[House Report 105-209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-209
_______________________________________________________________________


 
TO ESTABLISH A MORATORIUM ON LARGE FISHING VESSELS IN ATLANTIC HERRING 
                         AND MACKEREL FISHERIES

                                _______
                                

 July 28, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1855]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1855) to establish a moratorium on large fishing vessels 
in Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq.), no large fishing vessel may engage in fishing for Atlantic 
herring or Atlantic mackerel within the United States exclusive 
economic zone until--
          (1) the National Marine Fisheries Service has completed a new 
        population survey into the abundance of the discrete spawning 
        stocks of Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel; and
          (2) the Secretary of Commerce has approved and implemented 
        fishery management plans developed by the appropriate regional 
        fishery management council for Atlantic herring and Atlantic 
        mackerel, which specifically allow large fishing vessels to 
        participate in those fisheries.
  (b) Large Fishing Vessel Defined.--In this section, the term ``large 
fishing vessel'' means a fishing vessel (as that term is defined in 
section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1802)) of the United States that is equal to or greater 
than 165 feet in length overall and has an engine of more than 3,000 
horsepower.

                          purpose of the bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1855 is to establish a moratorium on 
large fishing vessels in the Atlantic herring and mackerel 
fisheries.

                  background and need for legislation

Atlantic mackerel

    Atlantic mackerel is a pelagic, schooling species 
distributed between Labrador, Canada, and North Carolina, with 
extensive migration patterns. While the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) has determined that there are two 
separate stocks, genetic differences between the stocks have 
not been established and they are managed as a single 
biological unit.
    Mackerel have been identified in the stomachs of a number 
of different fish. They are preyed upon heavily by whales, 
dolphins, spiny dogfish, silver hake, white hake, weakfish, 
goosefish, Atlantic cod, bluefish and striped bass. They also 
comprise part of the diet of swordfish, red hake, Atlantic 
bonito, bluefin tuna, blue shark, porbeagle, sea lamprey, and 
shortfin, mako and thresher sharks.
    No formal stock assessment of Atlantic mackerel has been 
conducted since 1991. The 1991 Stock Assessment Review 
concluded that the stock has experienced several years of 
strong recruitment and low fishing mortality rates resulting in 
a substantial increase in the point estimates of the biomass. 
The NMFS believes that the overall spawning stock biomass is 
currently around 2.1 million metric tons. The Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council has established the Allowable 
Biological Catch at 383,000 metric tons for 1997, based on the 
current projection of spawning stock biomass and the low 
projections of domestic fishing mortality rates. The Mid-
Atlantic Council and NMFS both recognize that this quota level 
is likely to drop sharply as fishing activity on the stocks 
increase. The Mid-Atlantic Council's Statistical and Scientific 
Committee has adopted a minimum spawning stock biomass 
threshold level for Atlantic mackerel at 900,000 metric tons. 
This equates to a long-term maximum sustainable yield for the 
fishery of roughly 150,000 metric tons annually.
    There is a long history of commercial fisheries 
exploitation of Atlantic mackerel in the Northeastern and Mid-
Atlantic regions of the United States. Prior to 1988, the 
fishery was pursued primarily by foreign fishing companies. 
Changes in the U.S. management policy resulted in an 
elimination of foreign fishing of mackerel in 1989. U.S. 
commercial landings of mackerel have fluctuated in the last ten 
years. U.S. production peaked in 1990 at around 31,000 metric 
tons but has since declined.
    The Mid-Atlantic Council and industry participants agree 
that the domestic mackerel industry is beginning a period of 
substantial growth. A New England company is currently in the 
process of putting together $20 million in financing to build a 
state-of-the-art shore-based processing facility for mackerel 
and other pelagic species. The two largest domestic producers 
of mackerel have recently made investments totaling more than 
$15 million to upgrade shore-based processing capability and 
cold storage capacity for mackerel. Existing harvesting vessels 
are undergoing conversions to install refrigerated seawater 
capacity and increase hull capacity in order to engage in the 
mackerel fishery.
    The Atlantic mackerel fishery is also seasonally important 
to the recreational fisheries of the Mid-Atlantic and New 
England regions. The annual recreational catch appears to be 
sensitive to changes in migration and distribution patterns. 
Current estimates of recreational harvest range from 3,000 to 
5,000 metric tons. New Jersey accounts for roughly 37 percent 
of the recreational mackerel landings, followed by 
Massachusetts, with the remaining states in New England and the 
Mid-Atlantic landing roughly equal amounts.
    The management of Atlantic mackerel falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 
Mackerel is regulated pursuant to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, 
and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. The Council has 
historically managed mackerel as an underutilized domestic 
fishery, and has adopted liberal policies to promote growth in 
the domestic sector. Prior to 1988, the Council adopted ``fish 
and chip'' allocations designed to link the allocation of 
mackerel to foreign fishing nations with commitments from those 
nations to purchase specific amounts of U.S.-harvested and 
U.S.-processed products. There has been no foreign fishery for 
Atlantic mackerel since 1988. The Mid-Atlantic Council has 
recently focused on clarifying the overfishing definition and 
the spawning stock biomass estimates for Atlantic mackerel.
    The Council has consistently voiced concern about the 
difficulty of establishing entry limitations on fisheries 
before such fisheries are overcapitalized. During discussions 
of possible amendments to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act in 1994, the Council recommended an amendment to 
the Act permitting regional fishery management councils to 
initiate a moratorium on entry of additional commercial vessels 
on a regional basis. The intent of the Council was to make 
eligible for entry all Mid-Atlantic and New England fishermen 
who so choose to participate in the mackerel fishery. This 
would be fair to both regions' fishermen and give regional 
fishery management councils time to develop fishing effort 
management regulations on a finite and quantifiable number of 
fishermen. The goal was to assure that there was not an 
additional surge of fishing vessels from other areas into the 
Atlantic at a time when the region as a whole was considered 
overcapitalized. Unfortunately, such an amendment to the Act 
was not adopted, so this tool is not available to the councils 
to control entry.
    At its May 1997 meeting, Council members reaffirmed their 
concern that current regulations did not protect against a 
surge in new entrant, large-scale fishing vessels before the 
management process could effectively respond to a rapid growth 
in capitalization. They also affirmed that they viewed the 
mackerel resource as a strategic fishery stock in promoting the 
growth and diversification of distressed fishermen in the New 
England and Mid-Atlantic regions. The Council adopted a motion 
to notify the public of its intent to move forward with an 
amendment to the Fishery Management Plan to control the rate of 
capitalization into the Atlantic mackerel fishery while at the 
same time providing diversification and growth opportunities 
for existing fishermen. This statement of intent has not yet 
been published in the Federal Register, but initiation of the 
amendment cycle is anticipated some time in the next three 
months.

