[House Report 107-746]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-746

======================================================================



 
                MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2002

                                _______
                                

October 11, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4749]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 4749) to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, and for other purposes, 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 all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENT REFERENCES.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Magnuson-Stevens Act 
Amendments of 2002''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as 
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; amendment references.
Sec. 2. Technical corrections to definitions.
Sec. 3. Report on over capitalization.
Sec. 4. Buyout provisions.
Sec. 5. Data collection.
Sec. 6. Ecosystem-based management.
Sec. 7. Observers.
Sec. 8. Overfishing.
Sec. 9. Bycatch and seabird interactions.
Sec. 10. Fish habitat research and protection.
Sec. 11. Demonstration program for oyster sanctuaries and reserves.
Sec. 12. Individual quota limited access programs.
Sec. 13. Cooperative education and research.
Sec. 14. Report on highly migratory species.
Sec. 15. Prohibited acts.
Sec. 16. Membership of fishery management councils.
Sec. 17. Miscellaneous amendments to purposes and policy.
Sec. 18. Foreign fishing.
Sec. 19. Driftnets.
Sec. 20. Sources for data in fisheries research.
Sec. 21. Miscellaneous fishery protections in fishery management plans.
Sec. 22. Cooperative marine education and research program.
Sec. 23. Assessment of cumulative impacts of conservation and 
management measures for a fishery.
Sec. 24. Regional stock assessments.
Sec. 25. National Academy of Sciences guidance and standards regarding 
best scientific information available.
Sec. 26. National Academy of Sciences definition of maximum sustainable 
yield.
Sec. 27. Administration of Pacific Insular Area fishery agreements.
Sec. 28. Highly migratory species bycatch mortality reduction research 
program.
Sec. 29. Authorization of appropriations.
  (c) Amendment of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to 
be made to a section or other provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS.

  (a) Execution of Prior Amendments.--
          (1) Continental shelf fishery resources.--Section 102(2) of 
        the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297; 110 Stat. 
        3561) is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``COELENTERATA'' and inserting 
                ``Coelenterata'';
                  (B) by striking ``CNIDARIA'' and inserting 
                ``Cnidaria''; and
                  (C) by striking ``CRUSTACEA'' and inserting 
                ``Crustacea''.
          (2) United states harvested fish.--Section 102(11) of the 
        Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297; 110 Stat. 3563) 
        is amended by striking ``(42)'' and inserting ``(43)''.
          (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on the 
        effective date of section 102 of Public Law 104-297.
  (b) Corrections Relating to Special Areas.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 
1802) is amended--
          (1) by striking paragraphs (35) and (36);
          (2) by redesignating paragraphs (37) through the last 
        paragraph (relating to the definition of ``waters of a foreign 
        nation'') in order as paragraphs (35) through (44);
          (3) by inserting ``(a) General Definitions.--'' before ``As 
        used in this Act''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(b) Terms Relating to Agreement With the Former Soviet Union.--As 
used in this Act the term `special areas' means the areas referred to 
as eastern special areas in Article 3(1) of the Agreement between the 
United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 
the Maritime Boundary, signed June 1, 1990. In particular, the term 
refers to those areas east of the maritime boundary, as defined in that 
Agreement, that lie within 200 nautical miles of the baselines from 
which the breadth of the territorial sea of Russia is measured but 
beyond 200 nautical miles of the baselines from which the breadth of 
the territorial sea of the United States is measured.''.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON OVER CAPITALIZATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall, within 12 months after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Congress a report--
          (1) identifying and describing the 20 fisheries in United 
        States waters with the most severe examples of excess 
        harvesting capacity in the fisheries, based on value of each 
        fishery and the amount of excess harvesting capacity as 
        determined by the Secretary;
          (2) recommending measures for reducing such excess harvesting 
        capacity, including the retirement of any latent fishing 
        permits that could contribute to further excess harvesting 
        capacity in those fisheries; and
          (3) potential sources of funding for such measures.
  (b) Basis for Recommendations.--The Secretary shall base the 
recommendations made with respect to a fishery on--
          (1) the most cost effective means of achieving voluntary 
        reduction in capacity for the fishery using the potential for 
        industry financing; and
          (2) including measures to prevent the capacity that is being 
        removed from the fishery from moving to other fisheries in the 
        United States, in the waters of a foreign nation, or in the 
        high seas.

SEC. 4. BUYOUT PROVISIONS.

  (a) Discretion of Secretary To Conduct Fishing Capacity Reduction 
Program.--Section 312(b) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``, at the request of the 
        appropriate Council for fisheries under the authority of such 
        Council, or the Governor of a State for fisheries under State 
        authority,'';
          (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``that is managed under a 
        limited access system authorized by section 303(b)(6),'' after 
        ``in a fishery''; and
          (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and by 
        inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
  ``(4) The Council, or the Governor of a State, having authority over 
a fishery may request the Secretary to conduct a fishing capacity 
reduction program in the fishery under this subsection.''.
  (b) Requirement To Surrender All Permits.--Section 312(b)(2) (16 
U.S.C. 1861a(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(2)(A) The objective of the program shall be to obtain the maximum 
sustained reduction in fishing capacity at the least cost and in a 
minimum period of time.
  ``(B) To achieve that objective, the Secretary is authorized to pay 
an amount to the owner of a fishing vessel, if--
          ``(i) such vessel is scrapped, or through the Secretary of 
        the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, subjected 
        to title restrictions that permanently prohibit and effectively 
        prevent its use in fishing;
          ``(ii) all permits authorizing the participation of the 
        vessel in any fishery under the jurisdiction of the United 
        States are surrendered for permanent revocation; and
          ``(iii) the owner of the vessel and such permits relinquishes 
        any claim associated with the vessel and such permits that 
        could qualify such owner for any present or future limited 
        access system permit in the fishery for which the program is 
        established.''.
  (c) Ensuring Vessels Do Not Enter Foreign or High Seas Fisheries.--
Section 312(b) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(6) The Secretary may not make a payment under paragraph (2) with 
respect to a vessel that will not be scrapped, unless the Secretary 
certifies that the vessel will not be used for any fishing, including 
fishing in the waters of a foreign nation and fishing on the high 
seas.''.

SEC. 5. DATA COLLECTION.

  (a) Collection of Recreational Catch Data.--Section 402 (16 U.S.C. 
1881a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(f) Collection of Recreational Catch Data.--(1) The Secretary shall 
develop and implement a program for the sharing of recreational catch 
data for all federally managed fisheries through the use of information 
gathered from State-licensed recreational fishermen.
  ``(2) The Secretary shall conduct the program in consultation with 
the principle State officials having marine fishery management 
responsibility and expertise.
  ``(3) The Secretary shall report to the Congress within three years 
after the effective date of this subsection, on--
          ``(A) the progress made in developing such a program; and
          ``(B) whether the program has resulted in significantly 
        better data collection for the recreational fishing sector.''.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the Congress a 
report describing the following:
          (1) Economic data from United States processors that is 
        necessary to conduct fishing community and economic analysis 
        determinations required under chapter 6 of title 5, United 
        States Code, popularly known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
          (2) The reasons why such information is not available through 
        other sources such as tax returns, the Bureau of Labor 
        Statistics, and State labor departments.
          (3) The steps the Secretary would take under section 402 of 
        the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
        (16 U.S.C. 1881a) to ensure the confidentiality of such 
        information (especially proprietary information), if the 
        information were obtained by the Secretary.

