[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7965-7991]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN 
                        FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the sponsor of this piece of 
legislation. He is the senior member of our committee, as well as 
someone who knows more about this issue than probably anyone else on 
the floor.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you to the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, history is a wonderful thing. People who went through 
the same experiences see things differently. For the record, I would 
like to correct the ranking member. While he is correct that the 
Magnuson bill that eventually became public law, H.R. 4946, passed the 
House under suspension of the rules, the original bill which passed the 
Natural Resources Committee, H.R. 5018, passed after a very long 
markup, with a vote of 26-15, with only four Democrats voting in favor 
of the bill. The gentleman from Arizona voted against the bill and 
signed dissenting views with six other Democrats. So this point that 
the previous reauthorization acts were noncontroversial and nonpartisan 
is not true. I think whoever wrote that for the gentleman ought to, 
again, do a little correct history.
  Mr. Chairman, as one who sponsored this bill way back in 1975, and it 
became law in 1976, 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. And to have someone try to hijack this 
legislation by interest groups when all those involved--the fishermen, 
the recreational, the commercial, the restaurants, the conservationists 
that know fisheries, the State of Alaska and all other States--support 
the Magnuson Act and the improvements we have made in this bill--yes, 
we have some flexibility.
  The bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act, 
the premier law, as I mentioned before. 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. The councils provide a regional or 
constituent-based approach.
  Remember, this is not about the government. This bill was written by 
this Congress for the people, not NOAA, not NMSA, not the State 
Department, not the Sierra Club, and not the Pew group. It was written 
for fishermen for sustainable yields of fish for the communities. It 
provides a regional concept. It is critical to the protection of 
coastal economies and for allowing the stakeholders to be part of the 
management of the fisheries.
  To address the ever-changing needs of fisheries and fishing 
communities--and I have been through this thing four times from the 
original to today--the 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 for habitat, improvements for fisheries science, and 
reductions in bycatch. These were the issues of the time, and they were 
addressed as needed. A factor of that time 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.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of decisions are made without science. The act 
was last amended in 2007. Congress included measures to 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. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, we have 
now reached the point where overfishing has effectively ended in this 
country.
  H.R. 1335 started being developed 4 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. 1335 
follows a middle road.
  While many today may complain the bill's flexibility rolls back 
scientific protections, that 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 at levels where overfishing will not occur. The regional 
councils will continue to follow recommendations of their Science and 
Statistical Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, 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, 
the 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 cornerstone of the law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
promotes regional flexibility recognizing differing ocean conditions, 
variations in regional fisheries, different harvesting methods and 
management techniques, and distinct community impacts.
  Again, I want to stress this, Mr. Chairman. This bill was written for 
fish and communities, not all these other interest groups. As I said in 
the Rules Committee, 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. If you want to do that, do it in an independent legislation. We 
don't need any ocean antiquity acts.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 
1 minute.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we don't need any sanctuaries in 
this bill. We don't need some outside groups telling the fishermen, the 
communities, and the scientists--it is our belief--when they know 
little about it.
  I happen to have the largest coastline in the whole of the United 
States all put together, and we have done the job we should be able to 
do. This bill makes this job easier for the United States of America 
for giving us the ability to have a sustainable yield of fish and the 
communities to be taken care of.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the passage of this 
legislation.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Young, 
that the Magnuson Act is working and that we should leave it alone and 
allow it to work. The inclusion of previous reauthorizations of the 
Alaskan model, science-based, has been a key reason why it continues to 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), my colleague.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1335, which 
would undermine the proven and effective management of our Nation's 
fisheries. For nearly 40 years, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, MSA, has worked to protect America's 
fisheries and coastal economies. In more recent years, it has

[[Page 7966]]

established programs to protect and restore depleted fish stocks, 
ensuring these resources will be around for years to come. And, Mr. 
Chairman, these programs are working. In fact, last year marked the 
lowest number of fishery stocks subject to overfishing or overfished.
  Ensuring that fish stocks are healthy is essential to the long-term 
success of the fishing industry and to food and job security. But 
protecting and restoring these stocks require that we both acknowledge 
the need to manage our fisheries and fund the science necessary to 
properly assess their health. Unfortunately, H.R. 1335 does just the 
opposite.
  Instead of working in a bipartisan manner to improve and modernize 
MSA, H.R. 1335 would dismiss and roll back existing effective 
management efforts. It would weaken proven management standards. It 
would reduce the efficacy of fish stock rebuilding programs, and it 
will undermine existing laws that work in concert with MSA to protect 
our fisheries. And it would create gaping loopholes that allow for 
overfishing and mismanagement under the guise of increasing 
flexibility. These misguided provisions would threaten the viability of 
an entire industry and harm the health of our oceans simply to benefit 
a few special interests.
  Mr. Chairman, effective fishery management ensures a sustainable 
industry by accounting for uncertainty and environmental change. And 
MSA works hand in hand with other environmental legislation to ensure 
the long-term viability of fishery resources. Yet H.R. 1335 needlessly 
unravels this well-balanced system by undercutting other existing 
protections under key longstanding laws like the National Marine 
Sanctuaries Act, like the Endangered Species Act and the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  Mr. Chairman, there is bipartisan agreement on the need to protect 
and promote America's fishermen and the fishing industry, but rather 
than building on what is already working under current law, this bill 
would gut the proven management system that is currently in place.
  We should work together and be striving to enhance smart, effective 
management and provide the resources our Nation's fishing communities 
are asking for. H.R. 1335 is shortsighted and counterproductive, and I 
urge all my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to further speak about a position or an 
issue that has the support of the recreation community and the industry 
at the same time, which is unique. He is one of the senior members of 
our committee.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, as co-chairman of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1335, the 
Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in 
Fisheries Management Act, and would like to thank my colleagues, 
Chairman Rob Bishop and Subcommittee Chairman Don Young, for all their 
efforts to bring this important piece of legislation to the House floor 
for a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, according to the latest report released by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 2012, the U.S. domestic 
seafood industry had a sales impact of $141 billion and supported 
approximately 1.3 million jobs. H.R. 1335 makes the necessary reforms 
to support these jobs and our fishermen by promoting better science and 
requiring State and local data to be considered in Federal 
decisionmaking about fisheries.
  Last year I spoke with commercial fishermen from the Pacific Coast, 
Atlantic Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico, and the common theme in our 
discussions was the need for better data and scientific analysis to 
improve management.
  The U.S. has a long and profitable heritage in fishing. To continue 
that heritage, we need to have quality, diverse data and scientific 
analysis to facilitate educated decisionmaking on fishery management. 
H.R. 1335 allows for just that.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill increases transparency and provides much-
needed flexibility in the law for fishery managers to properly consider 
the environmental and economic impacts of decisions affecting fishing 
communities. And it is important to note that H.R. 1335 makes all of 
these key reforms to fisheries management without authorizing any new 
additional Federal spending. We can do the job with the existing 
resources.
  This bill also makes great strides in the saltwater recreational 
fisheries. Saltwater recreational fishing alone has a $70 billion 
impact on our Nation's economy and supports over 454,000 jobs. Marinas, 
grocery stores, restaurants, motels, lodges, tackle shops, boat 
dealerships, clothing manufacturers, gas stations, and a host of other 
businesses and entities benefit from the money spent by recreational 
anglers.

                              {time}  1600

  This industry does not just impact coastal communities but enables 
job creation and robust economic development in a variety of regions 
across the country.
  Improving recreational data collection and a transparent review of 
allocations in the Southeast are all great tools that H.R. 1335 gives 
NOAA to effectively manage a recreational industry that is a 
significant economic player in the United States economy.
  H.R. 1335 is widely supported by a coalition of sportsmen and 
conservation groups, including the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 
and the Center for Coastal Conservation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1335 in support of 
access to our Nation's resources and the 1.3 million jobs that are 
supported by fishing.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In addition to more than 100 commercial and recreational fishing 
groups and related businesses that have all opposed this legislation 
from the Atlantic Coast, Pacific Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and related 
fishery and commercial areas, John Sackton, Seafood News, a respected 
market analyst for seafood, said that this act is a ``recipe for 
overfishing, unsustainability, and would move U.S. world-class 
fisheries management backwards.''
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), 
ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1335, legislation that is very important 
to reauthorize the historically bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  While I have nothing but the utmost respect for my colleague from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), I am afraid that I fear that this legislation would 
take our fisheries management system in the wrong direction.
  The bottom line is Magnuson-Stevens is working today. U.S. fisheries 
have been remarkably successful since the last reauthorization in 2007, 
and if it isn't broken, why should we try to fix it?
  According to NOAA, 37 important fish stocks have been rebuilt to 
healthy population levels since 2000, and the number of stocks subject 
to overfishing has been cut nearly in half since 2006.
  H.R. 1335 would eliminate critical conservation tools that have been 
essential to our recent success and would also undermine critical 
environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the 
Endangered Species Act. I hope that we can work towards a compromise so 
that Magnuson-Stevens can be reauthorized in a bipartisan manner, as 
the last two bills were. Until then, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing H.R. 1335.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), another great worker and 
a member of our committee.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 1335, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing 
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I would, first of all, like to thank the bill's 
sponsor, our

[[Page 7967]]

colleague from Alaska (Mr. Young), for his continued leadership on this 
important issue. Additionally, I commend Chairman Bishop for ensuring 
that this bill has gone through regular order while being considered by 
the Natural Resources Committee.
  H.R. 1335 makes necessary improvements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
As you know, Mr. Chairman, our U.S. commercial fishermen generated $5.1 
billion in revenue between 2012 and 2014, and I know that with these 
necessary changes and improvements our fishermen will be able to 
contribute even more to our economy.
  In addition to the impact that H.R. 1335 has had on our commercial 
fishing industry, this legislation also has a strong impact on the 
recreational side of the industry. For an industry that generates $58 
billion in sales while supporting nearly 400,000 jobs, H.R. 1335 
encourages our local professionals to have a more active role in 
determining regulatory measures rather than the one-size-fits-all 
management approach that has been used in the past.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1335 will also adjust the method of counting red 
snapper mortality. This is an important issue for the recreational 
fishermen because it will increase access to the waters in the Gulf of 
Mexico so that our Nation's sportsmen have the ability to enjoy our 
natural resources while making valuable contributions to the economy at 
the same time.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation has been crafted in a delicate way to 
ensure the necessary balance between our commercial and recreational 
fishermen. Both sides of the fishing industry will benefit from this 
bill and provide our States with more input.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1335.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1335, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization before us today.
  Management of fisheries in the United States is extremely important, 
especially in my home State of New Jersey, where the fishing industry 
is an important economic driver of the State's economy, generating 
billions of dollars a year in revenue and supporting tens of thousands 
of jobs.
  This bill passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee without 
a single Democratic vote, and President Obama has threatened to veto 
it. This doesn't need to be a partisan issue. We should be working 
together in a bipartisan fashion to make commonsense reforms to 
Magnuson-Stevens.
  There are important fishery management reforms in this bill that I 
strongly support, such as the flexibility language and modifications to 
the annual catch limit requirements. However, I am troubled by the 
language in the bill that makes unnecessary changes to NEPA, the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the 
Antiquities Act.
  This bill would vest much of the authority over these statutes in the 
fishery management councils instead of with the appropriate Federal 
agency. It is not appropriate to vest regulatory authority for these 
purposes in a body like a fishery management council.
  Fishery managers play an important role in crafting fishery 
management measures in consultation with NOAA fisheries. Yet, they lack 
the expertise to appropriately review and analyze the impacts and 
requirements of NEPA or the Endangered Species Act.
  The legislation, Mr. Chairman, does include specific language I 
authored on recreational data collection, and I would like to thank the 
authors for including this important section. The goal of this language 
is to ensure the fishery management councils are collecting the best 
information possible about recreational fishing. It would implement a 
grant program to allow States to improve recreational data collection 
and require the National Research Council to issue a report on 
improvements that have been made and need to be made with recreational 
fishing data collection and surveying. This will help us understand 
what is actually happening with fishing in any given year and ensure 
that we aren't needlessly closing healthy fisheries.
  Mr. Chairman, there are positive reforms to Magnuson-Stevens in this 
legislation, but unfortunately it weakens important environmental laws 
such as NEPA and the ESA in the process. I think that is unfortunate. I 
wish we could have had a bipartisan bill that actually reforms 
Magnuson-Stevens in a preferable way.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey joining us here. I have to 
admit in somewhat chagrin, I quoted you earlier in my speech when you 
were saying something very positive about this bill last time around. 
But I would also like to state for the record the concept of the Garden 
State Seafood Association, which is from your home State of New Jersey 
and which also supports this bill, as they had said simply that it 
adjusts ``certain specific problematic regulations that have not proven 
to function as intended since they were added or amended in the last 
reauthorization a decade ago.''
  There are problems with the status quo this bill fixes.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), 
also a farm worker of our committee, and with appreciation for an 
amendment that he added in committee that made a significant impact, 
especially for the recreational fisheries of America.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
chairman of the committee.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1335, the Strengthening Fishing 
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for 
including my amendment in support of the findings of the Morris-Deal 
Commission.
  One of the top priorities of the Morris-Deal Commission was requiring 
a review, and adjustment if warranted, of the allocations of mixed-
sector fisheries.
  Despite the tremendous importance that allocation decisions have in 
maximizing the benefits that our fisheries provide to the Nation, 
Federal fisheries managers have refused to revisit allocations--most of 
which were determined decades ago--primarily because of a lack of clear 
guidance on how decisions should be made and because these decisions 
are inherently difficult.
  My amendment included in the committee text would prompt the 
development of criteria that should be considered in allocation 
decisions and require periodic allocation reviews. The language does 
not prescribe any specific shifts in existing allocations but rather a 
science-based review and potential adjustment if needed.
  Recognizing the high number of important recreational fisheries in 
the region, the geographic scope of this provision is limited to just 
the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.
  You see the poster beside me. As vice chairman of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus, I represent 1.3 million anglers in the 
organizations on this poster that they belong to that support this 
bill.
  Let us be clear: the goal here is to allow more fishermen, whether 
they are commercial fishermen or recreational anglers, to be able to 
take more fish in a responsible manner. We want policy based on sound 
science compatible with the facts in the water, not the uninformed 
opinions of an agenda-driven desk jockey bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
  This provision was in the MSA reauthorization bills introduced by 
Senators Rubio and Begich in the 113th Congress.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues on the Natural Resources 
Committee for helping include this language, and I urge passage of the 
final bill. This is common sense to reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens. The 
gentleman from Alaska has done a tremendous job on this, and I urge 
passage.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Grijalva for the time.

