed for implementation
by the reviewers;
``(2) use designs consistent with accepted survey sampling
practices; and
``(3) minimize the potential for bias and known sources of
survey error.
``(c) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make a certification
or a denial of certification for any marine recreational
fisheries statistical survey submitted under subsection (a)
not later than the end of the 6-month period beginning on the
date that the survey and information needed to evaluate the
survey under the standards established under subsection (b)
are submitted.
``(2) Timing.--In the case of a certification request from
a Gulf State, the Secretary shall begin evaluation of the
request upon receipt of all information necessary to make a
determination consistent with the standards set forth under
subsection (b).
``(3) Deemed certified.--A marine recreational fisheries
statistical survey shall be deemed to be certified effective
upon the expiration of the 6-month period described in
paragraph (1) if the Secretary has not made a certification
or denial of certification.
``(d) Modification of Surveys Denied Certification.--
``(1) In general.--If a marine recreational fisheries
statistical survey of a Gulf State is denied certification
under subsection (c), the Secretary shall, not later than 60
days after the date of the denial, provide the Gulf State a
proposal for modifications to the survey.
``(2) Proposal.--A proposal provided to a Gulf State for a
survey under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall be specific to the survey submitted by such
Gulf State and may not be construed to apply to any other
Gulf State;
``(B) shall require revision to the fewest possible
provisions of the survey; and
``(C) may not unduly burden the ability of such Gulf State
to revise the survey.
``(3) Modified survey.--
``(A) Authority to submit.--If a marine recreational
fisheries statistical survey of a Gulf State was denied
certification under subsection (c), the Gulf State may modify
the survey and submit the modified survey to the Secretary
for certification or denial of certification.
``(B) Schedule.--The Secretary shall make a certification
or denial of certification for any modified survey not later
than the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the
modified survey is submitted.
``(C) Deemed certified.--A modified survey is deemed to be
certified effective upon the expiration of the period
described in subparagraph (B) if the Secretary has not made a
certification or denial of certification.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first
section is amended by striking the item relating to section
407 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 407. Certification of State surveys.''.
Beginning at page 48, line 13, strike section 307.
Beginning at page 52, at line 8, strike section 406 and
insert the following:
SEC. __. REALLOCATION OF CERTAIN UNUSED HARVEST ALLOCATION.
(a) Reallocation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, each year upon receipt by the Secretary of Commerce
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') of written
notice from the allocation holder named in section 803 of
division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
(Public Law 108-199, 16 U.S.C. 1851 note) that such holder
will not harvest all or a part of the allocation authorized
pursuant to that Act, the Secretary shall reallocate for that
year the unused portion of such allocation to the Bering Sea
subarea of the BSAI (as defined in section 679.2 of title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations) and shall assign the reallocated
unused portion of the allocation only to eligible vessels as
described in subsection (b)(1) for harvest in the Bering Sea
subarea of the BSAI, consistent with any agreements as
described in subsection (c).
(b) Eligibility to Receive Reallocation.--
(1) In general.--Only vessels defined in subsection (a),
(b), (c), or (e) of section 208 of the American Fisheries Act
(16 U.S.C. 1851 note), or any vessels authorized to replace
such vessels, may receive a reallocation described in
subsection (a).
(2) Limitation on reallocations.--The Secretary shall not
reallocate the allocation described in subsection (a) in any
year if such reallocation exceeds the annual catch limit for
pollock in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI.
(3) Calculations.--Any amount of the reallocation described
in subsection (a) shall not be used in the calculation of
harvesting or processing excessive shares as described in
section 210(e) of the American Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 1851
note).
(4) Conditions.--In any year, the assignment, transfer, or
reallocation shall not violate the requirements of section
206(b) of the American Fisheries Act (title II of the
division C of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 1851 note).
(c) Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Each year, the allocation holder named in
section 803(a) of division B of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199, 16 U.S.C. 1851
note) may establish one or more agreements with the owners of
some or all of the eligible vessels as defined in subsection
(b)(1).
(2) Requirements.--Each agreement described in paragraph
(1)--
(A) shall specify those eligible vessels that may receive a
reallocation and the amount
[[Page H6083]]
of reallocation that such vessels may receive in accordance
with subsection (b)(2); and
(B) may contain other requirements or compensation agreed
to by the allocation holder named in section 803 of division
B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law
108-199, 16 U.S.C. 1851 note) and the owners of such eligible
vessels, provided such requirements or compensation are
otherwise consistent with the American Fisheries Act (16
U.S.C. 1851 note), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and any other
applicable law.
(d) Existing Authority.--Except for the measures required
by this section, nothing in this section shall be construed
to limit the authority of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council or the Secretary under the American
Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 1851 note), the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.), or other applicable law.
(e) Enforcement.--Taking or processing any part of the
allocation made by section 803 of division B of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199, 16
U.S.C. 1851 note), and reallocated under this section in a
manner that is not consistent with the reallocation
authorized by the Secretary shall be considered in violation
of section 307 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857) and subject to the
penalties and sanctions under section 308 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 1858), and subject to the forfeiture of any fish
harvested or processed.
(f) Clarifications.--
(1) Amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 803 of division B
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-
199, 16 U.S.C. 1851 note) is amended by striking ``during the
years 2004 through 2008''.
(2) Purpose of reallocation.--Consistent with subsection
(d) of section 803 of division B of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199, 16 U.S.C. 1851
note), the reallocation of the unused portion of the
allocation provided to the allocation holder named in
subsection (a) of such section for harvest in the Bering Sea
subarea of the BSAI is for the purposes of economic
development in Adak, Alaska pursuant to the requirements of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
Page 55, after line 4, insert the following (and
redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. __. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAM PANEL VOTING
PROCEDURES.
Section 305(i)(1)(G)(iv) (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(G)(iv)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(iv) Voting requirement.--The panel may act only by the
affirmative vote of 5 of its members.''.
Beginning at page 57, line 1, strike section 408 and insert
the following:
SEC. __. RESTORATION OF HISTORICALLY FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT.
Section 3(10) (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
(1) by inserting a comma after ``feeding''; and
(2) by inserting the following: ``except that such term--
``(A) does not include an area that--
``(i) was previously covered by land or a fresh water
environment; and
``(ii) is in a State where the average annual land loss of
such State during the 20 years before the date of the
enactment of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and
Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act exceeds 10
square miles; and
``(B) does not apply with respect to a project undertaken
by a State or local government with the purpose of
restoration or protection of an area described in
subparagraph (A).''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a series of
modifications in the underlying bill and removes specific provisions
related to the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and the Antiquities Act, at the request of my Democrat
cosponsors from Texas, Mr. Gene Green and Mr. Marc Veasey.
I introduced H.R. 200 in the early days of the 115th Congress. We
have made many changes during the committee markup on H.R. 200. We
adopted amendments authored by Ms. Bordallo from Guam, as well as from
the Senate Modern Fish Act that passed the Senate Committee on Commerce
with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.
My manager's amendment eliminated some provisions in the bill that
were most troublesome to Democrats, even though many outside
stakeholders and Members on my side of the aisle considered those to be
important components of the bill. The further spirited bipartisan
compromise and willingness to support a number of Democratic amendments
today--despite the rhetoric coming from the committee Democrats--our
actions, our markup, and our willingness to work with House Democrats
show that we have, in fact, been willing to work in a bipartisan
manner.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, during floor debate passage of
the bipartisan Sustainable Fisheries Act that amended and reauthorized
Magnuson, the gentleman from Alaska said the following:
It is crucial that the management agencies within the
Federal Government be proactive in protecting fisheries
rather than attempting to address overfished stocks after
they are in a crisis situation.
I couldn't agree more, and it is true now, more than ever. Twenty-two
years ago our fisheries were in shambles. Rampant overfishing had
decimated stocks to the point of collapse and Congress needed to make
some tough choices to ensure that there were fish left to catch in our
oceans.
We made tough choices in 1996, and we made them in 2006, putting in
place requirements to end overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks,
and setting science-based annual catch limits. And because we did that,
because we made those tough choices, the number of overfished stocks is
at an all-time low. The number of rebuilt stocks is at an all-time
high, and most stocks are trending in a positive direction that is
benefiting fishermen in coastal communities.
I cannot support legislation that would turn our backs on what has
worked so well, but H.R. 200, unfortunately, would take us in the wrong
direction, back to the bad old days of fisheries management and
taxpayer bailouts because we loosen the rules that prevent overfishing.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his many years of service in
this Chamber, and I would note that those of us who were not here in
1996 are not so-called johnny-come-latelies, but we are simply younger
than the gentleman. In fact, just about everyone in this House is
younger than the gentleman, and I say that with great respect.
{time} 1600
I have worked on fisheries issues throughout my time in this Chamber
and, before that, for 6 years in the California Assembly. In my
personal life, I have been fishing as long as I can remember. I have
even pulled in set nets on a commercial boat in Cook Inlet in the
gentleman's district. So my years of interest in these issues is
largely why I am so disappointed to be standing here debating a
fisheries bill that is, unfortunately, too partisan.
My staff and I worked hard and in good faith to find a bipartisan
compromise, and while the manager's amendment does remove some of the
most egregious language that would undermine environmental laws like
the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the
American Antiquities Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act,
the fact is those provisions never should have been in a Magnuson
reauthorization bill in the first place. They were always nonstarters,
and removing them does not fix the serious threat to fisheries posed by
H.R. 200's undermining of catch limits and rebuilding timeframes.
What is more, my staff and I did offer compromise language from
Senator Wicker's Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act.
Even that language that every single Republican on the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee had supported in markup was
rejected, unfortunately, by my colleagues across the aisle and did not
find its way into the manager's amendment.
We also offered on these points of disagreement for catch limits and
rebuilding timeframes to simply leave existing law in place because it
has been working, and that, too, was unacceptable, unfortunately, to
our colleagues across the aisle. So what is left before
[[Page H6084]]
us in H.R. 200 would fundamentally gut provisions that have made
Magnuson so successful.
Now is not the time to move away from catch limits based on sound
science and toward catch limits based on wishful thinking. It is not
the time to allow rebuilding of overstocked fish to be delayed
indefinitely. We have seen this movie before, and we know what happens.
Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment does remove some poison pill
provisions that should never have been in the bill, but it does nothing
to fix the wrongheaded rollbacks of catch limits and rebuilding
timeframes that will inevitably lead us to overfishing. That is why
this bill has been called the empty oceans act, and that is why it is
opposed by so many stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the dozens of letters we have
received since the manager's amendment was introduced.
Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish
Shareholders' Alliance,
July 5, 2018.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: On behalf
of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance
(Shareholders' Alliance), I write to you today to express our
continued strong opposition to H.R. 200, the ``Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
Management Act of 2017.''