Atlantic herring

    Atlantic herring are distributed along the Atlantic coast 
from North Carolina to the Canadian maritime provinces. Three 
separate, more or less distinct spawning populations have been 
recognized comprising (1) the Gulf of Maine; (2) the southwest 
coast of Nova Scotia; and (3) Georges Bank and Nantucket 
Shoals. Although a fair amount of research has been done over 
the years, there are still great uncertainties about the 
locations and relationships between and among the distinct 
spawning populations. These questions are critical to the 
successful management of the herring resource, both in Canada 
and the United States.
    Herring is a plankton feeder, preying on tiny marine 
crustaceans and larval fish. As an important prey item for many 
other animals, they transfer energy from primary and secondary 
production to higher levels of the food web. They are preyed 
upon by many other species of fish, especially cod, pollock, 
haddock, silver hake, striped bass, mackerel, tuna, salmon, and 
dogfish, as well as short-finned squid.
    Herring has long been an important fishery along the U.S. 
Atlantic coast. In Maine, which accounts for 90 percent of 
domestic landings, herring has supported the traditional 
sardine industry. Canned herring is sold around the world and, 
last year alone, the sardine industry generated about $60 
million in wholesale revenues and employed more than 1,000 
coastal residents in harvesting and processing businesses. 
Herring is also an important source of bait for lobstermen and 
tuna fishermen.
    Today the herring resource appears healthy. After years of 
no directed fishery on Georges Bank, the offshore stock has 
fully recovered to more than 2.5 million metric tons. Although 
short-term catches could be very high, scientists project that 
long-term sustainable catches for Georges Bank may be around 
150,000 metric tons per year. Because the resource is shared 
with Canada, consultations on catches and quotas have been 
occurring for many years. Last year, Canada harvested 2,500 
metric tons of herring on Georges Bank while the U.S. landed 
1,600 metric tons. Canadian scientists recommended that the 
U.S. harvest should not exceed 20,000 metric tons. Because of 
this advice, the U.S. has placed a limit of 20,000 metric tons 
on joint ventures and internal waters processing (IWP) 
operations.
    In 1978, a Federal management plan for herring was 
implemented by the Department of Commerce. The plan established 
catch quotas in Federal waters, although the states did not 
want to enforce Federal quotas for adult herring in state 
waters in the Gulf of Maine. Instead, in 1983 an agreement 
among the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and 
Rhode Island on annual spawning area closures in the Gulf of 
Maine was established to protect the resource. The plan was 
also endorsed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission. The Federal plan was withdrawn and Atlantic herring 
was placed on the prohibited species list, which eliminated 
directed fisheries by foreign nationals or joint ventures for 
herring in the Exclusive Economic Zone.
    With the development of IWP fisheries in the mid-1980s, it 
became clear that the 1983 interstate agreement was 
insufficient to manage the herring resource. Consequently, in 
1993 the Commission developed a fishery management plan for 
state waters which included an IWP allocation procedure.