[[Page 7968]]

  I rise to support the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
but not the bill we have before us today.
  Like many of my colleagues here in Congress who represent coastal 
States, I know the importance of a vibrant fishery and the importance 
of Federal policy in this area that keeps our Nation's fisheries moving 
forward. I live on a small offshore island, and many of my neighbors 
make their living as fishermen, as do many of my constituents.
  The most lucrative fishery in my area is for lobsters, and it is one 
of the most successful and sustainable fisheries in America because 
lobstermen and -women have taken the long-term view.
  It is so successful and so sustainable because it has been carefully 
regulated for decades. Strict rules have led to bigger and bigger 
catches and rising income for fishermen.
  This fishery is proof that building a strong fishery happens first by 
ensuring there is a resource for fishermen to harvest.
  Iconic species like haddock and pollock have been devastated by 
overfishing. They can still make a comeback, but not if we turn our 
backs on them and the fishermen who depend on them.
  The collapse of many of these fisheries has taken its toll on fishing 
families and fishing communities, but slowly rebuilding these species 
is rebuilding our hope for the future.
  Now is not the time to abandon these efforts. Now is not the time to 
give up on the progress we have already made.
  The only way to guarantee healthy fishing communities over the long 
term is to rebuild the fish stocks using science-based methods, and I 
would ask my colleagues to support more funding for science.
  The future of many coastal communities is based on sustainable 
fisheries, not rolling back management systems that give just a few 
fishermen a short-term boost.
  I urge my colleagues to support many of the amendments that will be 
on the floor this afternoon that will try to improve this legislation, 
and I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), another hard-working 
member of our committee.
  Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Chairman, there are probably almost as many boats 
as people in my district, and that is because I represent one of the 
most beautiful stretches of the Atlantic Ocean, from north to south, 
the southern part of the Jersey Shore.
  I have thousands of charter and commercial fishermen and tens of 
thousands of recreational fishermen who either make their living from 
the sea or get some respite and go out and do some recreational 
fishing.
  I hear from them all the time that the current Magnuson-Stevens Act 
is simply not working any more for them. It is outdated. It is 
arbitrary. We are continuing to protect fish stocks that have been 
completely rebuilt, and it is based on knee jerk, not sound science 
today. It is desperately in need of reform.
  The economic impact in my State alone is $1.3 billion from the 
recreational side and over $2 billion from the commercial side. It is 
30,000 jobs. There is nobody who lives along the coast who wants to go 
back to the Wild West days when anyone can catch whatever they want and 
destroy the fish stocks. Nobody wants that, but the current system is 
not working, and it needs to be reformed. This is a good bill that 
offers real solutions.
  It preserves fish stocks; yet it recognizes the needs of our 
fishermen, and it relies on fact-based science. An amendment that I 
proposed and I am particularly pleased with is that it encourages 
marine students to be involved in the data collection, and it requires 
the government to look to them for that. We can do it at a lower cost 
and with better results.
  I encourage my colleagues not to let the perfect become the enemy of 
the good. It is a good bill, and it deserves to be approved. I urge my 
colleagues to stand behind it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Graham).
  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, in the panhandle of north Florida, red 
snapper is a way of life. Thousands of commercial fishermen and charter 
boat captains depend on a healthy catch to make a living.
  Tens of thousands of recreational fishermen spend their free time and 
are personally invested in fishing, and hundreds of restaurants serve 
red snapper to hundreds of thousands of visitors to the area every 
year. Seafood is a $7 billion industry the Gulf, and red snapper is a 
big part of it.
  Like any valuable asset, we need to preserve our fisheries for future 
generations. I applaud the chairman and the ranking member for opening 
this dialogue about how we can improve current law, protect our ocean 
resources, and best serve our constituents. Unfortunately, I think this 
bill falls short in its current form.
  My constituents tell me there are more red snapper in the Gulf than 
there have been in a long time. I think that shows, at least in part, 
that this law is working, but I also hear of widespread distrust of the 
system and of the data that the system produces. In that regard, 
Magnuson isn't working nearly as well as it could, and I want to 
recognize some of the healthy reforms in this bill that could improve 
the situation.
  It is an extraordinary challenge to count all of the fish in the 
sea--it is nearly as hard to count how many fish are being caught--but 
I think we could do both better by getting the States and stakeholders 
more involved and by promoting modern electronic monitoring 
technologies as this bill does.
  Despite those good provisions, Florida would not be Florida without 
ample opportunities for recreational fishing and a robust commercial 
fishing sector. While current law isn't perfect, I think the 
contentious nature of this floor debate is a good indication that this 
bill isn't going to do anything to narrow the divisions between 
sectors.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. GRAHAM. The better alternative is to keep doing what is working 
and to improve data collection techniques where they are lacking.
  To that end, I am proud to support an increase of $10 million, 
included in the CJS appropriations bill, aimed at improving the stock 
assessments and research needs for Gulf of Mexico fish stocks. These 
are the kinds of efforts that build real confidence in the fishery. I 
look forward to a meaningful conversation about how we can work 
together going forward.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy you gave 
to the gentlewoman from Florida in allowing her to finish her 
statement. She illustrates very clearly how the problems that exist are 
structural problems that can't simply be solved if we just add more 
money to the situation.
  To further that issue, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida for her comments.
  In Texas, we have a great snapper fishing industry as well--anglers, 
recreational. We have charter boat captains. We have a lot of 
commercial industry as well. By the way, my daughter and first three 
grandchildren live in Florida, so Florida is my second home.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about H.R. 1335 and a proposed amendment 
by the gentleman from Louisiana, my great friend, Garret Graves, to 
change the snapper fishing system.
  The problem is that the plan that has been developed in his amendment 
is actually a plan that was developed by five people in secrecy who 
want to change the way NOAA does things and turn it over to the five 
States. That is a bad idea, and I will tell you why for just a whole 
bunch of reasons.
  The current plan has been working since 2007, which actually doubled 
the population of snapper. Indeed, it has provided a 30 percent 
increase in the

[[Page 7969]]

quota this very season. Businesses have been working all along the 
Texas coast and--to my gentlewoman friend from Florida--the Florida 
coast and the whole Gulf Coast area to develop lasting fisheries 
because their livelihoods depend on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am an air conditioning contractor. We have an air 
conditioning commission there in Texas that regulates us. We want 
people on that commission who understand the HVAC industry. We do 
everything in the industry to promote the industry, to make sure that 
we have a good, stable industry that takes care of customers in Texas.
  I have to know and believe that it is the same way about the fishing 
industry. They want the fisheries to last. Restaurants depend on it. 
Americans depend on it. It is not just the anglers but those who want 
to go eat at some of the restaurants the gentlewoman from Florida 
referenced. There are a lot of groups opposed to Mr. Graves' 
amendment--the National Restaurant Association, the Texas Restaurant 
Association. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of 42 others.
  Gulf red snapper is an American treasure, and it should be accessible 
to all, not just to those who can get a boat and a trailer and go fish 
for themselves. They ought to be available to all of the restaurants. 
We have heard the facts and figures about the number of jobs and the 
amount of revenue that have been brought in and how big that industry 
is.
  My good friend from Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming, who is a member of 
the committee, has publicly stated that some tweaking is needed, but by 
all three groups of stakeholders: charter boat fishing, the commercial 
fishing industry, and the individual anglers. I heard with my own ears 
the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee state his willingness 
to work with all three groups in the coming days.
  Mr. Chairman, government should not be in the business of picking 
winners and losers. To allow the group of five States to implement a 
plan--an unknown plan, I might add--would only put pressure on those 
individual States to outsupply the other States with a longer fishing 
season to attract anglers, tourists, and their money to outcompete the 
other States.
  Fisheries would be devastated, and the livelihoods, jobs, and markets 
that are supplying red snapper to restaurants all across the country 
would be gone. Ultimately, it is the American consumers, who have come 
to like the local seafood, who would be disenfranchised, not to mention 
the businesses that supply them.
  Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater or, dare I say, the 
fish with the saltwater. Let's bring all parties together in a 
thoughtful, deliberate, meaningful discussion that benefits all 
involved, not just a few.
  For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the gentleman from Louisiana's amendment, well intentioned though it 
may be.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my esteemed 
colleague from California (Mr. Lowenthal), a member of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, if gutting the successful conservation 
provisions of Magnuson were not enough, the problem also is that this 
bill will also weaken other bedrock environmental laws.
  First, it makes Magnuson then in this reauthorization the controlling 
statute in the case of any kind of conflict with the Antiquities Act or 
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
  If we think about this, there is no rationale for giving the councils 
that are authorized in Magnuson the authority to regulate fishing in 
marine sanctuaries or in monuments. Those areas represent just a tiny 
fraction of U.S. waters, and now, they are managed by scientists and 
other staff who consider more than just fishing interests.
  We are really here to understand how do we balance fishing with the 
other purposes in order to protect vulnerable species and habitats. For 
the same reason that we don't allow State fish and game departments to 
make decisions about hunting in national parks or monuments on land, 
which we don't allow, these councils should not make decisions about 
fishing in our parks, our national marine sanctuaries, or in our 
national monuments at sea, but that is not enough.
  The bill also takes a swipe at the Endangered Species Act by 
requiring these councils, not Federal agencies which are now 
responsible for the recovery of species, to implement the fishery 
restrictions necessary for Endangered Species compliance. These 
councils lack expertise, and they lack the resources to implement the 
Endangered Species Act.
  What are we going to end up with? We are going to end up with 
recoveries that are going to be delayed, and the negative impacts to 
fishing communities are going to be prolonged, just the very thing that 
we wish not to happen.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. As I said before, these assaults on key conservation 
laws are far outside the scope of a fisheries bill. We are really 
talking about a fisheries bill. We should not be talking about gutting 
key conservation laws.
  It is unfortunate that an historically bipartisan effort like the 
Magnuson reauthorization has now become the subject of an 
antienvironmental crusade.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), who will address an issue that will be 
part of this bill and the discussion as it comes up.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the chairman, and I would also 
like to thank Don Young for helping those of us recreational anglers as 
we try to remedy an injustice that has been done to the American 
sportsmen of the Gulf of Mexico.
  I have listened to some of my colleagues say we should be fair and 
people should come to the table. Let me tell you what is happening at 
the table.
  Mr. Chairman, the commercial fishermen get to fish 365 days a year 
for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. They get to use long lines and 
winches; yet the National Marine Fisheries Services and Dr. Roy 
Crabtree, through the Gulf Council, have chosen to limit to 10 days the 
man and the woman who just want to take their kid fishing, 10 days.
  They think, by expanding the recreational season back to where it was 
before, that somehow that would hurt the fish in the Gulf of Mexico.

                              {time}  1630

  Now they tell us that the reason they have had to cut us to 10 days 
is because there are so many more fish today and they are so much 
larger today that the recreational fishermen simply catch them much 
faster.
  Well, in 2007, the recreational angler had 194 days to fish with 
their families in the Gulf of Mexico--194 days. In 8 years, they have 
taken the American family, the American sportsman, down to simply 10 
days. It is proof that the American sportsman doesn't have a chance 
with the Federal Government in charge of the rulemaking process in the 
Gulf of Mexico with regard to the recreational snapper season.
  The Garrett amendment, which I support, as I support the chairman's 
main piece of legislation, would simply give the States the right to 
set, based on science--not some arbitrary number, but based on 
science--the recreational seasons and bag limits for the recreational 
angler in the Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the only way--that is the only way--that the 
recreational season will be restored as we, the recreational anglers, 
were promised it would be restored when the stocks came back.
  Now, one of the things I think we also need to discuss as we go 
forward with regard to snapper is who do the snapper belong to.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, there are about 300 people

[[Page 7970]]

that are currently allocated about 50 percent of the fish, the red 
snapper, in the Gulf of Mexico. When the commercial quota goes up, they 
automatically get an increase. Those fish belong to the public, and I 
think it is time to discuss whether or not any increase in the 
commercial quota should actually come and be auctioned as any other 
public resource would be when we made those additional resources 
available.
  For now, the Garrett amendment goes a long way towards restoring the 
rights of the American angler, and I certainly hope that this House 
will support it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, Congress first enacted the Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act in 1976, and the primary goals were two: to end the 
unregulated fishing by foreign fleets in U.S. waters, and to develop 
our domestic fleets that could reap the economic benefits of all the 
fishery resources, considerable resources that our Nation had.
  The law worked. Foreign fishing was phased out and investments in 
domestic fleets were increased. Unfortunately, this capitalization 
worked so well that domestic fishing soon replaced foreign fleets in 
overexploiting U.S. fisheries.
  In 1996 to 2007, the reauthorizations were enacted to end 
overfishing, period, promote rebuilding of overfished stocks, protect 
fish habitats, improve fisheries and habitats, and minimize bycatch. 
These changes ended overfishing in nearly all fisheries and put 
overfished stocks on a path to rebuilding. Most important, they 
insulated fishery management councils from pressure to make politically 
driven decisions that hurt fishing communities in the long run.
  Contrary to those previous reauthorizations, H.R. 1335 was developed 
with very little input from Democrats and was ordered reported on a 
party line. I should note, at the last reauthorization, the other body 
made significant changes to the House-passed legislation and created a 
more bipartisan template that many of us could support.
  The supporters of this bill will argue that the requirement to 
rebuild overfished stocks needs more flexibility, but the Magnuson Act 
has already proven to be plenty flexible. 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 have rebuilding plans longer than a 10-year baseline 
in the act.
  Further, current law gives councils 2 years to put a rebuilding plan 
in place and an additional year to reduce, rather than end, 
overfishing. That is 3 years of lead time before significant harvest 
restrictions go into effect.
  What is more, the act only requires a rebuilding plan to have a 50 
percent likelihood of success. If a council loses this coin flip, it 
does not have to shut down the fishery; instead, it has to start over. 
This is exactly how things have played out over the past few years with 
Atlantic cod in New England, where many argue the act has been too 
flexible.
  History shows us that when councils have an excuse to delay 
rebuilding overfished stocks, the job will never get done. This bill 
makes up the following excuses that allow councils to avoid rebuilding:
  It is too hard to work with other countries that may be impacting the 
stock of the fish, so we should just catch more, too, and deplete the 
stock faster;
  The stock of the fish cannot be rebuilt by only limited fishing, so 
there is no point to trying to limit fishing if the effort is 99 
percent of the problem;
  It is inconvenient to rebuild the overfished stocks that swim with 
healthy stocks, so we should just keep catching the weak ones until 
they are listed under the Endangered Species Act;
  And my personal favorite, there are unusual events that make 
rebuilding more difficult.
  These excuses are each bad enough alone, but together they would 
render the rebuilding requirements of Magnuson completely meaningless. 
This bill would not give the Magnuson Act more flexibility; it would 
break it. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There are some agencies of government that, if a bird were to fly 
over the Capitol, they would claim credit for it. That, perhaps, is one 
of the situations in which we find ourselves today. The problem is the 
status quo is not effective; it is not working.
  Those who work and live in this area deal with this industry. They 
recognize that there is something that needs to be changed. That is 
why, as I stated earlier, the Garden State Seafood Association said 
there are problematic regulations that have not proven to function as 
intended--that is, in the status quo--while the National Fisheries 
Institute, another group that actually supports this bill, wants to do 
so because it would more effectively coordinate with the councils who 
are currently there.
  We have a situation right now in which Southerners have spoken here--
the gentleman from Texas, the gentlewoman from Florida--about problems 
that exist within the status quo. We are presenting, now, a bill that 
is supported by those who are working in the industry, supported by 
those who are commercial fishermen, and it is also supported by all the 
groups that represent the recreational fishers. They realize that this 
bill needs more flexibility.
  To have a standard 10-year plan for every species when some of those 
species don't last 10 years is silly; it lacks common sense. We need to 
do that. There needs to be transparency, as some decisions are made 
behind closed doors. This bill mandates that that would not be the 
case. It needs to make sure that scientific data from all sources is 
used and recognized. That is not happening in the status quo. There 
needs to be the ability of cutting red tape.
  Some people have talked about the change of NEPA without recognizing 
first that the law already mandates a similar process to NEPA, which 
has the exact same information. Requiring all these agencies to go 
through their process and then go through NEPA does not add to 
effectiveness or efficiency but does add to the opportunity of greater 
litigation costs.
  All those issues are addressed in this particular bill. It needs to 
be reauthorized. We need to move forward. This is one of the bills that 
has taken a long time. It is 4 years in the process, with lots of 
discussion, lots of amendments. We are now moving this bill forward so 
it can go to the Senate. They can work their will. We can come back to 
a conference if necessary, but we must move forward in this for the 
benefit of the communities that use this area as their livelihood as 
well as this area as their recreation. The present system has flaws 
that need to be fixed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 1335, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing 
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. This short-sighted legislation 
undermines the longterm sustainability of fish populations putting fish 
stocks, coastal communities, and our nation's economy at risk.
  In California, we are fortunate to have access to one of the world's 
most productive marine ecosystems. The California Current system drives 
highly productive fisheries that support 158,000 jobs and more than $25 
billion annually in commercial and recreational sales impacts. 
Nationwide, fisheries generated $199 billion in sales impacts in 2012 
and provided 1.7 million jobs. Commercial and recreational fisheries 
are a critical part of this nation's economy whose continued prosperity 
depends on getting fisheries management right.
  In 2015, California entered its fourth year of extreme drought. This 
winter's snowpack levels were the lowest since 1950 and precipitation 
levels are at critical lows. That spells bad news for California 
salmon. High water temperatures lead to poor survival and low flows 
leave salmon stranded in drying pools. Unfortunately, this is not the 
first time we have