The Shareholders' Alliance is the largest organization of
commercial snapper and grouper fishermen in the Gulf of
Mexico, with membership in every Gulf state. We work hard to
ensure that our fisheries are sustainably managed so our
fishing businesses can thrive and our fishing communities can
exist for future generations. We are the harvesters that
provide much of the American public with a reliable source of
domestically-caught wild Gulf seafood, and we do this through
a philosophy that sustainable seafood and profitable fishing
businesses depend on healthy fish populations.
It has come to our attention that the House plans to vote
on H.R. 200 after Congress resumes from its July 4th recess.
We must express our continued concerns with this harmful bill
and we strongly encourage you to vote against it. It would
significantly harm our nation's fishermen and women, seafood
suppliers, and seafood consumers through punitive
restrictions and requirements that would not improve
recreational fishing. H.R. 200 would make several damaging
changes to the bedrock principles of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act).
H.R. 200 would unnecessarily make it more difficult for the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) to
use limited access privilege programs (LAPPs) and catch
shares as management tools. We believe that the decision-
makers on the ground in the region should be able to make an
informed decision as to whether LAPPs or catch shares may be
appropriate for a fishery or not. Congress shouldn't tie the
hands of the Gulf Council and preemptively remove these
fishery management tools from the toolbox. Using these tools
for commercial and charter fishing sectors has no impact on
how recreational fishing is managed.
Also, H.R. 200 would promote new limitations and exemptions
to annual catch limits (ACLs). ACLs allow fishing at
sustainable levels to maximize access while minimizing the
risk of overfishing our shared fishery resources. Inherent in
this management tool is the acknowledgement that exceeding
science-based catch limits reduces future opportunities, and
that this should be avoided. The existing generation of
fishermen has already sacrificed to rebuild these fisheries--
let's not burden the next generation with having to rebuild
them again.
Additionally, proponents of H.R. 200 claim that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act does not provide adequate flexibility
and rigidly imposes a 10-year rebuilding timeframe for
overfished fisheries. However, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
already allows fishery managers to approve fishery rebuilding
timelines greater than 10 years in length due to a range of
biological, economic, or social factors. In fact, Gulf of
Mexico red snapper--the resource that many of us have built
our small businesses on--is already experiencing that
flexibility as it is in Year 13 of the current 27 year
rebuilding plan. If the red snapper stock rebuilds by 2032 as
intended, the stock will have been under a rebuilding program
for over 40 years.
Finally, H.R. 200 would overload the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council with allocation review requirements that
would leave little time or funding to perform its primary
function of managing Gulf fisheries (e.g., setting catch
limits and fishing seasons, conducting stock assessments,
habitat management, etc.).
Furthermore, some Amendments to H.R. 200 would simply make
a bad bill even worse. Specifically, Amendment 26 would open
the door to levying additional taxes on commercial fishermen,
over and above the maximum amount they are legally required
to pay today. We question why this punitive measure is
directed only at two regions of the United States--the Gulf
of Mexico and the South Atlantic. Why are the other six
regional fishery management councils exempted from this
measure? Furthermore, Amendment 26 would initiate a process
that could lead to eliminating the participation of
commercial fishing, seafood industry, and charter fishing
businessmen and women in regional fishery management
councils. These purported ``conflicts of interest'' are a
non-issue, as all regional fishery management councils
already enact standard operating procedures to address this
concern. Simply put, Amendment 26 is a direct assault on
commercial fishermen in these two regions and would only
serve to eliminate fishing expertise from regional fishery
management councils in order to further the interests of
recreational fishing organizations. This would be a
disservice to the millions of Americans who only access
American seafood though restaurants, fish markets, and
grocery stores.
Our nation has set the gold standard for sustainable
fisheries because of our commitment to science-based
management under the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization. The science-based conservation requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act helped support the development of
the commercial individual fishing quota programs in the Gulf
of Mexico have played crucial roles in nearly tripling the
red snapper quota for all fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico
over the last 10 years, from 5 million pounds to nearly 14
million pounds. Clearly, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working.
The nation's fishermen, seafood suppliers, consumers, and
Congressional leaders must protect the gains we have made
under the last 40 years of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It is in
everyone's best interests to pass vibrant national fishery
resources on to the next generation. H.R. 200 would put that
in jeopardy. H.R. 200 is widely opposed by the commercial
fishing industry throughout the United States (especially in
the state of Florida), as well as by the seafood industry,
the restaurant industry, the charter fishing industry, and
others who depend on healthy fisheries to support strong
businesses. Once again, we ask that you oppose H.R. 200 to
ensure Americans have access to sustainable seafood today and
for years to come.
Thank you for your consideration on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Eric Brazer,
Deputy Director.
____
Gulf Fishermen's Association,
July 2, 2018.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: Please
accept this letter from the Gulf Fishermen's Association
opposing H.R. 200, the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities
and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.'' The
Gulf Fisherman's Association represents commercial fishermen
in the Gulf of Mexico who are dependent upon healthy fishery
resources to support our way of life.
H.R. 200 is a threat to the success record of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), weakening the science-based management that has
made the U.S. a leader in the field. The provisions within
H.R. 200 that will add exceptions to rebuilding timelines,
exemptions to annual catch limits, and mandate allocation
reviews are unnecessary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act in its
current form is working and is responsible for rebuilding
dozens of stocks. In fact, NOAA's Status of the Stocks
released in March showed that overfished stocks are at an
all-time low. Why change what's already working?
Additionally, Rep. Graves' Amendment 26 to H.R. 200 makes
it clear that this bill is being used to harm commercial
snapper and grouper fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. This
amendment would open the door for additional taxation of
commercial fishermen through resource rents and royalties. It
also is an attempt to eliminate charter-for-hire and
commercial representation on the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils Council by unfairly
implying that they have a ``fiduciary conflict of interest''.
The language in this amendment makes us ask the following
questions:
Why is it reasonable to impose a tax on commercial
fishermen while at the same time eliminating their voice in
the decision-making process?
If commercial fishermen should not serve on the Gulf
Council because of a supposed financial ``conflict of
interest,'' why should marine suppliers and scientists whose
companies and universities have received funding from
recreational lobbying groups be able to serve?
In conclusion, H.R. 200 is not the fix for our fisheries
that it is advertised to be. It threatens to turn back the
clock on fisheries management and take us back to a time when
there was less fish for everyone. That hurts both commercial
and recreational fishermen. It would also damage the Council
system, which has been effective at creating regional
solutions for their fisheries. Lastly, this bill is a failure
in bi-partisanship, as evidenced
[[Page H6085]]
by a shortage of democratic co-sponsors and a lack of
consideration for all sectors of fisheries. It seeks to help
recreational fishermen at the expense of commercial fishermen
who work hard to provide this great country with wild
sustainable seafood. That's something the Gulf Fishermen's
Association cannot support and urge all representatives to
vote ``no'' on H.R. 200.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
``Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.'' We hope that you
will take our concerns seriously and urge you to vote ``no''.
Sincerely,
Glen Brooks.
____
July 9, 2018.
Dear Representative: As leading manufacturers, retailers,
guides, outfitters and media serving the fly fishing
industry, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 200, a bill
that threatens the health and abundance of marine fisheries.
H.R. 200, the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities and
Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,'' would
amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA). The MSA has been methodically
rebuilding fisheries decimated by once-rampant overfishing.
Since 2000, forty-four previously overfished stocks have been
fully rebuilt, and NOAA Fisheries just reported that the
number of overfished stocks is at an all-time low.
Thriving and healthy fish populations are at the heart of
our businesses, and saltwater fly fishing is a vibrant and
growing segment of our industry. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is
working as intended to maximize fishing opportunities while
ensuring the long-term sustainability of marine fisheries.
Yet the work is not done. While the science-based management
required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act has dramatically
reduced overfishing, fifteen percent (15%) of assessed
fisheries are still overfished. Now is the time to double-
down on our proven management system, not undermine it.
Unfortunately, H.R. 200 attacks the very provisions in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act that are responsible for putting
America's ocean fish on a secure path to full recovery. If
enacted, H.R. 200 would allow many different fisheries to be
exempted from the annual catch limits and accountability
measures identified by independent scientific bodies. Setting
clear, science-based limits on catch and enforcing those
limits is a hallmark of prudent management. H.R. 200 would
also undermine the recovery of fisheries by allowing
fisheries managers to relax timelines for rebuilding depleted
stocks. Healthy fisheries support the greatest number of
angling opportunities, and should be rebuilt as quickly as
possible, as currently directed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Make no mistake, H.R. 200 seeks to undermine our
conservation progress in service of increasing short-term
economic gain. As successful business leaders, we assure you
that prioritizing the health of our nation's fishery
resources is the best way to invest in American businesses
like our own. We urge you to vote no on H.R. 200.
Sincerely,
Jeff Patterson, Abel Reels, Montrose, CO; Eli & Tara Lucas,
Alaska Coastal Hunting, Kupreanof City, AK; Tim Romano,
Angling Trade Media, Boulder, CO; Kirk Deeter, Angling Trade
Media, Boulder CO; Greg Blessing, Blessing Enterprises,
Colorado Springs, CO; Ted Upton, Cheeky Fishing, Watertown,
MA; Ben Kurtz, Fishpond Inc., Denver, CO; John Torok, Hatch
Outdoors Inc., Vista, CA; Rick Wittenbraker, Howler Brothers,
Austin, TX; John Barrett, JB Fly Fishing, Peoria, AZ; Abbie
Schuster, Kismet Outfitters, Martha's Vineyard, MA; Bob
Triggs, Little Stone Flyfisher, Port Townsend, WA; Lucas
Bissett, Low Tide Charters, Slidell, LA.
Tom Sadler, Middle River Group, Verona, VA; Colby Trow,
Mossy Creek Fly Fishing, Harrisonburg, VA; Chris Gaggia,
Patagonia, Ventura, CA; Corrine Doctor, RepYourWater, Erie,
CO; Michelle East, River Sister Fly Fishing LLC, Colorado
City, CO; Jeff Patterson, Ross Reels, Montrose, CO; Taylor
Vavra, Stripers Forever, South Portland, ME; Art Web, Silver
Kings Holdings Inc., Tavernier, FL; Tom Bie, The Drake
Magazine, Denver, CO; Neville Orsmond, Thomas & Thomas,
Greenfield, MA; Scott Hunter, Vedavoo, Leominster, MA; Ted
Upton, Wingo Belts, Watertown, MA; Jim Klug, Yellow Dog Fly
Fishing Adventures, Bozeman, MT.
____
Seafood Harvesters of America
Arlington, VA, July 9, 2018.
Dear Member of Congress: We understand that H.R. 200, the
``Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,'' is on the schedule
for floor debate and a vote on Wednesday afternoon The
Seafood Harvesters of America (SHA) remains staunchly opposed
to this bill as it would do very little to improve the
management of the recreational fishing industry while
severely undermining the sacrifices the commercial fishing
industry has made to ensure that we are sustainably
harvesting fisheries resources.
