[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22747-22750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    TO COMPLETE THE ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 
    ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION FROM THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
                        PRIBILOF ISLANDS, ALASKA

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3417 and the 
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3417) to complete the orderly withdrawal of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from the 
     civil administration of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 4320

   (Purpose: To reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act and the 
    Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, and for other purposes)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senators Snowe and Kerry have an amendment 
at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] for Ms. Snowe, for 
     herself and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 4320.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4320) was agreed to.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to support H.R. 3417, the Pribilof 
Islands Transition Act with the amendment I have offered. This bill, as 
amended, contains a number of ocean, coastal, and fisheries related 
titles that will result in major conservation gains for our nation's 
marine resources at a time when we are placing enormous demands on 
them. The bill not only attempts to provide additional environmental 
protections through a number of state and local programs, but also 
tools for better management.
  Title I of this bill is the Pribilof Islands Transition Act. The 
Alaskan Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea were a former reserve for 
harvesting fur seals. The Commerce Department, acting through the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been 
involved in municipal and social services on the islands since 1910. In 
1983, NOAA tried to remove themselves from administering these 
programs. However, despite the $20 million in funds the Pribilof 
Islands received to replace future annual Federal appropriations, the 
Pribilof Islanders claim that the terms of the transition process were 
not met and the withdrawal failed.
  This title authorizes $28 million over five years to again attempt to 
achieve the orderly withdrawal of NOAA from the civil administration of 
the Pribilof Islands. Additionally, it authorizes $10 million a year 
for five years for NOAA to complete its environmental cleanup and 
landfill closure obligations prior to the final transfer of federal 
property to the six local entities. The Pribilof Islands have 
historically been a very expensive program to the American taxpayers. 
Congress expects that this title will provide a final termination of 
NOAA's municipal and social service responsibilities on the islands and 
a distinct end to federal taxpayer funding of those services.
  Title II of this bill is the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000, 
which refines and reauthorizes funding for the nation's coastal zone 
management program. This is the same language that was passed by 
unanimous consent in the Senate on September 28, 2000. Not only is this 
federal-state partnership important to my home state of Maine, but it 
is also a significant management tool for coastal states throughout the 
country. Despite the fact that the coastal zone only comprises 10 
percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, it is home to more than 53 
percent of the U.S. population, and more than 3,600 people relocate 
there annually. Not only is it an important economic region, but the 
coastal zone is also critical ecologically.
  We are currently facing a very serious problem in the coastal zone in 
the form of non-point source pollution. This type of runoff pollution 
is degrading the condition of our coastal rivers, wetlands, and marine 
environments. Compromising the environmental integrity of the coastal 
zone can in turn have a large impact on the regions' economic viability 
in a number of sectors, including tourism and fishing. The Coastal Zone 
Management Act of 2000 addresses this issue by encouraging and funding 
states to implement local solutions to their non-point source pollution 
problems. We have not created any new mandates or programs addressing 
non-point source pollution. Rather, the Coastal Community program can 
be used at the states' discretion if they want to create and implement 
local community-based solutions to problems, which would include non-
point source pollution control strategies and measures.
  This title greatly increases authorization levels for the coastal 
zone management program, allowing states to better address their 
coastal management plan goals. While we have achieved many successes 
through the CZMA, the states have made it clear that they can do more 
and that they can raise additional funds to match the increased federal 
funding. Therefore, we have authorized a total of $136.5 million for 
fiscal year 2001 and increased authorization levels by $5.5 million a 
year through fiscal year 2004. This total authorization includes an 
increase for the National Estuarine Research and Reserve System (NERRS) 
to $12 million in fiscal year 2001, with an additional $1 million 
increase each year through fiscal year 2004.
  Mr. President, Title III of the bill deals with the management of 
several Atlantic coast fisheries. Subtitle A reauthorizes the Atlantic 
Striped Bass Conservation Act (ASBCA). The ASBCA was originally passed 
to help coordinate and improve interstate management of Atlantic 
striped bass, an important commercial and recreational fish. Because 
striped bass migrate along the eastern seaboard, it is imperative that 
management measures be coordinated among the various states. The 
rebuilding of striped bass populations is considered one of our 
fisheries management success stories and it is critical that we 
continue these efforts. This subtitle authorizes $1.25 million a year 
for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to carry out the provisions of the 
act and another $250,000 to conduct a population study on the Atlantic 
striped bass.
  Subtitle B, the Atlantic Costal Fisheries Act of 2000, will 
reauthorize the highly successful interstate program that manages 
coastal fisheries that cross jurisdictional boundaries along the east 
coast. The states have proven that joint management of these resources 
is far more effective than a piecemeal approach by individual