H.R. 1855

    H.R. 1855 is designed to protect the Atlantic herring and 
mackerel fisheries from overharvest through a moratorium on the 
entrance of new large fishing vessels into these fisheries. 
Large fishing vessels are defined as those that are equal or 
greater than 165 feet in length overall and have an engine 
equal to or more than 3,000 horsepower. Evidence has confirmed 
that there is a reasonable likelihood that certain large 
fishing vessels known as factory trawlers are poised to move 
their vessels into the Atlantic Ocean to fish for these pelagic 
species. Some of these vessels are capable of harvesting more 
than 50,000 metric tons annually, and there are currently no 
regulations in place to manage such a huge influx in fishing 
effort.
    The current quota for Atlantic mackerel is 383,000 metric 
tons and the quota for herring is roughly 580,000 metric tons. 
The existing domestic fishing fleet is expected to harvest 
roughly 50,000 metric tons in the 1997-98 fishing season of 
mackerel, and 70,000 metric tons of herring. These projected 
harvest levels leave a surplus available to both traditional 
East Coast fishermen and new entrants alike. However, there is 
a renewed interest in mackerel due to changes in worldwide 
supply and a demand for this fish from Eastern European 
countries that can no longer depend on state-supported 
industries to artificially create low world market prices. 
Stock failures in the North Atlantic and the Farro Islands have 
caused shortfalls in global supplies, resulting in substantial 
price increases for Atlantic mackerel harvested in the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone. This has spurred investment into U.S. 
shore-based processing facilities in Rhode Island, New Jersey, 
and Massachusetts, and U.S. fishermen are starting to convert 
their existing vessels for use in this fishery. These vessels 
are not engaged in fishing because of the collapse and closure 
of the New England groundfish stocks in the Georges Bank. A 
U.S. Government-supported vessel buyback program has been 
developed to eliminate excess vessels from this overutilized 
fishery. The strong demand and apparent availability of 
mackerel has also induced industrial fishing companies to 
consider investments in large-scale fishing vessels. These 
vessels are likely to target herring as well as mackerel should 
they enter the East Coast fisheries.
    The Committee has become alarmed at the rapid trends in 
capitalization of the East Coast pelagic fisheries, a trend 
driven by strong prices and the appearance of an unlimited 
fishery. The hearing record for H.R. 1855 clearly shows that 
``underutilized'' species quickly become overcapitalized. While 
the short-term quota is established as 383,000 metric tons for 
mackerel, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council projects 
the long-term maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of this fishery 
at roughly 150,000 metric tons. The New England Council 
projects a similar MSY for Atlantic herring. Existing 
participants will likely take one-third of the mackerel and 
herring MSY this year. Testimony presented to the Committee 
asserts that a potential new entrant, the Atlantic Star, 
intends to engage in the 1997-98 season and has the capability 
to harvest in excess of 50,000 metric tons annually. The 
Committee has also received anecdotal evidence that offers have 
been made recently to purchase vessels on the West Coast for 
use in the Atlantic mackerel fishery which equal or exceed this 
harvest capability. In short, the entry of justthree of these 
large fishing vessels into the U.S. mackerel and herring fisheries 
would result in harvest levels equaling the long-term MSY. Entry of 
more than three vessels would cause these two underutilized fisheries 
to be overcapitalized virtually overnight. The potential for sudden and 
dramatic overcapitalization raises threats to both the resource and to 
existing East Coast fishermen.
    The herring fishery provides a stark example of how 
sensitive pelagic fisheries are to heavy fishing pressure. 
Historically, foreign fishermen harvested the vast majority of 
herring before the declaration of the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone. Foreign overfishing of herring on Georges Bank 
was one of the key reasons for extending fishery management 
jurisdiction out to 200 miles. The Georges Bank herring fishery 
began in 1961 with the U.S.S.R. taking almost 70,000 metric 
tons. Fishing pressure grew with the addition of distant water 
factory trawlers and in 1968, catches peaked at 374,000 metric 
tons. Although the scientific advice in the late 1960s and 
early 1970s was for reduced catches, harvest levels remained 
high and the resource was quickly overfished. In 1978, the 
resource was so depleted that the scientific advice was a zero 
quota in the Gulf of Maine and only 8,000 metric tons on 
Georges Bank.
    The NMFS has approved a quota that is over 200,000 metric 
tons larger for herring than the peak fishing years when the 
stock was overfished, leading the Committee to question whether 
accurate stock assessment data is available to determine the 
sustainability of these resources. The NMFS derives this 
information from the New England groundfish survey. The data on 
mackerel and herring is received as an incidental part of the 
groundfish survey, which is not structured as a pelagic survey. 
There is currently no stock assessment program designed 