The Seafood Harvesters of America is a broadly-based
organization that represents commercial fishermen and their
associations. Our members reflect the diversity of America's
coastal communities, the complexity of our marine
environments, and the enormous potential of our commercial
fisheries. As domestic harvesters of an American public
resource, we recognize and embrace our stewardship
responsibility. We strive for accountability in our
fisheries, encourage others to do the same, and speak out on
issues of common concern that affect the U.S. commercial
fishing industry, the stewardship of our public resources,
and the many millions of Americans who enjoy seafood.
In addition to the threats posed by H.R. 200 as we've
outlined in previous letters (below), we are concerned with a
proposed amendment to H.R. 200 that will be debated during
the floor vote. Specifically, we are concerned with Amendment
#26 which directs the General Accountability Office to
develop a report to Congress on the ``resource rent'' of
Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) in the Gulf of
Mexico and Southeast, and examine ``fiduciary conflicts of
interest'' on these Regional Fishery Management Councils.
First, by studying only LAPPs without also studying
recreational fishing and non-LAPP fisheries, this language
unfairly singles out LAPPs and is aimed at attacking these
successful programs. Commercial fishermen already pay for
their commercial permits, quota, licenses, vessel
registration, business taxes, observer costs, among other
costs. On top of that, fishermen in LAPPs pay an additional
fee to recover costs of administering the program. There is
no reason to limit an analysis of the fishing value extracted
to LAPPs and such a biased analysis would lead to false
conclusions. Second, the Regional Fishery Management Councils
were purposely created to involve fishery stakeholders from
all sectors in the Council process to guide policy and
regulations. The process by which Council Members are
appointed is thorough and well-vetted, and already requires
financial disclosure of their fishing interests. This
language shows a misunderstanding of the Council structure
designed within the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). Targeting
commercial and charter fishermen representatives on Councils
for these two regions would not only undermine the intended
Council appointment process to encourage stakeholder
participation in management of our fisheries resources, but
set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country.
As we've outlined in our previous letters, the Harvesters
remain opposed to H.R 200 because of a number of sections
that pose a direct threat to sustainable fisheries
management:
(1) H.R. 200 risks overfishing and imperils rebuilding of
overfished species
Despite significant flexibility already incorporated into
the MSA, Section 303 establishes multiple exceptions to the
rebuilding timeline. Congress previously strengthened the
rebuilding timeline requirements because many fish stocks
were not recovering and were at risk of continued
overfishing. Without this statutory standard, rebuilding
timelines could vary dramatically, perpetuating depleted
stock conditions and harming our businesses' bottom lines.
Overfishing has been illegal since the MSA was first signed
into law in 1976, but the 2007 requirement for annual catch
limits (ACLs) truly put an end to the practice Section 204
waives the requirement for ACLs for a large number of
species, including virtually all bycatch species and many
fish that are caught in international waters, significantly
raising the risk of overfishing.
Repealing MSA Section 407 entirely (Section 306 in H.R.
200) would remove backstops against recreational quota
overages and allocations for Gulf of Mexico red snapper
which, combined with H.R. 200's sweeping ACL exemptions,
increases the risk of overfishing and makes it difficult for
management bodies to allocate quota to prevent quota
overages.
(2) H.R. 200 hinders Councils' ability to manage our
fishery resources
Councils already have the flexibility to conduct allocation
reviews as necessary, so requiring that the South Atlantic
and Gulf Councils conduct a review of commercial and
recreational allocations every 5 years (Section 202) is
duplicative, costly, and would effectively prevent these
Councils from having the time and money to manage the
resource (i.e. stock assessments, habitat management, among
other responsibilities).
Section 304 establishes a suite of procedures that would
make the use of Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) nearly
impossible, removing a pathway for Councils to work with
industry to develop and test innovative gear, fishing, and
management technologies aimed at improving resource
management. Additionally, this Section bans the use of EFPs
to test for Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs).
(3) H.R. 200 would impose unnecessary Congressional
interference
Fishermen are deeply involved in the development of catch
share programs, which often take years of deliberation with
extensive public input. Under current law, Councils can
require referenda on these programs at their discretion.
Mandating additional referenda and specifying who should be
allowed to vote in them is unnecessarily intrusive to the
Council process and creates undue hurdles to catch share
development (Section 205). While we recognize that a catch
share program may not be appropriation for every fishery, we
feel strongly that this management tool should remain a
viable option
We are disappointed to see this bill move along near
partisan lines. The reauthorization of the MSA has
traditionally been a bipartisan effort that advances the
sustainability of our nation's fisheries. Instead,
[[Page H6086]]
what we see today is a partisan effort to advance the
interests of the recreational fishing industry at the expense
and to the detriment of the commercial fishing industry.
As thousands of commercial fishermen around the country
stand in opposition to this bill, we urge House Leadership to
reconsider bringing this bill to the House floor for a vote.
We are serve as a direct connection to the ocean for many
inland citizens and we take our responsibility as stewards of
the ocean very seriously. We stand ready to work with Mr.
Young and others to develop a bill that works for all sectors
and progresses fisheries management across the board.
We appreciate your consideration of our request. Please
reach out to our Executive Director, Leigh Habegger, should
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher Brown,
President,
Seafood Harvesters of America.
Member Organizations
Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association; Cape Cod Commercial
Fishermen's Alliance; Cordova District Fishermen United;
Fishing Vessel Owners' Association; Fort Bragg Groundfish
Association; Georges Bank Fixed Gear Cod Sector, Inc; Gulf
Fishermen's Association; Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish
Shareholder's Alliance; Midwater Trawlers Cooperative; New
Hampshire Groundfish Sectors; North Pacific Fisheries
Association; Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association; Rhode
Island Commercial Fishermen's Association; South Atlantic
Fishermen's Association; United Catcher Boats.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record this column
recently written by the head of the National Marine Fisheries Service
and also the chief scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service
under the Bush administration.
I would like to call special attention to this statement by these
experts from the Bush administration, who say: ``We believe this is an
ill-conceived, dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the
tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable management
that has occurred since the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007.''
Don't Hurt Fisheries With Dangerous Legislation
(By William Hogarth and Steven Murawski, special to the Tampa Bay
Times)
This Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives is
scheduled to vote on H.R. 200, the Strengthen Fishing
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
Management Act. We believe this is an ill-conceived,
dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the
tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable
management that has occurred since the latest
reauthorizations of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act in 2007.
Since 2007, more than 40 of the most overfished and
historically important fish stocks in the nation have been
recovered. Overfishing now occurs for fewer than 10 percent
of stocks, the lowest proportion since records have been
kept. Rebuilding stocks has resulted in increases in
fisheries yields and translated into lower prices to
consumers, more business-friendly approaches to commercial
fisheries management and more healthy recreational fisheries.
The term ``flexibility'' in H.R. 200 is a code word that
would undermine timely, effective management of stocks when
downturns inevitably occur. Heavy on requirements for studies
and other administrative requirements, H.R. 200 would make
fisheries management more cumbersome. The bill as written
would delay timely, effective conservation responses and
would limit the flexibility to use innovative management
tools. Healthy fisheries without healthy stocks is a non
sequitur. We urge the House to reject this piece of
legislation that seeks to solve problems that simply do not
exist.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Courtney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, the Clerk has an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title II add the following:
SEC. __. NORTHEAST REGIONAL PILOT RESEARCH TRAWL SURVEY AND
STUDY.
(a) Industry-based Pilot Study.--Within 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce
shall, in coordination with the relevant Councils selected by
the Secretary and the Northeast Area Monitoring and
Assessment Program (NEAMAP), develop a fishing industry-based
Northeast regional pilot research trawl survey and study to
enhance and provide improvement to current National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration vessel trawl surveys.
(b) Components.--Under the pilot survey and study--
(1) the Secretary--
(A) may select fishing industry vessels to participate in
the study by issuing a request for procurement;
(B) may use the NEAMAP Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic
Nearshore Trawl Survey as a model for the pilot survey; and
(C) shall outfit participating vessels with a peer-reviewed
net configuration; and
(2) the selected Councils shall, in partnership with the
National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science
Center and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, collect
data and evaluate discrepancies between fishing industry
vessel data and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration vessel data, for 5 years.
(b) Report.--Upon completion of the pilot survey and study,
the Secretary and the selected Councils shall submit a
detailed report on the results of the pilot survey and study
to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, at the beginning, I first of all want to
salute both Mr. Young and Mr. Huffman for their hard work on this
legislation, which is very contentious and requires a lot of interests
to be balanced. Again, hopefully, as the process moves forward through
the next Chamber, we will get to that sweet spot for good policy for
our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment at the desk is a simple amendment, which
creates a 5-year, industry-based pilot trawl survey for the New England
and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Such a program would
follow the model industry-based trawl surveys used in the Pacific
Northwest under NOAA's supervision that have been a great success.
The reason I am offering this bipartisan amendment with Congressman
Lee Zeldin from New York is that NOAA trawl surveys have been seriously
hampered by a string of mechanical and performance problems with NOAA's
ship Henry B. Bigelow over the last 2 years.
For example, from August 2017 to March 2018, Bigelow missed several
trawls while in its shipyard for chronic propulsion problems. Even when
the Bigelow is operational, one-third of its trawls are not performing,
and these bad trawls generally have yields that are 67 percent lower
than when it performs properly.
These problems are unacceptable, given the critical importance of
that data to accurately calculate catch limits on the East Coast,
which, as we have heard, is a highly contentious issue.
In addition to the Bigelow's gear issues, the vessel is too large for
near-shore studies. It draws a lot of water and cannot enter shallow
littoral areas to trawl. Because of that, NOAA already contracts with
the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program, NEAMAP, to survey
shallower areas. NEAMAP contracts industry vessels outfitted with peer-
reviewed NOAA gear for near-shore surveys, proving that surveying can
be done on industry vessels.
I want to emphasize that this pilot program contemplated in the
amendment will be a pilot program coordinated with NOAA, the councils,
and industry. While we don't dictate a specific framework, we recommend
that the pilot mirror the NEAMAP survey, which the executive directors
of both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils have described as the
gold standard of cooperative, collaborative fisheries surveys.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a responsible initiative to solve a
real-life problem using a trusted precedent in the Pacific Northwest
and under the careful supervision of NOAA and fisheries experts.
I want to thank the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel for bringing
attention to the trawl gaps that are happening on the East Coast and
working with my office to craft this amendment.
[[Page H6087]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, although I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Zeldin), who sponsored the bill.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, Joe
Courtney from Connecticut, for his bipartisan cooperation on this and
so many other issues that are important to the hardworking men and
women who make their living on the Long Island Sound, a precious
waterway we are both so fortunate to represent.
This amendment creates an industry-based trawl survey program for the
New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. Improving survey data so that the
quotas and regulations imposed on our fishermen are transparent,
equitable, and fair is a critical goal of the underlying bill, and it
is the purpose of this important bipartisan amendment.
Increasing industry buy-in and cooperation with the NOAA survey
program is essential for improving data collection. Without the right
data, fishermen in our region will continue to be shortchanged while
their counterparts in the Pacific Northwest are already benefiting from
increased cooperation between NOAA and the private sector.