[[Page 7971]]

faced this problem. In 2008, low flows and high in-stream temperatures 
coupled with low ocean productivity caused a crash in salmon 
populations, and for the first time since 1848, the California salmon 
fishery was closed and declared a federal fishery disaster. The Pacific 
Fishery Management Council had already prepared a fishery management 
plan for salmon, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) guidelines, that prompted the 
fishery closure and set strict limits on harvest while the stock was 
rebuilding. Since the closure, salmon fisheries have rebounded, due in 
no small part to the swift action of the Council under the fishery 
management plan and rebuilding guidelines established by the MSA.
  While we cannot make it rain in California, we can ensure that well-
informed management of offshore salmon fisheries do not jeopardize the 
sustainability of this commercially-valuable species. The more fish we 
conserve in the ocean, the more return to streams to spawn, increasing 
our chances of making it through this drought with a salmon fishery 
intact.
  The fact is, MSA is working. The implementation of stock rebuilding 
plans and annual catch limits have resulted in the recovery of 37 fish 
stocks since 2000. NOAA's 2014 Status of Stocks report indicates that 
fish stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing are at an 
all-time low. This is a far cry from the overexploited, overcapitalized 
fisheries of the past. We should be moving forward to build on those 
successes, not rolling them back. Since 2006, commercial fisheries 
revenue has risen 43 percent, and the rebuilding of all U.S. fish 
stocks would provide an additional $31 billion in annual sales impacts 
and support 500,000 new jobs. Instead, H.R. 1335 would delay rebuilding 
timelines and allow exemptions to continue overfishing on depleted 
stocks, which is both ecologically and economically irresponsible. 
Current MSA provisions have proven their effectiveness in rebuilding 
stocks and provide the way forward for realizing our fisheries' full 
economic potential. There's something to be said for the old adage, 
``If it's not broken, don't fix it.''
  That's not to say that fisheries management should remain stagnant. 
Just as scientific data collection and fisheries science is changing 
and improving, our fisheries management statute should also change to 
reflect the best available science. Fisheries managers and scientists 
have acknowledged that there are areas for improvement, including 
providing more clarity and flexibility within the current statutory 
limits. To that end, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is 
currently undertaking a revision of the National Standard 1 guidelines, 
the regulations that govern fisheries management objectives and stock 
rebuilding timelines, to provide greater clarity on which fish stocks 
require rebuilding plans, greater flexibility for rebuilding timelines, 
and to incorporate the latest in ecosystem-based fisheries management. 
The proposed revisions would address many of the concerns outlined in 
this bill without undermining the critical conservation measures that 
have led to MSA's success. The determination on how to best manage fish 
stocks for a sustainable, profitable future is best left to the 
scientists, not Members of Congress.
  Our oceans are increasingly under threat from climate change and 
ocean acidification, making strong, effective fisheries management more 
critical than ever. Unfortunately, H.R. 1335 does not deliver and I 
urge a NO vote on H.R. 1335.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise today deeply disappointed that the 
Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization before us does not follow in its long-
held tradition of thoughtful bipartisanship.
  The bill before us would roll back protections our citizens enjoy 
under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Antiquities Act. This 
bill would remove requirements that prevent overfishing, thereby 
preventing us from enjoying the benefits of healthy fisheries. We 
cannot simply wish for more fish in the ocean, we must create the 
conditions that make it possible.
  Magnuson should promote innovation and responsible flexibility, while 
ensuring we have the resources to obtain the best data possible to make 
informed decisions about one of our most precious economic and food 
resources--our fisheries.
  This is the kind of flexibility my bill, the Rhode Island Fishermen's 
Fairness Act, would provide. My bill would create two new spots for 
Rhode Island on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council.
  Rhode Island lands more Mid-Atlantic-regulated species than any other 
state in the Mid-Atlantic region besides New Jersey. Our circumstance 
parallels that of Florida and North Carolina, which each have voting 
membership on two different fishery management councils.
  The decisions of the Mid-Atlantic Council directly affect the success 
of Rhode Island's fishing industry and the ability of our fishermen to 
maintain their businesses, and they deserve a say in how those 
resources are managed.
  We all believe that Magnuson can be improved. The last Magnuson 
reauthorization was a bipartisan and widely supported bill. I am sorry 
to say that this bill does not follow the same path, and it is not a 
bill I can support.
  I look forward to working with Mr. Grijalva and my Republican 
colleagues on a bipartisan product which includes provisions our 
fishermen need and support, like H.R. 2541, the Rhode Island 
Fishermen's Fairness Act.
  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.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-16. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1335

       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. 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. 3. 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.).

     SEC. 4. 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

[[Page 7972]]

     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. 5. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENT.

       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) Consideration of ecosystem and economic impacts.--In 
     establishing annual catch limits a Council may, consistent 
     with section 302(h)(6), consider changes in an ecosystem and 
     the economic needs of the fishing communities.
       ``(2) 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.
       ``(3) Relationship to international fishery efforts.--Each 
     annual catch limit may, consistent with section 302(h)(6), 
     take into account--
       ``(A) management measures under international agreements in 
     which the United States participates;
       ``(B) informal transboundary agreements under which fishery 
     management activities by another country 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
       ``(C) in instances in which no transboundary agreement 
     exists, activities by another country outside the exclusive 
     economic zone that may hinder conservation efforts by United 
     States fisherman for a fish species for which any of the 
     recruitment, distribution, life history, or fishing 
     activities are transboundary.
       ``(4) 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
       ``(B) annual catch limits for each year in any continuous 
     period that is not more than three years in duration.
       ``(5) 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.''.

     SEC. 6. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OVERFISHED AND DEPLETED.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (34), by striking ``The terms 
     `overfishing' and `overfished' mean'' and inserting ``The 
     term `overfishing' means''; and
       (2) 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.''.
       (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. 
     1854(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. 7. 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 302(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 
     304(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 
     decisionmaking 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.
       ``(7) Actions taken in accordance with this section are 
     deemed to fulfill the requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
     all related implementing regulations.''.
       (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

[[Page 7973]]

     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.--
       ``(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. 8. 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. 9. REPORT ON FEE.

       Section 304(d)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) The Secretary shall report annually on the amount 
     collected under this paragraph from each fishery and detail 
     how the funds were spent in the prior year on a fishery-by-
     fishery basis, to--
       ``(i) Congress; and
       ``(ii) each Council from whose fisheries the fee under this 
     paragraph were collected.''.

     SEC. 10. DATA COLLECTION AND DATA CONFIDENTIALITY.

       (a) Electronic Monitoring.--
       (1) Issuance of regulations.--
       (A) Requirement.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     governing the use of electronic monitoring for the purposes 
     of monitoring fisheries that are subject to the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1801 et seq.).
       (B) Content.--The regulations shall--
       (i) distinguish between monitoring for data collection and 
     research purposes and monitoring for compliance and 
     enforcement purposes; and
       (ii) include minimum criteria, objectives, or performance 
     standards for electronic monitoring.
       (C) Process.--In issuing the regulations the Secretary 
     shall--
       (i) consult with the Councils and fishery management 
     commissions;
       (ii) publish the proposed regulations; and
       (iii) provide an opportunity for the submission by the 
     public of comments on the proposed regulations.
       (2) Implementation of monitoring.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), and after the 
     issuance of the final regulations, a Council, or the 
     Secretary for fisheries referred to in section 302(a)(3) of 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3)), may, in accordance with the 
     regulations, on a fishery-by-fishery basis and consistent 
     with the existing objectives and management goals of a 
     fishery management plan and the Act for a fishery issued by 
     the Council or the Secretary, respectively, amend such plan--
       (i) to incorporate electronic monitoring as an alternative 
     tool for data collection and monitoring purposes or for 
     compliance and enforcement purposes (or both); and
       (ii) to allow for the replacement of a percentage of on-
     board observers with electronic monitoring.
       (B) Comparability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply to a 
     fishery only if the Council or Secretary, respectively, 
     determines that such monitoring will yield comparable data 
     collection and compliance results.
       (3) Pilot projects.--Before the issuance of final 
     regulations, a Council, or the Secretary for fisheries 
     referred to in section 302(a)(3), may, subject to the 
     requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act, on a fishery-by-fishery basis, and consistent 
     with the existing objectives and management goals of a 
     fishery management plan for a fishery issued by the Council 
     or the Secretary, respectively, conduct a pilot project for 
     the use of electronic monitoring for the fishery.
       (4) Deadline.--The Secretary shall issue final regulations 
     under this subsection by not later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Video and Acoustic Survey Technologies.--The Secretary 
     shall work with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and 
     nongovernmental entities to develop and implement the use 
     pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) of video survey 
     technologies and expanded use of acoustic survey 
     technologies.
       (c) Confidentiality of Information.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402(b) (16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission employees as 
     necessary for achievement of the purposes of this Act, 
     subject to a confidentiality agreement between the State or 
     Commission, respectively, and the Secretary that prohibits 
     public disclosure of the identity of any person and of 
     confidential information;'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``limited access'' 
     and inserting ``catch share''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``limited access'' 
     and inserting ``catch share'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``, and information obtained through a vessel monitoring 
     system or other technology used onboard a fishing vessel for 
     enforcement or data collection purposes,'' after 
     ``information'';
       (ii) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (iii) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) as authorized by any regulations issued under 
     paragraph (6) allowing the collection of observer 
     information, pursuant to a confidentiality agreement between 
     the observers, observer employers, and the Secretary 
     prohibiting disclosure of the information by the observers or 
     observer employers, in order--
       ``(i) to allow the sharing of observer information among 
     observers and between observers and observer employers as 
     necessary to train and prepare observers for deployments on 
     specific vessels; or
       ``(ii) to validate the accuracy of the observer information 
     collected; or
       ``(D) to other persons if the Secretary has obtained 
     written authorization from the person who submitted such 
     information or from the person on whose vessel the 
     information was collected, to release such information for 
     reasons not otherwise provided for in this subsection.'';
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (6); and

[[Page 7974]]

       (D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Any information submitted to the Secretary, a State 
     fisheries management agency, or a Marine Fisheries Commission 
     by any person in compliance with the requirements of this 
     Act, including confidential information, may only be used for 
     purposes of fisheries management and monitoring and 
     enforcement under this Act.
       ``(4) The Secretary may enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding with the heads of other Federal agencies for 
     the sharing of confidential information to ensure safety of 
     life at sea or for fisheries enforcement purposes, including 
     information obtained through a vessel monitoring system or 
     other electronic enforcement and monitoring systems, if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines there is a compelling need 
     to do so; and
       ``(B) the heads of the other Federal agencies agree--
       ``(i) to maintain the confidentiality of the information in 
     accordance with the requirements that apply to the Secretary 
     under this section; and
       ``(ii) to use the information only for the purposes for 
     which it was shared with the agencies.
       ``(5) The Secretary may not provide any vessel-specific or 
     aggregate vessel information from a fishery that is collected 
     for monitoring and enforcement purposes to any person for the 
     purposes of coastal and marine spatial planning under 
     Executive Order 13547, unless the Secretary determines that 
     providing such information is important for maintaining or 
     enhancing national security or for ensuring fishermen 
     continued access to fishing grounds.''.
       (2) Confidential information defined.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 
     1802) is further amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following:
       ``(4a) The term `confidential information' means--
       ``(A) trade secrets;
       ``(B) proprietary information;
       ``(C) observer information; and
       ``(D) commercial or financial information the disclosure of 
     which is likely to result in harm to the competitive position 
     of the person that submitted the information to the 
     Secretary.''.
       (d) Increased Data Collection and Actions To Address Data-
     Poor Fisheries.--Section 404 (16 U.S.C. 1881c) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Use of the Asset Forfeiture Fund for Fishery 
     Independent Data Collection.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) The Secretary, subject to appropriations, may 
     obligate for data collection purposes in accordance with 
     prioritizations under paragraph (3) a portion of amounts 
     received by the United States as fisheries enforcement 
     penalties.
       ``(B) Amounts may be obligated under this paragraph only in 
     the fishery management region with respect to which they are 
     collected.
       ``(2) Included purposes.--The purposes referred to in 
     paragraph (1) include--
       ``(A) the use of State personnel and resources, including 
     fishery survey vessels owned and maintained by States to 
     survey or assess data-poor fisheries for which fishery 
     management plans are in effect under this Act; and
       ``(B) cooperative research activities authorized under 
     section 318 to improve or enhance the fishery independent 
     data used in fishery stock assessments.
       ``(3) Data-poor fisheries priority lists.--Each Council 
     shall--
       ``(A) identify those fisheries in its region considered to 
     be data-poor fisheries;
       ``(B) prioritize those fisheries based on the need of each 
     fishery for up-to-date information; and
       ``(C) provide those priorities to the Secretary.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `data-poor fishery' means a fishery--
       ``(i) that has not been surveyed in the preceding 5-year 
     period;
       ``(ii) for which a fishery stock assessment has not been 
     performed within the preceding 5-year period; or
       ``(iii) for which limited information on the status of the 
     fishery is available for management purposes.
       ``(B) The term `fisheries enforcement penalties' means any 
     fine or penalty imposed, or proceeds of any property seized, 
     for a violation of this Act or of any other marine resource 
     law enforced by the Secretary.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal year to 
     carry out this subsection up to 80 percent of the fisheries 
     enforcement penalties collected during the preceding fiscal 
     year.''.

     SEC. 11. 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 all after ``including'' 
     and inserting an em dash, followed on the next line by the 
     following:
       ``(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. 12. 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--
       (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''.

     SEC. 13. GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND 
                   RED SNAPPER MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 407 (16 U.S.C. 1883), and the item 
     relating to such section in the table of contents in the 
     first section, are repealed.
       (b) Reporting and Data Collection Program.--The Secretary 
     of Commerce shall--
       (1) in conjunction with the States, the Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council, and the recreational fishing 
     sectors, develop and implement a real-time reporting and data 
     collection program for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery 
     using available technology; and
       (2) make implementation of this subsection a priority for 
     funds received by the Secretary and allocated to this region 
     under section 2 of the Act of August 11, 1939 (commonly known 
     as the ``Saltonstall-Kennedy Act'') (15 U.S.C. 713c-3).
       (c) Fisheries Cooperative Research Program.--The Secretary 
     of Commerce--
       (1) shall, in conjunction with the States, the Gulf States 
     Marine Fisheries Commission and the Atlantic States Marine 
     Fisheries Commission, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 
     Fishery Management Councils, and the commercial, charter, and 
     recreational fishing sectors, develop and implement a 
     cooperative research program authorized under section 318 for 
     the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 
     regions, giving priority to those fisheries that are 
     considered data-poor; and
       (2) may, subject to the availability of appropriations, use 
     funds received by the Secretary under section 2 of the Act of 
     August 11, 1939 (commonly known as the ``Saltonstall-Kennedy 
     Act'') (15 U.S.C. 713c-3) to implement this subsection.
       (d) 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.
       (e) 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 assessments conducted after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (f) 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.''.
       (g) Funding of Stock Assessments.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, shall enter into a 
     cooperative agreement for the funding of stock assessments 
     that are necessitated by any action by the Bureau with 
     respect to offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico that 
     adversely impacts red snapper.

     SEC. 14. 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''.

[[Page 7975]]



     SEC. 15. ENSURING CONSISTENT MANAGEMENT FOR FISHERIES 
                   THROUGHOUT THEIR RANGE.

       (a) In General.--The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) 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 1906.--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 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), this Act 
     shall control.
       ``(b) Fisheries Restrictions Under Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973.--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.''.

     SEC. 16. 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 Council.
       ``(B) Maximum percentage.--The percentage established by 
     the North Pacific Council shall not exceed 24 percent of the 
     pollock available to be harvested in the directed pollock 
     fishery.''.

     SEC. 17. RECREATIONAL FISHING DATA.

       (a) Recreational Data Collection.--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 States.
       ``(C) Biennial report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress and publish biennial reports that include--
       ``(i) the estimated accuracy of the registry program 
     established under paragraph (1) and of State programs that 
     are exempted under paragraph (2);
       ``(ii) priorities for improving recreational fishing data 
     collection; and
       ``(iii) an explanation of any use of information collected 
     by such State programs and by the Secretary, including a 
     description of any consideration given to the information by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(D) States grant program.--The Secretary shall make 
     grants to States to improve implementation of State programs 
     consistent with this subsection. The Secretary shall 
     prioritize such grants based on the ability of the grant to 
     improve the quality and accuracy of such programs.''.
       (b) Study on Recreational Fisheries Data.--Section 401(g) 
     (16 U.S.C. 1881(g)) is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(6) Study on program implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall enter into 
     an agreement with the National Research Council of the 
     National Academy of Sciences to study the implementation of 
     the programs described in this section. The study shall--
       ``(i) provide an updated assessment of recreational survey 
     methods established or improved since the publication of the 
     Council's report `Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey 
     Methods (2006)';
       ``(ii) evaluate the extent to which the recommendations 
     made in that report were implemented pursuant to paragraph 
     (3)(B); and
       ``(iii) examine any limitations of the Marine Recreational 
     Fishery Statistics Survey and the Marine Recreational 
     Information Program established under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after entering into an 
     agreement under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit 
     a report to Congress on the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 18. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED UNDER 
                   GULF OF MEXICO COUNCIL'S REEF FISH MANAGEMENT 
                   PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Title IV (16 U.S.C. 1881 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 409. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED 
                   UNDER GULF OF MEXICO COUNCIL'S REEF FISH 
                   MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       ``(a) In General.--The Gulf States Marine Fisheries 
     Commission shall conduct all fishery stock assessments used 
     for management purposes by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
     Management Council for the fisheries managed under the 
     Council's Reef Fish Management Plan.
       ``(b) Use of Other Information and Assets.--
       ``(1) In general.--Such fishery assessments shall--
       ``(A) incorporate fisheries survey information collected by 
     university researchers; and
       ``(B) to the extent practicable, use State, university, and 
     private assets to conduct fisheries surveys.
       ``(2) Surveys at artificial reefs.--Any such fishery stock 
     assessment conducted after the date of the enactment of the 
     Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility 
     in Fisheries Management Act shall incorporate fishery surveys 
     conducted, and other relevant fisheries information 
     collected, on and around natural and artificial reefs.
       ``(c) Constituent and Stakeholder Participation.--Each such 
     fishery assessment shall--
       ``(1) emphasize constituent and stakeholder participation 
     in the development of the assessment;
       ``(2) contain all of the raw data used in the assessment 
     and a description of the methods used to collect that data; 
     and
       ``(3) employ an assessment process that is transparent and 
     includes--
       ``(A) includes a rigorous and independent scientific review 
     of the completed fishery stock assessment; and
       ``(B) a panel of independent experts to review the data and 
     assessment and make recommendations on the most appropriate 
     values of critical population and management quantities.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section is amended by adding at the end of the items relating 
     to title IV the following:

``Sec. 408. Deep sea coral research and technology program.
``Sec. 409. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of 
              Mexico Council's Reef Fish Management Plan.''.