[[Page 22748]]

states. In an effort to further increase the effectiveness of 
interstate management, the states have initiated the Atlantic Coastal 
Cooperative Statistics Program. This joint data collection and analysis 
program is intended to meet the need for improved fishery statistics 
for management purposes. It is a comprehensive effort to address all 
areas and fisheries and could serve as a model for a national 
cooperative statistics program. This subtitle authorizes $10 million in 
fiscal year 2001, increasing the authorization by $2 million a year 
until fiscal year 2005.
  Subtitle C of this title deals with a significant problem facing the 
Atlantic bluefin tuna, ABT, fishery. In 1998, the Highly Migratory 
Species Advisory Panel unanimously requested and advised the Secretary 
of Commerce to ban the use of spotter aircraft in the General and 
Harpoon categories of the ABT fishery. Spotter aircraft tend to 
accelerate the catch of the ABT, and thus can create significant 
impacts on both the communities that depend on the fishery and the 
conservation intentions of the ABT management plans. Because NMFS has 
been unable to successfully implement a rule to ban the use of spotter 
aircraft in the ABT fishery over the past two years, it has become 
necessary for Congress to take legislative action. Subtitle C prohibits 
the unfair use of spotter aircraft to locate or assist in fishing for 
ABT in the General and Harpoon categories of the ABT fishery. This 
action follows numerous public hearings held by NMFS and the discussion 
of this issue at several Senate hearings. This provision passed by 
unanimous consent in the Senate as part of an amendment to H.R. 1651, 
the Fishermen's Protective Act, on June 26, 2000.
  Mr. President, to many Americans, as well as myself, the practice of 
shark finning is both wasteful and disturbing. Shark finning is a 
method by which the dorsal fin and tail of a shark are cut off and 
retained, while the rest of the shark carcass is discarded as waste. 
Much of the fin product is then exported for sale to Asian countries. 
Title IV, the Shark Conservation Act, attempts to address this problem 
by prohibiting the domestic landing and at-sea transhipment of shark 
fins. It also directs the Administration to begin international 
negotiations to reduce foreign shark finning.
  Title V of the bill is the Fishermen's Protective Act Amendments of 
2000. It amends the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to lengthen the 
period during which reimbursement can be provided to owners of U.S. 
fishing vessels for costs incurred when a vessel is illegally seized, 
detained, or charged certain fees by a foreign country. Under the 
title, the reimbursement period is extended until fiscal year 2003. 
This provision passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on June 26, 
2000.
  Mr. President, title VI of the bill is the Yukon River Salmon Act of 
2000. It creates a Yukon River Salmon Panel to advise both the 
Secretary of State regarding negotiation of any international 
agreements with Canada relating to management of Yukon River salmon 
stocks and Secretary of the Interior regarding management of those 
stocks. An Advisory Committee is created to make advisory 
recommendations to a number of entities, including the Panel. A total 
of four million dollars a year for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 is 
authorized. Of these funds, up to $3 million a year can be used for a 
Yukon River salmon survey, restoration, enhancement activities; 
$600,000 of the total is to be available for cooperative Yukon River 
salmon research and management projects. This provision passed by 
unanimous consent in the Senate on June 26, 2000.
  This bill also address the very serious problem of an aging fishery 
research vessel, FRV, fleet. Because these vessels are used to conduct 
the majority of fishery stock assessments, they are a critical tool for 
improving management and regulation of our commercial fish species. 
Over the past year, I have conducted a series of six hearings across 
the country on fisheries management. At every hearing, the need for 
more and better data was raised repeatedly by the witnesses. The 