specifically for the mackerel and herring fisheries, and many 
sectors of the industry and environmental community believe 
that the resource biomass is overestimated.
    The U.S. Government has had difficulty regulating the 
widespread overcapitalization of the U.S. fisheries. The 
problem stems from the fact that capitalization occurs before 
accurate MSY levels are established. As a result, the fishery 
management councils and NMFS are forced to react to 
overcapitalization and overfishing, rather than progressively 
establishing limits based on long-term conservation and 
management objectives. Without effective regulatory structures 
in place to prevent a surge in uncontrolled capitalization, the 
Atlantic mackerel and herring fisheries may follow that 
predictable path to destruction.
    A surge in capacity would also serve to aggravate the 
transition to sustainable fisheries in the U.S. Atlantic. 
Hundreds of vessels in the New England and Mid-Atlantic region 
have been displaced as a result of the crash in the New England 
groundfish and scallop stocks. The stock crash has forced 
fishermen to shift to alternative fisheries, such as monkfish 
and squid, to survive the down cycle. These large shifts in 
fishing effort have, in turn, increased these fisheries to the 
point where they are now threatened with overcapitalization and 
the harvest quotas are being reduced. The Mid-Atlantic Council 
has been forced to limit entry on Loligo and Illex squid, and 
the New England Council has been charged with the 
responsibility of limiting entry in the monkfish fisheries. 
Herring and mackerel are the only remaining underutilized 
fisheries on the East Coast which are capable of accommodating 
the existing groundfish and scallop fishermen in this difficult 
transition period. Should these fisheries experience a rapid 
rate of capitalization by vessels from other areas, existing 
East Coast fishermen will be prevented from making the 
transition to herring and mackerel.
    As stated earlier, the Mid-Atlantic Council currently 
regulates the mackerel harvest under its Squid, Mackerel, 
Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP does not 
contain a provision to control the rate of capitalization into 
the fisheries. The Council has announced its intent to move 
forward with an FMP amendment which slows the rate of 
capitalization into the fishery, while at the same time 
providing opportunities for existing fishermen to diversify 
into the fishery. The New England Council does not yet have an 
approved FMP for herring.
    On July 8, 1997, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission's Atlantic Herring Section and members of the New 
England Council met to consider implementation of interim 
fishery regulations for the Atlantic herring fishery. Following 
technical committee analyses concerning biologically 
appropriate harvest levels from the herring fishery, 
particularly in the Gulf of Maine, the Section took two 
emergency actions: (1) to prohibit the landing of herring in 
all Atlantic Coast states from vessels greater than 165 feet in 
length overall and with more than 3,000 horsepower; and (2) to 
prohibit the grinding up of whole herring. These emergency 
actions were immediately effective and will remain in effect 
for 180 days, or until replaced by an amendment to the existing 
Commission-drafted Atlantic Herring FMP or rescinded by the 
Section. Both proposals demonstrate the strong desire of the 
East Coast fishery management councils to prevent a sudden 
surge in capitalization caused by new factory trawler vessels.
    Regrettably, the Committee does not believe that the Mid-
Atlantic and New England Councils and the Secretary of Commerce 
can act expeditiously enough to protect these fisheries from 
such an influx. The development of FMPs and FMP amendments take 
two to four years. The Atlantic Star is scheduled to enter the 
Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries in November, 
effectively doubling the harvest of mackerel in the next cycle, 
and entry of this vessel could be a portent of a huge increase 
in fishing effort by large fishing vessels. The Administration 
did not specify in its testimony what actions can be taken 
immediately to prevent against a sudden surge of large fishing 
vessels, other than the use of emergency authority to respond 
to biological emergencies. The Committee strongly rejects the 
policy of allowing stocks to crash prior to administrative 
action to curb fishing effort. The Administration's emergency 
authority will not protect existing East Coast fishermen from 
being further displaced by new entrant, large vessels. H.R. 
1855 seeks to create interim controls on these fisheries until 
the two Councils and the Secretary of Commerce have time to 
act.
    The bill establishes a moratorium on large fishing vessels 
in the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries until two 
conditions are met. First, the NMFS must complete a separate 
population survey on the abundance of these species. Second, 
the Secretary of Commerce must approve and implement a FMP for 
these species developed by the appropriate fishery management 
councils allowing large fishing vessels to participate in the 
Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries.
    In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries 
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans on H.R. 1855, Assistant 
Administrator for Fisheries Rolland Schmitten stated that:

          Comprehensive management programs are necessary to 
        allow for the longer term development of these 
        fisheries without overcapitalization and with 
        sufficient protection for the stocks. Without 
        comprehensive management, misleading signals could 
        encourage uncoordinated planning for expansion in the 
        harvesting and/or processing sectors of the herring 
        industry.

    The Committee agrees with Administrator Schmitten's 
statement about the need for a long-term approach to herring 
management, and believes that this wise public policy objective 
should also apply to the mackerel fishery. The established 
pattern of addressing overcapitalization after the fact, when 
stocks have already been overharvested, should no longer be an 
acceptable fisheries management policy. H.R. 1855 has been 
intentionally drafted to prevent new entrants from seeking to 
``race'' into these fisheries before accurate data and a FMP. 
Fishermen seeking to buy or refit large fishing vessels for 
these fisheries during this interim period do so at their own 
financial risk, and no exemptions will be made legislatively. 
Instead, a decision on whether large vessels will have access 
to the Atlantic mackerel and herring fisheries will be left to 
the regional fishery management councils, and flexibility has 
been provided to allow the councils to grant them entry if the 
fisheries resources can accommodate those harvest levels.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 1855 was introduced on June 10, 1997, by Congressman 
Jim Saxton (R-NJ). The bill is cosponsored by Congressmen Tom 
Allen (D-ME), John Baldacci (D-ME), William Delahunt (D-MA), 
Barney Frank (D-MA), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Frank Pallone (D-
NJ), Robert Weygand (D-RI), Don Young (R-AK), Joseph Kennedy 
(D-MA), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Edward Markey (D-MA) and John 
Tierney (D-MA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
    On June 26, 1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 
1855, where testimony was heard from the Honorable Frank A. 
LoBiondo; the Honorable William D. Delahunt; the Honorable John 
F. Tierney; Mr. Rolland Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, NMFS; Mr. Brad Gilman, Washington Representative, 
Lund's Fisheries, Inc., Seafreeze, Ltd., and Cape May Seafood 
Association; Mr. Michael Love, General Manager, American 
Pelagic Fishing Company, Inc., L.P.; Ms. Niaz Dorry, Fisheries 
Campaigner, Greenpeace, U.S.; Mr. Spencer C. Fuller, President, 
Resource Trading Company and Representative, Atlantic Pelagic 
Council; Mr. Michael Donovan, Director of Development, 
Recreational Fishing Alliance; Mr. Jeffrey H. Kaelin, Executive 
Director, Maine Sardine Council; and Mrs. Angela Sanfilippo, 
President, Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association.
    In his testimony, Congressman LoBiondo noted that, ``I have 
heard the arguments of how mackerel and herring are 
`underutilized', and I confess I am not versed enough to 
respond in any kind of scientific detail on this issue. But I 
do know simple math and a vessel that can harvest 50,000 metric 
tons of mackerel annually, for instance, easily takes in more 
fish per year than both Atlantic port commercial and 
recreational fishermen combined.''
    In her testimony, Mrs. Sanfilippo stated that, ``without 
this legislation, the huge factory ships will return, and by 
the time a Fishery Management Plan is implemented to protect 
herring, it will be too late for herring and all other fish 
species we have sacrificed so much to rebuild. We do not want 
to repeat history again.'' Congressman Tierney added that while 
the people of New England wished to continue the fishing 
tradition that has been passed down from generation to 
generation, it was his hope that ``what we will not inherit 
from a previous generation, is the same problem of depleting 
these much needed resources.''
    On July 16, 1997, the Full Resources Committee met to 
consider H.R. 1855. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, 
Wildlife and Oceans was discharged from further consideration 
of H.R. 1855. Mr. Saxton offered an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute that closed an unintended loophole in the 
legislation that had the effect of not treating all vessels in 
an equitable manner. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 
The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to 
the House of Representatives by voice vote.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Moratorium