     SEC. 19. ESTIMATION OF COST OF RECOVERY FROM FISHERY RESOURCE 
                   DISASTER.

       Section 312(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(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. 20. 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. 21. 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.

     SEC. 22. 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.

     SEC. 23. SUBSISTENCE FISHING.

       (a) Definition.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended 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 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) 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

[[Page 7976]]

       (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''.

     SEC. 24. INTER-SECTOR TRADING OF COMMERCIAL CATCH SHARE 
                   ALLOCATIONS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.

       Section 301 (16 U.S.C. 1851) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(c) Inter-Sector Trading of Commercial Catch Share 
     Allocations in the Gulf of Mexico.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, any commercial fishing catch share 
     allocation in a fishery in the Gulf of Mexico may only be 
     traded by sale or lease within the same commercial fishing 
     sector.''.

     SEC. 25. 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. 26. PREFERENCE FOR STUDENTS STUDYING WATER RESOURCE 
                   ISSUES.

       Section 402(e) (16 U.S.C. 1881a(e)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(4) The Secretary shall require that in the hiring of 
     individuals to collect information regarding marine 
     recreational fishing under this subsection, preference shall 
     be given to individuals who are students studying water 
     resource issues at an institution of higher education.''.

     SEC. 27. 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 the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall enter into an arrangement with 
     the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the 
     South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico mixed-use fisheries--
       (1) to provide guidance to Regional Fishery Management 
     Councils established under section 302 of the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1852) 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 under that Act;
       (2) to identify sources of information that could 
     reasonably support the use of such criteria in allocation 
     decisions; and
       (3) to develop procedures for allocation reviews and 
     potential adjustments in allocations based on the guidelines 
     and requirements established by this section.
       (b) Process for Allocation Review and Establishment.--The 
     South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of 
     Mexico Fishery Management Council shall--
       (1) within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, review the allocations of all mixed-use fisheries in the 
     Councils' respective jurisdictions; and
       (2) every 3 years thereafter, perform subsequent reviews of 
     such allocations; and
       (3) consider the conservation and socioeconomic benefits of 
     each sector in any allocation decisions for such fisheries.

     SEC. 28. 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 2015 through 2019''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
128. 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, may be 
withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not 
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Dingell

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-128.
  Mrs. DINGELL. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning at page 14, strike line 15 and all that follows 
     through page 16, line 3 and insert closing quotation marks 
     and a following period.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the National Environmental Policy Act, 
also called NEPA, is a critically important law, not only for 
protecting the environment, but also for protecting the people's right 
to participate in government decisionmaking. Sadly, H.R. 1335, the bill 
we are considering today, would short-circuit public review and comment 
on fisheries management decisions, casting NEPA aside in favor of an 
inadequate, poorly defined process that would make regional fishery 
management councils the ultimate arbiters of whether or not their own 
decisions would impact coastal communities and ocean ecosystems.
  Forcing important NEPA analysis to be fast-tracked onto a council's 
timeline would eliminate crucial oversight steps that provide 
stakeholders an opportunity to impact the public policy. While I know 
my colleagues had good intentions, the practical impact of this 
language means that local communities and businesses will not have the 
same opportunity to comment and have input on decisions that will 
impact their livelihood.
  I don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really 
want to limit public participation in this manner. My amendment simply 
strikes the harmful language from the bill that undermines NEPA because 
limiting transparency and accountability is not the right thing to do.
  NEPA has a simple premise: look before you leap. For decades, NEPA 
has improved our environment and fostered fairness in our communities 
by ensuring that government remains accountable to the people. The NEPA 
process requires Federal agencies to review their proposed actions in 
light of their potential impacts on the human environment: the places 
where we all live, work, and play.
  Most importantly, NEPA gives the public an opportunity to review and 
comment on actions proposed by the government, adding unique 
perspectives to the evaluation process that highly specialized, 
mission-driven agencies might otherwise ignore. In that way, NEPA is 
the ultimate check on Big Government, a uniquely American and 
quintessentially democratic--small D--law written and executed to help 
people protect their rights and freedoms. Our Founding Fathers would 
certainly be proud.
  I hope that my colleagues will agree that existing NEPA protections 
should be preserved, and I ask that you vote in favor of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in response to the amendment, I 
simply have to say no, it does not assume the system.
  We do have a problem with transparency in the process that we have. 
The underlying bill changes that by requiring these decisions to be 
made public and made openly, but the specific issue that dealing with 
NEPA misses a step, misses an important point here.
  Current law requires fishery management plans contain a fishery 
impact statement. That is required by law now, required by the bill as 
well. That is in line with everything you go through to do an 
environmental impact statement under NEPA.
  What this amendment would do is simply require the process to do 
everything twice. You do a fishery impact statement first, and then you 
restate and redo the same business with the same cost attached to it 
for the NEPA analysis. That is simply red tape.

                              {time}  1645

  It is an unnecessary delay. It makes some of the scientific 
information obsolete before they are done. It burdens the management 
and the resource council, which is why those, once

[[Page 7977]]

again, who work in this system have said this is an unnecessary part 
and one of the reasons they like the efficiency that has been added by 
the basic, underlying bill.
  The most important reason, though, why you don't want to accept this 
amendment is, if you add two different approaches, two different 
statements that have to be made, you give attorneys two different 
opportunities to litigate. You give more opportunities to litigate, 
more opportunities to delay, and that is ridiculous. It lacks common 
sense because you are doing the same thing in both processes. Cut the 
red tape, cut the litigation opportunity, cut the delays, and help us 
move forward.
  I reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. DINGELL. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. 
Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Dingell 
amendment.
  As many of us in Congress know, our Nation's fisheries do not work on 
artificial timelines. If we want to be sure that fishery plans are 
getting the critical National Environmental Policy Act analysis that 
conserve and preserve our resources, we can't force these NEPA studies 
to be fast-tracked.
  The underlying bill would force important environmental analyses to 
be rushed and, therefore, cut stakeholders out of the process due to 
rapid timelines.
  At a time when we are trying to make sure that we keep stakeholders 
engaged in the process, they would actually get less consideration 
under the bill that we have on the floor today.
  We need to ensure that our communities are given a chance to weigh in 
on these plans, and in that process that we take a thorough look at the 
environmental impacts of these plans.
  My colleague has said that her amendment would restore common sense 
and requires us to look before we leap. I couldn't agree more.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose artificial timelines for environmental 
reviews, and I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly respond to some of the 
comments made by the other side.
  Federal agency responsibility for NEPA is effectively being 
eliminated by this law and an alternative, undefined process is being 
established hindering the public's ability to influence policies and 
protect their rights.
  Stakeholders, including businesses and individuals, would get less 
consideration in the council process and would not have a way of 
voicing their concerns and influencing the directions of plans or 
projects that could threaten the environment or the livelihoods of 
these people. It is simply common sense that plans to manage our 
valuable resources be properly assessed before resources are harvested.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would just, again, like to remind my 
colleagues this was requested by the communities so there wouldn't be a 
delay. We are not eliminating NEPA. There is already a process in the 
Magnuson Act which was not there in the original act, I will say that, 
and I did support it when it went in. But to duplicate it and to 
require outside interests that they cannot respect those in the 
community--which is really what her amendment would do. It lets other 
outside interest groups get involved in this issue of sustainable 
fisheries.
  This has always been a fishery community bill, not an outside bill or 
interest groups getting into the issues of sustainability and community 
activity through transparency. What you do is you start a duplication 
of the process. It is not necessary. We are not eliminating NEPA. We 
are just adding to it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me close by simply saying this. The 
environmentally friendly approach would be not to accept this amendment 
because think of all the trees you are going to save from reprinting an 
extra report that says the same thing over again.
  We are already doing this process in the law. Requiring NEPA plus the 
fishery statement is simply a replication of the process that is 
already there. It does not need to be there. You are not cutting anyone 
out, as has been said. It is simply one of those things that you need 
to do it the first time and do it right the first time, and you don't 
have to redo it a second time to allow lawyers to then come up with 
another chance to litigate one more time.
  I reject the amendment. I urge its rejection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan will be 
postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Keating

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-128.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 28, line 7, strike ``and''.
       Page 28, line 11, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 28, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(C) fishery research and independent stock assessments, 
     conservation gear engineering, at-sea and shoreside 
     monitoring, fishery impact statements, and other priorities 
     established by the Council as necessary to rebuild or 
     maintain sustainable fisheries, ensure healthy ecosystems, 
     and maintain fishing communities.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, 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 builds off of years of 
efforts to reform the use of the asset forfeiture fund. During this 
time, NOAA has conducted internal reviews and audits for the use of 
asset forfeiture monies. Yet I believe it is important that we 
authorize specific uses to help our struggling fishermen and, at the 
same time, promote sustainable fishing.
  My amendment would ensure that forfeiture funds are used for five 
things: first, enhancing fishery research and stock assessments. This 
bill authorizes the use of State personnel and resources, things like 
cooperative research between industry and public science and use of 
vessels to serve a data-poor fisheries. My amendment expands beyond 
data-poor fisheries by authorizing broader use of forfeiture funds for 
research and independent stock assessments.
  This is particularly important in the Northeast, where timely 
information may be the difference between the success or failure of a 
small fishing business.
  Secondly, it deals with at-sea and shoreside monitoring. If there is 
one concern that I have heard consistently voiced from fishermen from 
New Bedford to the South Shore to Provincetown in Massachusetts, it is 
the transition of funding for monitoring from NOAA to fishermen.
  It has been nearly 3 years since the Department of Commerce declared 
a fishing disaster in the Northeast. As the fishing industry continues 
to face the long-term challenges coming back from this disaster, this 
is no time to switch the burden of the cost of monitoring onto them.
  Third, it advances conservation gear engineering. Additional funds 
will help fishermen develop and adopt new gear and technology to 
improve efficiency,

[[Page 7978]]

reduce the impact on the marine environment, and promote sustainable 
fishing for future generations.
  Commercial and recreational fishermen use an array of gear to target 
their catch. An unfortunate and fatal consequence is the inclusion of 
untargeted fish, turtles, and marine mammals as bycatch. Fortunately, 
there have been efforts underway nationwide to promote sustainable 
means of fishing, like scallopers in New Bedford developing the turtle 
dredge to protect sea turtles from interaction during scalloping, and 
the New England Aquarium collaborative that has developed acoustic 
pingers that successfully warn marine mammals away from gill nets.
  Fourth, the amendment will help with additional research for fishery 
impact statements. Under the bill, councils are required to develop 
fishery impact statements that take into account the purpose of a 
proposed management plan and its potential impact on fisheries and 
fishing communities. In doing so, the bill shifts the responsibility 
from NEPA to the councils. And while I have concerns about how this 
will be implemented, I do believe it is critical that we provide 
councils with adequate resources.
  Finally, the bill and the amendment will help funding priorities of 
the regional fishery management councils, like efforts to rebuild or 
maintain sustainable fisheries and ensure healthy ecosystems.
  There is no doubt that additional funding for these efforts is a win 
for fishermen on all coasts of our country.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
  Mr. MOULTON. I would like to thank my colleague and friend from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) for the time, and for all the work that he 
has done, along with Mr. Lynch, on behalf of our Commonwealth's fishing 
communities.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment, which clarifies the uses 
of NOAA's asset forfeiture fund so we can make smart investments in 
scientific research and preserve an economically viable fishing 
industry.
  This amendment will provide our fishermen, shoreside businesses, and 
fishing communities with the assurance that the money in NOAA's asset 
forfeiture fund will go towards improving the science behind 
sustainable fishery management practices.
  Additionally, the amendment offers fisheries councils the resources 
they need to better serve our fisheries and fishing communities.
  At the end of the day, both the fishermen and the environmentalists 
want the same thing: healthy and sustainable fisheries. I believe that 
the amendment will help achieve this objective through meaningful and 
targeted uses of NOAA's asset forfeiture fund. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. KEATING. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In 2010, the Department of Commerce inspector 
general reported that NOAA was misusing these funds for all sorts of 
purposes not actually helping the fishing community. That is one of the 
reasons why we are clearly saying the status quo has problems, and this 
bill needs to go forward.
  This bill recognized that these funds should not be used to add to 
the bureaucracy, and therefore in the base bill we actually put in 
provisions to allow up to 80 percent of these enforcement funds to be 
used for collection and data and science.
  What Mr. Keating and others have done, though, is take the process 
one step further in something I think is a very commonsense solution to 
a problem that we do have in the status quo. I appreciate what you are 
doing, and I support this amendment.
  I urge everyone to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Keating-Lynch-
Moulton amendment to allow monies from the asset forfeiture fund to be 
available for expanded uses. I want to commend my colleagues from 
Massachusetts for their continued efforts on behalf of our fishing 
industry.
  Massachusetts has a long and proud fishing history. in fact, the 
``sacred cod'', a nearly five foot long woodcarving of an atlantic 
codfish, has hung in the Massachusetts House of Representatives since 
1794, representing the importance of the cod fishery to the 
commonwealth.
  We all know the state of the fishing industry today. Depleted stocks 
and the policies put in place to rebuild those stocks have exacted a 
heavy toll. And we have all heard the stories of fishing families 
struggling to make ends meet and keep their generations-long family 
businesses alive. Our amendment is a common sense amendment which, if 
adopted, will build on and improve the systems put in place to assess 
and rebuild stocks while also providing some financial relief to the 
men and women who continue to earn a living at sea.
  Our amendment, if adopted, will provide the funding necessary for 
fisheries councils to undertake certain reporting requirements of the 
underlying bill. Our amendment will also provide funding for 
independent research and stock assessments and for the development and 
implementation of gear that will reduce the impact on the marine 
environment and promote sustainable fishing for future generations. 
And, importantly, this amendment will also provide a funding stream to 
pay for at-sea and shore-side monitoring, a financial burden that 
fishermen simply cannot bear.
  We simply cannot allow the money in the NOAA's asset forfeiture fund 
to be wasted when fishermen stand to benefit from targeted scientific 
research and resources dedicated to the fishing industry.
  The health of the resource is the basic building block upon which all 
industry dependents rely. And it is critical that all parties; 
fishermen, fisheries councils, researchers and conservationists work 
cooperatively and also strike an appropriate balance towards 
sustainability. Our amendment provides the financial support to help 
all stakeholders further invest in and maximize the outcomes of their 
piece of the larger puzzle.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Keating-Lynch-Moulton Amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 114-128.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 13 (page 34, after line 22), add the 
     following:
       (h) Process for Decommissioning Oil and Gas Platforms and 
     Drilling Rigs.--The National Ocean Council, operating under 
     Executive Order 13547, shall convene a meeting of 
     representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
     Enforcement, the States represented on the Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council, and stakeholders, to develop a 
     process for decommissioning oil and gas platforms and 
     drilling rigs that eliminates harm to the Gulf of Mexico red 
     snapper stock of fish and enhances conservation of habitat of 
     such stock.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the bill before us, H.R. 1335, 
undermines nearly two decades of progress making U.S. fisheries 
profitable and sustainable.
  A few weeks ago, NOAA reported that overfishing has hit an all-time 
low, and the number of rebuilt stocks has hit an all-time high, largely 
because of the success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reforms of both 1996 
and 2007--the same reforms that this bill today before us would 
undercut.
  In an attempt to add some good policy to an otherwise unproductive 
bill, I am offering an amendment to improve the management of one 
important fish stock: the Gulf of Mexico red snapper.

[[Page 7979]]

  Last year, during a series of Natural Resources Committee hearings on 
fisheries policies, we heard from members and witnesses who were irate 
over the fact that the Interior Department was allowing offshore oil 
platforms and drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to be decommissioned 
in a way that was killing red snapper and destroying important snapper 
habitat. After intense questioning, it became clear that in the current 
process for decommission rigs, NOAA, which is part of the Department of 
Commerce, is not regularly consulted by Interior agencies.

