[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 209 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H7115-H7118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DRIFTNET MODERNIZATION AND BYCATCH REDUCTION ACT

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 906) to improve the management of driftnet fishing.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 S. 906

       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 ``Driftnet Modernization and 
     Bycatch Reduction Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       Section 3(25) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(25)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, or with a mesh size of 14 inches or greater,'' 
     after ``more''.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Section 206(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1826(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) within the exclusive economic zone, large-scale 
     driftnet fishing that deploys nets with large mesh sizes 
     causes significant entanglement and mortality of living 
     marine resources, including myriad protected species, despite 
     limitations on the lengths of such nets.''.
       (b) Policy.--Section 206(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1826(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following--
       ``(4) prioritize the phase out of large-scale driftnet 
     fishing in the exclusive economic zone and promote the 
     development and adoption of alternative fishing methods and 
     gear types that minimize the incidental catch of living 
     marine resources.''.

     SEC. 4. TRANSITION PROGRAM.

       Section 206 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1826) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following--
       ``(i) Fishing Gear Transition Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of the Driftnet Modernization and 
     Bycatch Reduction Act, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     transition program to facilitate the phase-out of large-scale 
     driftnet fishing and adoption of alternative fishing 
     practices that minimize the incidental catch of living marine 
     resources, and shall award grants to eligible permit holders 
     who participate in the program.
       ``(2) Permissible uses.--Any permit holder receiving a 
     grant under paragraph (1) may use such funds only for the 
     purpose of covering--
       ``(A) any fee originally associated with a permit 
     authorizing participation in a large-scale driftnet fishery, 
     if such permit is surrendered for permanent revocation, and 
     such permit holder relinquishes any claim associated with the 
     permit;
       ``(B) a forfeiture of fishing gear associated with a permit 
     described in subparagraph (A); or
       ``(C) the purchase of alternative gear with minimal 
     incidental catch of living marine resources, if the fishery 
     participant is authorized to continue fishing using such 
     alternative gears.
       ``(3) Certification.--The Secretary shall certify that, 
     with respect to each participant in the program under this 
     subsection, any permit authorizing participation in a large-
     scale driftnet fishery has been permanently revoked and that 
     no new permits will be issued to authorize such fishing.''.

     SEC. 5. EXCEPTION.

       Section 307(1)(M) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(M)) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     unless such large-scale driftnet fishing--
       ``(i) deploys, within the exclusive economic zone, a net 
     with a total length of less than two and one-half kilometers 
     and a mesh size of 14 inches or greater; and
       ``(ii) is conducted within 5 years of the date of enactment 
     of the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act''.

     SEC. 6. FEES.

       (a) In General.--The North Pacific Fishery Management 
     Council may recommend, and the Secretary of Commerce may 
     approve, regulations necessary for the collection of fees 
     from charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers 
     who harvest Pacific halibut in International Pacific Halibut 
     Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A as those terms are 
     defined in part 300 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or any successor regulations).
       (b) Use of Fees.--Any fees collected under this section 
     shall be available, without appropriation or fiscal year 
     limitation, for the purposes of--
       (1) financing administrative costs of the Recreational 
     Quota Entity program;
       (2) the purchase of halibut quota shares in International 
     Pacific Halibut Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A by the 
     recreational quota entity authorized in part 679 of title 50, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations);
       (3) halibut conservation and research; and
       (4) promotion of the halibut resource by the recreational 
     quota entity authorized in part 679 of title 50, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to speak in favor of the Driftnet 
Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. This was sent to us by the 
Senate on voice vote and sponsored by California Senator Dianne 
Feinstein.
  I applaud our colleagues in the Senate for sending us meaningful 
bipartisan bills--for a change--that were overwhelmingly improved. I 
hope my colleagues in the House will join me in this bipartisan effort 
to conserve our oceans and wildlife.
  I would also like to applaud the recreational fishing and 
conservation community for their leadership on this bill.
  Large-scale drift gillnets--or driftnets, as they are called--are 
wasteful, and they are an outdated type of fishing gear. At 2 
kilometers long, their purpose is to simply drift along through ocean 
currents and catch whatever they may find in their long webbing.
  The only large-scale driftnet fishery in the country today is the 
West Coast swordfish fishery, where these driftnets are used to catch 
swordfish and other commercially valuable species such as thresher, 
mako shark, and opah.
  But a 2-kilometer-long net in the ocean catches far more than these 
target species. Driftnets are indiscriminate. They catch sea turtles, 
bottlenose dolphins, and short-finned pilot whales.
  During the committee hearing on this bill, my Republican colleague, 
Garret Graves, joked that California is finally catching up with his 
State of Louisiana because they ended driftnet fishing in 1995, to 
which I say: Good for Louisiana. Elsewhere around the world,