SEC. 6. ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Policy.--Section 2(c) (16 U.S.C. 1851(c)) by striking ``and'' 
after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), by striking the period 
at the end of paragraph (7) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at 
the end the following:
          ``(8) to support and encourage efforts to understand the 
        interactions of species in the marine environment and the 
        development of ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries 
        conservation and management that will lead to better 
        stewardship and sustainability of the Nation's coastal fishery 
        resources and fishing communities.''.
  (b) Authorization of Research.--Section 404(c) (16 U.S.C. 1881c(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) The interaction of species in the marine environment, 
        and the development of ecosystem-based approaches to fishery 
        conservation and management that will lead to better 
        stewardship and sustainability of coastal fishery resources.''.
  (c) Definitions and Criteria for Management Plans.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall, in conjunction with the 
        Councils--
                  (A) create a definition for ``ecosystem'' and for 
                ``marine ecosystem''; and
                  (B) establish criteria for the development of 
                ecosystem-based management plans by each regional 
                fishery management council based on the recommendations 
                of the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel.
          (2) Report.--The Secretary shall report to the Congress 
        within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act on 
        the criteria, including an identification and description of 
        those criteria for which sufficient data is not available.
  (d) Identification of Marine Ecosystems; Research Plan.--
          (1) In general.--Within one year after the date of the 
        submission of the report under subsection (c)(2) to the 
        Congress, the Secretary, in conjunction with the regional 
        science centers and the regional fishery management councils, 
        shall--
                  (A) identify specific marine ecosystems within each 
                region; and
                  (B) also develop and begin to implement regional 
                research plans to meet the information deficit 
                identified in the report.
          (2) Research plans.--The research plans shall suggest 
        reasonable timelines and cost estimates for the collection of 
        the required information.
          (3) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to the Congress 
        annually on the progress of the regional research plans.
  (e) Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Plan Pilot Program.--
          (1) In general.--Upon the completion of development of 
        regional research plans under subsection (d)(1), the Secretary 
        of Commerce shall establish and begin implementing a pilot 
        program for the management of one fishery on the east coast of 
        the United States and one fishery on the west coast of the 
        United States under an ecosystem-based fishery management plan 
        under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
        Act.
          (2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall develop and implement 
        ecosystem-based fishery management plans under this subsection 
        in consultation with the appropriate Regional Fishery 
        Management Councils.
  (f) Discretionary Provision in Fishery Management Plans.--Section 
303(b)(12) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(12)) is amended by inserting before the 
period the following: ``or for the health or stability of the marine 
ecosystem''.

SEC. 7. OBSERVERS.

  (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the Congress on 
the needs for a national observer program.
  (b) Recommendations.--The report shall make recommendations on 
observation options, including electronic data collection technologies 
and on-board observers.
  (c) Other Contents.--The Secretary, in the report, shall include the 
following:
          (1) A determination of whether the data collection needs are 
        for management or enforcement purposes.
          (2) A statement of the level of observer coverage necessary 
        in various types of fisheries to provide statistically reliable 
        information.
          (3) Cost estimates for various levels of observer coverage.
          (4) Options for the funding of observer coverage.
          (5) The types of vessels and fisheries for which observer 
        coverage cannot be required due to safety concerns.
          (6) Recommendations for the use of the data gathered by the 
        observing systems.
          (7) Recommendations for the confidentiality of proprietary 
        information collected through the program.

SEC. 8. OVERFISHING.

  (a) Clarification of Definition.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is 
further amended by amending paragraph (29) of subsection (a) to read as 
follows:
          ``(29)(A) The term `overfished' means, with respect to a 
        stock of fish, that the stock is of a size that is below the 
        natural range of fluctuation associated with the production of 
        maximum sustainable yield.
          ``(B) The term `overfishing' means a rate or level of fishing 
        mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce 
        the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.''.
  (b) Distinguishing in Reports.--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 overfished (or approaching 
that condition) as a result of fishing and fisheries that are 
overfished (or approaching that condition) as a result of factors other 
than fishing. The report shall state, for each fishery identified as 
overfished or approaching that condition, whether the fishery is the 
target of directed fishing.''.
  (c) National Academy of Sciences Definition of Overfished.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall enter into 
        an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under 
        which the Academy shall develop a definition of ``overfished'' 
        for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
        Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The Academy shall 
        consider the definition of the term in that Act (as amended by 
        this Act) and the National Marine Fisheries Service operational 
        definition of the term. The Academy shall also consider 
        environmental variability and other factors that contribute to 
        low abundance of fish stocks.
          (2) Publication and opportunity for comment.--The Secretary 
        shall publish the results of the activities of the Academy 
        under paragraph (1) and provide an opportunity for the 
        submission of comments regarding the definition developed under 
        paragraph (1).

SEC. 9. BYCATCH AND SEABIRD INTERACTIONS.

  (a) Bycatch Reporting.--
          (1) Repeal of standardized bycatch reporting methodology 
        requirement.--Section 303(a)(11) (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)) is 
        amended in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
        ``establish'' and all that follows through ``fishery, and''.
          (2) Development of bycatch reporting methodologies.--Section 
        304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
  ``(i) Development of Bycatch Reporting Methodologies.--The Secretary 
shall, in cooperation with the Councils, develop bycatch reporting 
methodologies to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in 
United States fisheries.''.
          (3) Report.--The Secretary of Commerce shall report to the 
        Congress within one year after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act on progress the Secretary has made in developing 
        bycatch reporting methodologies pursuant to the amendment made 
        by paragraph (2).
  (b) Charitable Donation of Bycatch.--Section 303(b) (16 U.S.C. 
1853(b)) is amended by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) 
and inserting a semicolon, and by adding at the end the following:
          ``(13) allow the retention and donation for charitable 
        purposes of all dead bycatch that cannot otherwise be avoided 
        under terms that ensure, through the use of onboard fishery 
        observers or other equally effective means, that such retention 
        and donation do not allow the evasion of vessel trip limits, 
        total allowable catch levels, or other conservation and 
        management measures;''.
  (c) Bycatch Reduction Gear Development.--
          (1) In general.--Title IV (1 U.S.C. 1881 et seq.) is amended 
        by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 408. GEAR DEVELOPMENT.