seventh title of the bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to acquire 
vessels, authorizing $60 million a year for fiscal years 2002 through 
2004. They will be outfitted with the latest technology and enable 
innovative research. New England is in particular need of a replacement 
FRV, since the current NOAA vessel, the Albatross IV, is 38 years old 
and at the end of its useful life. Without a new vessel, the ability 
for NOAA to collect long term fisheries, oceanographic, and biological 
data in New England will be seriously compromised. I had offered this 
provision as an amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act which 
passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on June 26, 2000.
  Mr. President, the bill also makes significant conservation and 
management improvements for our nation's coral reefs. Title VIII, the 
Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, requires the creation of a 
national coral reef action strategy. Of particular note is the use of 
marine protected areas to serve as replenishment zones. The U.S. Coral 
Reef Task Force has called for setting aside 20 percent of coral reefs 
in each region of the United States that contains reefs as no-take 
areas. However, many of the U.S. islands that have coral reefs have 
significant cultural ties to these reefs. It is imperative that any new 
marine protected areas are developed in close cooperation with the 
people of these islands and account for traditional and cultural uses 
of these resources. Without such cooperation, there will not be public 
support. The national strategy will address how such traditional uses 
will be incorporated into these replenishment zones.
  The national program will also incorporate such important topics as 
mapping; research, monitoring, and assessment; international and 
regional management; outreach and education; and restoration. According 
to NOAA, the majority of our nation's coral reefs are within federal 
waters, therefore it is expected that NOAA will continue to work 
cooperatively with the states, territories, and commonwealths in the 
development and implementation of coral reef management plans and shift 
the burden of responsibility onto these states, territories, and 
commonwealths.
  The title also creates a new coral reef conservation program, which 
will provide grants to states, governmental authorities, educational 
institutions, and non-governmental organizations. This is intended to 
foster locally based coral reef conservation and management. Creation 
of a coral reef conservation fund is also authorized. This fund would 
allow the Administration to enter into agreements with nonprofit 
organizations to support partnerships between the public and private 
sectors to further the conservation of coral reefs and help raise the 
matching funds required as part of the new grants program.
  The title authorizes a total of $16 million a year for fiscal years 
2001 through 2004 to be spilt equally between the local coral reef 
conservation program and national coral reef activities.
  Title IX of the bill amends the American Fisheries Act to allow for 
the participation of two additional catcher vessels in the Alaskan 
pollock fishery. These vessels were able to demonstrate that they 
should have been included in the Act when it passed in 1998. This title 
also makes a number of minor technical changes to other fisheries laws.
  Title X creates a new marine mammal rescue assistance grant program. 
This new program will assist eligible marine mammal stranding network 
participants by providing funding for recovery and treatment of marine 
mammals. Grants can also be used for data collection and the continued 
operation of these stranding centers. Efforts of these centers are 
critical for the continued conservation and management of marine 
mammals in our nation's waters. This program is authorized at $5 
million for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
  I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans 
and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill. 
I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for