                              {time}  1700

  As a result, NOAA does not even conduct surveys to determine if the 
Department of the Interior is about to dismantle a productive 
artificial reef teeming with red snapper and other fish.
  Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleagues from the Gulf States who feel 
this is ridiculous and needs to stop; but how do we do it? Then I 
remembered that we already have a mechanism in place for resolving 
exactly this kind of multistakeholder conflict at sea. It is called the 
National Ocean Policy.
  Through the National Ocean Policy, the National Ocean Council 
facilitates commonsense governance of public resources. Like air 
traffic control for the seas, the council coordinates all of the users 
of our oceans and helps them determine safer, less contentious, and 
more efficient utilization of ocean resources.
  My amendment would direct the agencies responsible for implementing 
the National Ocean Policy to work with the Gulf States and other 
stakeholders to develop a transparent process that would preserve red 
snapper habitat during rig decommissioning.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote for more recreational fishing 
opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico and a vote for a bipartisan 
solution to promoting red snapper habitat.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Lowenthal amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) on this particular amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this same amendment was offered in 
committee; it failed. It is my understanding that rigs and platforms 
are already required to eliminate harm under their leases. In fact, 
most of the fishermen I talk to on the Gulf say the platforms are 
really manmade reefs, and the red snapper love them.
  Overall, I don't support giving the National Ocean Council any 
authorities. The council is created by executive action, and until the 
Congress passes legislation regarding the National Ocean Policy, 
Congress should not implement measures to support it.
  This is not an action of Congress. This is an action by executive 
order. Remember, this bill originally was sustainable yield, 
sustainable communities, nothing to do with an ocean council deciding 
what is going to happen to override the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  This is a bad amendment, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. As you just heard from the other side of the aisle, 
Mr. Chair, they agree with me that there needs to be more coordination 
amongst all the stakeholders to make smart decisions about rig 
decommissioning in red snapper habitat; but they refuse to move forward 
with this proposal simply because they oppose the National Ocean Policy 
which incidentally, as we all know in this room, that its predecessor 
was the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which was first established by 
President Bush.
  They oppose the National Ocean Policy on the grounds that it is a 
program that is authorized by an executive action or an executive order 
of a President that they don't like. This seems to me to be pretty 
petty.
  Why would we create now a new group to bring together the 
stakeholders to address just this one issue, when we already have a 
council and a policy that can do exactly what everyone wants to be 
done?
  National Ocean Policy is not a failed policy like some suggest, nor 
is it an instance of executive overreach. It is merely a commonsense 
way to facilitate multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean 
issues.
  Mr. Chair, my amendment directs agencies and stakeholders to work 
together to come up with solutions to decommission rigs that work for 
everyone involved. This is a commonsense solution that promotes red 
snapper habitat and more recreational fishing opportunities.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Lowenthal amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from California for offering this amendment. We had the opportunity to 
discuss this in committee.
  I am very sensitive to the fact that we do things in a manner that 
sustains all of our fisheries and protects our ecosystem.
  However, as we discussed in committee, I did request of you, number 
one, that if you let us get together as Gulf States, continue to work 
together with the Department of the Interior--as I mentioned in 
committee, we have even larger concerns about the way that some of this 
important reef structure, such as rigs and reefs programs and others, 
have been handled by the Federal Government.
  I respect the gentleman for offering this amendment, but I am going 
to vote in opposition, giving us time to work together with industry, 
work together with the fisherman, and find the right way to do this to 
ensure that we protect the species.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, allow me to conclude the debate, if 
I may.
  Last year, in Congress, we had a hearing where we saw a huge number 
of red snappers who were killed by the removal of a decommissioned oil 
platform that had been authorized by the Department of the Interior. 
This amendment does not really change that.
  What this amendment would do is an attempt--hopefully, futile 
attempt--to basically give validity to the administration's National 
Ocean Policy, a policy that was done without transparency, almost in 
the cover of darkness, and implemented by executive order.
  What we are talking about is not something that is an executive 
action, but, as properly said by the last two speakers from our side, 
it is a legislative action, and this bill takes that legislative 
responsibility and does it the right way.
  We do not need a nontransparent executive order to be enforced here. 
What we need to do is allow the agencies of jurisdiction to actually do 
their job, defend their rules, and allow the legislative branch to work 
its will.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 114-128.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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 7980]]

       Page 46, strike lines 5 through 9 and insert the following:
       ``(4) The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, when 
     hiring individuals to collect information regarding marine 
     recreational fishing under this subsection, give preference 
     to students studying fisheries conservation and management, 
     water resource issues, or other relevant subjects at an 
     institution of higher education in the United States.''.
       Page 46, beginning at line 19, strike ``Regional Fishery'' 
     and all that follows through line 22 and insert ``the South 
     Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council on criteria that''.
       Page 47, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENTS FOR LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGES.

       Section 3303A(c)(1)(G) (16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(1)(G)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(G) include provisions for a formal and detailed review 5 
     years after the implementation of the program, and thereafter 
     the regular monitoring and review by the Council and the 
     Secretary of the operations and impacts of the program, to 
     coincide with scheduled Council review of the relevant 
     fishery management plan (but no less frequently than once 
     every 7 years) including--
       ``(i) determining progress in meeting the goals of the 
     program and this Act;
       ``(ii) delineating the positive and negative economic 
     effects of the program on fishermen and processors who are 
     part of the program and the coastal communities in which they 
     reside; and
       ``(iii) any necessary modification of the program to meet 
     those goals, including a formal schedule for action to be 
     taken within 2 years;''.

     SEC. __. HEALTHY FISHERIES THROUGH BETTER SCIENCE.

       (a) Definition of Stock Assessment.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 
     1802), as amended by section 23(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 10(d) 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.
       ``(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 paragraph (1) of section 
     404(f) 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.
       (c) Improving Science.--
       (1) Incorporation of information from wide variety of 
     sources.--Section 2(a)(8) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Fisheries management is 
     most effective when it incorporates information provided by 
     governmental and nongovernmental sources, including State and 
     Federal agency staff, fishermen, fishing communities, 
     universities, and research institutions. As appropriate, such 
     information should be considered the best scientific 
     information available and form the basis of conservation and 
     management measures as required by this Act.''.
       (2) Improving data collection and analysis.--Section 404 
     (16 U.S.C. 1881c), as amended by this section, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Improving Data Collection and Analysis.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Councils acting in reliance on their science and statistical 
     committees established under section 302(g), shall develop 
     and publish in the Federal Register guidelines that will 
     facilitate greater incorporation of data, analysis, and stock 
     assessments from nongovernmental sources, including 
     fishermen, fishing communities, universities, and research 
     institutions, into fisheries management decisions.
       ``(2) Content.--The guidelines shall--
       ``(A) identify types of data and analysis, especially 
     concerning recreational fishing, that can be reliably used 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 such data and 
     analysis in stock assessments and for other purposes; and
       ``(B) provide specific guidance for collecting data and 
     performing analyses identified as necessary to reduce the 
     uncertainty referred to in section 404(f)(2)(C).
       ``(3) Acceptance and use of data and analyses.--The 
     Secretary and Regional Fishery Management Councils shall--
       ``(A) use all data and analyses that meet the guidelines 
     published under paragraph (1) as the best scientific 
     information available for purposes of this Act in fisheries 
     management decisions, unless otherwise determined by the 
     science and statistical committee of the Councils established 
     pursuant to section 302(g) of the Act; and
       ``(B) explain in the Federal Register notice announcing the 
     fishery management decision how such data and analyses have 
     been used to establish conservation and management 
     measures.''.
       (3) Deadline.--The Secretary of Commerce shall develop and 
     publish guidelines under the amendment made by paragraph (2) 
     by not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Cost Reduction Report.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in 
     consultation with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, 
     shall submit a report to Congress that, with respect to each 
     fishery governed by a fishery management plan in effect under 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)--
       (1) identifies the goals of the applicable programs 
     governing monitoring and enforcement of fishing that is 
     subject to such plan;
       (2) identifies methods to accomplish those goals, including 
     human observers, electronic monitoring, and vessel monitoring 
     systems;
       (3) certifies which such methods are most cost-effective 
     for fishing that is subject to such plan; and
       (4) explains why such most-cost-effective methods are not 
     required, if applicable.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, 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, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today makes a few 
clarifications to the underlying bill.
  It modifies language in the bill allowing for the use of graduate 
students in the collection of recreational fishing data. The fields of 
science the graduate students are studying is expanded, and when the 
students can be used is clarified.
  The amendment also clarifies that guidance prepared by the National 
Academy of Sciences regarding the economic benefits of commercial and 
recreational fishing within the mixed-use fisheries is to be given to 
the south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico councils.
  The amendment will also modify the provisions in law regarding the 
council

[[Page 7981]]

review of limited access programs to include not only the benefits of 
the program, but also any adverse impacts.
  Lastly, the amendment includes language to allow stock assessments to 
include information from universities, fishermen, fishing communities, 
and research institutions, in addition to State and Federal fisheries 
data.
  It will also require a schedule for when stock assessments should 
occur and allows for a waiver if certain stocks don't need assessments.
  These are good additions to the legislation, and I urge the Members 
to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. The catch share reporting requirements and stock 
assessment mandates in this amendment would impose significant new 
costs on NOAA, but the amendment provides no additional funding.
  The majority already complains that NOAA does not conduct stock 
assessments frequently or quickly enough. This unfunded mandate would 
further slow that process.
  Further, these concepts have not been vetted by the Natural Resources 
Committee. We have not had an opportunity to get feedback on the 
legislation from NOAA, the agency that would inevitably be responsible 
for implementing it.
  We need to hear from the administration about any potential costs or 
unintended consequences of this amendment.
  In particular, the rigid requirements of the guidelines envisioned in 
this bill would take away the discretion of expert scientists and 
undermine an ongoing effort NOAA is conducting to improve stock 
assessments across regions.
  Further, the mandates, deadlines, and reports would likely cost money 
that is not authorized to be appropriated.
  I would like to have additional input on the requirements this bill 
imposes with respect to developing and following new guidelines on data 
collection and on cost recovery by the agency.
  For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman from 
New Mexico's comments on this. This does not add an additional cost, 
and why people say that, I don't know.
  All this does is very simple, and I explained it when I explained my 
amendment, and I urge the passage of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. My good friend, Mr. Young, is perpetually trying to 
move me to New Mexico. I still love Arizona and will remain in Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the reasons of opposition have not 
changed to the amendment. The unintended consequences, the lack of full 
information as to what the data collection will be, any impending costs 
that would be secured that NOAA would have to undertake, and feedback 
both by the agency that would be responsible, feedback from the Natural 
Resources Committee, and feedback by the administration to this 
amendment would be, I think, important additions in order for this 
House to be able to make an informed decision on the amendment.
  Lacking that information, I remain urging a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  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 114-128.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in 
order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 29. TRANSFER TO STATES OF MANAGEMENT OF RED SNAPPER 
                   FISHERIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``TITLE V--TRANSFER TO STATES OF MANAGEMENT OF RED SNAPPER FISHERIES IN 
                           THE GULF OF MEXICO

     ``SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Gulf States Red Snapper 
     Management Authority Act'.

     ``SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Coastal waters.--The term `coastal waters' means all 
     waters of the Gulf of Mexico--
       ``(A) shoreward of the baseline from which the territorial 
     sea of the United States is measured; and
       ``(B) seaward from the baseline described in subparagraph 
     (A) to the outer boundary of the exclusive economic zone.
       ``(2) Gulf coastal states.--The term `Gulf coastal State' 
     means each of the following States:
       ``(A) Alabama.
       ``(B) Florida.
       ``(C) Louisiana.
       ``(D) Mississippi.
       ``(E) Texas.
       ``(3) Gulf of mexico fishery management council.--The term 
     `Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council' means the Gulf of 
     Mexico Fishery Management Council established under section 
     302(a).
       ``(4) Gulf of mexico red snapper.--The term `Gulf of Mexico 
     red snapper' means members of stocks or populations of the 
     species Lutjanus campechanus, which ordinarily are found 
     within the waters of the exclusive economic zone and adjacent 
     territorial waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
       ``(5) Gulf states red snapper management authority.--The 
     term `Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority' and 
     `GSRSMA', means the Gulf States Red Snapper Management 
     Authority established under section 503(a).
       ``(6) Red snapper fishery management plan.--The term `red 
     snapper fishery management plan' means a plan created by one 
     or more Gulf coastal States to manage Gulf of Mexico red 
     snapper in the coastal waters adjacent to such State or 
     States, respectively.
       ``(7) Reef fish federal fishery management plan.--The term 
     `Reef Fish Federal fishery management plan'" means the 
     Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the 
     Gulf of Mexico, as amended, prepared by the Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council pursuant to title III and 
     implemented under part 622 of title 50, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or similar successor regulation).
       ``(8) State territorial waters.--The term `State 
     territorial waters', with respect to a Gulf coastal State, 
     means the waters adjacent to such State seaward to the line 
     three marine leagues seaward from the baseline from which of 
     the territorial sea of the United States is measured.

     ``SEC. 503. MANAGEMENT OF GULF OF MEXICO RED SNAPPER.

       ``(a) Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority.--
       ``(1) Requirement to establish.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary 
     shall establish a Gulf States Red Snapper Management 
     Authority that consists of the principal fisheries manager of 
     each of the Gulf coastal States.
       ``(2) Duties.--The duties of the GSRSMA are as follows:
       ``(A) To review and approve red snapper fishery management 
     plans, as set out in the Act.
       ``(B) To provide standards for each Gulf coastal State to 
     use in developing fishery management measures to sustainably 
     manage Gulf of Mexico red snapper in the coastal waters 
     adjacent to such State.
       ``(C) To the maximum extent practicable, make scientific 
     data, stock assessments and other scientific information upon 
     which fishery management plans are based available to the 
     public for inspection prior to meetings described in 
     paragraph (c)(2).
       ``(b) Requirement for Plans.--
       ``(1) Deadline for submission of plans.--The GSRSMA shall 
     establish a deadline for each Gulf coastal State to submit to 
     the GSRSMA a red snapper fishery management plan for such 
     State.
       ``(2) Consistency with federal fishery management plans.--
     To the extent practicable, the Gulf Coastal States fishery 
     management plans shall be consistent with the requirements in 
     section 303(a) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)).

[[Page 7982]]

       ``(c) Review and Approval of Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this title and not more than 60 days after 
     one or more Gulf coastal States submits a red snapper fishery 
     management plan and annually thereafter, the GSRSMA shall 
     review and approve by majority vote the red snapper fishery 
     management plan if such plan meets the requirements of this 
     title.
       ``(2) Public participation.--Prior to approving a red 
     snapper fishery management plan submitted by one or more Gulf 
     coastal States, the GSRSMA shall provide an adequate 
     opportunity for public participation, including--
       ``(A) at least 1 public hearing held in each respective 
     Gulf coastal State; and
       ``(B) procedures for submitting written comments to GSRSMA 
     on the fishery management plan.
       ``(3) Plan requirements.--A red snapper fishery management 
     plan submitted by one or more Gulf coastal States shall--
       ``(A) contain standards and procedures for the long-term 
     sustainability of Gulf of Mexico red snapper based on the 
     best available science;
       ``(B) comply with the standards described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B); and
       ``(C) determine quotas for the red snapper fishery in the 
     coastal waters adjacent to such Gulf coastal State or States, 
     respectively, based on stock assessments, and--
       ``(i) any recommendation by the GSRSMA to reduce quota 
     apportioned to the commercial sector by more than 10 percent 
     shall be reviewed and approved by the Gulf Fishery Management 
     Council;
       ``(ii) during the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this title and consistent with subsection (d), 
     the GSRSMA shall not determine a quota apportioned to the 
     commercial sector; and
       ``(iii) nothing in this Act shall be construed to change 
     the individual quota shares currently in place in the 
     commercial sector of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery
       ``(4) Review and approval.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date the GSRSMA receives a red snapper fishery management 
     plan from one or more Gulf coastal State or States, the 
     GSRSMA shall review and approve such plan if such plan 
     satisfies the requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(d) Continued Management by the Secretary.--During the 3-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     title, the Secretary, in coordination with the Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council, shall continue to manage the 
     commercial sector of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery.
       ``(e) Reporting Requirements.--
       ``(1) Reports by gulf coastal states.--Each Gulf coastal 
     State shall submit to the GSRSMA an annual report on the 
     status of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery in coastal 
     waters adjacent to such State.
       ``(2) Report by the gsrsma.--Not less often than once every 
     5 years, the GSRSMA shall use the information submitted in 
     the annual reports required by paragraph (1) to prepare and 
     submit to the Secretary a report on the status of the Gulf of 
     Mexico red snapper fishery.
       ``(3) Annual report by national oceanic and atmospheric 
     administration.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration shall submit to Congress an 
     annual report on the implementation of this title.

     ``SEC. 504. STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RED SNAPPER FISHERY 
                   MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       ``(a) Allocation of Management to the Gulf States.--
       ``(1) Certification of approved plans.--The GSRSMA shall 
     certify to the Secretary that a red snapper fishery 
     management plan is approved under section 503 for each of the 
     Gulf coastal States.
       ``(2) Transfer of management.--Upon receipt of the 
     certification described in paragraph (1) and subject to 
     section 503 (d), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) publish a notice in the Federal Register revoking the 
     regulations and portions of the Reef Fish Federal fishery 
     management plan that are in conflict with any red snapper 
     fishery management plan approved by the GSRSMA; and
       ``(B) transfer management of Gulf of Mexico red snapper to 
     the GSRSMA.
       ``(b) Implementation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon the transfer of management 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(B) and subject to section 503 
     (d), each Gulf coastal State shall implement and enforce the 
     red snapper fishery management plans approved under section 
     503 for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery in the coastal 
     waters adjacent to each Gulf coastal State.
       ``(2) Failure to transfer management.--If the certification 
     described in subsection (a)(1) is not made the transfer of 
     management described in subsection (a)(2)(B) may not be 
     accomplished and the Secretary shall remain responsible for 
     management of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper.