What we have right now in our region is a massive failure on behalf
of NOAA because their vessel has fudged trawl after trawl. The people
who work on the water every day have the equipment, the vessels, and
the expertise to get this important data collection done, and done
right.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and I commend my
friend from Connecticut for his hard work on this issue. I look forward
to continuing to work together with him and others on bipartisan
solutions to help our hardworking commercial fishermen, charter boat
captains, and all the small businesses that are a part of the coastal
economy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers for the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Langevin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 209 (page 27, after line 7) add the
following:
(f) Addition of Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council.--Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``States of'';
(2) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``except North
Carolina,'';
(3) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``23''; and
(4) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment with immense
importance to Rhode Island fishermen. My amendment would provide voting
representation for Rhode Island on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries
Management Council, which regulates numerous species found in the
waters off our coast.
I want to emphasize that this is not a provincial matter. This is
about providing fair representation and a sense of equity for those
invested in our regional fisheries council system. It only makes sense
that those who haul in these fish species should have a seat at the
table.
Mr. Chairman, despite our location in New England, we do haul in
these so-called Mid-Atlantic species. Using the most recent statistics,
Rhode Island lands half of all squid caught on the East Coast.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Half of all squid caught on the
East Coast is landed by Ocean State fishermen. These squid are the key
ingredient in the famous Rhode Island calamari, a dish that many of us
undoubtedly enjoy.
Beyond squid, Rhode Island lands 85 percent of all East Cost
butterfish, far exceeding any other State. Butterfish is regulated by
the Mid-Atlantic Council. We haul in more scup than any other East
Coast State. Scup is also regulated by the Mid-Atlantic Council.
Additionally, we are among the top three States for landing bluefish,
summer flounder, and monkfish. Mr. Chairman, bluefish, summer flounder,
and monkfish are all regulated by the Mid-Atlantic Council. For our
recreational fishermen, summer flounder, black sea bass, bluefish, and
scup comprise the bulk of the recreational harvest in Rhode Island.
So, Mr. Chairman, it should also be noted that the Rhode Island Sound
is a part of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we
are a part of the same marine ecosystem that stretches down to the
Outer Banks of North Carolina. The same species live all along these
waters, and they are regulated by the Mid-Atlantic Council.
While this inequity already exists today, the threat of climate
change will only make this worse as species migrate northward in search
of colder waters.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues that
there is precedent for such a change. In 1996, we amended fisheries law
to ensure that North Carolina could sit on two regional fisheries
councils. All we ask is the same consideration be provided to Rhode
Island. It is only fair.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the intent of my good friend's amendment,
but I reluctantly oppose it.
The amendment would begin to unravel, I believe, this council's
structure that was made in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the gold standard
of global fisheries management. At best, it erodes MSA's emphasis on
regional management.
Fish stocks migrate up and down the Atlantic coast frequently
incorporated in a prospective of States invested in shared fishery
resources, a goal we all share. That is why Congress authorized the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and why my bill before us
today creates a liaison between the Mid-Atlantic Council and the New
England Council and vice versa.
These two mechanisms adequately address overlapping Atlantic coast
fisheries without undermining the fundamental council structure.
Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to
oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would point out to my
friend, whom I have deep respect for, that there is precedent for such
a change.
In 1996, we amended fisheries law to ensure that North Carolina
could, in fact, sit on two regional fisheries councils, so what we are
asking is not unprecedented.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Congressman Langevin. I
am proud to be an original cosponsor of my colleague's legislation, the
Fishermen's Fairness Act, which serves as the basis for this amendment.
This amendment would provide our home State of Rhode Island with
representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. This
move
[[Page H6088]]
would allow Rhode Island fishing communities to have a voice on the
council which manages stocks for species that are among the most
valuable to fisheries in our State.
Rhode Island fishermen account for nearly 56 percent of total summer
scup landings and 54 percent of all Atlantic squid landings, both
stocks being managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council.
Squid landings are critical to Rhode Island's overall fishing
economy, landing more squid than all other States combined and the
second most of any other State in the country. In 2015, Rhode Island
landed roughly 16 million pounds of squid, nearly 12 million pounds
more than its nearest competitor.
{time} 1615
The following year was even more significant for Rhode Island, with
nearly 23 million pounds in squid landings valued at more than $29
million.
All told, Rhode Island accounts for more fish landings under the
jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council than any
other State in the region, with the exception of New Jersey.
Yet, despite all of this, my State does not have a seat on this
council, leaving Rhode Island fisheries without a say in how a
significant portion of its industry is managed.
This amendment will provide a commonsense solution to this problem by
adding two additional seats to the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management
Council in order to represent Rhode Island's interests in the region.
As Congressman Langevin said, this is not unprecedented. We have done
this before. In 1996, North Carolina, which also had significant
fishing interests in the mid-Atlantic region, was given a seat on the
council. This amendment would extend this same right to a seat at the
table to my State.
I really want to thank my colleague for his work on this issue, and I
strongly encourage adoption of this amendment, particularly out of a
sense of comity, since we have done this in the past. Rhode Islanders
deserve to be treated fairly. Our fishermen deserve a voice. I urge my
colleagues to support this excellent amendment.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 37, strike lines 5 through 6 (and redesignate the
subsequent subparagraphs accordingly).
Page 38, after line 7, insert the following (and
redesignate the subsequent quoted subclauses accordingly):
``(IV) the new plan, amendment, or proposed regulation has
at least a 75 percent chance of rebuilding the overfished
fishery within the time limit proposed by the Council, as
calculated by the scientific and statistical committee of the
Council with jurisdiction over the fishery pursuant to
section 302(g)(1)(B);
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill argue that the requirement to
rebuild overfished stocks needs more ``flexibility,'' but it is
important to note that the Magnuson Act already provides a lot of
flexibility.
While I am fully aware that it isn't always easy or popular to
implement fishing restrictions, management tools like annual catch
limits and rebuilding plans are essential to ensuring a future for our
fisheries and fishing industry.
In my district, fishermen went through several tough years while
groundfish stocks were depleted. Magnuson provided the scientific and
regulatory framework to bring those fisheries back. We have now rebuilt
half of our groundfish species, and more are on the way to recovery.
These accomplishments certainly did not come easily. Our fishermen
had to make sacrifices. But the long-term health of our fisheries and
communities that depend on them in making these tough decisions has
benefited from it. That is why these decisions were supported by
commercial and recreational fishermen. That support has been integral
to sustaining the fisheries that are critical for West Coast
communities. This success story, by the way, has been replicated around
the country time and again.
Our success and the sustainability of the fishing industry rely on
harvesting from healthy and productive fish stocks. Fishing
restrictions are only put in place because they are absolutely
necessary. If there aren't enough fish to support strong harvests both
now and in the future, we have no choice but to cut back in order to
avoid the tragedy of the commons.
It is important to note that the law allows councils to delay
rebuilding when the biology of the stock, environmental conditions, or
international management considerations present challenges. Because of
these broad but fair exemptions, more than 50 percent of all overfished
stocks today have rebuilding plans that are longer than the 10-year
baseline in the act. So there is flexibility, and it is being used.
Further, current law gives councils 2 years to put a rebuilding plan
in place and another year to reduce rather than end overfishing. That
is 3 years of lead time before significant harvest restrictions go into
effect.
My amendment requires that an exemption to strong rebuilding
timelines would only be permitted if rebuilding plans have at least a
75 percent chance of success. That is contrasted with the 50 percent
chance of success that ordinarily applies to rebuilding plans.
Now, I am proud that, without being required to do so, most of the
West Coast groundfish fishery recovery plans have a greater than 75
percent chance of meeting their rebuilding goals, and we have seen the
success of that. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all the
regions.
The bottom line is that we should not be weakening standards unless
we have a very robust rebuilding plan in place. That is what this
amendment addresses.
I want to note that, in addition to all of that, the current Magnuson
Act requires a rebuilding timeline be as short as possible. H.R. 200
would change that requirement to be as short as practicable. This is a
very problematic weakening of the law, with real consequences.
Currently, the agency has to do whatever is possible, whatever is
feasible. Practicable is a lower standard. It means the stocks would
not be built in a reasonable timeframe, and this change could even
allow the agency to do little or nothing to rebuild a stock.
History has shown us what happens if we don't do that. We need to
tackle rebuilding aggressively in order to succeed. Rebuilding plans
that take a weak approach to harvest or drag on rebuilding for many
years inevitably fail.
So, unless the law is very clear and strong on this point, managers
could choose not to deal with rebuilding situations proactively. My
amendment addresses this to be sure that we continue to see fish stocks
rebuild so that fishermen can ultimately reap the rewards.
Mr. Chairman, I request an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would not only
hamstring the flexibility of rebuilding fish stocks that this bill
provides, it would add serious bureaucratic delays in the development
of fishery management plans across the country.
Furthermore, according to NOAA, this amendment would eliminate some
of the flexibility currently provided under the national standard, one
which was updated under the Obama administration, and would cause an
unnecessary reduction in the catch.
NOAA also expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on
international fishing agreements that would
[[Page H6089]]
change how the U.S. can negotiate on rebuilding plans. According to a
letter authored by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, this
amendment would undermine the act, impede reforms that are desperately
needed, and attack jobs in coastal communities.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter to the leadership of the
House and to myself where they say such an amendment sponsored by Mr.
Jared Huffman of California and Mr. Alcee Hastings of Florida will
ensure it does not: ``We believe it would actually undermine the MSA,
impede reforms that are desperately needed, and attack jobs in coastal
communities around the country, including in California and Florida,
the home States of Mr. Huffman and Mr. Hastings.''
National Coalition
for Fishing Communities,
July 10, 2018.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, United States House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, United States House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McCarthy: H.R. 200
(formerly H.R. 1335), the ``Strengthening Fishing Communities
and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act'' is
the product of three Managing our Nations Fisheries
(``MONF'') conferences, and numerous hearings with well over
a hundred witnesses (from to 2009 through 2017). These many
efforts were held in large part to address unintended
consequences in the implementation of the 2006
reauthorization.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) has largely been a success, but no law is perfect,
and H.R. 200 contains a number of important updates and
refinements. But as a result of a barrage of last-minute
amendments, proposed outside of the committee process, years
of hard work to create honest reform of the MSA is now in
jeopardy.
One such amendment, sponsored by Congressman Jared Huffman
(D-California) and Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) purports to
``ensure that rebuilding plans are successful in rebuilding
overfished fish stocks.'' However, we believe it would
actually undermine the MSA, impede reforms that are
desperately needed, and attack jobs in coastal communities
around the country, including in California and Florida, the
home states of Mr. Huffman and Mr. Hastings.