[[Page 22749]]

his support, particularly for his contributions to the coral reef 
conservation section of the bill. In addition, I would like to thank 
Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator 
Hollings, the ranking member of the Committee, for their bipartisan 
support of this measure. We have before us an opportunity to 
significantly improve our Nation's ability to conserve and manage our 
marine resources and I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 3417, as amended.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on H.R. 3417 
and amendments to it that will pass the Senate today. It is a package 
of several bills all designed to benefit our coastal and marine 
environment. It is my hope, Mr. President, that the House of 
Representatives will consider and pass the bill immediately. They are 
sound proposals with broad support.
  Since the day I first arrived in the Senate more than 15 years ago, I 
have worked hard to address the many challenges confronting our common 
ocean and coastal resources. After all, few states draw as much of 
their national and regional identity from their coasts as does 
Massachusetts. And I have been fortunate that the Commerce Committee 
includes members of both parties who are ready and willing to work 
together, to find compromise and pass sound legislation. In that 
regard, I want to thank Senators Snowe, McCain and Hollings for their 
work on this bill.
  The major provisions of H.R. 3417, as amended, are the Pribilof 
Islands Transition Act, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, the Atlantic 
Striped Bass Conservation Act, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries 
Cooperative Management Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the 
Fishermen's Protective Act Amendments, the Coral Reef Conservation Act 
and the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act. Each of these major 
proposals in the bill, except the corals bill, has already passed the 
House, the Senate or both. The bill also includes a ban on the use of 
spotter aircraft in certain bluefin tuna fishery categories. This 
proposal has passed the Senate.
  I would like to make a few short comments on the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. To begin, I want to thank Senator Snowe, our chairman 
on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee, for 
putting this legislation on the Committee agenda this Congress and 
working for its enactment.
  Mr. President, when Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act 
in 1972, it made the critical finding that, ``Important ecological, 
cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone are being 
irretrievably damaged or lost.'' As we deliberated CZMA's 
reauthorization this session, I measured our progress against that 
almost 30-year-old congressional finding. And, I concluded that while 
we have made tremendous gains in coastal environmental protection, the 
increasing challenges have made this congressional finding is as true 
today as it was then.
  It is clear from the evidence presented to the Committee in our 
oversight process and from other input that I have received, that a 
great need exists for the federal government to increase its support 
for states and local communities that are working to protect and 
preserve our coastal zone. To accomplish that goal, the Committee has 
reported a bill that substantially increases annual authorizations for 
the CZMA program and targets funding at controlling coastal polluted 
runoff, one the more difficult challenges we face in the coastal 
environment.
  This reauthorization tackles the problem of polluted coastal runoff. 
This is one of the great environmental and economic challenges we face 
in the coastal zone. At the same time that pollution from industrial, 
commercial and residential sources has increased in the coastal zone, 
the destruction of wetlands, marshes, mangroves and other natural 
systems has reduced the capacity of these systems to filter pollution. 
Together, these two trends have resulted in environmental and economic 
damage to our coastal areas. These effects include beach closures 
around the nation, the discovery of a recurring ``Dead Zone'' covering 
more than 6,000 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico, the outbreak of 
Pfiesteria on the Mid-Atlantic, the clogging of shipping channels in 
the Great Lakes, and harm to the Florida Bay and Keys ecosystems. In 
Massachusetts, we've faced a dramatic rise in shell fish beds closures, 
which have put many of our fishermen out of work.
  To tackle this problem, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000 
targets up $10 million annually to, ``assist coastal communities to 
coordinate and implement approved coastal nonpoint pollution control 
strategies and measures that reduce the causes and impacts of polluted 
runoff on coastal waters and habitats.'' This is an important 
amendment. For the first time, we have elevated the local management of 
runoff as national priority within the context of the CZMA program. 
Runoff is not a state-by-state problem; the marine environment is far 
too dynamic. States share the same coastlines and border large bodies 
of waters, such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay or the Long 
Island Sound, so that pollutants from one state can detrimentally 
affect the quality of the marine environment in other states. We are 
seeing the effects of polluted runoff both in our coastal communities 
and on our nation's living marine resources and habitats. Mr. 
President, I'm pleased that we've included the runoff provision in the 
bill. It's an important step forward and I believe we will see the 
benefits in our coastal environment and economy.
  The Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000, Mr. President, has been 
endorsed by the 35 coastal states and territories through the Coastal 
States Organization. It also has the endorsement of the Great Lakes 
Commission, American Oceans Campaign, Coast Alliance, Center for Marine 
Conservation, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, California 
CoastKeeper and many other groups. It's a long list that makes clear 
that this is a consensus proposal. We heard from all sides and did our 
best to fine compromise, and I believe that we succeeded.
  I also want to make a short statement on shark finning. H.R. 3417 
would prohibit the practice of shark finning. Sharks are among the most 
biologically vulnerable species in the ocean. Their slow growth, late 
maturity and small number of offspring leave them exceptionally 
vulnerable to overfishing and slow to recover from depletion. At the 
same time, sharks, as top predators, are essential to maintaining the 
balance of life in the sea. While many of our other highly migratory 
species such as tunas and swordfish are subject to rigorous management 
regimes, sharks have largely been overlooked until recently.
  The bill bans the wasteful practice of removing a shark's fins and 
returning the remainder of the shark to sea. National Marine Fisheries 
Service regulations in the Atlantic Ocean prohibit the practice of 
shark finning, but a nationwide prohibition does not currently exist. 
Shark fins comprise only a small percentage of the weight of the shark, 
and yet this is often the only portion of the shark retained. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and international commitments discourage 
unnecessary waste of fish, and thus I believe this bill ensures our 
domestic regulations are consistent on this point. Another goal of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act--the minimization of bycatch and bycatch 
mortality--is an issue that I have been particularly committed to over 
the years. Because most of the sharks caught and finned are 
incidentally captured in fisheries targeting other species, I believe 
establishing a domestic ban will help us further reduce this type of 
shark mortality.
  The next step in this process is to act internationally. At present, 
foreign fleets transship or land approximately 180 metric tons of shark 
fins annually through ports in the Pacific alone. The global shark fin 
trade involves at least 125 countries, and the demand for shark fins 
and other shark products has driven dramatic increases in shark fishing 
and shark mortality around the world. International measures are an 
absolutely critical component of achieving effective shark 
conservation.