  ``(a) Identification of Fisheries With Significant Bycatch and 
Seabird Interaction Problems.--(1) The Secretary, in conjunction with 
the Councils, shall identify and publish in the Federal Register a list 
of fisheries with significant bycatch problems or seabird interaction 
problems, as determined under criteria developed by the Secretary.
  ``(2) The list shall contain, for each fishery identified, 
information on--
          ``(A) the number of participants in the fishery;
          ``(B) the types of gears used in the fishery;
          ``(C) the bycatch species and species of seabirds that 
        interact with fishing gear;
          ``(D) the amount of bycatch, and the percentage of total 
        catch that is bycatch; and
          ``(E) any other relevant information.
  ``(3) The Secretary shall solicit comments on each list published 
under this subsection.
  ``(b) Identification of Fisheries With Most Urgent Problems.--The 
Secretary shall--
          ``(1) identify those fisheries included in a list under 
        paragraph (1) that have the most urgent bycatch problems or 
        seabird interaction problems, based on comments received 
        regarding the list; and
          ``(2) work in conjunction with the Councils and fishing 
        industry participants to develop new fishing gear, or 
        modifications to existing fishing gear, that will help minimize 
        bycatch and seabird interactions to the extent practicable.
  ``(c) Grant Authority.--The Secretary shall, subject to the 
availability of appropriations, make grants for the development of 
fishing gear and modifications to existing fishing gear that will 
help--
          ``(1) minimize bycatch and seabird interactions; and
          ``(2) minimize adverse fishing gear impacts on habitat areas 
        of particular concern.
  ``(d) Report.--The Secretary shall report to the Congress annually 
on--
          ``(1) the amount expended to implement this section in the 
        preceding year;
          ``(2) developments in gear technology achieved under this 
        section;
          ``(3) the reductions in bycatch associated with 
        implementation of this section; and
          ``(4) any other relevant information.
  ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this section 
there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.''.
          (2) 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. Gear development.''.
  (d) Report.--The Secretary of Commerce shall report to the Congress 
within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act on--
          (1) the extent of the problem of seabird interaction with 
        fisheries of the United States;
          (2) efforts by the fishing industry and Regional Fishery 
        Management Councils to address that problem; and
          (3) the extent of the problem of seabird interaction with 
        fisheries other than the fisheries of the United States.
  (e) International Action.--The Secretary of Commerce shall take 
appropriate action at appropriate international fisheries management 
bodies to reduce seabird interactions in fisheries.

SEC. 10. FISH HABITAT RESEARCH AND PROTECTION.

  (a) Priority Research.--Section 404 (16 U.S.C. 1881c) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Priority for Research Regarding Overfished Fisheries.--In 
carrying out or funding fisheries research under this and other laws 
regarding essential fish habitat, the Secretary shall give priority to 
research to identify such habitat for fisheries that are overfished or 
approaching an overfished condition.''.
  (b) Required Provision in Fishery Management Plans.--Section 
303(a)(7) (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(7)(A) describe and identify essential fish habitat for the 
        fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary 
        under section 305(b)(1)(A);
          ``(B) minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on 
        such habitat caused by fishing for those fisheries identified 
        by the Council as having available information on the growth, 
        reproduction, or survival rates within habitats or production 
        rates by habitat, or for those fisheries that the Council 
        determines the specific fishing activity effects on the 
        essential fish habitat jeopardize the ability of the fishery to 
        produce maximum sustained yield on a continuing basis;
          ``(C) minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on 
        habitat areas of particular concern caused by fishing; and
          ``(D) identify other actions to encourage the conservation 
        and enhancement of such habitat;''.
  (c) Discretionary Provision in Fishery Management Plans.--Section 
303(b) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)) is further amended by adding after paragraph 
(13) the following:
          ``(14) minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects 
        caused by fishing, on essential fish habitat described and 
        identified under section 303(a)(7)(A);''.
  (d) Habitat Area of Particular Concern Defined.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 
1802) is further amended in subsection (a) by redesignating paragraphs 
(19) through (44) in order as paragraphs (20) through (45), and by 
inserting after paragraph (18) the following:
          ``(19) The term `habitat area of particular concern' means a 
        discrete habitat area that is essential fish habitat and that--
                  ``(A) provides important ecological functions;
                  ``(B) is sensitive to human-induced environmental 
                degradation; or
                  ``(C) is a rare habitat type.''.

SEC. 11. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR OYSTER SANCTUARIES AND RESERVES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, through the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office, shall 
develop a program for the design, construction, and placement of oyster 
sanctuaries or reserves consistent with the agreement known as the 
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The program shall be developed in 
conjunction with the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the 
Oyster Recovery Partnership, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Oyster 
Heritage Foundation, local commercial and recreational fishing 
organizations, the Port of Baltimore, the Port of Hampton Roads, the 
University of Maryland, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, and 
other users of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, as appropriate.
  (b) Structures.--The program shall include the design, construction, 
placement, and restoration of structures, including reefs and bars, to 
act as beds for oyster production. The structures should be designed to 
maximize the production of oysters while minimizing conflicts with 
existing uses such as fishing or navigation. The structures shall be 
placed in areas in which they will not be hazards to navigation. The 
Secretary shall work with interested parties to ensure that all sites 
are adequately marked on navigation charts as appropriate.
  (c) Research Plan.--The Secretary shall develop a research plan, 
consistent with efforts to implement the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, for 
the placement of structures under the program, including measurable 
goals and a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of the 
structures in recovering native oyster populations.
  (d) Fishing Regulations.--The Secretary shall recommend State 
regulations restricting fishing in the waters surrounding structures 
placed under this section as necessary to ensure the reproduction of 
oysters on the structures. The restrictions may be seasonal in nature, 
and shall not apply in any area that is located more than 100 meters 
from such a structure.
  (e) Restoration of Native Oysters.--The program shall use only native 
oyster species.
  (f) Report.--The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the Congress 
annual reports on the program under this section.
  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) In general.--To carry out this section there is 
        authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $5,000,000 for 
        each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
          (2) Limitation.--Not more than 5 percent of amounts 
        appropriated under this section may be available for 
        administrative expenses.

SEC. 12. INDIVIDUAL QUOTA LIMITED ACCESS PROGRAMS.