[[Page H7116]]

driftnets have been banned due to the high rate of bycatch.
  This important legislation would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act to direct the Secretary of Commerce to 
conduct a transition program to phase out the use of these large-scale 
driftnets and to facilitate the adoption of alternative fishing gear.
  This transition program is supported by key stakeholders. A majority 
of active permit holders submitted their intent to participate in the 
program, and a nonprofit has invested $1 million to help these 
fishermen transition.
  It is important to note that there really are great alternatives to 
drift gillnets, like deep-set buoys, which have a lower bycatch rate 
and can actually fetch higher market rates for fishermen.
  This bill would also prohibit the use of large-scale driftnet fishing 
by all U.S. vessels within the U.S. exclusive economic zone within 5 
years.
  Let's join the rest of the world and end the use of drift gillnets. 
The Senate passed this bill in July, and I urge my colleagues in the 
House to do the same now.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a bill that will very 
effectively put most swordfish boats on the West Coast out of business. 
I believe it is yet another battle on a multifront war by the far-left 
Democrats against America's working class.
  The swordfish boats on the West Coast harvest a Pacific fishery that 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has classified as 
``underutilized.'' There is no shortage of swordfish thanks to the 
responsible management of this fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
  The principal means of harvesting swordfish is the drift gillnet, 
which has been a target of environmental extremists for years. Despite 
their lurid tales of indiscriminate catches of other species, 
particularly endangered species, this is, in fact, a very rare 
occurrence.
  With respect to endangered species, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service reported: ``It is NMFS' biological opinion that the proposed 
action of continued management of the drift gillnet fishery is not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these seven endangered 
species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any ESA-listed 
designated critical habitat.''
  So here we have an industry that some of the hardest working men and 
women in America depend upon to feed their families--and, by the way, 
feed ours, as well--in an underutilized fishery by means of drift 
gillnets that have an extremely low incidence of inadvertent bycatch.
  So what does Congress propose to do for these families? Commend them 
for their hard work? Thank them for the contribution they make to 
America's food supply and to the American economy? Well, no, not 
exactly. Instead, Congress proposes to shut them down.
  Those aren't my words. When Gary Burke, one of the swordfishermen 
threatened by this bill came before our subcommittee, he said: ``I want 
to be very clear regarding the impacts of this legislation on the 
driftnet gill fleet. It will shut us down.''
  And for what possible reason?
  The fishery is sound; the industry is responsible; incidental takes 
are extremely rare. Why would anyone want to decimate these families 
and American consumers as well? Just for the hell of it seems to be the 
only logical explanation.
  The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has been 
lauded by conservationists for many decades. It has stood the test of 
time and proven itself to be a program that works.
  The Regional Fishery Management Council process works because it is 
collaborative, and it involves the parties with a direct stake in 
keeping the fishery healthy.
  This legislation is a ham-handed, iron-fisted, top-down diktat that 
goes against everything that Magnuson-Stevens stands for.
  Now, we just heard: Don't worry. There is an alternative that will 
work just fine. It is the deep-set buoy gear.
  And, yes, it is sometimes used to supplement the drift gillnets, but 
it is not economically viable by itself.
  As the actual swordfishermen explained, the costs of running a 
fishing vessel--fuel, debt service, and labor--often means a very tight 
profit margin. To make a trip viable, the boat must achieve enough of a 
catch to at least offset its costs.
  The alternative this bill would force on them simply doesn't catch 
nearly as many fish and certainly not enough to make the trip 
profitable. Reduce the catch below the break-even mark--as this bill 
surely does--and there is no catch because the boat can't go out.
  How do we know that? Because the very fishermen who use the deep-set 
buoy gear have told us so. They state in a letter to the committee: 
``Our concern is based on the fact that while there is potential for 
alternative gear to be used in this industry, currently there is no 
existing gear that can be substituted for the drift gillnet and still 
allow fishermen to earn a living.''
  Those are the people who use that equipment.
  So let me repeat that: Our fishermen will not be able to earn a 
living using this experimental gear. The majority knows this; it is 
just they don't care.
  This legislation does nothing to improve fisheries management but, 
instead, does great harm in two respects: It takes away the earnings of 
American fishermen, and it raises the price of seafood for American 
families.
  Again, don't take my word for it, or even the fishermen whose 
livelihoods are being cast aside. The Natural Resources Committee 
received testimony from NOAA which stressed to our members that this 
bill ``does not reflect the progress made to date in minimizing bycatch 
in the U.S. West Coast drift gillnet fishery. Based on the best 
available science and 26 years of observer data, bycatch of threatened 
or endangered protected species is a rare event.''
  Now let's talk about the unintended consequences of putting the 
American West Coast swordfish industry out of business.
  It doesn't protect the fishery because the fishery isn't endangered. 
It doesn't protect other species because incidental taking of those 
species is rare.
  The ultimate irony is that this bill doesn't even stop the use of 
drift gillnets except, of course, for Americans. This bill will 
effectively remove West Coast swordfish from the market, but it doesn't 
remove the market demand.
  So what happens? Consumer prices will go up and the market will meet 
that demand by shifting to swordfish caught by foreign fleets where 
they are not strictly regulated and where they will enjoy an enormous 
competitive advantage by being unrestricted in their use of the very 
same drift gillnets that Americans--and only Americans--are forbidden 
from using.
  Again, that is not my conclusion. That is the conclusion of NOAA 
itself, which told our committee: ``NOAA is concerned that shifting to 
alternative gears that are not economically viable could decrease U.S. 
swordfish harvest and reduce the U.S. West Coast large mesh drift 
gillnet fishery's competitiveness against foreign fisheries with less 
restrictive environmental regulations during the phaseout.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this cruel and ill-conceived 
measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, for those folks who had the word ``diktat'' 
on their bingo card, you are a big winner today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that, but when he 
describes this bill as extreme, overreaching, and draconian, he left 
out the fact that 28 of the 31 fishermen in this particular fishery 
have already agreed to participate in the transition program that this 
bill provides. My hope is that the three holdouts will take advantage 
of the transition assistance being offered and join the rest of their 
peers.
  Also, when my colleague mentions far-left Democrats driving this 
bill, he forgets to mention the long list of Republicans in both the 
House and Senate who are supporting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Case).
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of the State with one of 
the largest exclusive economic zones in our country and as the 
Representative of the State that sits in the middle of the Pacific 
where we are seeing increasing

