[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7963-7964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN 
                        FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT


                             general leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 materials on H.R. 1335.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 274 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. 1335.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1537


                     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. 1335) 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. Collins of 
New York 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 Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1335 makes a decent Federal law a better Federal 
law, and I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his 
leadership and his dedication to strengthening and updating our Federal 
fisheries laws.
  The bill that we have before us today on the floor represents years 
of hard work on a comprehensive reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is why this bill was 
given such a high priority by our committee and was such a major effort 
of trying to make this one of the first bills we brought out.
  This bill was originally passed in 1976, was updated in 1996 and 
again in 2006, and illustrates the same principle:

[[Page 7964]]

that all bills age. And though principles of government may be eternal, 
specific administrative laws are in need of constant review by a 
legislative body. That is our job. This bill does that. It is a good 
bill for our economy. It is a good bill for our jobs.
  In 2012, the seafood industry had a sales impact of $141 billion, $59 
billion in value-added impacts, and supported 1.3 million jobs earning 
$39 billion in income.
  The U.S. commercial fishermen directly contributed with 9.6 billion 
pounds of fish and shellfish harvested, earning another $5.1 billion in 
revenue from their catches. There are 11 million recreational saltwater 
anglers, spending $25 billion on trips and gear in 2012, generating $58 
billion in sales impacts and supporting 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. jobs.
  Commercial and recreational fishermen and the seafood industry that 
manages how the fish get from the boat to our table, they support this 
legislation. I want to reemphasize that that is perhaps unique. For the 
first time, all three elements--commercial, seafood industry, 
recreational fishermen--are all in support of updating this law in this 
particular fashion.
  This bill provides flexibility, and it is a bill for the entire 
Nation. So it provides the flexibility that is essential for the 
fishing community in New England. It provides and incorporates State 
and local data on making fish population assessments, which is 
significant for the fish community in the Gulf of Mexico. It provides 
greater transparency as to how management decisions are made in a very 
open way, which is what it is supposed to be doing in the first place.
  The proposed changes were not developed overnight. The Natural 
Resources Committee held 10 hearings, heard more than 80 witnesses over 
the last 4 years in deliberating over the changes that are needed to 
this particular law. That is why I am very pleased with the positive 
statements that have been made by both sides of the aisle on this 
legislation.
  During the last Congress, the ranking member at that time said ``the 
changes that were negotiated on a number of provisions of the bill'' 
were something for which he thanked the majority.
  Another one of the minority members was quoted also as saying: ``I do 
appreciate the fact that you reached out to us on the Democratic side 
of the aisle and many of the provisions, as you mentioned, that are in 
the bill did come from input from the Democratic side.''
  Those words speak for themselves. This bill is the product of years 
of work, having reached out to Members on both sides of the aisle, 
having reached out to Members in different regions of our country, 
reached out to stakeholders of varying perspectives, and we reached out 
to the agency to craft a reauthorization that improves the process. We 
have done that.
  It is unfortunate in my mind the administration recently announced 
opposition to this bill. Rather than giving you my thoughts on that--or 
maybe that is a reason why you would support it in the first place--let 
me simply quote the New Bedford Standard-Times. They did an editorial 
in their paper in that bastion of conservatism, Massachusetts. They 
disagreed with the White House's opposition to the bill, and they ended 
by saying: ``Looking at the bill and its accomplishment of making 
management more responsive to science, and contrasting it with the 
empty arguments of the White House policy statement, it seems very 
clear where politics fits into this.''
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a win for consumers. It is a win for the 
industry that puts food on our tables. It is a win for the restaurants. 
It is a win for the recreational fishermen. It is a win for better and 
more transparent science. It is a win for our environment. It is a win 
for the American taxpayers. There is no significant increase in the 
cost, but there is a significant increase in the solutions in this 
area, which is, once again, why all the major players who were involved 
in this--both the commercial side, recreational side--are in common 
agreement that this is the way we need to go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Last year, the Natural Resources Committee reported a bill almost 
identical to this one with only one Democratic Member voting in favor. 
Dubbed the ``Empty Oceans Act'' by fishermen and conservationists 
across the country, the bill met stiff opposition both on and off 
Capitol Hill, and the Republican leadership did not bring it up for 
consideration by the full House. That showed remarkable restraint and 
good judgment.
  Fast forward 1 year to today's debate and the vote on legislation 
that has the same flaws and has drawn the same opposition. The only 
real difference is this time around, not a single committee Democrat 
voted to report the bill. Committee Republicans did not reach out to us 
to discuss changes that might have made this a bipartisan effort, even 
though the original Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 1996 and 2006 
reauthorizations were bipartisan and passed both Houses of Congress 
with virtually no opposition.
  Those efforts made necessary, legitimate, and incremental changes to 
U.S. fisheries law that have moved us closer and closer to achieving 
the goal of sustainable, profitable fisheries. We had an opportunity to 
reauthorize Magnuson and continue moving in the right direction, but 
once again, House Republicans have let partisanship get in the way of 
progress.
  Instead of working with us to craft thoughtful, targeted legislation 
to update Magnuson, Republicans have taken this as an opportunity to 
assault bedrock conservation laws while at the same time taking us back 
to fisheries management policies that we know have failed fishing 
communities in the past.
  As Chairman Bishop said himself, when testifying before the Rules 
Committee last month, these are ``not just modest amendments, these are 
major amendments.'' I could not agree more.

                              {time}  1545

  Provisions in the bill which will end successful efforts to rebuild 
overfished stocks and coastal economy are major amendments. Short-
circuiting public review under NEPA is a major amendment. Overriding 
the Endangered Species Act, the Antiquities Act, and the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Act laws that have made fisheries more sustainable 
and productive by protecting vulnerable sea life and valuable ocean 
habitat are major, major amendments.
  These amendments are also unnecessary. NOAA recently announced that 
the value of U.S. fisheries has reached an all-time high, while the 
number of overfished stock has reached an all-time low. We should 
celebrate these gains, but also recognize we have room for improvement.
  Not all fisheries have received the benefit of the transition to the 
sustainable harvest levels because transition is still underway. For 
example, overfishing of Atlantic cod in New England waters occurred in 
2013 and 2014, despite the Magnuson mandate to end overfishing. The 
science-based conservation measures in the law will end this 
overfishing, rebuild the stocks, but not if the bill before us were to 
become law.
  We must stay the course: fully rebuild fisheries that can contribute 
and will contribute $31 billion to the economy and support half a 
million new jobs. We cannot afford to go back to the bad old days where 
politics trumped science in fishery management. Instead, let's go back 
to the drawing board and work together on a bill to reauthorize 
Magnuson-Stevens and keep improving on our fisheries.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McClintock) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________