  (a) Authority To Establish Individual Quota Systems.--Section 
303(b)(6) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(6) establish a limited access system for the fishery in 
        order to achieve optimum yields, if--
                  ``(A) in developing such system, the Councils and the 
                Secretary take into account--
                          ``(i) the need to promote conservation,
                          ``(ii) present participation in the fishery,
                          ``(iii) historical fishing practices in, and 
                        dependence on, the fishery,
                          ``(iv) the economics of the fishery,
                          ``(v) the capability of fishing vessels used 
                        in the fishery to engage in other fisheries,
                          ``(vi) the cultural and social framework 
                        relevant to the fishery and fishing 
                        communities, and
                          ``(vii) any other relevant considerations; 
                        and
                  ``(B) in the case of such a system that provides for 
                the allocation and issuance of individual quotas (as 
                that term is defined in subsection (d)), the system 
                complies with subsection (d).''.
  (b) Requirements.--Section 303(d) (16 U.S.C. 1853(d)) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) in 
        order as paragraphs (10), (11), (12), and (13), and by moving 
        such paragraphs 2 ems to the left;
          (2) in paragraph (11)(B), as so redesignated, by inserting 
        ``, including as a result of a violation of this Act or any 
        regulation prescribed under this Act'' before the semicolon;
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(14) As used in this subsection:
          ``(A) The term `individual quota system' means a system that 
        limits access to a fishery in order to achieve optimum yields, 
        through the allocation and issuance of individual quotas.
          ``(B) The term `individual quota' means a grant of permission 
        to harvest a quantity of fish in a fishery or process such fish 
        which are under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific 
        Management Council, during each fishing season for which the 
        permission is granted, equal to a stated percentage of the 
        total allowable catch for the fishery.''; and
          (4) by striking so much as precedes paragraph (10), as so 
        redesignated, and inserting the following:
  ``(d) Special Provisions for Individual Quota Systems.--(1) A fishery 
management plan for a fishery that is managed under a limited access 
system authorized by subsection (b)(6) may establish an individual 
quota system for the fishery in accordance with this subsection.
  ``(2) A fishery management plan that establishes an individual quota 
system for a fishery--
          ``(A) shall provide for administration of the system by the 
        Secretary in accordance with the terms of the plan;
          ``(B) shall include provisions that establish procedures and 
        requirements for each Council having authority over the 
        fishery, for--
                  ``(i) reviewing and revising the terms of the plan 
                that establish the system; and
                  ``(ii) renewing, reallocating, and reissuing 
                individual quotas if determined appropriate by each 
                Council;
          ``(C) shall include provisions to--
                  ``(i) provide for fair and equitable allocation of 
                individual quotas under the system, and minimize 
                negative social and economic impacts of the system on 
                fishing communities;
                  ``(ii) ensure adequate enforcement of the system, 
                including the use of observers where appropriate; and
                  ``(iii) provide for monitoring the temporary or 
                permanent transfer of individual quotas under the 
                system;
          ``(D) shall include provisions that prevent any person from 
        acquiring an excessive share of individual quotas issued for a 
        fishery; and
          ``(E) shall include measurable conservation goals.
  ``(3) An individual quota issued under an individual quota system 
established by a fishery management plan may be received, held, or 
transferred in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
under this Act.
  ``(4)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, any fishery 
management plan that establishes an individual quota system for a 
fishery may authorize individual quotas to be held by or issued under 
the system to fishing vessel owners, fishermen, crew members, fishing 
communities, other persons as specified by the Council and United 
States fish processors under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council.
  ``(B) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States may not 
hold an individual quota issued under a fishery management plan.
  ``(C) A Federal agency or official may not hold, administer, or 
reallocate an individual quota issued under a fishery management plan, 
other than the Secretary and the Council having authority over the 
fishery for which the individual quota is issued.
  ``(D)(i) A fishing community may not hold individual quotas under an 
individual quota system established under this subsection for a fishery 
that authorize harvest of more than the lesser of--
          ``(I) 1 percent of the total authorized harvest in the 
        fishery; or
          ``(II) a percentage of such total authorized harvest 
        established by the Council having jurisdiction over the 
        fishery.
  ``(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a community that is 
eligible to participate in the western Alaska community development 
program or the western Pacific community development program, under 
section 305(i).
  ``(5) Any fishery management plan that establishes an individual 
quota system for a fishery may include provisions that--
          ``(A) allocate individual quotas under the system among 
        categories of vessels; and
          ``(B) provide a portion of the annual harvest in the fishery 
        for entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners, or crew members 
        who do not hold or qualify for individual quotas.
  ``(6) An individual quota system established for a fishery may be 
limited or terminated at any time by the Secretary or through a fishery 
management plan or amendment developed by the Council having authority 
over the fishery for which it is established, if necessary for the 
conservation and management of the fishery.
  ``(7)(A) A fishery management plan that establishes an individual 
quota system for a fishery--
          ``(i) must include measurable conservation goals; and
          ``(ii) to monitor achievement of such goals, may require 
        greater observer coverage or electronic data collection 
        technology on any vessel fishing under an individual quota 
        issued under the system.
  ``(B) Not later than 5 years after the date of the establishment of 
an individual quota system for a fishery under this section by a 
Council or the Secretary, and every 5 years thereafter, the Council or 
Secretary, respectively, shall review the effectiveness of the system 
in achieving the conservation goals required under this paragraph.
  ``(8)(A) The Secretary or a Council--
          ``(i) may not develop a proposal to establish an individual 
        quota system for a fishery, unless development of the proposal 
        has been approved by a referendum conducted in accordance with 
        this paragraph; and
          ``(ii) may not issue a proposed fishery management plan or 
        amendment to such a plan to establish such a system unless the 
        proposed plan or amendment, respectively, has been approved by 
        a referendum conducted in accordance with this paragraph.
  ``(B) The Secretary, at the request of a Council, shall conduct the 
referenda required by subparagraph (A). Each referendum with respect to 
a fishery shall be decided by a 60-percent majority of the votes cast 
by persons who are determined by the Council, based on guidelines 
developed by the Secretary, to be eligible to vote in the referendum.
  ``(C) The Secretary shall develop guidelines to determine procedures 
and voting eligibility requirements for referenda and to conduct such 
referenda in a fair and equitable manner.
  ``(9) Any individual quota system established under section 303(b)(6) 
after the date of enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 
2002, and any individual quota issued under such a system, shall not 
apply after the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date the 
system is established, or after the end of any 10-year period 
thereafter, unless the Council has reviewed and taken affirmative 
action to continue the system before the end of each such 10-year 
period.''.
  (c) Fees.--Section 304(d) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``any'' and all that 
        follows through ``(ii)'' and inserting ``any''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(3)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary shall collect 
from a person that holds or transfers an individual quota issued under 
a limited access system established under section 303(b)(6) fees 
established by the Secretary in accordance with this section and 
section 9701(b) of title 31, United States Code.
  ``(B) The fees required to be established and collected by the 
Secretary under this paragraph are the following:
          ``(i) With respect to any initial allocation under a limited 
        access system established after the date of the enactment of 
        the Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 2002, an initial 
        allocation fee in an amount, determined by the Secretary, equal 
        to 1 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish authorized in one 
        year under an individual quota, that shall be collected from 
        the person to whom the individual quota is first issued.
          ``(ii) An annual fee in an amount, determined by the 
        Secretary, not to exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of 
        fish authorized each year under an individual quota share, that 
        shall be collected from the holder of the individual quota 
        share.
          ``(iii) A transfer fee in an amount, determined by the 
        Secretary, equal to 1 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish 
        authorized each year under an individual quota share, that 
        shall be collected from a person who permanently transfers the 
        individual quota share to another person.
  ``(C) In determining the amount of a fee under this paragraph, the 
Secretary shall ensure that the amount is commensurate with the cost of 
managing the fishery with respect to which the fee is collected, 
including reasonable costs for salaries, data analysis, and other costs 
directly related to fishery management and enforcement.
  ``(D) The Secretary, in consultation with the Councils, shall 
promulgate regulations prescribing the method of determining under this 
paragraph the ex-vessel value of fish authorized under an individual 
quota share, the amount of fees, and the method of collecting fees.
  ``(E) Fees collected under this paragraph from holders of individual 
quotas in a fishery shall be an offsetting collection and shall be 
available to the Secretary only for the purposes of administering and 
implementing this Act with respect to that fishery.''.
  (d) Approval of Fishery Management Plans Establishing Individual 
Quota Systems.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1854) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(j) Action on Limited Access Systems.--(1) In addition to the other 
requirements of this Act, after the date of the enactment of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 2002 the Secretary may not approve a 
fishery management plan that establishes a limited access system that 
provides for the allocation of individual quotas (in this subsection 
referred to as an `individual quota system') unless the plan complies 
with section 303(d).
  ``(2) The Secretary shall issue regulations that establish 
requirements for establishing an individual quota system. The 
regulations shall--
          ``(A) specify factors that shall be considered by a Council 
        in determining whether a fishery should be managed under an 
        individual quota system;
          ``(B) ensure that any individual quota system is consistent 
        with the requirements of sections 303(a) and 303(d), and 
        require the collection of fees in accordance with subsection 
        (d)(3) of this section;
          ``(C) provide for appropriate penalties for violations of 
        individual quotas systems, including the suspension or 
        revocation of individual quotas for such violations;
          ``(D) include recommendations for potential management 
        options related to individual quotas, including the 
        authorization of individual quotas that may not be transferred 
        by the holder, and the use of leases or auctions by the Federal 
        Government in the establishment or allocation of individual 
        quotas; and
          ``(E) establish a central lien registry system for the 
        identification, perfection, and determination of lien 
        priorities, and nonjudicial foreclosure of encumbrances, on 
        individual quotas.''.
  (e) Restriction on New Individual Quota Systems Pending 
Regulations.--
          (1) Restriction.--The Secretary of Commerce may not approve 
        any covered quota system plan, and no covered quota system plan 
        shall take effect, under title III of the Magnuson-Stevens 
        Fishery Conservation and Management Act, before the effective 
        date of regulations issued by the Secretary under section 
        304(j) of that Act, as added by subsection (d) of this section.
          (2) Covered quota system plan defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term ``covered quota system plan'' means a fishery 
        management plan or amendment to a fishery management plan, 
        that--
                  (A) proposes establishment of an individual quota 
                system (as that term is used in section 303(d) of the 
                Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
                Act, as amended by this section); and
                  (B) is not approved by the Secretary before May 1, 
                2002.
  (f) Existing Quota Plans.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments made 
by this Act shall be construed to require a reallocation of individual 
fishing quotas under any individual fishing quota program approved by 
the Secretary of Commerce before May 1, 2002.