     ``SEC. 505. OVERSIGHT OF GULF OF MEXICO RED SNAPPER 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) Implementation and Enforcement of Fishery Management 
     Plans.--Not later than December 1 of the year following the 
     transfer of management described in section 504(a)(2), and at 
     any other time the GSRSMA considers appropriate after that 
     date, the GSRSMA shall determine if--
       ``(1) each Gulf coastal State has fully adopted and 
     implemented the red snapper fishery management plan approved 
     under section 503 for such State;
       ``(2) each such plan continues to be in compliance with the 
     standards for sustainability provided by the GSRSMA pursuant 
     to section 503(a)(2); and
       ``(3) the enforcement of the plan by each Gulf coastal 
     State is satisfactory to maintain the long-term 
     sustainability and abundance of Gulf of Mexico red snapper.
       ``(b) Overfishing and Rebuilding Plans.--
       ``(1) Certification.--If the Gulf of Mexico red snapper in 
     the coastal waters adjacent to a Gulf coastal State is 
     experiencing overfishing or is subject to a rebuilding plan, 
     such Gulf coastal State shall submit a certification to the 
     GSRSMA showing that such State--
       ``(A) has implemented the necessary measures to end 
     overfishing or rebuild the fishery; and
       ``(B) in consultation with the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, has implemented a program to 
     provide for data collection adequate to monitor the harvest 
     of Gulf of Mexico red snapper by such State.
       ``(2) Notification to secretary.--If, after such time as 
     determined by the GSRSMA, a Gulf coastal State that submitted 
     a certification under paragraph (1) has not implemented the 
     measures and requirements described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of such paragraph, the GSRSMA shall vote on whether to 
     notify the Secretary of a recommendation of closure of the 
     red snapper fishery in the waters adjacent to the State 
     territorial waters of the Gulf coastal State.
       ``(c) Closure of the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Fishery.--
       ``(1) Conditions for closure.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the receipt of a notice under subsection (b)(2) for a Gulf 
     coastal State, the Secretary may declare a closure of the 
     Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery within the waters adjacent 
     to the State territorial waters of the Gulf coastal State.
       ``(2) Considerations.--Prior to making a declaration under 
     paragraph (2), the Secretary shall consider the comments of 
     such Gulf coastal State and the GSRSMA.
       ``(3) Actions prohibited during closure.--During a closure 
     of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery under paragraph 
     (1), it is unlawful for any person--
       ``(A) to engage in fishing for Gulf of Mexico red snapper 
     within the waters adjacent to the State territorial waters of 
     the Gulf coastal State covered by the closure;
       ``(B) to land, or attempt to land, the Gulf of Mexico red 
     snapper in the area of the closure; or
       ``(C) to fail to return to the water any Gulf of Mexico red 
     snapper caught in the area of the closure that are incidental 
     to commercial harvest or in the recreational fisheries.
       ``(4) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to allow the Secretary to close the red snapper 
     fishery in the State territorial waters of a Gulf coastal 
     State.

     ``SEC. 506. GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION.

       ``(a) Funding to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries 
     Commission.--The Secretary shall provide all Federal funding 
     to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for all 
     necessary stock assessments, research, and management for the 
     red snapper fishery.
       ``(b) Funding to the Gulf Coastal States.--The Gulf States 
     Marine Fisheries Commission shall be responsible for 
     administering the Federal funds referred to in paragraph (1) 
     to each of the Gulf coastal States for proper management of 
     the red snapper fishery.
       ``(c) No Additional Appropriations Authorized.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed to increase the amount of 
     Federal funds authorized to be appropriated for Gulf of 
     Mexico red snapper fishery management.

     ``SEC. 507. NO EFFECT ON MANAGEMENT OF SHRIMP FISHERIES IN 
                   FEDERAL WATERS.

       ``(a) Bycatch Reduction Devices.--Nothing in this title may 
     be construed to effect any requirement related to the use of 
     Gulf of Mexico red snapper bycatch reduction devices in the 
     course of shrimp trawl fishing activity.
       ``(b) Bycatch of Red Snapper.--Nothing in this title shall 
     be construed to apply to or affect in any manner the Federal 
     management of commercial shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of 
     Mexico as in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     section, including any incidental catch of red snapper''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Data collection.--Section 401(g)(3)(C) of the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1881(g)(3)(G)) is amended by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end of clause (iv), by striking the period 
     at the end of clause (v) and inserting ``; and'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) in the case of each fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, 
     taking into consideration all data collection activities 
     related to fishery effort that are undertaken by the marine 
     resources

[[Page 7983]]

     division of each relevant State of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
     Management Council.''.
       (2) Gulf state territorial waters.--Section 306(b) of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1856(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding section 3(11) and subsection (a) of 
     this section, for purposes of managing fisheries in the Gulf 
     of Mexico, the seaward boundary of a coastal State in the 
     Gulf of Mexico is a line three marine leagues seaward from 
     the baseline from which the territorial sea of the United 
     States is measured.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``TITLE V--TRANSFER TO STATES OF MANAGEMENT OF RED SNAPPER FISHERIES IN 
                           THE GULF OF MEXICO

``Sec. 501. Short title.
``Sec. 502. Definitions.
``Sec. 503. Management of Gulf of Mexico red snapper.
``Sec. 504. State implementation of the red snapper fishery management 
              plans.
``Sec. 505. Oversight of Gulf of Mexico red snapper management.
``Sec. 506. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
``Sec. 507. No effect on management of shrimp fisheries in Federal 
              waters.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a child growing up in south Louisiana, 
recreational fishing for red snapper, we were allowed to go out all 
year round. All year long, we could go out and go enjoy fishing with 
our family and access the bounties of the Gulf of Mexico.
  As a matter of fact, the Gulf of Mexico is so productive, we don't 
just have great recreational fishing in south Louisiana; we have great 
commercial as well. We have some of the best restaurants in the Nation.
  We have a very robust commercial fishing industry. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, it is the second biggest commercial fishing industry only to 
the State of Alaska, which I think is unfair because they get to weigh 
their crab shells.
  Mr. Chairman, the reality is that we have seen the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, over the last several years, continue to use science 
that is not as robust as what the States are using to manage their 
fisheries.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, access for the recreational fishermen went down from 
year round when I was a child. Even in the 1990s, it was nearly 200 
days, down to this year, where the National Marine Fisheries Service 
says that it is limited to only 10 days for recreational fishing. 
Parents and their children can go out for 10 days.
  Meanwhile, for the first time ever, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service has split up the charter for hire and the recreational to allow 
the charter for hire to go out for 45 days and effectively allow the 
commercial fishermen to go out year round.
  I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman. This isn't about pitting the 
different fishing sectors against one another. What this is about is 
ensuring that we are using the best science and ensuring that we are 
providing access to all fishers--the recreational, the charter for 
hire, and the commercial. It needs to be based upon the best science. 
We can have much better management of that resource by ensuring 
consistency between State waters and Federal waters.
  The five Gulf States have come up with a plan. Unanimously, the five 
Gulf States have come up with a plan to manage those fisheries by the 
five fish and game agencies among the five Gulf States.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply codifies that agreement of the five 
Gulf States and allows those States to manage the red snapper fishery 
identical to how the striped bass fishery is managed on the Atlantic 
coast.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to see this amendment 
back again after it failed to pass in committee.
  I understand that recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico want 
to be able to keep more of the red snapper they catch, but the solution 
is not to steal fish from a responsibly managed and accountable 
commercial sector that provides millions of Americans the opportunity 
to choose healthy, fresh, sustainable Gulf red snapper at stores and 
restaurants; nor is it the solution to hand management over to Gulf 
States before they have developed a plan for managing the resource that 
consists of more than just ``trust us.''
  Simple arithmetic shows that there are too many people putting too 
much pressure on the red snapper stock just to sustain a recreational 
fishing season that lasts for more than a few days. To address that 
problem, private boat anglers will need to present creative solutions 
such as those that the commercial and charter for hire sectors have 
developed.
  NOAA is doing an incredible job rebuilding this stock under Magnuson, 
and the Gulf Council has the ability to debate and adopt a regional 
management approach or other alternative management strategies without 
interference from Washington.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the 
gentleman from Louisiana on the current status of red snapper 
management in the Gulf of Mexico and your interest to support actions 
taken by the Gulf States that are supported by many of your 
constituents.
  The amendment being offered today is a start in the process, but I 
respectfully suggest it needs further discussion. I support regional 
solutions but have concerns with proposals that will take the red 
snapper fishery outside of the Magnuson-Stevens Act management process.
  I am willing to continue to work with the gentleman from Louisiana, 
Chairman Bishop, and other Members, as well as fishing groups involved, 
to try to find a resolution to the management issues impacting the red 
snapper fishery.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by 
the American Sportfishing Association; the Billfish Foundation; CCA, 
the Coastal Conservation Association; the Center for Coastal 
Conservation; the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; the 
International Game Fish Association; National Marine Manufacturers 
Association; Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation; Recreational Fishing 
Alliance; and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
  Mr. Chairman, I am struggling with understanding the concerns that I 
recently heard expressed by the other side.
  Mr. Chairman, this is identical to how the Atlantic striped bass is 
managed on our East Coast. Why is there not an amendment to withdraw 
that authority if it is so problematic to have the five Gulf States 
consistently manage the natural resources in their State waters, as 
they do today, and in the adjacent Federal waters?
  It has been proven through various hearings that the committee has 
had that the science being used by the States is much better than the 
science that is being used by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record a one-pager that 
was released by the various groups that I cited, and I would also like 
to include

[[Page 7984]]

in the Record a document that was written in March of this year by the 
five Gulf States that explains the management.

         The State-Based Solution to Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper

       In March 2015, the directors of the state fish and wildlife 
     agencies from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and 
     Texas announced an agreement for state-based management of 
     Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which in recent years has 
     experienced increasing privatization of this public resource 
     and decreasing recreational fishing opportunities.
       Gulf of Mexico red snapper is presently managed by the Gulf 
     of Mexico Fishery Management Council, under the National 
     Marine Fisheries Service. The states' agreement, which is 
     predicated on transferring management authority away from the 
     Council, describes the key elements of a plan in which the 
     five Gulf states would coordinate management of red snapper 
     throughout the Gulf of Mexico through the proposed Gulf 
     States Red Snapper Management Authority.
       Numerous regional and national fisheries organizations have 
     come out in support of the states' plan. The recreational 
     fishing community has long had a strong relationship with 
     state fish and wildlife agencies because of their ability to 
     manage fisheries resources in a way that allows for healthy 
     populations and public access. Most all of the nation's most 
     popular saltwater recreational fisheries are managed by the 
     states. Rarely, if ever, does overfishing occur in state-
     managed recreational fisheries.
       States are also tremendously successful at managing 
     commercial fisheries. Nothing in the Gulf states' plan 
     proposes to change how the commercial red snapper fishery is 
     managed.
       It has become abundantly clear that the current Gulf red 
     snapper management system cannot produce successful outcomes 
     for recreational fishermen. Somewhere along the way of 
     rebuilding the fishery, to where it's now at an abundance 
     level beyond anyone's expectations, management went off the 
     tracks. A new path forward is needed, the states' are to be 
     commended for their willingness to take on this task.
       Representatives Garret Graves of Louisiana and Jeff Miller 
     of Florida are championing this plan. They are working to 
     ensure congressional action on this issue aligns with the 
     five Gulf states.
                                  ____

                                                   March 13, 2015.
       To Whom It May Concern: Management of the red snapper 
     fishery in the Gulf of Mexico continues to be a major 
     challenge with increasing dissatisfaction among anglers and 
     serious calls for restructuring the Gulf red snapper 
     management system. As a result, a number of proposals and 
     various drafts of legislation for changing this system have 
     emerged. Recognizing that significant changes are being 
     considered, the marine fisheries directors from the five Gulf 
     States have been engaged in an effort to develop and document 
     an alternative to the current management strategy that has 
     mutual agreement and support. Together, we have developed a 
     framework for cooperative state-based management of Gulf red 
     snapper; the enclosed document outlines the conceptual 
     elements of that plan.
       Under this alternative concept, the Gulf States would 
     coordinate management of red snapper throughout the Gulf of 
     Mexico through a new, independent body called the Gulf States 
     Red Snapper Management Authority (GSRSMA). The GSRSMA would 
     be comprised of the principle marine fisheries managers from 
     each Gulf States, and the management authority for Gulf-red 
     snapper would no longer reside within the Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council.
       The GSRSMA framework outlines a straightforward process 
     that would allow states to use flexible management approaches 
     to manage red snapper to meet local needs as well as Gulf-
     wide conservation goals. Each state would be responsible for 
     all management of red snapper in their respective state and 
     adjacent federal waters. The GSRSMA would approve each 
     state's management plan, coordinate population assessments, 
     provide consistent accountability measures, and distribute 
     federal funding for research, assessment, and management.
       Each state fisheries management agency places great value 
     in working together in partnership and collaboration to 
     ensure we have a robust, sustainable, and accessible red 
     snapper fishery in the Gulf. The states recognize the 
     importance of the red snapper fishery to the fabric and 
     identity of local communities throughout the Gulf as well as 
     the tremendous economic impact that it provides each state.
       Thank you for the opportunity to present to you the GSRSMA 
     concept agreed upon by each state. If there are any questions 
     or comments about the concept, please do not hesitate to 
     contact any of us directly.
           Sincerely,
     Robin Riechers,
       Director of Coastal Fisheries, Texas Parks and Wildlife 
     Department.
     Randy Pausina,
       Assistant Secretary, Office of Fisheries, Louisiana 
     Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
     Jamie Miller,
       Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Marine 
     Resources.
     Chris Blankenship,
       Director, Marine Resources Division, Alabama Department of 
     Conservation and Natural Resources.
     Jessica McCawley,
       Director, Division of Marine Fisheries Management, Florida 
     Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
       Enclosure.

         Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority (GSRSMA)

       This document outlines elements of a plan in which the Gulf 
     States would coordinate management of red snapper throughout 
     the Gulf of Mexico through the Gulf States Red Snapper 
     Management Authority (GSRSMA).


                               Management

       The governing body of GSRSMA would be comprised of the 
     principal fisheries manager (or his/her proxy) from each of 
     the five Gulf States. There would be a rotating chair serving 
     a two-year term. All actions of GSRSMA would be by majority 
     vote. The primary function of the GSRSMA would be approval of 
     each state's or group of states' Red Snapper Fisheries 
     Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) which 
     would address all components (commercial and recreational) of 
     the Gulf States red snapper fishery. The Plan may extend to 
     multiple years with annual review of specific components to 
     include, but not limited to: assessment methodology, data 
     collection, annual management measures and timelines.
       The Plan would include an initial three-year prohibition on 
     any actions that might affect individual fishing quotas or 
     management structure of the commercial fishery, effective 
     from date of adoption by GSRSMA. During this period, NOAA 
     Fisheries through the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
     Council would continue to manage the commercial fishery under 
     existing regulations.
       Each state would be responsible for the management of the 
     fishery in their respective state territorial sea and 
     adjacent exclusive economic zone (EEZ) water using the best 
     available science and information. The states would be 
     required to ensure overfishing will not occur through the 
     full range of management and assessment strategies available 
     to each state or group of states acting in concert. These 
     strategies would not be limited to those based on total 
     allowable catch. The GSRSMA, as a whole would annually review 
     and approve the red snapper management actions of an 
     individual state or groups of states acting in concert. If 
     the status of the fishery in each state is in equilibrium or 
     expanding, no change in management actions may be required. 
     If the status of the fishery is below equilibrium or 
     declining, the responsible state or states would be required 
     to take appropriate action to revise existing management 
     actions to establish equilibrium, and those actions would 
     have to be approved by the GSRSMA.
       The GSRSMA or each state would be required to prepare an 
     annual report on the status of the fishery based on the 
     individual states (or states acting in concert) management 
     strategies and assessment methodologies. The GSRSMA will 
     conduct a periodic gulf-wide population review of red snapper 
     on a schedule not to exceed every 5 years.


                               Assessment

       Each individual state or group of states would conduct an 
     assessment of the status of red snapper populations within 
     their adjacent waters. The full range of assessment 
     methodologies would be available to each state or group of 
     states using the best available science to inform management 
     actions.
       Assessments would be conducted periodically on a timeline 
     determined by the GSRSMA. Assessment methodologies and data 
     collection strategies for both fisheries dependent and 
     independent data would be approved by the GSRSMA. The GSRSMA 
     would be required to conduct a periodic and Gulf-wide 
     population review of the health of the fishery and status of 
     red snapper on a schedule not to exceed five years between 
     such assessments.