    Subsection (a) states that no large fishing vessel may 
engage in fishing for Atlantic herring or Atlantic mackerel 
within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone until the NMFS 
has completed a new population survey on the abundance of these 
stocks, and the Secretary of Commerce has approved and 
implemented FMPs developed by the appropriate fishery 
management council allowing large fishing vessels to 
participate in those fisheries. This provision does not create 
a permanent prohibition on vessels 165 feet or longer, but 
instead requires that the councils affirmatively decide how 
such vessels can be incorporated into the fisheries without 
harming the resource or existing East Coast fishermen.
    Subsection (b) defines a large fishing vessel as a vessel 
equal to or greater than 165 feet in length overall and an 
engine of more than 3,000 horsepower.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1855.

                          COST OF LEGISLATION

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1855. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     compliance with house rule xi

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
1855 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 1855.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1855 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 25, 1997.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1855, a bill to 
establish a moratorium on large fishing vessels in Atlantic 
herring and mackerel fisheries.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gary Brown 
(for federal costs) and Lesley Frymier (for the private-sector 
impact).
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1855--A bill to establish a moratorium on large fishing vessels in 
        Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1855 would cost less 
than $1 million a year over the next five years. The bill would 
prohibit large fishing vessels from fishing for Atlantic 
herring or mackerel within the United States exclusive economic 
zone (from 3 miles to 200 miles offshore) until (1) the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has completed a new 
population survey on the abundance of spawning stocks and (2) 
the Secretary of Commerce has approved and implemented fishery 
management plans allowing large fishing vessels to operate in 
those fisheries.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act provides general authority for management plans and 
studies, and CBO expects that NMFS would complete the plans and 
studies referred to in H.R. 1855 under such authority. The 
management plans are already being developed with existing 
appropriations. The studies referred to in the bill would 
likely cost about $1 million in 1998 and up to $5 million over 
the 1998-2002 period, subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds. Some of that spending might occur under 
current law, but H.R. 1855 would probably necessitate more 
extensive studies than would otherwise be necessary.
    Because the bill would not authorize new financial 
penalties, CBO expects that no penalties would be collected for 
violations of the moratorium that H.R. 1855 would impose. 
Therefore, the legislation would not affect direct spending or 
receipts, and pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and would 
not impose any costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 
H.R. 1855 would impose a private-sector mandate on large 
fishing vessels by establishing a moratorium on fishing for 
Atlantic herring or mackerel within the U.S. exclusive economic 
zone. Based on information provided by industry and government 
sources, CBO estimates that the direct costs of this mandate 
would not exceed the annual threshold ($100 million in 1996, 
adjusted annually for inflation) established in UMRA in any 
year over the next five years.
    Information provided by NMFS indicates that no large 
vessels currently fish in the Atlantic herring and mackerel 
fisheries. The owners of four large vessels, however, hold 
permits to operate in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Three of 
the permitted vessels do not appear likely to operate in either 
fishery during the next five years. The owners of the fourth 
vessel clearly intend to operate in both the Atlantic herring 
and mackerel fisheries, as indicated by their recent 
significant investments in retrofitting the vessel for these 
fisheries. Based on information provided by the vessel manager, 
CBO expects that the moratorium would have a significant impact 
on that vessel. However, CBO estimates that the direct costs of 
complying with the new mandate in each year would fall well 
below the threshold established in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Gary Brown 
(for federal costs) and Lesley Frymier (for the private-sector 
impact). This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    H.R. 1855 contains no unfunded mandates, as defined under 
Public Law 104-4.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, H.R. 1855 would make no changes in existing 
law.

                                