SEC. 13. COOPERATIVE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.

  (a) Discretionary Provisions in Fishery Management Plans.--Section 
303(b) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)) is further amended by adding after paragraph 
(14) the following:
          ``(15) include provisions to create a cooperative research 
        component including the use of commercial or charter vessels 
        for the gathering of data on stock abundance, composition, 
        distribution, or other relevant information important for the 
        implementation of the plan; and''.
  (b) Black Sea Bass.--Section 404 (16 U.S.C. 1881c) is further amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(f) Black Sea Bass Cooperative Research Program.--The Secretary, 
through the New England Fisheries Science Center, shall develop and 
implement a cooperative stock assessment program, using vessels from 
the commercial black sea bass fishing industry if appropriate and 
available. This cooperative program shall include research on the range 
of the stock, a determination as to whether there is more than one 
stock, and a black sea bass genetic study to determine whether there is 
more than one stock of such species requiring different management 
regimes.''.

SEC. 14. REPORT ON HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES.

  (a) Annual Report.--Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 1812) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The United 
        States''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(b) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall, within one year after the 
date of the enactment of this subsection and annually thereafter, 
report to the Congress on--
          ``(1) any nation that is fishing for Atlantic highly 
        migratory species and is not in compliance with the fishery 
        conservation and management provisions or any rebuilding 
        recommendations or provisions enacted by the international body 
        charged with developing such measures; and
          ``(2) any recommendations for addressing those nations 
        identified under paragraph (1) and actions the United States 
        might take to ensure such compliance by such nations.''.
  (b) National Academy of Sciences Review.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall enter into 
        an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under 
        which the Academy shall--
                  (A) review the adequacy of existing measures 
                (including closures) to protect Atlantic white marlin; 
                and
                  (B) make recommendations to the Congress and the 
                Secretary, regarding future conservation measures for 
                Atlantic white marlin, if warranted.
          (2) Fishing in mid-atlantic bight.--The review shall examine, 
        in particular, the effects of fishing in the Mid-Atlantic 
        Bight.
          (3) Report.--The Academy shall report to the Congress and the 
        Secretary regarding the review and recommendations under this 
        subsection within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act.

SEC. 15. PROHIBITED ACTS.

  Section 307 (16 U.S.C. 1857) is amended by striking ``and'' after the 
semicolon at the end of paragraph (4), by striking the period at the 
end of paragraph (5) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end 
the following:
          ``(6) to sell or purchase any fish caught in recreational 
        fishing.''.

SEC. 16. MEMBERSHIP OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS.