[[Page 22750]]

  Finally, the bill authorizes a Western Pacific longline fisheries 
cooperative research program to provide information for shark stock 
assessments, identify fishing gear and practices that prevent or 
minimize incidental catch of sharks and ensure maximum survivorship of 
released sharks, and provide data on the international shark fin trade.
  The United States is a global leader in fisheries conservation and 
management. I believe this legislation provides us the opportunity to 
further this role, and take the first step in addressing an 
international fisheries management issue. In addition, I believe the 
U.S. should continue to lead efforts at the United Nations and 
international conventions to achieve coordinated international 
management of sharks, including an international ban on shark-finning.
  Mr. President, this package also includes a provision to ban the use 
of spotter aircraft in both the harpoon and general categories of the 
Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery. This has been an ongoing issue in New 
England since 1996. Several of my Senate colleagues, including Senators 
Snowe, Kennedy, Gregg, and Collins, have asked the agency to ban 
aircraft in the past. Unfortunately Mr. President, because aircraft do 
not catch fish, our legal system has determined that the agency cannot 
regulate these aircraft. Let me point out that the fisheries service 
has gone through two rounds of public rulemaking on this issue and in 
both instances an overwhelming number of public comments were in 
support of this ban. The Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery is one of the 
last open fisheries in New England, and spotter aircraft provide an 
unfair competitive advantage to those fishermen who use them. Banning 
spotter aircraft will level the playing field and provide the 
opportunity for thousands of New Englanders to experience the thrill of 
landing a 400 pound bluefin tuna that, depending on the quality of the 
fish, can easily be worth $10,000.
  Mr. President, H.R. 3417 also includes an authorization for the 
Secretary of Commerce to acquire fishery research vessels in 2002, 
2003, and 2004 at a cost of $60 million. These state-of-the-art fishery 
research vessels will replace a fleet of vessels that are becoming 
technologically obsolete and reaching the end of their useful lives. In 
New England, the primary vessel used for our stock assessments is the 
38-year old Albatross IV. Over the years NOAA has assumed increased 
responsibilities for managing our marine resources under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. It is absolutely 
imperative that we give NOAA scientists the tools necessary to carry 
out the mandates Congress has given them.
  Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the House will move to pass this 
legislation. This is a very reasonable proposal. Indeed, it includes 
several proposals the House has initiated and passed. We have made 
every effort to act on their priorities and we ask that they do the 
same with our priorities.


                 atlantic striped bass conservation act

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud my 
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, on his efforts to reauthorize 
the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in a package of oceans and 
fisheries legislation. I would also like to reaffirm the continued 
interest of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in this 
important legislation, over which our two committees have traditionally 
shared jurisdiction. As my colleague knows, this legislation is 
critically important to the northeast.
  The populations of striped bass, which can be found all along the 
east coast, began to decline dramatically during the 1970s. In 1979, 
Congress responded by authorizing the Emergency Striped Bass Study as 
part of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. And in 1984, Congress 
enacted the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. This Act promotes a 
coordinated Federal-State partnership for striped bass management. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service have been jointly responsible for working with State agencies 
to recover the fishery. Their efforts have been very successful. The 
commercial catch of striped bass peaked in 1998 at 19 million pounds, 
which is a dramatic increase from 1983 when the catch was 2.9 million 
pounds.
  Historically, both the Environment and Public Works Committee, which 
I chair, and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which 
is chaired by Senator McCain, have shared jurisdiction over the 
conservation of striped bass. Because both the Department of Commerce 
and the Department of the Interior are involved in the conservation of 
the fishery, legislation to reauthorize the 1984 Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act has always been of interest to both the Commerce 
Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. The most 
recent reauthorizing legislation, the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act Amendments of 1997, was sequentially referred, by 
unanimous consent, to the Environment and Public Works Committee after 
the Commerce Committee ordered the bill to be reported. The Environment 
Committee then amended and reported the bill. It was signed into law on 
December 16, 1997.
  In order to facilitate passage of reauthorizing legislation this 
year, I have agreed to the language being offered by Senator McCain in 
H.R. 3417, as amended, the Pribilof Islands Transition Act, and will 
not request sequential referral. However, I want to reaffirm, with the 
agreement of my colleague, that this in no way affects the future 
jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee over the 
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act.
  Mr. McCAIN. As the Senator from New Hampshire stated, the Commerce 
Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee have 
historically shared jurisdiction over the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act. Our two committees have in the past always worked 
together to reauthorize and amend the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act. I expect that relationship to continue.
  In order to facilitate the passage of this year's Atlantic Striped 
Bass reauthorization, Subtitle A of Title III of H.R. 3417, as amended, 
reauthorizes the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. Although the 
Pribilof Islands Transition Act and the other provisions in this 
legislation are under the sole jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, 
I understand that my colleague from New Hampshire has reviewed and 
approved the language contained in Title III; therefore, the shared 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public 
Works Committee over the conservation of Atlantic Striped bass should 
not be altered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and 
passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 3417), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________