[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.

                          ____________________