[[Page H7117]]

overfishing, including the use of these techniques throughout our 
Pacific, I rise in very strong support of the Driftnet Modernization 
and Bycatch Reduction Act. This bipartisan legislation is necessary to 
transition fairly an important West Coast fishery away from the use of 
large mesh driftnets.
  I want to commend, in addition to Senator Feinstein and the 
Republican cosponsors, Congressman Lieu on our side for his work on the 
bill in the House.
  Yes, this fishery is small, with less than 20 participants, but it is 
one of the most destructive. The use of mile-long driftnets results in 
over 70 species caught in volume as bycatch.
  The problems with this practice are nothing new. Beginning in the 
1980s, Congress and the Republican and first Bush administration 
recognized its destruction and worked together to reform the practice, 
culminating with the near complete global moratorium on the practice.
  Today, the large mesh driftnets that continue to be used in Federal 
waters along the West Coast are the last of their kind in the Nation. 
This bill closes that loophole and phases out the practice.

                              {time}  0930

  Fortunately, new fishing technology has been developed that catches 
swordfish at a profitable level without the huge levels of bycatch 
associated with driftnets. That is good for fishermen, good for 
consumers, and good for the marine environment.
  All West Coast States have already acted to prohibit this type of 
fishing from their shores and their oceans. It is time we, at the 
Federal level, act to do the same to ensure the sustainability of this 
fishery and the sustainability of the bycatch fisheries. Transitioning 
away from large-mesh driftnets is supported by recreational fishermen, 
conservation groups, seafood purveyors, and consumers, and it just 
makes sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan, bicameral bill.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
the California fishermen who participated in the experimental 
technology demonstration project expressing their concerns with the 
bill.
                                                      May 6, 2019.
     Re: H.R. 1979--Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction 
         Act

     Hon. Ted Lieu,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Lieu: We are participants in the 
     experimental Deep-Set Buoy Gear (``DSBG'') fishery off the 
     California Coast. A majority of us participate in, or have 
     participated in, the drift gillnet fishery. We are writing to 
     express our concerns regarding H.R. 1979, the Driftnet 
     Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. H.R. 1979 includes 
     language which will phase-out the use of drift gillnets 
     (``DGN'') to harvest swordfish and require the ``. . . 
     adoption of alternative fishing practices that minimize the 
     incidental catch of living marine resources''. Our concern is 
     based on the fact that while there is potential for 
     alternative gear to be used in this fishery, currently there 
     is no existing gear that can be substituted for the DGN gear 
     and still allow fishermen to earn a living.
       The Pacific Fishery Management Council (``PFMC'') is 
     currently working towards authorizing Deep-Set Buoy Gear 
     (``DSBG''), a swordfish gear type that was developed to 
     provide west coast fishers with an additional gear option for 
     use during periods of reduced landings. DSBG has been allowed 
     to operate under an Exempted Fishing Permit (``EFP'') since 
     2015. As noted in the initial EFP application DSBG was 
     designed to ``. . . provide fishers with a complementary gear 
     type that can be used in conjunction with harpooning . . . . 
     and also compliment ongoing DGN activities.''
       Participants in the initial EFP had extensive experience 
     targeting swordfish with DGN and harpoon gears and 
     participated in the research trials so that they could expand 
     domestic fishery options for the West Coast. This continues 
     to be a priority for managers and the fishing community, as 
     current restrictions limit summertime harvest off California 
     waters, forcing markets to import swordfish even when the 
     resource is available in local waters. The coupling of DSBG, 
     harpoon and DGN techniques provides the tools needed to 
     capitalize on this federal resource throughout the entire 
     fishery season. This is critical given that different gear 
     types have different seasons in which they work optimally.
       Because DSBG landings peak in the months prior to that of 