  (a) New England Council.--Section 302(a)(1)(A) (16 U.S.C. 
1852(a)(1)(A)) is amended by--
          (1) inserting ``New York,'' after ``Massachusetts,''; and
          (2) striking ``18'' and inserting ``19''.
  (b) Additional Member of Each Council.--Section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) 
is further amended as follows:
          (1) In the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(A)--
                  (A) by striking ``19'' and inserting ``20'';
                  (B) by striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period the following: 
                ``and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
                accordance with subsection (b)(6)''.
          (2) In the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(B)--
                  (A) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``22'';
                  (B) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period the following: 
                ``and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
                accordance with subsection (b)(6)''.
          (3) In the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(C)--
                  (A) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14'';
                  (B) by striking ``8'' and inserting ``9''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period the following: 
                ``and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
                accordance with subsection (b)(6)''.
          (4) In the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(D)--
                  (A) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``8'';
                  (B) by striking ``4'' and inserting ``5''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period the following: 
                ``and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
                accordance with subsection (b)(6)''.
          (5) In the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(E)--
                  (A) by striking ``17'' and inserting ``18'';
                  (B) by striking ``11'' and inserting ``12''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period the following: 
                ``and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
                accordance with subsection (b)(6)''.
          (6) In the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(F)--
                  (A) by striking ``14'' and inserting ``15'';
                  (B) by striking ``8'' and inserting ``9'';
                  (C) by inserting ``by the Secretary'' after 
                ``including one appointed''; and
                  (D) by inserting before the period the following: 
                ``and one appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 
                subsection (b)(6)''.
          (7) In the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(H)--
                  (A) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14'';
                  (B) by striking ``8'' and inserting ``9''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period the following: 
                ``and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
                accordance with subsection (b)(6)''.
          (8) In subsection (b)--
                  (A) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7);
                  (B) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated, by striking 
                ``paragraphs (2) or (5)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
                (2), (5), or (6)''; and
                  (C) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
  ``(6) The member of each Council who is required to be appointed in 
accordance with this paragraph--
          ``(A) shall not be an individual who is directly employed by, 
        or receives a majority of his or her livelihood from, the 
        commercial, charter, or recreational fishing community; and
          ``(B) shall be appointed without regard to subparagraphs (B) 
        and (C) of paragraph (2).''.

SEC. 17. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO PURPOSES AND POLICY.

  Section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1801) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (b)(6) by inserting ``ecologically sound'' 
        after ``to encourage the''; and
          (2) in subsection (c)(6) by inserting ``, restore,'' after 
        ``to foster''.

SEC. 18. FOREIGN FISHING.

  Section 201(e)(1)(E) (16 U.S.C. 1821(e)(1)(E)) is amended--
          (1) in clause (iii) by inserting ``and compliance with and 
        enforcement of international fishing agreements and treaties'' 
        after ``fishing regulations''; and
          (2) in clause (vii) by inserting ``, conservation,'' after 
        ``fishery research''.

SEC. 19. DRIFTNETS.

  Section 206(c)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1826(c)(1)) is amended by inserting 
before the semicolon at the end the following: ``and comply with any 
further action or resolution adopted by the United Nations on large-
scale driftnet fishing to which the United States is a signatory''.

SEC. 20. SOURCES FOR DATA IN FISHERIES RESEARCH.

  Section 404(a) (16 U.S.C. 1881c(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: ``The program shall acquire such knowledge and data 
using both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data sources.''.

SEC. 21. MISCELLANEOUS FISHERY PROTECTIONS IN FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS.

  Section 303(b) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)) is further amended by adding after 
paragraph (15) the following:
          ``(16) designate closed areas, seasonal closures, time/area 
        closures, gear restrictions, or other methods for limiting 
        impacts on habitat, limiting bycatch impacts of gear, or 
        limiting fishing impact on spawning congregations in specific 
        geographic areas.''.

SEC. 22. COOPERATIVE MARINE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.

  (a) Program.--The Secretary of Commerce may enter into cooperative 
agreements with universities and institutions of higher learning in 
order to conduct research in areas that support conservation and 
management of living marine resources.
  (b) Included Research.--Research conducted under the program may 
include biological research concerning--
          (1) the abundance and life history parameters of stocks of 
        fish;
          (2) the interdependence of fisheries or stocks of fish and 
        other ecosystem components; and
          (3) the linkages between fish habitat and fish production and 
        abundance.

SEC. 23. ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF CONSERVATION AND 
                    MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR A FISHERY.

  Section 303(a)(9)(A) (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(9)(A)) is amended by 
inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, as well as the 
cumulative impacts on such participants and communities of conservation 
and management measures for that fishery under other fishery management 
plans and regulations''.

SEC. 24. REGIONAL STOCK ASSESSMENTS.

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

``SEC. 409. REGIONAL STOCK ASSESSMENTS.

  ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct periodic regional 
assessments of stocks of fish.
  ``(b) Independent Review.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
periodic assessment under this section is independently reviewed in a 
manner that--
          ``(1) will not delay the process of providing to Regional 
        Fishery Management Councils current assessments for use in 
        managing fisheries; and
          ``(2) is as transparent as possible, so that the regulated 
        community can provide input during the review process.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first section 
is further amended by adding at the end of the items relating to title 
IV the following:

``Sec. 409. Regional stock assessments.''.

SEC. 25. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES GUIDANCE AND STANDARDS REGARDING 
                    BEST SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which the 
Academy shall by not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, develop guidance and standards for determining what should 
be considered the best scientific information available for purposes of 
sections 2(c)(3) and 301(a)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801(c)(3), 1851(a)(2)).
  (b) Factors Considered.--Guidance and standards developed under 
subsection (a) shall take into consideration--
          (1) the need for relevance and timeliness of information; and
          (2) how to treat the use of gray literature and anecdotal 
        information.
  (c) Publication and Opportunity for Comment.--The Secretary shall 
publish the results of the activities of the Academy under subsection 
(a) and provide an opportunity for the submission of comments regarding 
the definition developed under subsection (a)(1).

SEC. 26. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES DEFINITION OF MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE 
                    YIELD.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which the 
Academy shall--
          (1) develop a definition of the term ``maximum sustainable 
        yield'' for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
        Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), that 
        considers environmental variability; and
          (2) examine the use of alternatives for calculating 
        sustainable harvest levels in cases in which maximum 
        sustainable yield cannot be calculated or is not appropriate.
  (b) Publication and Opportunity for Comment.--The Secretary shall 
publish the results of the activities of the Academy under subsection 
(a) and provide an opportunity for the submission of comments regarding 
the definition developed under subsection (a)(1).

SEC. 27. ADMINISTRATION OF PACIFIC INSULAR AREA FISHERY AGREEMENTS.

  Section 204(e)(6) (16 U.S.C. 1824(e)(6)) is amended in the matter 
preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``into'' and all that follows 
through ``to the'' the first place it appears and inserting ``into 
the''.