In a letter delivered to their offices on last week, we
asked Mr. Huffman and Mr. Hastings to please explain to us
how they foresee that this amendment could be enacted without
having the effect of reducing commercial, charter and
recreational fishing quotas significantly. We also asked that
since they represent California and Florida, and since our
membership includes members who represent fishing interests
in California and Florida, that they explain how they see
this amendment improving conditions for seafood harvesters
and processors in your respective home states. Unfortunately
we did not receive a response to those questions.
In the provisions contained in this amendment were
implemented, the required theoretical probability of
management measures rebuilding a stock in the shortest time
period as possible would increase from 50% to 75% for many
species. The ``Huffman-Hastings Amendment'' would impose a
burden on many U.S.-managed fisheries.
While this sounds like an innocuous effort to strengthen
and improve the law, the fact is, the only way to meet the
requirements of the amendment would be to significantly
reduce many commercial, charter and recreational fishing
quotas significantly. Considering the status of U.S. fish
stocks recently described in NOAA's 2018 Report to Congress
as ``Overfishing remains near all time lows and we reached a
new milestone with the number of overfished stocks at the
lowest level ever'', the validity and intent of the ``Huffman
Amendment'' should be seriously questioned.
Why, if the current Act's requirements are having success
in rebuilding stocks, is there a reason to require the law to
be substantially more conservative?
In addition, the amendment removes a subtle but important
update to the MSA.
Section 304 of MSA states that ``For a fishery that is
overfished, any fishery management plan, amendment, or
proposed regulations . . . shall . . . specify a time period
for rebuilding the fishery that shall . . . be as short as
possible, taking into account the status and biology of any
overfished stocks of fish, the needs of fishing communities,
recommendations by international organizations in which the
United States participates, and the interaction of the
overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem.''
There is widespread support to change the term ``possible''
to ``practicable'' in this section. The intent of this change
is not to compromise or weaken the effectiveness of the MSA,
but rather to help better fulfill one of the fundamental and
original goals of the Act, emphasized in National Standard
1--to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing
basis the optimum yield from each fishery. Changing the
terminology from ``possible'' to ``practicable'' would
provide Regional Fishery Management Councils with much-needed
flexibility and the option to choose between several
rebuilding scenarios to achieve specified conservation and
management objectives, not just the shortest and, quite
often, most harmful to fishing communities.
We must remain committed to restoring common sense to MSA.
We must not undermine our Nation's fisheries law in the name
of improving it, and cause harm to commercial charter and
recreational fishermen from Alaska to Maine.
Coastal communities and fishing families are relying on the
passage of clean legislation, as developed in committee.
We urge Members to vote NO on the Huffman Amendment to H.R.
200!
Sincerely,
American Scallop Association, John Whiteside, General
Counsel, Members in MA, NJ, NC; Ariel Seafoods, David Krebs,
Owner, FL; Atlantic Capes Fisheries, Dan Cohen, Owner, MA,
NJ; Atlantic Red Crab Co., Jon Williams, Owner, MA;
California Wetfish Producers Association, Diane Pleschner-
Steele, CA; Fishermen's Dock Co-Op, Jim Lovgren, Board
Member, NJ; Fishing Partnership Support Services, J.J.
Bartlett, Executive Director, MA; Florida Keys Commercial
Fishermen's Association, Bill Kelly, Executive Director, FL;
Garden State Seafood Association, Greg DiDomenico, Executive
Director, NJ; Gulf Coast Seafood Association, David Krebs,
Founding Member, FL, AL; Hawaii Longline Association, Sean
Martin, Owner, HI.
Inlet Seafood, William Grimm, Secretary and Treasurer, NY;
Long Island Commercial Fishermen's Association, Bonnie Brady,
Executive Director, NY; Lunds Fisheries, Inc., Jeff Reichle,
Chairman, CA, NJ; North Carolina Fisheries Association, Glen
Skinner, Executive Director, NC; Pacific Seafood, Jon
Gonzales, Fisheries Policy Analyst, OR, WA; Rhode Island
Commercial Fishermen's Association, Rich Fuka, Executive
Director, RI; Seafreeze, Ltd., Meghan Lapp, Fisheries
Liaison, RI; Southeastern Fisheries Association, Bob Jones,
Executive Director, FL; Viking Village, Jim Gutowski, Owner,
NJ; West Coast Seafood Processors Association, Lori Steele,
Executive Director, CA, WA, OR; Western Fishboat Owners
Association, Wayne Heikkila, Executive Director, AK, CA, OR,
WA.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting, respectfully,
that this amendment is uncalled for and, frankly, will gut the bill and
the MSA, period.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Webster of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
as the designee of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. __. MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO SUBMERGED AQUATIC
VEGETATION.
Requirements to conserve or to provide compensatory
mitigation for impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) shall not apply when a
non-Federal entity conducts maintenance dredging for an
authorized Federal navigation project on an inland waterway,
inlet, or harbor located in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, or Florida pursuant to a permit issued under section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1344) or section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C.
403; 30 Stat. 1151, chapter 425).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Webster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today on behalf of my
colleague from Florida, Ms. Lois Frankel, to offer a nonpartisan
amendment that Ms. Frankel and I have been working on for some time.
The amendment applies common sense to routine maintenance and
dredging in the inland navigational channels. Specifically, this
amendment would waive a duplicative requirement for routine maintenance
dredging.
When a waterway is initially dredged, the project sponsor has to
mitigate for the impact on aquatic vegetation like seagrass. In the
Florida Intracoastal Waterway, seagrass grows like a weed and must be
routinely dredged to keep it clear. Unfortunately, the project sponsor
is required
[[Page H6090]]
to do costly environmental mitigation every time just to keep the
waterway open and operating, instead of using the permit that has
already been given and the mitigation that has already happened for
that particular area. This additional round of mitigation is
unnecessary, since seagrass removal has already been accounted for in
the environmental review for the initial dredging.
Florida's Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway requires routine maintenance
dredging akin to mowing your grass. The waterway annually transports
tons of commercial cargo and is used by more than 500,000 recreational
vehicles. It provides $30 billion in economic output, including $3
billion in wages, creates 155,000 jobs, and generates more than $540
million in tax revenues. Without regular maintenance dredging, this
powerful economic driver is at risk.
This amendment itself is limited in scope and maintains an existing
environmental protection while ensuring that the maintenance dredging
mitigation requirements make sense.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
because it would set a bad precedent by waiving the requirements to
provide compensatory mitigation for federally authorized maintenance
dredging projects in inland waterways, inlets, or harbors located in
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
As it should, Magnuson requires compensatory mitigation to protect
essential fish habitat, including seagrass. This mitigation requires
the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of
aquatic resources to offset unavoidable adverse impacts from activities
like dredging.
Many of the inland waterways in the Southeast that need maintenance
dredging are actually home to seagrasses, so these States are required
to mitigate the negative impacts. Compensatory mitigation is the most
obvious, commonsense solution for offsetting the damage to these
important habitats.
Fish depend on healthy seagrass habitats to survive and reproduce,
not only in the Southeast but all across the Nation's coasts, including
in my district.
Moreover, we need all the help that we can get to recover seagrasses.
Globally, 30 percent of seagrass meadows have disappeared. Of the
seagrasses that remain, nearly a quarter are threatened or near
threatened. In fact, the only marine plant listed as endangered in the
United States is a seagrass found in Florida.
Seagrasses are highly productive hotspots for biodiversity and can
act as a carbon sink, making this habitat a critical component in
buffering oceans against the impacts of climate change. Protecting and
restoring essential fish habitat and seagrass is very important to
maintain productive fisheries and healthy oceans.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will say this. This is so
duplicative and ridiculous. It is typical government regulation.
Here you have an inland waterway, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
The seagrass removal has been already mitigated. That requires
maintenance. As you do maintenance, you have to come back and do more
mitigation on the exact same piece of property for the same seagrass.
It is ridiculous; it is duplicative; and I submit it is a good
amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I am sitting here listening to this.
These channels were built for navigation and commercial use by
taxpayers' dollars many years ago, and the seagrass grows back. Each
time, they mitigate when trying to maintain it. Where is the logic?
Where is the logic when we built those channels with American tax
dollars for commerce and now, each time they dredge it--they already
dredged it once--it grows back and they have to come back and file
another ES statement. Why are we doing this?
{time} 1630
Who is this helping out? Not the fish because the eelgrass grows back
again, because they have to dredge it again. It costs money, slows down
commerce, and that is interfering with the economy of this country.
I have been through these channels. They can't show me where the
dredging hurts. In fact, it helps. It is like you said, mowing the
grass. You let it grow too long, you are going to get in trouble. We
let this eelgrass grow too long, you are going to hurt the channel or
you are going to hurt the fish in the long run.
So I compliment the gentleman on his amendment, and I will support
this amendment strongly.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will close by stating that I can
appreciate the frustration that the gentleman may be feeling, feeling
like this is a process of remitigating for the same thing over and over
again.
I think it is a little more complicated than that, but if the
gentleman is willing to work going forward on some ways to perhaps
consolidate the regulatory burden and find something for the long term
that provides a little more certainty and streamlining, I would be
happy to work with him on that.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. __. REPORT ON LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAMS AND
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO GULF OF
MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES.
No later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Congress a report on--
(1) the resource rent of limited access privilege programs
in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic Ocean;
(2) how to reclaim resource rent in the Gulf of Mexico and
the South Atlantic as revenue the United States Treasury; and
(3) the fiduciary conflicts of interest in the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, and effective ways to eliminate
such conflicts.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Modification to Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a
modified amendment at the desk be considered.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. __. REPORT ON LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAMS AND
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO GULF OF
MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN RED SNAPPER.
(a) Study.--No later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Congress a report on--
(1) the resource rent of limited access privilege programs
for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic
Ocean;
(2) how to reclaim resource rent for red snapper in the
Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic Ocean as revenue to the
United States Treasury; and
(3) the fiduciary conflicts of interest in the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic
Fishery Management
[[Page H6091]]
Council relating to red snapper, and effective ways to
eliminate such conflicts.
(b) Limitation.--In implementing this section the
Comptroller General shall not consider--
(1) fisheries programs in any region other than the Gulf of
Mexico and the South Atlantic Ocean; and
(2) fisheries management programs for species other than
red snapper.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply
authorizes a GAO study, a Government Accountability Office study, for
the purposes of evaluating how we currently manage the red snapper
species in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic.
I want to be very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does not affect
any other region of the Nation. It doesn't affect any other species. It
is a unique scenario that we are facing in the Gulf of Mexico and the
South Atlantic pertaining to the red snapper.
This is a species where the increased demand from both recreational
and commercial fishers has resulted in contentious debate and
challenging situations for resource managers across the Gulf Coast and
the South Atlantic.
This amendment is designed to have the GAO perform a study that would
provide information to resource managers. We have been able to work
through EFPs for the past 2 years, but in the future we are not
guaranteed any type of solution.
When I was a child, we could fish for red snapper year-round. We are
no longer allowed to do that. We were limited by as many as 3 days--
proposed--by the Federal Government in recent years. This is designed
to provide better information, better tools for how we manage these
species moving forward in a sustainable manner.
