[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 26618-26619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           STELLER SEA LIONS

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to my friend from New 
Mexico. I am here once again to talk about the last controversial 
amendment in the appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2001. We have 
completed all work on these bills now except for one amendment and that 
is the amendment that pertains to the Steller sea lions. I am here 
because there seems to still be a misunderstanding about what we are 
trying to do. The Congress has passed and the President has signed, as 
a matter of fact, an extension of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the act 
that deals with the 200-mile limit off our shores. That act in its 
original form created the North Pacific Fisheries Council that has 
jurisdiction under the law for the management plans that apply to 
fisheries off the shores of my State of Alaska.
  In its recent action in issuing a biological opinion under the 
Endangered Species Act, the Department of Commerce saw fit to use the 
emergency portions of the Magnuson Act to issue a management plan for 
pollack and for cod off the State of Alaska within what they call the 
RPAs, the reasonable prudent alternative areas, dealing with the 
decline of the Steller sea lion.
  There is no emergency provision in the Endangered Species Act. Under 
the Magnuson Act, management plans are issued by the regional councils, 
not by the Department of Commerce. There is an emergency clause, if the 
Secretary makes findings of problems with the fishery, that could 
justify the Secretary issuing a plan or a revision of the existing 
plan. That was not done. Instead, the Department of Commerce saw fit to 
use the emergency clause of the Magnuson Act to once again seize total 
control of the pollack and the cod fisheries off our shores within the 
so-called RPAs. They amount to an area of 20 miles around every sea 
lion rookery. It is an area that extends from Kodiak, all the way out 
along the Aleutian chain.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service has told us there is no data to 
support the concept that there is a connection between the decline of 
the sea lion and the harvest of pollack. There is no cause and effect 
relationship scientifically that exists with regard to this decline. We 
are appalled by the decline of sea lions off our shores. We also know 
that sea otters are steadily disappearing, as are fur seals and harbor 
seals. We believe the reason is the tremendous increase in the killer 
whales. That is another subject.
  Very clearly, what the Department has done now is to increase the 
danger for fishermen who live in Alaska and fish in the areas off our 
shores. That fishing currently has the highest level of deaths per 
capita of any industry in the United States. What this order has done, 
now, is it has foreclosed the fishing by these small boats in the areas 
where the pollack is located except during the wintertime. This is a 
particularly dangerous area. Winter storms increase the problems of 
fishing. What is more, if they follow the order and go beyond the 20 
miles, the further from shore they go on these small boats, even a 
minor injury becomes a life threatening injury, particularly in the 
stormy season. I have to report to the Senate that the Coast Guard 
voted against following this biological opinion last Saturday, in my 
State, for safety reasons.
  What the administration has done is they have restarted the race for 
the fish. They have made it almost impossible for the enforcement of 
this biological opinion. They have not consulted with the people who 
really know the industry as they have issued this opinion. This opinion 
will have a $500 million to $800 million impact on the industry, 
according to figures that came from the Department itself.
  Just think of this. The largest concentration of fish processors in 
the United States is on Kodiak Island. I was informed yesterday that, 
as a result of this opinion, if it is enforced, Kodiak processors will 
be able to operate for 2\1/2\ days. This opinion will create ghost 
towns in my State along the shore from Kodiak all the way out along the 
Aleutian chain. Primarily those are native villages. These are not 
enormous factory trawlers. They fish way offshore. These are people who 
live in these small villages and harvest this fish--which is a unique 
fish, as I have told the Senate before. It is unique because it is a 
biomass constantly growing. Because of the management schemes we have 
worked out under the Magnuson Act, that biomass has increased almost 
five times since we started the Magnuson Act.
  There is more pollack than ever before, but this is going to limit 
fishing for pollack in specific areas where the small boats fish.
  There is just no way to justify this. Native Alaskans, as I say, are 
going to lose their jobs, lose their subsistence. About 1,000 boats 
that otherwise would have gone to sea will not fish under this order. 
It is just unconscionable.
  I am not one who makes threats; I make statements. I have made the 
statement that I will not sign this conference report if it does not 
adequately restore this fishery. I will oppose the bill on the floor, 
and I am hopeful my friends on this floor will understand why.
  What this means is we cannot resolve this issue. My staff will meet--
thanks to the good offices of the Democratic leader--with 
representatives of the administration in just a few minutes, but if we 
cannot resolve this, my advice is make different reservations.
  Understand, I cannot as a Senator allow an action that is not 
following the law that I helped author put a considerable portion of 
the people who have year-round jobs in my State out of work, and not 
just temporarily. They have purported to create these areas around 
these rookeries forever without any consultation with the regional 
council that was created by the Magnuson Act, without any public 
hearings, based solely upon a lawsuit that was filed in a Federal court 
in Seattle and a friendly suit to use that as a justification for 
taking back into the Federal Government the management of these two 
magnificent fisheries--pollack and cod--off our State.
  In my opinion, it is unconstitutional, but I know one thing--it is 
not going to be approved by this Senate.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when I yielded time to my good friend 
from Alaska, I did not think I would be hearing what I just heard. I am 
pleased I

[[Page 26619]]

was here when he discussed this issue of paramount importance to his 
State.
  It is most interesting that a Senator can come to the floor of the 
Senate and tell us all something that is very important to his State, 
even though the State is a small State. It is great that our 
Constitution gives our States representation based upon statehood and 
not upon population of the State. I trust the administration and others 
will see fit to work with Senator Stevens so we will all be out of here 
before Christmas.

                          ____________________