SEC. 28. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES BYCATCH MORTALITY REDUCTION RESEARCH 
                    PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment of a Program.--(1) There is established within the 
National Marine Fisheries Service a pelagic longline highly migratory 
species bycatch and mortality reduction research program. The Program 
shall be developed by a design team established by the Secretary of 
Commerce. The Program design shall be submitted to the Secretary no 
later than 120 days after the first meeting of the design team and 
shall include a statistically significant recommendation for the level 
of observer coverage on pelagic longline fishing vessels that is 
necessary to monitor the fishery effectively and participate in the 
research program. The design team shall be available as a resource to 
the Secretary throughout the research and the development of the 
recommendations.
  (2) The program shall identify and test a variety of pelagic longline 
fishing gear configurations and uses and determine which of those 
configurations and uses are the most effective in reducing highly 
migratory species mortality. The program shall place an emphasis on 
determining the gear configurations and uses that are the most 
effective in reducing blue and white marlin mortality in the exclusive 
economic zone of the United States in the Atlantic Ocean. The program 
shall also include a provision for observers to be placed on pelagic 
longline fishing vessels for the purposes of monitoring the fishery and 
participating in the research program.
  (3) The highly migratory species program shall conduct research to 
determine the impact of existing time and area closures designed to 
reduce the bycatch of longline vessels. The program shall focus on 
whether existing closures should be modified to decrease bycatch by 
longline vessels and shall determine what adjustments to the existing 
boundaries and temporal constraints should be made as a result of any 
research. Any vessel participating in the program shall be provided an 
observer by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The full cost of the 
observer and any incidental costs to the vessel as a result of being 
included in the research program shall be paid for by the National 
Marine Fisheries Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service may 
authorize, without notice and comment, scientific research permits 
authorizing a vessel to enter and fish in any closed area in the 
Atlantic Ocean so long as there is 100 percent observer coverage and 
the activities of the vessel are in furtherance of the research 
program. Access to any closed area may be granted only after 
consideration of the scientific need for access.
  (b) Design Team.--(1) Knowledgeable members of the pelagic longline 
fishing sector, the recreational billfish and tuna sector, and the 
conservation community, along with scientists associated with each such 
entity, shall be appointed by the Secretary to the program design team. 
Each of the sectors shall to the extent practicable be fairly 
represented on the design team. The design team shall not exceed nine 
members only one of which may be an employee of the Federal Government. 
The design team shall select a chairman and establish its own rules of 
operation. Each member of the design team who is not employed by the 
Federal Government shall be compensated in the manner provided for 
members of a Fishery Management Council under section 302(d) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1852(d)).
  (2) The design team shall not be considered to be an advisory 
committee for the purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App.), but shall hold its deliberations in meetings for which 
prior noticed is published in the Federal Register and that are open to 
the public.
  (c) Mid-Atlantic Conservation Zone for Highly Migratory Species.--
Section 304(g) (16 U.S.C. 1854(g)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
          ``(3) Mid-atlantic conservation zone for highly migratory 
        species.--
                  ``(A) No person shall engage in pelagic longline 
                fishing--
                          ``(i) in the lower mid-Atlantic Conservation 
                        Zone in the period beginning August 15 and 
                        ending October 1 each year; or
                          ``(ii) in the upper mid-Atlantic Conservation 
                        Zone in the period beginning July 15 and ending 
                        September 1 each year.
                  ``(B) In this paragraph the term `lower mid-Atlantic 
                Conservation Zone' means the area that is enclosed by a 
                series of geodesics connecting in succession the points 
                at the following coordinates:
                          ``(i) 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, 
                        75 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(ii) 37 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 
                        75 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(iii) 38 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 
                        74 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(iv) 38 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 
                        73 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(v) 37 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 74 
                        degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(vi) 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, 
                        75 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                  ``(C) In this paragraph the term `upper mid-Atlantic 
                Conservation Zone' means the area that is enclosed by a 
                series of geodesics connecting in succession the points 
                at the following coordinates:
                          ``(i) 38 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 74 
                        degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(ii) 40 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 
                        72 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(iii) 39 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 
                        72 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(iv) 38 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 
                        73 degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                          ``(v) 38 degrees 0 minutes north latitude, 74 
                        degrees 0 minutes west longitude.
                  ``(D) This paragraph shall not apply after the end of 
                the 4-year period beginning on the date of the 
                enactment of this paragraph.''.
  (d) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to 
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate--
          (1) an interim report of the findings of the research 
        conducted under this section within two years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act; and
          (2) a final report with the necessary regulatory documents to 
        initiate implementation of any adjustments to time and area 
        closures, gear configurations, or fishing techniques warranted 
        as a result of the research.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For research under this section 
there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce 
$5,000,000 for fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