Mr. Chairman, the modifications that I made to this amendment were a
result of discussions with Members near me right now.
As a matter of fact, someone sitting near me may or may not have
threatened to fillet me with a butter knife if I didn't change some
text in the amendment, so some of the text has been changed to reflect
the very narrow scope of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Graves. This amendment requires the
Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress, but it is unclear
what the overall purpose of this report would be.
In fact, because of the vagueness of that purpose, there has been
concern that it may be about identifying what would happen if the
overall value of the red snapper fishery commercial quota was
completely taken away or given to private anglers. Would this report be
used to make the argument that the red snapper quota should be
reallocated to recreational fishermen? I can't support either of those
propositions, nor a reporting requirement with such ambiguous goals and
potentially significant impacts on the fishery.
When it comes to setting these allocations, picking winners and
losers from among commercial and recreational fishing interests, that
should be the job of regional councils, not of Congress. In fact, the
entire structure of Magnuson and the council system is designed to
encourage stakeholder participation on the councils, from a regional
perspective.
We need to let the fishery management councils do their job and not
have Congress micromanaging these type of decisions.
It is unclear, also, why this amendment only targets limited access
privilege permits. Every type of commercial or recreational fishing
activity could be viewed as having a ``resource rent.'' So it is
questionable that every other form of commercial and recreational
activity would be excluded from this type of report. There is no reason
why an analysis of the economic value commercial and recreational
fishermen extract from a Federal resource would be limited to just
catch share programs.
Finally, with respect to the conflict of interest provisions in this
bill, I would have supported--and I have talked to the gentleman about
this--this amendment, had it been a report on ways to eliminate
conflicts of interest on all fishery management councils, because there
are concerns, bipartisan concerns, in that regard, and it is something
that should be addressed to improve fishery management in all councils.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a rather targeted and direct attack
on what many view as a well-managed commercial red snapper fishery, and
we should not be devoting public resources to such a report.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for modifying
this amendment. I still have concerns, as I have told the gentleman. I
know the problem.
If I ever hear about a red snapper again, we change this to the
Graves snapper. That is what we are going to call it. I know there is a
problem, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to strengthen
the language and, especially, to making sure this does not include any
other areas, because I want Alaska and the Pacific Northwest left out.
I will say that is being selfish, but I know what the gentleman over
there said.
I understand what the gentleman is trying to do here. We have a
little ways to go. We will work together and try to get something done.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the concerns
raised by the gentleman from Alaska. I am committed to working with the
gentleman and to working with my friend from California in trying to
get this amendment in a better posture. I do want to work together with
both the gentlemen to make sure that we get this done in a way that
does not cause injury to other places.
In response to my friend from California, I do want to be clear that
this is information. All this is is information that our committee,
that this Congress, would then have the option to act upon.
I don't think information in this case, on such a contentious issue,
that does have a very unclear future--we have dealt with contentious
issues and bought ourselves 2 years. Beyond that, we are going to be
right back in the same situation.
We are trying to get additional information. I want to say, in regard
to the conflict issues, in regard to the balance of commercial and
recreational, that is good feedback, and I am happy to adopt those
changes to the amendment, to include those as we work through the
process.
I will say it again. I am committed to working with the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I sent the gentleman the text of the amendment--the first
person I sent it to--to ensure that I had input from both sides. We did
make some modifications as a result, the changes requested by Mr.
Young, but I am committed to working together with the dean and with
the gentleman from California to perfect this as we move forward.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Keating
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H6092]]
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. __. PLAN FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROCEDURES FOR THE NORTHEAST MULTISPECIES
FISHERY.
The Secretary, acting through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, shall submit a plan to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate not less than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act that will establish fully
operational electronic monitoring and reporting procedures
for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery by not later than
September 30, 2021. The plan shall include the proposal of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to cover
vessel equipment and installation costs, with daily, half-
day, or quarter-day operational costs to be borne by the
fishing vessels.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to develop a
strategy for how they plan to implement electronic monitoring in the
Northeast Multi-Species Fishery by 2021.
Today, the majority of monitoring is conducted by at-sea, in-person
monitors who NOAA sends on only about 30 percent of the trips. What is
more, vessel owners must pay the cost of this in-person monitoring, at
a cost of $900 a day. Not only is this a financial burden, especially
on the small boat fleet owners, but it is also less effective because
it leaves massive gaps for bad actors to exploit the system.
Modernizing fisheries monitoring programs by the full-scale adoption
of electronic monitoring is critical for the future sustainability and
the development of the North Atlantic's multi-species fishery. Full
implementation of electronic monitoring will mean better data for
making stock assessments and making sure that every fishing trip is
monitored. This means better protections for our environment and more
sustainable fisheries so that our fishing industry can remain strong
for the generations to come.
This is why, in my district, there is already broad support among
fishermen for moving to an electronic monitoring regime. It costs less.
It rewards fishermen who play by the rules. It ensures that
sustainability of the fisheries that their industry depends upon goes
forward.
In fact, the Northeast Fisheries Council has already outlined the
goal of total adoption of an electronic monitoring regime. However,
NOAA's Marine Fishery Service does not have a strategy in place to make
that goal a reality. Without an implementation strategy from NOAA,
fishermen who elect to invest in electronic monitoring for their
vessels would still be subject to the costly at-sea monitoring regime,
so, in effect, would be forced to pay twice.
We need to move forward on this issue, take advantage of the new
technologies that not only make it cheaper and easier to monitor, but
more effective as well. We have an opportunity for a win-win scenario,
but it requires that we commit to pursuing it.
Step one is NOAA reporting to Congress on what full implementation of
the electronic monitoring should look like and by focusing first on the
Northeast region. This strategy will serve as a model for other fishery
regions around the country as they take their own steps towards
adopting electronic monitoring across the country.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I want to compliment the gentleman on
his amendment. This is long overdue.
We have the technology. The imposition of putting bodies on board
ships that don't really do anything, and I don't think make a great
count, can be done better through technology. So I compliment the
gentleman on his amendment, and I will be supporting his amendment.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Alaska. I think the
gentleman understands full well that that monitor on the ship poses
very challenging times from the time that they are on that ship, and
the $900 a day is simply something that fishermen can't afford right
now. It is not necessary.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Alaska for joining with me in
this effort, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1645
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Poliquin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. _01. STUDY OF FEES CHARGED TO LOBSTER FISHING INDUSTRY.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall study
and report to the Congress on all fees imposed by such
Administration on the lobster fishing industry.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Young very much for this
opportunity to be here.
Mr. Chairman, ``Maine is Vacationland.'' Everybody in the country and
everybody on this floor should know that. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we put
``vacationland'' on our license plates just to make sure everybody
knows that.
Our population in the great State of Maine is 1.3 million hardy
souls, but we have 40 million people vacation in our State every year.
We have 3,000 miles of breathtaking coastline and hundreds and hundreds
of clear lakes and streams and hundreds of miles of swift-running
streams and rivers.
Everybody that is stressed out in this country, Mr. Chairman, should
go to Maine and have their summer vacation because, Mr. Chairman, the
tourist industry in the State of Maine employs about 150,000 people.
Maine, Mr. Chairman, is also lobster. There isn't a person in this
country who does not relate the great State of Maine to lobsters. Now,
I know Mr. Chairman over here has some great critters up in Alaska
called crabs, king crabs. Now, they are a good species, but Maine
lobsters are a great species, and we need to stand up for our lobsters,
Mr. Chairman.
On the water in the State of Maine, on the water we have 10,000 jobs
that support our lobster industry--10,000. These are folks who pull
traps in their stern.
We have a terrific staffer, Mr. Chairman, here on this committee,
Bill Ball, who got through college pulling lobster traps. It is hard
work, very hard work.
In addition to the folks who pull the traps, we have folks on land
who process them and ship them all over the world. It is a $1 billion
industry, all said, in the State of Maine.
Mr. Chairman, when these folks rise before the Sun comes up and they
head out to sea, sometimes in January and February, they are pulling up
to 800 traps, and they get their critters on the boat and they have got
to rebait those traps. They have got to keep their catch alive on the
boat. They have got to get them back to the dock, and then they have
got to get them to a processor and then to someone who is a dealer who
packages these things and ships them all over the world.
Every time in this process, I fear, Mr. Chairman, there are fees,
Federal, State, and maybe local fees, that are charged to get that
critter from the bottom of the cold Maine ocean to the plate of hungry
folks around the world.
So my bill, Mr. Chairman, that I am honored to bring up, my amendment
to H.R. 200, requires NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, do something very common sense. We want to make sure we
have an inventory of all the fees that are charged
[[Page H6093]]
to get this product to market, because our guys on the docks are coming
up to me and our dealers and our processors, saying: Bruce, why are you
making it so hard for us?
Government, Mr. Chairman, is supposed to make it easy for our
families to live better lives and our small businesses, and all these
lobster fishermen are running small businesses. We need to make sure
their fees are lower and the regulations are fewer and the taxes are
lower because that helps them grow their business, hire more people and
pay them more, and live better lives with fatter paychecks and more
freedom.
So I am asking everybody, Mr. Chairman--and I am grateful, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to speak about H.R. 200--I am asking
every Republican and every Democrat in this Chamber to do what is
right, which is to inventory these fees, because once we find out what
I think are going to be one big boatload of fees, I am going to come
back to this body and ask to get rid of those fees.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, we are not opposed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Alaska is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to rise in
opposition until I heard about Maine and how beautiful and the free-
running streams and all the tourists and the king crab and all those
other things. I do admit, I have been to Maine, and I would agree with
him, but his is just a little tiny one. We are a great big thing with
bigger streams, bigger fish, bigger crab, but no lobsters, though.
I have no lobsters, and I am going to ask Mr. Poliquin why we haven't
seen more lobsters from Maine. I am not sure why, but I yield to the
gentleman from Maine.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, I know deep down in Mr. Young's heart, he
is a Mainer at heart. I know that. I have been to Alaska. It is a good
State. Maine is a great State, and, as a result, I know Mr. Young is
going to support this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I didn't say I wouldn't support
it. I just wanted to make sure I get my licks in for Alaska.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I do not object to the amendment and will
support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Zeldin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. _01. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION OF PROHIBITION ON
ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS FISHING IN BLOCK ISLAND
SOUND TRANSIT ZONE.
Any prohibition on fishing for Atlantic striped bass in the
Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States imposed under
Executive Order 13449 or section 697.7(b) of title 50, Code
of Federal Regulations, shall not apply in the the area
described in section 697.7(b)(3) of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations, commonly referred to as the Block Island Sound
transit zone.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Zeldin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 200 will provide
needed regulatory relief for fishermen from the east end of Long Island
and the entire region who are struggling under confusing and arbitrary
Federal restrictions on striped bass fishing in the Block Island Sound.