                             Accountability

       Each Gulf state would formally agree to comply fully with 
     management measures developed through the GSRSMA-approved 
     Plan under a memorandum of agreement. The GSRSMA could 
     request additional accountability actions through the 
     Secretary of Commerce if a Gulf state or group of Gulf states 
     adopted management measures or regulations significantly 
     inconsistent from the red snapper management framework 
     identified in the Plan when such inconsistent measures could 
     negatively impact the interests of other Gulf states with 
     regard to red snapper management.

[[Page 7985]]

       The procedures established as part of the Striped Bass Act, 
     Sec. 5153--Monitoring of Implementation and Enforcement by 
     Coastal States would serve as a model for developing 
     procedures for action through the Secretary of Commerce 
     specific to the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. 
     Federal action to provide accountability and ensure 
     consistency would be limited to the federal waters adjacent 
     to the state(s) that adopted inconsistent management measures 
     or actions. Under no circumstances would federal authority or 
     action supersede that of an individual state within 
     designated state waters. The following link provides greater 
     detail on the procedures used by the Atlantic States Marine 
     Fisheries Commission in regards to management of striped 
     bass: http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/Striped_Bass_Act.pdf
       State regulation of red snapper would extend seaward from a 
     state's shoreline to the 200 mile limit (Figure 1). 
     Individual states would enforce regulations within their 
     boundaries under licensing to that state or with agreement 
     and appropriate licensing in other adjacent states. State 
     regulations related to red snapper under the Plan would apply 
     to all fishing activities associated with red snapper landed 
     in a given state, not just state registered vessels.
       State waters for all Gulf States would extend to nine 
     nautical miles for the purpose of uniform enforcement and 
     management actions related to red snapper.


                                Funding

       Federal funding specific to red snapper now going to 
     federal research, assessment and management would be 
     appropriated to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 
     and passed through to the states for use and distribution 
     under the GSRSMA.
       Federal funding of enforcement that is currently provided 
     to the Gulf States for fisheries enforcement shall not be 
     reduced because of transfer of red snapper management to 
     GSRSMA. Federal agents will work in concert with deputized 
     state agents to enforce state regulations approved by the 
     GSRSMA.
       The National Marine Fisheries Service will continue to 
     provide access to all fisheries data and services available 
     before transfer of red snapper management under the same 
     arrangements and conditions after the transfer of management 
     authority to GSRSMA.
       Figure 1. Jurisdictional boundaries designated for 
     enforcement purposes at a state level. These boundaries may 
     be adjusted based on state(s) exercising the option to work 
     in concert on regulations with each other.


                          Statutory Provisions

       In order to establish the GSRSMA, the management of red 
     snapper must be vacated from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
     Management Council Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan and any 
     provisions that have been established for red snapper with 
     that plan or any amendments to that plan.
       Additionally, this Act and any provisions of this Act 
     regarding management and enforcement of any regulations and 
     management provisions to the extent that there is any 
     conflict will take precedence over the MSA and any portions 
     of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Reef Fish 
     Fishery Management Plan.
                                  ____


                             Key Provisions

         Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority (GSRSMA)

       This document provides a summary of the key elements of a 
     plan in which the Gulf states would coordinate management of 
     red snapper throughout the Gulf of Mexico through the 
     proposed Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority 
     (GSRSMA).


                        Management & Assessment

       The governing body for the GSRSMA would be comprised of the 
     principal fisheries manager (or his/her proxy) from each of 
     the five Gulf States.
       Primary function of the GSRSMA would be approval of each 
     state's Red Snapper Fisheries Management Plan which would 
     address all components of the fishery.
       Within each Plan there would be an initial three year 
     prohibition on actions affecting individual fishing quotas.
       Using the best available science, each state would be 
     responsible for the management of the fishery in their 
     respective state territorial sea and adjacent exclusive 
     economic zone (EEZ) waters to ensure that overfishing would 
     not occur.
       Reporting requirements will include an annual report on the 
     status of the fishery from each state(s) and a gulf-wide 
     population review will be conducted at least every 5 years.


                             Accountability

       Each state would formally agree to comply fully with 
     management measures developed through the GSRSMA-approved 
     Plan.
       The GSRSMA could request additional accountability actions 
     through the Secretary of Commerce if a Gulf state or group of 
     Gulf states adopted management measures or regulations 
     significantly inconsistent with the Plan.
       Any accountability action based on a request to the 
     Secretary of Commerce would be limited to federal waters 
     adjacent to the state or states that adopted measures 
     inconsistent with the Plan.
       State regulations and enforcement of those regulations for 
     red snapper would extend seaward from a states shoreline to 
     the 200 mile limit.
       State waters for all Gulf States would extend to nine 
     nautical miles for the purpose of uniform enforcement and 
     management actions related to red snapper.


                                Funding

       Federal funding for research, assessment and management of 
     red snapper would be appropriated to the Gulf States Marine 
     Fisheries Commission and passed to the states.
       Federal funding for fisheries enforcement shall continue at 
     current levels and NMFS will continue to share fisheries data 
     and other data necessary for management after transfer of 
     authority.


                          Statutory Provisions

       Provisions of this Act will take precedence over the MSA 
     and any portions of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
     Council Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan.

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in the same way Federal lands must 
be accessible to sportsmen and -women, so must our Federal waters as 
well.
  I concur with the gentleman that there is an access problem with the 
red snapper. The underlying bill extends the Gulf State coastal waters 
to 9 miles, requires fish to be counted around reefs, and requires the 
incorporation of State and local data on red snapper management so that 
the red snapper population will be counted.
  Almost everyone agrees that the population is undercounted, but 
counting more fish does not guarantee that recreational fishermen will 
have more days in Federal waters.
  I want to work with the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Miller of 
Florida, and any other coastal States Representatives to have hearings 
and move along other bills that may come about.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say 
that I appreciate Chairman Bishop's offer to move legislation that the 
distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I will be 
introducing soon that pertains to this exact issue and to have hearings 
on this as well.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, in Louisiana, we fish--whether that's 
enjoying a Saturday on the water for fun or making a living as a 
commercial or charter fisherman.
  That's why I stand with my Louisiana colleague, Garret Graves, in 
support of this common-sense amendment.
  As an expert on policies affecting our Gulf Coast, Congressman Graves 
knows it is rare for all 5 Gulf states to agree when it comes to ocean 
management and conservation policy.
  So it's remarkable when these 5 states come together on a proposal to 
transfer Red Snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico away from the 
federally managed program that continues to fail recreational anglers.
  That's all this common-sense amendment does--make this existing 
management agreement into law.
  I believe as Representative Graves does when states come together to 
present a working proposal to Congress, we as their Representatives 
should listen.
  I urge my colleagues to support states' rights and support this 
amendment.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Wittman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 114-128.
  Mr. WITTMAN. 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:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 29. AUTHORITY TO USE ALTERNATIVE FISHERY MANAGEMENT 
                   MEASURES.

       Section 302(h) (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
       (2) 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.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman

[[Page 7986]]

from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would give the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Fisheries the authority 
to implement management practices better suited to the nature and scope 
of recreational fishing.
  I hope we can all agree that commercial and recreational fisheries 
are fundamentally different activities, with dissimilar harvest data 
collection systems that can benefit from different management 
techniques.
  Commercial fisheries are managed for yield. Commercial landings can 
usually be counted or weighed in realtime; thus, quotas can be enforced 
in realtime. This allows managers to close a fishery well before the 
allowable catch is exceeded. In short, a commercial fishery's catch can 
be managed in realtime based on data from verified landings.
  Recreational fisheries are different and should be managed for 
expectation, as opposed to yield. Anglers fish for a variety of 
reasons, but a lack of fish will make them go less frequently or stop 
altogether. Anglers and fishermen need to believe they will have 
opportunity to encounter fish, with the hopes they may catch some, 
possibly including some large enough to take home.
  Instead of yield, abundance and age structure are key elements to 
recreational fisheries since those factors govern both the rate of 
encounters and the size of fish caught. Maximizing yield has little 
meaning in most recreational fisheries. That is why NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service should manage recreational fisheries based on 
expected long-term harvest rates, not strictly on yield or poundage-
based quotas.
  This strategy has been successfully used by State fisheries managers 
in our freshwater and coastal fisheries, providing exceptional 
recreational fishing opportunities while ensuring sustainable fish 
populations.
  By managing the recreational sector based on harvest rate as opposed 
to a poundage-based quota, managers have been able to provide 
predictability in regulations while also sustaining a healthy 
population.
  While the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not specifically prohibit such an 
approach, it should specifically direct the National Marine Fisheries 
Service and regional councils to consider alternative strategies to 
commercial management for appropriate recreationally valuable 
fisheries.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that provides 
additional flexibility to improve the management of important 
recreational fisheries.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I understand and appreciate the 
motivation behind the gentleman's amendment. Recreational fisheries are 
inherently different from commercial fisheries. The language is similar 
to the alternative rebuilding strategy section in the underlying bill, 
one of the few parts that does not harm conservation efforts.
  However, that provision states clearly that the alternative 
strategies must be in compliance with the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, including ending overfishing, setting science-based catch 
limits, and sticking to rebuilding timelines.
  This amendment does not include those safeguards and, therefore, 
could be construed as to allow overfishing or delay the rebuilding of 
overfished stock. We have made too much progress in managing fisheries 
to backtrack now.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from Arizona 
that this amendment does not in any way stop National Marine Fisheries 
Service or the councils from preventing overfishing and making the 
needed changes to management.
  This bill purely provides them the flexibility and adaptability to 
properly manage recreational fisheries which, as the gentleman from 
Arizona said, we all know are different than those commercial 
fisheries.
  I want to make sure that they have the opportunity to manage the 
fisheries properly and especially in light of recreational fishermen 
and the local economies that depend on viable, sustainable recreational 
fisheries.
  We know that we have to make sure we are making good resource 
decisions, and we do that by providing that flexibility and 
adaptability. This amendment allows us to do that.
  It allows recreational fisheries and the management thereof to be 
treated different than commercial fisheries which we have all seen 
through time we must do if we are to manage them in the best interest 
not only of the resource itself--that is the fish--but to manage it in 
the best interest of our recreational fishermen and the economies that 
depend on them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, without the safeguards that are included 
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act being part of this amendment, we continue 
to recommend a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 114-128.
  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:

       Strike all and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fishing Economy Improvement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. 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.).

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(1a) The term `artisanal fishing' means subsistence or 
     small scale traditional fishing involving fishing households 
     (as opposed to commercial companies)--
       ``(A) using a relatively small amount of capital and energy 
     and relatively small fishing vessels (if any);
       ``(B) making short fishing trips, close to shore; and
       ``(C) mainly for local consumption.'';
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (27) the following:
       ``(27a) The term `marine aquaculture' means the propagation 
     and rearing of aquatic species in controlled or selected 
     environments in the exclusive economic zone.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (16), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Such term does not include marine aquaculture.''.

     SEC. 4. 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 
     website of the Council--
       ``(i) to the extent practicable, a Web cast or a live audio 
     or video 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) an audio or video recording (if the meeting was in 
     person or by video conference), or a searchable audio 
     recording or written transcript, of each meeting of the 
     Council and of the meetings of committees referred to in 
     section 302(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) subparagraph 
     (G).''.

[[Page 7987]]



     SEC. 5. INCLUSION OF ARTISANAL FISHING SECTORS IN FISHERY 
                   MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       Section 303(a)(13) (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(13)) is amended by 
     inserting ``artisanal,'' after ``include a description of the 
     commercial, recreational,''.

     SEC. 6. IMPROVING FISHERIES DATA COLLECTION.

       (a) Electronic Monitoring.--
       (1) Issuance of guidance.--
       (A) Requirement.--The Secretary of Commerce shall issue 
     guidance regarding the use of electronic monitoring for the 
     purposes of monitoring fisheries that are subject to the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
       (B) Content.--The guidance shall--
       (i) distinguish between monitoring for data collection and 
     research purposes and monitoring for compliance and 
     enforcement purposes; and
       (ii) include minimum criteria, objectives, or performance 
     standards for electronic monitoring.
       (C) Process.--In issuing the guidance the Secretary shall--
       (i) consult with the Regional Fishery Management Councils 
     and interstate fishery management commissions;
       (ii) publish the proposed guidance; and
       (iii) provide an opportunity for the submission by the 
     public of comments on the proposed guidance.
       (2) Implementation of monitoring.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), and after the 
     issuance of the final guidance, a Council, or the Secretary 
     for fisheries referred to in section 302(a)(3) of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1852(a)(3)), may, in accordance with the guidance, on 
     a fishery-by-fishery basis and consistent with the existing 
     objectives and management goals of a fishery management plan 
     and the Act for a fishery issued by the Council or the 
     Secretary, respectively, amend such plan--
       (i) to incorporate electronic monitoring as an alternative 
     tool for data collection and monitoring purposes or for 
     compliance and enforcement purposes (or both); and
       (ii) to allow for the replacement of a percentage of on-
     board observers with electronic monitoring.
       (B) Comparability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply to a 
     fishery only if the Council or Secretary, respectively, 
     determines that such monitoring will yield comparable data 
     collection and compliance results.
       (3) Pilot projects.--Before the issuance of final guidance, 
     a Council, or the Secretary for fisheries referred to in 
     section 302(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3)), may, 
     subject to the requirements of such Act, on a fishery-by-
     fishery basis, and consistent with the existing objectives 
     and management goals of a fishery management plan for a 
     fishery issued by the Council or the Secretary, respectively, 
     conduct a pilot project for the use of electronic monitoring 
     for the fishery.
       (4) Deadline.--The Secretary shall issue final guidance 
     under this subsection by not later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Video and Acoustic Survey Technologies.--The Secretary 
     shall work with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and 
     nongovernmental entities to develop and implement the use 
     pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) of video survey 
     technologies and expanded use of acoustic survey 
     technologies.

     SEC. 7. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Plan.--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) Not later than one year after the date of enactment 
     of the Fishing Economy Improvement 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, 
     including for data-poor stocks for which limited scientific 
     or commercial information is available, 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.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``in consultation with 
     the Secretary.'' and inserting ``. Each Council shall provide 
     a list of such needs to the Secretary on an annual basis, 
     identifying and prioritizing such needs.''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Funding'' and inserting 
     ``Priorities''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking all after ``including'' 
     and inserting an em dash, followed on the next line by the 
     following:
       ``(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 and 
     satellite tracking systems such as vessel monitoring systems 
     (VMS) on small vessels.''.
       (b) Zeke Grader Fisheries Conservation and Management 
     Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Section 208 of the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 
     2006 (16 U.S.C. 1891b) is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by inserting ``zeke grader'' 
     before ``fisheries conservation and management fund'';
       (B) in subsection (a), by inserting ``Zeke Grader'' before 
     ``Fisheries Conservation and Management Fund''; and
       (C) in subsection (c), by striking ``Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Fund'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Zeke Grader Fisheries Conservation and Management Fund''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents is amended 
     by striking the item relating to section 208 and inserting 
     the following:

``Sec. 208. Zeke Grader Fisheries Conservation and Management Fund.''.

       (3) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     ``Fisheries Conservation and Management Fund'' is deemed to 
     be a reference to the ``Zeke Grader Fisheries Conservation 
     and Management Fund''.

     SEC. 8. GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND RED 
                   SNAPPER MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Reporting and Data Collection Program.--The Secretary 
     of Commerce shall--
       (1) in conjunction with the States, the Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council, and the recreational fishing 
     sectors, develop and implement a real-time reporting and data 
     collection program for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery 
     using available technology; and
       (2) make implementation of this subsection a priority for 
     funds received by the Secretary and allocated to the Gulf of 
     Mexico region under section 2 of the Act of August 11, 1939 
     (commonly known as the ``Saltonstall-Kennedy Act'') (15 
     U.S.C. 713c-3).
       (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 assessments conducted after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 9. RECREATIONAL FISHING DATA.