     the DGN fishery, our community has largely supported the 
     advent and trial of new techniques, as they have the 
     potential to augment and revitalize our declining fishery. 
     Now that H.R. 1979 proposes to phase out DGN and replace it 
     with DSBG, we are concerned that this will further impact the 
     viability of west coast swordfish operations all together. We 
     are certain that the DGN market share will be filled with 
     additional unregulated foreign-caught swordfish. As shown in 
     2018, increases in unregulated imports drives market price 
     down, reduces domestic profitability and deters participation 
     our US fisheries. Collectively, we feel that H.R. 1979 will 
     negatively impact local livelihoods, increase our reliance 
     upon foreign fleets and decrease the productivity and of our 
     west coast fishery.
       We are also concerned over the proposed transition of the 
     traditional DGN fleet to a future DSBG fishery. Some of the 
     DGN vessels are larger than those currently used in the DSBG 
     fishery and many of them only fish for swordfish during the 
     fall window in which DGN works optimally. We are troubled 
     that the proposed transition will create an inequity among 
     the fleet and negatively impact fishing operations and 
     profitability. We feel that H.R. 1979 is premature and should 
     be contemplated only after it is demonstrated that DSBG can 
     be profitable for the entire DGN community. Until then, we 
     hope to continue to provide domestic west coast swordfish 
     caught using highly regulated techniques that continue to 
     operate in full federal and state compliance.
           Sincerely,
         Chugey Sepulveda, PhD, EFP Lead, Pfleger Institute of 
           Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA; Donald Krebbs, 
           F/V Goldcoast, San Diego, CA; Ben Stephens, F/V Tres 
           Mujeres, Vista, CA; Freddie Hepp, F/V Plumeria, Santa 
           Barbara, CA; William Sutton, F/V Aurelia, Ojai, CA; 
           Nathan Perez, F/V Bear Flag II, Newport Beach, CA; Jack 
           Stephens, F/V DEA, Vista, CA; Kelly Fukushima, F/V 
           Three Boys, San Diego, CA.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore the majority to consider the damage that it 
will do with this bill. The West Coast swordfish fishery is healthy 
and, indeed, underutilized. The drift gillnet results in very little 
incidental take of other species. To put a number on it, in 17 years, 
only 10 whales interacted with these nets, and 4 of them were released 
alive. Six of them were killed.
  Now, to put that in perspective--6 in 17 years--roughly 80 whales are 
killed by ships off the California coast every year. Six were killed by 
driftnets in 17 years; 80 are killed by ship collisions every year.
  Does my friend see the difference?
  Banning the nets will reduce the catch below the level that is 
economically viable. It will shut down the industry. The result will be 
devastating to the families that run these businesses. It will be 
harmful to the consumer who will pay higher prices for this product, 
and it will encourage increased use of driftnets in foreign waters to 
fill the shortage caused by banning them in our own.
  Why in God's name would anyone want to do that?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised the issue of foreign fleets 
using these drift gillnets a couple of times now. Let me briefly speak 
to that, and I will close.
  Of course, we need to do something about those bad practices by 
foreign fleets, but in order to do that, in order to restrict the 
importation of seafood that is caught through unsustainable practices 
by foreign fleets, we have to hold our own fleets to this higher 
standard of sustainability and bycatch reduction. That is what this 
bill and other efforts in this area are all about.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a solidly bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation that would phase out the use of large mesh drift 
gillnets off the coast of California.
  Currently, the use of gillnets with a total length of two and one-
half kilometers or more is prohibited in U.S. waters. However, off the 
coast of California, we have seen that drift gillnet fishing gear 
within the legal federal limit is still having an adverse impact on our 
Pacific wildlife. While these mile-long gillnets are designed to catch 
swordfish and thresher sharks, the large mesh net frequently captures 
many other marine animals as bycatch, injuring or killing them in the 
process.
  The practice of drift gillnet fishing is an antiquated method for 
catching swordfish and