The unique maritime geography of our region means that making the 15-
mile journey by boat from Montauk Point, New York, to Block Island,
Rhode Island, requires passing through a segment of waters considered
to be part of the EEZ, known as the Block Island transit zone.
For recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial
fishermen, this shift in jurisdiction can mean the difference between a
nice day on the water and committing a Federal offense. My amendment
would permanently restore the right to fish for striped bass in this
waterway, ending decades of confusion and arbitrary punishment for
local fishermen.
These are hardworking men and women who run small businesses either
on the commercial, charter, or recreational side, and in my district,
they are the backbone of our coastal economy and part of our island's
way of life. No other species of fish, besides striped bass, are
subject to this confusing ban, which was meant to impact the high seas
of the EEZ, not a small segment of local waters situated between two
State boundaries. Fishermen should be able to legally fish for striped
bass in this limited area just as they currently can in adjacent State
waters.
We also must lift this unfair ban so that the resources of the U.S.
Coast Guard can be focused on their important national security and
safety mission, not waste it on the enforcement of an arbitrary ban in
a small waterway.
A recreational angler or boat captain on the water off of Montauk
Point can easily go from fishing legally and responsibly in State
waters to violating Federal law once they pass over the 3-mile limit
where New York State waters end and the transit zone begins. Many of
these individuals lack the expensive GPS technology to know if and when
they have crossed the boundary, and there are no buoys to warn them.
These are responsible men and women who have the greatest vested
interest in preserving the striped bass fishery, but they also
desperately need relief from confusing government regulations that are
hurting their livelihoods and access to local fisheries.
Last Congress, my stand-alone bill to address this issue, H.R. 3070,
the EEZ Clarification Act, passed this House with a unanimous vote. I
also passed two similar amendments on this topic through the House last
September, again, with unanimous support.
This amendment is supported by the Recreational Fishing Alliance,
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Montauk Boatman & Captains
Association, and the newly formed New York Recreational & For-Hire
Fishing Alliance.
On behalf of the hardworking men and women of Long Island who rely on
fishing as a way of life, I ask for all my colleagues' support on this
commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I do rise in opposition to this amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York. This is an amendment that would
lift the ban on striped bass fishing in the Block Island transit zone
between Montauk, New York, and Block Island, Rhode Island.
Commercial and recreational fishing is allowed in State waters, as
the gentleman said, from shore to 3 miles offshore. Striped bass is
managed by the States from Maine through North Carolina through the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Federal waters have been closed to striped bass fishing since 1990
when a moratorium went into effect to protect juvenile fish entering
the spawning population and to help rebuild a fishery that was
recovering from decades of overfishing.
There has been an ongoing effort to reopen the striped bass fishery
in the transit zone, yet there is no science to justify it. In
contrast, the science shows that allowing fishing in this transit zone,
which encompasses about 155 square miles of habitat, could
disproportionately impact spawning females and, thus, threaten the
overall health of the striped bass stock.
[[Page H6094]]
This would be detrimental to some of biggest recreational and
commercial fishing ports on the East Coast. Opening up Federal waters
in one region would undermine the protections and commitment to
rebuilding that others along the coast have invested in. It would set a
bad precedent in managing the striped bass fishery, which still has a
long way to go.
Finally, Congress should not be legislating on species-specific
fishery management actions. This issue is regularly assessed by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. We need to let that
commission do its job and make decisions that are based on science.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chairman, this should not be treated as Federal
waterways. It should be treated as a small local waterway in between
two State boundaries. It shouldn't have been designated EEZ in the
first place.
This amendment doesn't declare open season on striped bass fishing.
It is still going to be subject to the same management that currently
exists for surrounding waterways where striped bass fishing is
currently acceptable.
The science shows biomass for the striped bass fisheries strong in
our area, and, also, a science that is not discussed enough in this
debate is the science of my fishermen and those small-business owners
who are struggling to make ends meet.
So you have the science of the biomass being where it needs to be,
plus we have the science that we are not speaking about enough where
people right now are desperate for this kind of relief. They want
people in Congress representing them in Washington who get it, who are
going to fight for them.
We can't be lost in this beltway argument where, here, I am a
Representative from the east end of Long Island, the First
Congressional District of New York, and we have people who represent
the other end of the United States of America telling us what is best
for us.
We are here pleading for people to listen to us, to hear us, to hear
from these fishermen, the commercial fishermen, the recreational
fishermen, and to fight for them as well, especially when biomass backs
it up.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, these certainly are arguments that can and
should be made at the Atlantic Council. In fact, they are made
regularly, and that council has representation regionally, has
representation from all the key stakeholders, and has access to the
best available science, the state-of-the-art science on this issue. So
I think we need to let that council do its job, and, with that, I
request a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I would say that every level of government
needs to get it better than the way that we have the current laws,
current rules, current regulations, whether it is the Federal
Government, whether it is the regional councils, whether it is the
State governments.
Earlier on, when we were having a debate on the underlying bill and I
was talking about the fluke fishery for commercial fishermen, 50 pounds
a day for 7 days, 350 pounds, you are not going to let them catch 350
pounds in 1 day. You will make them catch 50 pounds a day for 7 days,
while the neighboring State of New Jersey could do 500 pounds a day for
3 days.
Well, guess what happened today. Talk about not getting it at other
levels of government. Our Governor in New York State, out of no notice,
cuts off the commercial food fishery. These people are struggling to
make ends meet.
So instead of pointing fingers at other levels of government and
regional councils where everyone is making mistakes and no one gets it,
how about we do our part? How about we get it? How about we listen to
them? we hear from them? we make a difference?
We are leaders. We are elected to represent our people. I am elected
to represent my people, and I would respectfully urge my colleagues,
especially those who are from faraway places several hundred miles
away, to do a better job listening and allowing me to represent my
folks and stop trying to undercut people who are hardworking business
owners struggling to make ends meet, especially when science is on our
side.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1700
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Keating
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. _01. FUNDING FOR MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTHEAST
MULTISPECIES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Section 311(f)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1861(f)(4)) is amended by
striking ``pursuant to this section'' and all that follows
through the end of the sentence and inserting ``to enforce
and monitor (including electronic monitoring) implementation
of that Plan.''
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that will reduce
the cost of monitoring on fishermen.
My amendment would allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NOAA, to spend the fees they collect from penalties
that are assessed against violators of fisheries regulations to help
defray the costs related to monitoring. Being able to use the fees in
this way will actually help NOAA prevent against future violations, as
well as possibly reduce the cost to fishermen themselves.
Currently, these fees can be used only to support NOAA enforcement
actions. While enforcement is important, it unnecessarily prevents NOAA
from spending these funds on preventing violations in the first place.
Electronic monitoring and at-sea monitoring trips help to ensure that
these kinds of abuses do not occur. This makes them a critical tool to
NOAA in enforcing regulations and ensuring that our fisheries remain
sustainable.
Countless fishermen in my district have been suffering this past year
because a select few decided to abuse the system. Greater investments
in monitoring may have helped prevent this massive fraud that occurred.
However, now that it has, it is important that measures be put in place
to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. That means
funding for prevention and monitoring.
NOAA should be able to use the funds it collects from the recent
cases and any other cases that inevitably arise to double down on
protecting the sustainability of fisheries and preventing as much abuse
as possible before the harm is ever done.
My amendment does just that by allowing NOAA to use the fees it
collects to support prevention efforts. This gives NOAA and the
fisheries managers greater flexibility to find the right balance
between prevention and enforcement, and, at the same time, lowers the
cost of monitoring for fishermen.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, even though
I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). Without objection, the gentleman
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Keating for his
amendment. This is long overdue. Collecting those fees and using them
for observer coverage is something that should be done.
If I go back to his first amendment, I want to mechanize it and use
technology to make sure the fishermen have an opportunity to, I
believe, report better.
[[Page H6095]]
This is a good amendment. I will be voting for it, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Alaska for his
support. He knows full well how difficult it is, particularly in our
region, for fishermen just to sustain themselves, let alone sustain the
fish. We want to sustain the fishermen themselves. These small vessels
are out there, and they are facing $900-a-day monitoring charges. This
is another means by which we will be able to do it.
So I find myself agreeing three times in the last few minutes with my
colleague from Alaska--twice on my amendments and the other, indeed, on
a prior amendment where he rightfully pointed out the rather hyperbolic
description of the State of Maine, as wonderful as it is, and remind
and agree with him that, indeed, this was just a mere portion of
Massachusetts at one time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Gaetz
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 115-786.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE V--REEF ASSASSIN ACT
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Reef Assassin Act''.
SEC. 502. ENCOURAGING ELIMINATION OF LIONFISH.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1851 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 321. ENCOURAGING ELIMINATION OF LIONFISH.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
under which a participating State may issue to an individual
submitting lionfish taken in Federal or State waters a tag
authorizing the taking of a fish of a covered species in
Federal waters in addition to any other fish of that species
the individual is authorized to take in Federal waters.
``(b) Requirements for Issuance of Tag.--The regulations
shall require--
``(1) the submission of 100 lionfish for each tag issued;
``(2) that lionfish taken in State waters must be taken by
an individual holding a valid license to engage in such
fishing issued under the laws of such State; and
``(3) that each lionfish shall be submitted by removing the
tail, placing it in a resealable plastic bag, and submitting
such bag to a participating State before the tail has
significantly deteriorated.
``(c) No Limitation on Number of Tags.--The regulations
shall not limit the number of tags that may be issued to an
individual.
``(d) Use of Tags.--The regulations shall provide that a
tag issued under the regulations--
``(1) shall be valid for the 5-year period beginning on the
date it is issued;
``(2) shall authorize only the recreational or commercial
taking of a fish that complies with any size limit that
otherwise applies to fishing for such fish in the waters in
which it is taken;
``(3) shall authorize such taking without regard to any
seasonal limitation that otherwise applies to the species of
fish taken;
``(4) shall authorize--
``(A) the transfer of tags to any other person; and
``(B) use of transferred tags in the same manner as such
tags may be used by the person to whom the tags were issued;
and
``(5) shall require that any fish taken under such tag
outside any seasonal limitation that otherwise applies to
such fish must have the tag fastened between the mouth and
gill before being placed in any cooler.
``(e) Approval of State To Participate.--
``(1) Conditions.--The regulations shall require that as a
condition of approving a State to issue tags under this
section the Secretary shall require the State to designate a
repository for lionfish submitted for such tags.
``(2) Provision of freezer.--The Secretary shall provide to
each participating State freezers in which to store submitted
lionfish, at a cost of not more than $500 for each freezer.
``(f) Additional Requirements.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) encourage participating States to use existing
infrastructure and staff or volunteers to conduct the State's
program under this section;
``(2) include on the webpage of the National Marine
Fisheries Service information about the program under this
section; and
``(3) encourage State and local governments to work with
retailers and distributors to advance the purchasing and
consumption of lionfish.