       (a) Recreational Data Collection.--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 that are exempted under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Guidance.--The Secretary shall develop guidance, in 
     cooperation with the States, that details best practices for 
     administering State programs that are exempted under 
     paragraph (2), and provide such guidance to the States.
       ``(C) Biennial report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress and publish biennial reports that include--
       ``(i) the estimated accuracy of the registry program 
     established under paragraph (1) and of State programs that 
     are exempted under paragraph (2);
       ``(ii) priorities for improving recreational fishing data 
     collection; and
       ``(iii) an explanation of any use of information collected 
     by such State programs and by the Secretary, including a 
     description of any consideration given to the information by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(D) State grant program.--The Secretary shall make grants 
     to States to improve implementation of State programs 
     consistent with this subsection. The Secretary shall 
     prioritize such grants based on the ability of the grant to 
     improve the quality and accuracy of such programs.''.
       (b) Study of Recreational Fisheries Data.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act,

[[Page 7988]]

     the Secretary of Commerce shall enter into an agreement with 
     the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
     Sciences to study the implementation of the programs 
     described in section 401 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1881). The study 
     shall--
       (A) provide an updated assessment of recreational survey 
     methods established or improved since the publication of the 
     Council's report entitled ``Review of Recreational Fisheries 
     Survey Methods (2006)'';
       (B) evaluate the extent to which the recommendations made 
     in that report were implemented pursuant to subsection 
     (g)(3)(B) of that section; and
       (C) examine any limitations of the Marine Recreational 
     Fishery Statistics Survey and the marine recreational 
     information program established under subsection (g)(3)(A) of 
     that section.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after entering into an 
     agreement under paragraph (1) the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the results of the study under 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 10. 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 2016 through 2021''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of our amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  I do want to express my respect and appreciation for the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and his commitment to fisheries management 
issues over the years. I know many Members, including myself, are very 
concerned about the sustainability of the fishing industry in our own 
districts.
  I represent about a third of the California coast, including many 
working coastal communities; and the importance of marine fisheries to 
my district and, I would say, to our country cannot be overstated.
  U.S. fisheries have not only shaped the cultural identity of coastal 
communities, such as those I represent and our country, but they have 
also contributed economically in a very significant way, nearly $90 
billion and 1.5 million jobs.

                              {time}  1730

  Recreational fishing provides important opportunities to bring 
families and communities together, and, of course, subsistence fishing 
is a culturally significant tradition that provides an important food 
source for many people.
  However, I do not believe that H.R. 1335 represents a constructive 
approach to ensuring abundant resources for current and future 
generations of fishermen. This bill would take us backward in many 
respects. It would roll back important elements of the Magnuson Act 
that are critical to making fisheries and the fishing industry in the 
United States economically and environmentally sustainable. I also 
don't believe that successful fisheries management has to include 
taking potshots at bedrock environmental laws like the Endangered 
Species Act, the Antiquities Act, and NEPA, as this bill seeks to do. 
For these reasons, I can't support it.
  Congress first enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1976, with two 
main goals: first, to put an end to unregulated fishing by foreign 
fleets in U.S. waters, and, second, to develop domestic fleets that 
could reap the economic benefit of our considerable fisheries 
resources. It worked, and it worked so well that domestic fishing soon 
replaced foreign fleets in overexploiting U.S. fisheries.
  The 1996 reauthorization required regional fisheries management 
councils, for the first time, to end domestic overfishing and to 
develop rebuilding plans, and then the 2007 reauthorization added an 
important timeline for rebuilding plans and also enforced catch limits. 
The original law, together with these amendments, established a 
fisheries management system in the United States that is now a model 
for the rest of the world.
  The important point here is that all three of these acts were 
bipartisan bills, developed and approved by Republicans and Democrats 
alike, because everybody recognized the need to maintain sustainable 
fish stocks and to support domestic commercial and recreational 
fishing. Now, these were also effective progressive endeavors that 
drastically improved the fisheries in our country. In fact, our Federal 
fisheries today have the lowest ever number of stocks that are 
overfished or subject to overfishing, and a total of 37 stocks have 
been rebuilt. This is evidence that our science-based approach to 
determining stock status and the managing for sustainability is 
working.
  But contrary to previous bipartisan acts of Congress, this bill was 
developed with very little input from Democrats. Subsequently, it was 
passed out of committee on a strict party-line vote--no Democrats 
voting in favor and not a single Democratic amendment accepted. Every 
witness at each hearing that the committee held on this topic in the 
last Congress agreed on one thing: the Magnuson-Stevens Act was largely 
working.
  This is not a situation where we should be overhauling the law in a 
wholesale way. It is a situation where we should be making small 
improvements so that the law can continue to work well into the future.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we want to have meaningful discussions with our 
Republican colleagues and develop bipartisan legislation in the spirit 
of previous successful Magnuson Act authorizations. To this end, I 
introduced the Fishing Economy Improvement Act with my friend, Mr. 
Sablan, and we are offering a germane version as a substitute amendment 
that would reauthorize Magnuson and leave intact the core conservation 
and management provisions, including the requirements to rebuild 
overfished stocks and set annual catch limits.
  The substitute amendment would also make improvements to the act. It 
would prioritize cooperation between scientists and fishermen on 
research efforts, a collaboration that produces useful information, 
breeds confidence in the system, and improves management outcomes. It 
infuses new funding into cooperative research, allowing the agency to 
accept outside funding, and it modernizes fishery collection and 
management by encouraging the use of electronic monitoring.
  The amendment makes improvements to the operations of the regional 
fishery management councils, as well, by increasing transparency and 
public participation in the process; and it requires that the councils 
consider the interests of Native Alaskans, Pacific Islanders, and 
American Indians, who often depend on fish for their livelihoods, in 
fishery management plans.
  Our hope is that we can use this reauthorization process to start a 
thoughtful, constructive, and bipartisan conversation about fisheries 
management in the United States. At a time when our oceans face many 
stressors, including the combined effects of pollution, acidification, 
and ocean warming, it is essential that we reauthorize Magnuson and 
build on the act's legacy of successful science-based management.
  Mr. Chairman, the fishermen and coastal communities I represent and 
those whom my colleagues represent deserve that conversation; and, more 
importantly, they deserve a bill that honors the decades of work that 
have gone into making American fishery management more sustainable, 
both economically and ecologically. I urge my colleagues to support our 
substitute amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment that has been presented by 
the gentleman from California. It is a much better amendment than was 
presented in the committee in which there were elements that were in 
there that dealt with the California drought, that

[[Page 7989]]

dealt with NGOs being able to contribute that should never have been a 
part of it, and I appreciate his not putting those in this particular 
amendment that is on the floor. But at the same time, it does roll back 
all the flexibility that was significant and important here. It rolls 
back the transparency that needs to be in effect.
  The underlying bill specifically requires the scientific and 
statistical committees to develop the scientific advice provided to the 
councils in a transparent manner and allows them to allow for public 
involvement in the process. It requires councils to provide Webcasts or 
audio of each council meeting and posting such recordings on their Web 
site within 30 days of that particular meeting, and it requires an 
opportunity for public comment or proposals that are relating to the 
use of electronic monitoring technology. Those would also not be 
included if this amendment were to take place.
  Some of the ``bedrock'' laws that are referred to here are indeed not 
taken out of the process. That was handled in one of the other debates 
we had on a different amendment, which simply says what we are trying 
to do is avoid just going through the motions a second time, to try and 
cut the red tape for more efficiency so that a NEPA law or fish 
management act, they are the same thing, why do it twice when once is 
sufficient? Why waste the time, energy, and effort of public bodies to 
do that? And all those, once again, would be reinstated, that double 
effort would be reinstated at the same time.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, this bill, as a 4-year process, not a recent 
process, goes back to several other times. And in my opening statement, 
I did quote from the leadership of the minority party at the time 2 
years ago, in that committee, how much they were grateful for the input 
they had on this bill and for taking ideas from the Democrat side that 
were incorporated, and those ideas are still in the base bill.
  It is one of the concepts here that I would love to have a bipartisan 
bill. But more importantly, I want to have a good bill, a bill that 
solves the problems. You have heard speeches from both sides of the 
aisle that simply the status quo is not working. There are too many 
problems that need to be solved. That is one of the reasons why the 
underlying bill is still being supported by all the people who are 
involved in the industry--by the commercial side, by the charter 
fishing side, and by the recreation people--and the first time that has 
ever happened.
  So I commend the gentleman from Alaska for having done a good 
process, and I would say go with the underlying bill. It has a better 
chance of moving us forward to provide better progress and better 
significance in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree), a district that certainly understands the 
importance of sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries.
  Ms. PINGREE. I thank Mr. Huffman for giving this opportunity and for 
caring so deeply about our coastal communities and our fisheries.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Huffman-Sablan amendment 
because it would update the process we use to manage our Nation's 
fisheries without throwing away core programs. In particular, the 
Huffman-Sablan amendment would modernize fishery data collection by 
using electronic monitoring and fisheries survey technologies. These 
are the technologies that our fishermen need to update the current 
program, and they are the wave of the future--no pun intended.
  I think it is helpful for all of us to recognize the fact that NOAA's 
budget for the so-called wetside programs has been facing devastating 
cuts as well as the sequester cuts over the past several years. As a 
result, now more than ever, we need to look at about how we can make 
our dollars do more with our fisheries. Electronic monitoring is a 
place where we can make an investment in the future that will help our 
fishermen today.
  Also, the substitute amendment will ensure that we leave intact 
conservation programs that have been helping us to address overfished 
stocks. In the Gulf of Maine, we have seen the crisis in our fisheries 
firsthand, and we want to make sure that we are not forgetting all the 
work that our men and women who make their livings on the water have 
done. We do not want to roll back important conservation and management 
guidelines.
  So again, Mr. Chairman, I support the Huffman-Sablan amendment. I 
appreciate my colleagues for working on this, and I urge all of my 
other colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, I am 
pleased to report he has accepted some portion of our bill, but there 
is some question about the Endangered Species Act. We had a case in 
Alaska where NOAA, which I don't know how it happened, they put the 
Steller sea lion on endangered species because of fishing. There was no 
real connection between the fishing and the so-called decline in the 
Steller sea lions, and they killed a community with no science. We come 
to find out the Steller sea lion had moved away from the area where 
there was more abundant food, not from fishing. The fishing hadn't 
caused any problem at all, but it killed that community.
  I argue that in this case, if any of the fishing is endangered, that 
is okay, the fish itself. But when you have a species hurt the fishing 
community and it didn't affect the sustainable yield, you see why I 
think this amendment is incorrect.
  I think you have to consider, again, the purposes of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, which originated in the House, was for sustainable 
fisheries and sustainable communities. When you have another act 
interfere with that, that doesn't have any science, then I think it is 
incorrect.
  So I understand what the gentleman is saying. Electronically 
monitoring fisheries is good. The gentlewoman from Maine mentioned 
that. It is in the bill. There is a lot in this bill that is in the 
Sablan amendment. But what you are trying to suggest, you roll back the 
transparency and, I think, the community activity, which hurts the 
original base bill, which is the bill that I sponsored.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the process for 
listing under the Endangered Species Act requires best available 
science. It is a very rigorous and public process, and it is subject to 
being challenged in various ways. So we think it is robust and has 
proven itself.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), who also represents a coastal State that 
understands the importance of sustainably managing our fisheries.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Huffman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak in support of the Huffman-Sablan 
substitute amendment. This amendment would complement, rather than 
overhaul, the fishery management process in place under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, MSA.
  While the current MSA may not be perfect, we have heard from many 
groups again and again that it works. We have made incredible gains 
since the last reauthorization in 2007.
  In its annual report issued in April, NOAA reported that the number 
of domestic fish stocks listed as overfished or subject to overfishing 
has dropped to an all-time low since 1997. Three more fish stocks were 
rebuilt to target levels in 2014, bringing the total number of rebuilt 
U.S. marine fish stocks to 37 since 2000. This amazing progress is a 
result of the combined efforts of NOAA, the regional fishery management 
councils, the fishing industry, and other stakeholders.
  NOAA currently has pending proposals to tweak the implementation of 
MSA. That process should be allowed to continue. What is needed now are 
updates to the MSA that address specific issues that keep the law 
current, not a weakening of the law and rollback of conservation 
measures such as those proposed in H.R. 1335.

[[Page 7990]]

  H.R. 1335 would undermine the great improvements we have made to make 
our fisheries economically and environmentally sustainable, without 
addressing some important factors impacting our fisheries today. For 
example, I had hoped to offer an amendment to H.R. 1335 that would have 
product councils with a way of taking the effects of climate change 
into account when establishing annual catch limits and rebuilding 
timelines, but the Rules Committee declined to allow me to offer it on 
the floor today, despite the critical need for us to deal with the very 
real impacts that climate change is already having on our oceans and 
our fisheries.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Huffman-Sablan 
amendment, which would modernize the data collection and management of 
fisheries data, improve recreational fisheries data collection and 
reporting, and provide a way for NOAA to accept outside funding to 
support cooperative research efforts between scientists and fishermen.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further, and I urge an 
``aye'' vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of 
going through all these amendments. This is one amendment that does not 
necessarily move us forward in the process. I wish it did. It did not. 
Sometimes there are even little tiny bits and pieces that happen to be 
in there that are one of the reasons why, if we were starting from 
scratch again, I would ask to be removed.
  For example, Mr. Huffman does name one of the funds in here--the 
fisheries conservation and management fund--after a gentleman whose 
association's members have been party to more than 20 Federal cases 
brought against the Federal agency since 2007. Much of that litigation 
has been aimed at the Bureau of Reclamation water projects and farmers 
and ranchers who serve by them. Congress should not be rewarding such 
serial litigation. That is one of the things I would have asked to have 
been removed had we started from scratch in this process.
  But above all, the amendment simply erases the flexibility, erases 
the transparency, and erases the science improvements that are part of 
the underlying bill that are so essential; that the elements of those 
people who live in these communities, who recreate in these areas, who 
use the commercial side, the fishing side, have all said we are not 
doing what we need to do; that the present system does have flaws in it 
and needs to be changed, and we need to move forward on that bill. The 
underlying bill does that. This amendment does not do that.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment and urge us to move 
forward with the bill as written.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chair, I am offering an Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute for H.R. 1335, which was submitted to the Rules Committee by 
my colleague Mr. Huffman.
  Mr. Chair, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act is a sterling example of good federal policy and has helped make 
the United States the world leader in sustainable fisheries management.
  When we last reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens in 2007, we required the 
use of annual catch limits to end and prevent overfishing.
  Using this management tool--annual catch limits--we have increased 
the number of American fish stocks with populations sufficiently large 
that we can count on their ability to continue reproducing.
  Using annual catch limits as our guide, we have reduced the number of 
stocks being fished in excess of maximum sustainable yield--to an all-
time low.
  Magnuson-Stevens has proven to be effective environmental policy.
  It is also good economic policy.
  U.S. fisheries contributed nearly $90 billion and 1.5 million jobs to 
the economy in 2012. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration estimates that, when we have fully rebuilt our 
fisheries, they will add another $31 billion to our national economy 
and produce 500,000 new jobs.
  Of course, we learn as we go; and there are ways that Magnuson-
Stevens could be made even more effective as environmental and economic 
policy. The Huffman-Sablan amendment in the nature of a substitute 
provides some of that fine-tuning.
  And our amendment does that without undermining the annual catch 
limits regime and other core principles that have made Magnuson-Stevens 
so effective.
  H.R. 1335, on the other hand, risks back-sliding on the progress we 
have made.
  I recognize that some of these issues are technical in nature, but 
bear with me.
  H.R. 1335 would allow non-target stocks in a fishery to be defined as 
ecosystem component species, which are not subject to annual catch 
limits, even if these non-target stocks are depleted or overfished. For 
instance, H.R. 1335 would allow Atlantic halibut to be reclassified as 
an ecosystem component species, no longer subject to an annual catch 
limit. Yet, Atlantic halibut today are finally rebuilding after decades 
of decline. H.R. 1335 would put that progress at risk.
  Another problem with H.R. 1335 is that it tries to conform the 
timelines in the National Environmental Policy Act with timelines in 
Magnuson-Stevens. This could force the Secretary of Commerce to approve 
fishery management plans that have not had the full benefit of National 
Environmental Policy Act analysis--particularly, by reducing the amount 
of time that the public has to comment on federal action. I do not 
think we want to be cutting the public out of this important decision-
making process.
  A third problem area for H.R. 1335 is that it prohibits information 
sharing. Fisheries data collected by NOAA in the process of 
administering Magnuson-Stevens could not be used in the management of 
other marine resources managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Antiquities Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Nor could 
the Magnuson-Stevens fisheries data be used in managing offshore energy 
exploration and development, or water pollution, or coastal resources. 
That does not really make much sense.
  The substitute amendment Mr. Huffman and I are offering avoids these 
pitfalls. We simply want to improve fisheries research and management 
to benefit fishermen and fishing communities.
  How does our amendment do that?
  By implementing electronic monitoring to lower costs for the fishing 
fleet;
  By improving the collection of fisheries data, which we all agree is 
lacking;
  By increasing cooperative research and management efforts between 
scientists and fishermen;
  By making the operations of the Regional Fishery Management Councils 
more transparent and open to public participation;
  By allowing the Councils to select individuals who have expertise on 
subsistence fishing practices, so we incorporate the interests and 
expertise of Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and Indian Tribes; and
  By recognizing the subsistence fishing may encompass more than 
personal consumption, but also includes some small-scale, low 
technology, commercial fishing.
  And our amendment makes these improvements in Magnuson-Stevens 
without undermining core policies that have made the Act so effective.
  Magnuson-Stevens is passed due for reauthorization. But let us do so 
in a way that does not jeopardize the progress we have made, so we can 
keep building more sustainable and more profitable fisheries for today 
and for our nation's future.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Huffman-Sablan amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LoBiondo) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, 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. 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

[[Page 7991]]



                          ____________________