[[Page H7118]]

thresher sharks, and is already banned in many states, including 
Washington and Oregon. It is time to adopt new fishing technology in 
order to set a path toward more sustainable fishing. This bill would 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a transition program to 
phase-out large mesh drift gillnet and promote the adoption of 
alternative fishing practices to minimize the bycatch of marine 
species.
  Bycatch is a lingering problem in fisheries management, and such 
waste is especially pervasive in driftnet fisheries. We have the prime 
opportunity today to provide a solution that would improve fishery 
resource management and provide the swordfish fishery participants the 
needed support to transition to more selective and sustainable fishing 
gear. It is a win-win situation.
  On July 22, 2020, the Senate passed S. 906 by unanimous consent. 
There is broad support for this legislation, including endorsements 
from the American Sportfishing Association, The Pew Charitable Trusts, 
Humane Society Legislative Fund, Oceana, Theodore Roosevelt 
Conservation Partnership, and the National Marine Manufacturers 
Association. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I urge my colleagues in 
the House to join us in passing this commonsense legislation today. I 
would like to thank Chairman Grijalva, Congressman Huffman, and Senator 
Feinstein for their leadership on this issue as well as House and 
Senate committee staff for their hard work. I look forward to the 
enactment of this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 906, the 
Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. I would like to start 
out by thanking Senators Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan, Dianne 
Feinstein, and Shelley Capito, along with Congressman Ted Lieu, and 
everyone who was involved in this legislation. Their passion for our 
fisheries is truly admirable.
  This bill includes a Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) provision that 
is crucial to the charter fishing industry. Under the provision, an RQE 
would be allowed to purchase and hold a limited amount of halibut quota 
shares to augment the amount of halibut available to charters. For 
years, charter anglers have faced stringent restrictions as catch 
limits have been reduced and this provision would allow fishing 
charters to compete on a larger scale.
  Charter fishing in Alaska is world renown and is a driving force for 
tourism in many towns. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity 
to spend a day in Seward this past summer meeting with halibut charters 
and hearing directly from the people in the industry. I'd also note we 
had a great time catching some Alaska fish.
  While this bill may not be perfect, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this bipartisan legislation because of the importance of 
the RQE provision to my home state of Alaska. This is a self-funding 
solution that will have a positive impact for the charter fishing 
industry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, S. 906.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________