``(g) Other Provisions Not Affected.--
``(1) In general.--This section--
``(A) is intended to protect species of fish that are
native to waters of the United States or the exclusive
economic zone; and
``(B) shall not be construed to constrain any fishery,
fishing quota, or fishing allocation.
``(2) Limitation on consideration of tags.--This section
and tags issued or authorized to be issued under this section
shall not be considered in any determination of fishing
levels, quotas, or allocations.
``(h) Definition.--In this section--
``(1) the term `covered fish'--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means red
snapper, gag grouper, triggerfish, amberjack; and
``(B) does not include any species included in a list of
endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
``(2) the term `participating State' means a State that has
applied and been approved by the Secretary to issue tags
under regulations under this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first
section of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the
items relating to title III the following:
``Sec. 301. Encouraging elimination of lionfish.''.
(c) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall issue regulations under the amendment made by
subsection (a) by not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Gaetz
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the modified
version of my amendment at the desk be considered.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Gaetz:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE V--REEF ASSASSIN ACT
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Reef Assassin Act''.
SEC. 502. ENCOURAGING ELIMINATION OF LIONFISH.
(a) In General.--Subject to the approval of an exempted
fishing permit submitted by a participating state. Title III
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1851 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 321. ENCOURAGING ELIMINATION OF LIONFISH.
``(a) In General.--Subject to the approval of an exempted
fishing permit submitted by a participating state, the
Secretary shall issue regulations under which a participating
State may issue to an individual submitting lionfish taken in
Federal or State waters a tag authorizing the taking of a
fish of a covered species in Federal waters in addition to
any other fish of that species the individual is authorized
to take in Federal waters.
``(b) Requirements for Issuance of Tag.--The regulations
shall require--
``(1) the submission of 100 lionfish for each tag issued;
``(2) that lionfish taken in State waters must be taken by
an individual holding a valid license to engage in such
fishing issued under the laws of such State; and
``(3) that each lionfish shall be submitted by removing the
tail, placing it in a resealable plastic bag, and submitting
such bag to a participating State before the tail has
significantly deteriorated.
``(c) No Limitation on Number of Tags.--The regulations
shall not limit the number of tags that may be issued to an
individual.
``(d) Use of Tags.--The regulations shall provide that a
tag issued under the regulations--
``(1) shall be valid for the 5-year period beginning on the
date it is issued;
``(2) shall authorize only the recreational or commercial
taking of a fish that complies with any size limit that
otherwise applies to fishing for such fish in the waters in
which it is taken;
``(3) shall authorize such taking without regard to any
seasonal limitation that otherwise applies to the species of
fish taken;
``(4) shall authorize--
``(A) the transfer of tags to any other person; and
``(B) use of transferred tags in the same manner as such
tags may be used by the person to whom the tags were issued;
``(5) shall require that any fish taken under such tag
outside any seasonal limitation that otherwise applies to
such fish must have the tag fastened between the mouth and
gill before being placed in any cooler; and
``(6) shall only be utilized for species caught in the same
water adjacent a state where the lionfish were originally
caught.
[[Page H6096]]
``(e) Approval of State To Participate.--
``(1) Conditions.--The regulations shall require that as a
condition of approving a State to issue tags under this
section the Secretary shall require the State to designate a
repository for lionfish submitted for such tags.
``(2) Provision of freezer.--The Secretary shall provide to
each participating State freezers in which to store submitted
lionfish, at a cost of not more than $500 for each freezer.
``(f) Additional Requirements.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) encourage participating States to use existing
infrastructure and staff or volunteers to conduct the State's
program under this section;
``(2) include on the webpage of the National Marine
Fisheries Service information about the program under this
section; and
``(3) encourage State and local governments to work with
retailers and distributors to advance the purchasing and
consumption of lionfish.
``(g) Other Provisions Not Affected.--
``(1) In general.--This section--
``(A) is intended to protect species of fish that are
native to waters of the United States or the exclusive
economic zone; and
``(B) shall not be construed to constrain any fishery,
fishing quota, or fishing allocation.
``(2) Limitation on consideration of tags.--This section
and tags issued or authorized to be issued under this section
shall not be considered in any determination of fishing
levels, quotas, or allocations.
``(h) Definition.--In this section--
``(1) the term `covered fish'--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), means red
snapper, gag grouper, triggerfish, amberjack; and
``(B) does not include any species included in a list of
endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
``(2) the term `participating State' means a State that has
applied and been approved by the Secretary to issue tags
under regulations under this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first
section of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the
items relating to title III the following:
``Sec. 301. Encouraging elimination of lionfish.''.
(c) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall issue regulations under the amendment made by
subsection (a) by not later than 60 days after the approval
of an exempted fishing permit submitted by a participating
state.
(d) Restriction.--Nothing in section 321 shall be construed
as to allow for the transfer of fisheries allocation or catch
among the various states.
Mr. GAETZ (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment contains the relevant
provisions of the Reef Assassin Act, which would attack the lionfish
problem that is very pervasive in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico
and the Atlantic Ocean.
Lionfish are an invasive species that are decimating our reef fish.
One lionfish can consume up to 65 juvenile reef fish in one sitting. A
female lionfish can release up to as many as 10 million eggs over the
course of one lifetime.
This legislation would allow our resources to be used to protect our
resource by creating an incentive for fishers who harvest the lionfish
and then turn them in to participating States that would choose, on a
volunteer program, to be able to issue tags for one prized, coveted
reef fish--a triggerfish, a gag grouper, or a red snapper--in the event
that 100 lionfish tails were produced. Anyone who goes and slays 100
lionfish certainly has saved far more than one of our prized reef fish.
That is why it is my belief that this amendment makes a great deal of
sense for our environment and also for the overall health of our
fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Soto), the Democrat lead on the Reef Assassin Act.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this good, bipartisan
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
Lionfish are disrupting Florida's natural ecosystem. Lionfish are
taking away prey from our native fish stocks and prey on reef fish that
perform essential ecological services on the reefs.
This amendment would give an incentive for fishermen to remove the
lionfish by awarding a tag for desired reef fish in return for every
100 lionfish tails turned in. That is quite the bounty.
The amendment will promote cooperation between local, State, and
Federal governments to eradicate lionfish from Florida waters.
This amendment is derived from a bill of which I am a cosponsor.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for offering this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although
I don't intend to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for bringing this issue up.
The lionfish has certainly, according to many reports, been a species
that is causing an adverse impact to red snapper. The solution that he
proposes here is a solution whereby States could submit a modified or a
new exempted fisheries permit, where they could provide for additional
access, on top of their existing allocation, to red snapper in exchange
for harvesting a certain number of lionfish species, which are
predators to the red snapper.
As folks will see, there is a lot of handwriting on this amendment.
We did sit back and make some changes to this, so there is an excellent
chance that there are some imperfections here.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working with us on this. I
thank my friends from Florida and California for working with us on
this as well. It is likely that we are going to need some additional
work on this as we move forward. There are some enforcement issues;
there are science issues; and there is introduction of a new mechanism
that causes some significant concern in the form of tags, in some
cases.
But I, again, thank the gentleman from Florida for raising this
issue, for working to ensure that we continue to have access to red
snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. I look forward to working with my friend
from Florida, as well as the folks across the aisle, in perfecting this
as we move through the conference committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
offering his insight and his views. It is certainly my hope that any
animal that is delicious, like the lionfish, but that is also invasive
and destructive to our environment, would be one that we would be able
to work together across the aisle to harvest out of existence, so that
we protect our environment and protect our coveted reef fish.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Handel) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. H.R. 200)
to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for
fishermen, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution
965, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
[[Page H6097]]
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GOMEZ. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GOMEZ. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gomez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 200 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 49, line 22, strike ``and''.
Page 50, line 4, strike the second period and insert ``;
and''.
Page 50, after line 4, insert the following:
(4) in clause (ii) of paragraph (1)(A), as amended by
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section--
(A) by inserting ``(I)'' before ``regulatory
restrictions''; and
(B) by inserting ``or (II) unilateral tariffs imposed by
other countries on any United States seafood exports or
unilateral tariffs imposed by any country on materials
necessary for the economic viability of the United States'
fishing industry'' after ``environment''.
Mr. GOMEZ (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
{time} 1715
Mr. GOMEZ. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.
If adopted, the bill would immediately proceed to final passage as
amended.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump claims his trade policy is meant to
level the playing field for the United States, but workers and
businesses in other parts of the economy will suffer unintended
consequences.
Despite his claims to pursue a trade agenda that will put American
workers first, this administration's trade policy shows a lack of
strategy and planning that risks putting working families last and
threatens our economy.
Any trade agenda must fix the problems with existing policy rather
than making matters worse. Escalating tariffs and alienating our
closest trading partners does nothing to advance a trade agenda that
puts working families first.
Our trade policy should prioritize strong environmental protections,
penalize cheaters, enforce labor protections for workers, and
strengthen rules of origin so we can advance a trade agenda that is
fair to every American worker instead of picking winners and losers.
But President Trump isn't known for his discretion or his deep
knowledge of policy. He doesn't realize or doesn't care that his
America First trade agenda puts America last by undermining our
competitiveness and innovation. The idea of unintended consequences
didn't even cross his mind when announcing these unilateral tariffs.
But as Members of Congress representing constituents from around the
country, we know that there are very real consequences for these
actions.
That is why I am offering this motion to recommit, which would allow
a Governor or elected official or appointed official to request that
the Secretary of Commerce declare a fishery disaster if fishermen
suffer negative impacts from these tariffs.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act restored
dozens of fishery stocks to healthy levels, and we cannot allow the
ill-conceived or half-baked ideas of the President to hurt the workers
or the progress we have actually made.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to
recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I withdraw the reservation of a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The reservation of a
point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I claim the time in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The parliamentarian, I think, made a mistake,
but they have a right to do that, as others Members do, but that is the
way it goes.
Mr. Speaker, let's not kid ourselves. If you listen to the
presentation, it has nothing to do with a fish bill. This is a
procedural trick to delay passage of this bipartisan legislation. And I
keep saying this is a fish bill that has been in existence for many
years, since 1976, and it has been a success, and then we come up with
a recommit motion that has nothing to do with this bill.
The prize is fish communities, sustainable yields, domestic seafood
industry, and a job creation bill.
With all due respect, I strongly urge a rejection of the motion, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187,
nays 228, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 320]
YEAS--187
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
[[Page H6098]]
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--13
Blackburn
Blum
Cheney
Ellison
Gallagher
Hanabusa
Harper
Jenkins (KS)
Napolitano
Perlmutter
Rush
Scalise
Speier
{time} 1745
Messrs. MARINO, MITCHELL, NEWHOUSE, and Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CROWLEY, RUPPERSBERGER, and CLEAVER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 193, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 321]
YEAS--222
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--193
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Crist
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Blackburn
Blum
Cheney
Ellison
Gallagher
Hanabusa
Harper
Jenkins (KS)
Napolitano
Perlmutter
Rush
Scalise
Speie
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1753
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 320 and ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 321.
____________________