SEC. 29. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1893) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the 
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act, not to exceed the 
following:
          ``(1) $200,500,000 for fiscal year 2003;
          ``(2) $214,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
          ``(3) $222,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          ``(4) $230,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          ``(5) $238,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 4749 is to reauthorize the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and for other 
purposes.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), passed in 1976, is the primary law 
dealing with fisheries resources and fishing activities in 
federal waters (those waters extending from the edge of State 
waters to the 200-mile limit). It was passed largely in an 
effort to eliminate foreign fishing in U.S. waters which, at 
its height, accounted for almost 70 percent of the fish 
harvested in U.S. waters.
    The original goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act were the 
conservation and management of the U.S. fishery resources, the 
development of U.S. domestic fisheries, and the phasing-out of 
foreign fishing activities within the 200-mile fisheries 
conservation zone adjacent to the U.S. coastline. This area 
became known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) following a 
1983 proclamation by President Reagan.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act has achieved the goals of 
eliminating foreign fishing in the EEZ and developing domestic 
fisheries. The percentage of fish harvested by foreign nations 
has declined from 71 percent of the total domestic catch in 
1977 to near zero percent since 1992.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery 
Management Councils charged with implementing these goals in 
coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 
located within the Department of Commerce. Councils are made up 
of State marine fishery management agency representatives and 
other knowledgeable individuals who are selected by the 
Secretary from a list of individuals submitted by the Governors 
of the States represented on the Council. In addition to 
managing the fisheries resources for conservation purposes, 
Councils are responsible for allocating resources among various 
and often competing users. The process of managing fisheries is 
accomplished through the preparation of FMPs for each fishery. 
To date, the Regional Councils have prepared and implemented 35 
FMPs, some now with numerous amendments.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act includes a list of ten National 
Standards for fishery conservation and management that guide 
the Councils' work when developing fishery management plans 
(FMPs) and amendments. Included in this list is the principle 
of optimum yield (which includes ecological, social, and 
economic factors) which requires the Councils to achieve a 
balance among users and between science and economics. In 
attempting to achieve this balance, the Councils are often 
criticized by those who believe that particular uses or factors 
are not properly addressed.
    Following the development of an FMP, a Council forwards the 
plan and proposed regulations to the Department of Commerce. 
The Department must approve the plan or send it back to the 
Council for further consideration. If the plan is approved, 
NMFS must then issue regulations to implement the plan. Many 
criticize that this process is too lengthy and inefficient 
since the Department does not begin to review an FMP until the 
plan has been completed and submitted by a Council. Some argue 
that the Department often fails to meet statutorily-mandated 
deadlines in approving the plan.
    On October 18, 1995, the House of Representatives passed 
H.R. 39, the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act with a number 
of specific provisions meant to address specific problems or 
perceived problems with fisheries management or Council 
procedures. The Senate passed S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries 
Act (SFA), on September 19, 1996, with many provisions similar 
to the House-passed bill. Despite differences between the two 
versions and because of the few remaining days of legislative 
session remaining in the 104th Congress, the House passed S. 39 
on September 27, 1996, without amendment and forwarded it to 
the President for his signature.
    The main provisions of the SFA included efforts: to reduce 
bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that could not be avoided; 
to prevent overfishing and address overfished fisheries; to 
describe, identify, and protect essential habitat for fish in 
the fishery for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to 
maturity; to study the use and effects of Individual Fishing 
Quotas (IFQs); to prohibit the implementation of any new IFQ 
plans; to clarify the Community Development Quota program; to 
modify Council procedures; to establish a fishing capacity 
reduction program; to create a Pacific Insular Area Fishing 
Agreement procedure; and to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act through Fiscal Year 1999.
    The Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297) was 
signed into law by President Clinton on October 11, 1996. In 
addition, Public Law 104-208 changed the name of the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act to the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
    The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and 
Oceans held six oversight and one legislative hearing on the 
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act during the 107th 
Congress, in addition to the two oversight hearings that were 
held in the 106th Congress. The hearings during the 107th 
Congress involved more than 50 different witnesses.
    One of the issues that was raised during the hearings and 
concerns the Committee is the number of lawsuits facing NMFS, 
the primary federal fisheries conservation and management 
authority for fisheries found in the EEZ. While a number of 
different statutes have been used to initiate lawsuits against 
the agency, the result of this substantial increase in lawsuits 
since the enactment of the SFA has forced the agency to spend 
time and personnel to defend its actions. NMFS estimates that 
it is currently spending as much as one tenth of its manpower 
and funding to address lawsuits. Before the enactment of the 
SFA, the number of lawsuits facing the Secretary of Commerce 
over fisheries conservation and management issues was 16. The 
Secretary is currently facing 104 with petitions pending which 
could lead to a number of additional, new lawsuits. It is clear 
that if fisheries conservation and management measures are to 
be effective, NMFS cannot continue to spend more than 10 
percent of its funding and staff time on litigation.
    Litigation was not a major concern of the agency before the 
SFA; however, it has become a factor in fisheries management 
since the enactment of the SFA. This concern has been 
heightened because the SFA added a number of new mandates for 
NMFS. In fact, the SFA: amended or added 15 definitions; added 
three new National Standards and amended one existing Standard; 
added eight new provisions for the Councils to comply with in 
developing any new FMP and required that all existing plans be 
amended to comply with these new required provisions; included 
five new discretionary provisions for Councils to consider when 
developing FMPs; and required 13 new reports.
    The Councils and NMFS have moved forward in meeting these 
new requirements. While amending FMPs to comply with the new 
SFA requirements has added to the burden facing the agency, the 
Councils and the Secretary of Commerce have been able to create 
nine new FMPs for species that had not been previously covered 
by an FMP. These efforts to move forward to establish 
conservation and management measures for additional fisheries, 
in addition to making necessary changes to existing FMPs, 
should be commended. In addition to these new requirements, 
many of the Councils and the regional NMFS offices have begun 
to update outdated environmental impact statements required 
under the National Environmental Policy Act.
    While the Councils and the Secretary have moved forward in 
a number of conservation and management areas, both before and 
after the enactment of the SFA, these successes have not always 
been recognized. The Committee notes that Councils should be 
credited with measures taken prior to enactment of the SFA in 
reducing bycatch, protecting habitat, and preventing or 
reducing overfishing. The Committee notes that in some cases 
the Councils have not been successful in quantifying or 
publicizing these measures and that each Council should 
quantify and report on measures taken both prior to and 
subsequent to the enactment of the SFA. In a recent court 
decision, the judge noted that one Council had not taken action 
to reduce bycatch following the enactment of the SFA. In some 
cases Councils have already taken action to minimize bycatch to 
the extent practicable, as required by the law, but in some 
such cases, the Councils have not sufficiently articulated 
these successes. The Committee believes that the Councils 
should make an effort to better communicate its activities and 
successes to the general public as well as its constituent 
groups.
    The strides that the Councils have made since enactment of 
the SFA are commendable and should be recognized. Rather than 
burden them with new, unreasonable mandates, steps should be 
taken to move incrementally forward to better meet the existing 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    In particular, the SFA included a mandate that FMPs contain 
criteria for determining if the fishery covered by the FMP is 
overfished, that the Secretary identify any stock of fish that 
is overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished, 
and that all FMPs contain measures to rebuild overfished stocks 
in addition to preventing overfishing. Prior to the SFA, there 
was no prior identification of stocks that were in danger of 
overfishing. Little effort was made to try to identify stocks 
that might be in danger so that action could be taken before a 
crisis occurred.
    According to the 2001 report to Congress on the Status of 
Stocks, stock levels for many marine fish managed by the U.S. 
are healthy and others are steadily rebuilding. According to 
the report, a number of examples show the progress made for 
fisheries in the U.S. For example: the number of stocks with 
sustainable harvest rates rose by 45 percent between 1999 and 
2001 (from 159 to 230). The number of stocks with sustainable 
stocks sizes increased by a third. The number of stocks being 
over-harvested has been reduced by 15 percent (from 77 stocks 
to 65). The number of stocks deemed as overfished declined by 
12 percent in 2001. Last year, two species--Georges Bank and 
Mid-Atlantic sea scallops--were fully rebuilt due in part to 
the use of rotating closed harvesting areas. Eleven more were 
taken off the overfished species list (down from 92 stocks to 
81). One of these species--summer flounder--is doing so well 
that regulations were relaxed last year, allowing fishermen to 
harvest 36 percent more while the stock continues to rebuild. 
The total stock size of summer flounder almost doubled to 80 
million pounds between 1992 and 1999. There are currently 74 
rebuilding plans in place: 67 for stocks that are currently 
overfished and seven for stocks that have been rebuilt far 
enough to be no longer considered overfished but that are not 
yet rebuilt to a biomass level necessary to produce the Maximum 
Sustainable Yield (MSY). Of the 81 species that are still 
classified as overfished, 67 are steadily growing under 
rebuilding programs, nine have plans under development, two do 
not have any plans submitted or under development, one has no 
plan but none is required because there is no fishing allowed 
(Atlantic salmon), one has been disapproved, and one is under 
development by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 
(Atlantic Sturgeon).
    The report notes that of the more than 900 stocks of fish 
reviewed in the report, the status of more than 600 stocks was 
unknown; however, the 1999 report notes that the status of 674 
stocks was unknown. While this shows improvement, more 
information on the status of federally-managed stocks is 
needed.
    While the Committee recognizes these successes, fisheries 
management in the United States is not perfect and there are a 
number of areas that need to be addressed in legislation to 
move the Councils and the Secretary closer to sustainable, 
scientifically-based fisheries management.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 4749 was introduced on May 16, 2002, by Congressman 
Wayne T. Gilchrest. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. The Subcommittee 
held seven hearings on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, including six 
oversight hearings on various aspects of the reauthorization 
and one legislative hearing on a discussion draft for the 
authorization. The Subcommittee heard from 59 public witnesses 
and a number of Members of Congress.
    Hearings were held on: implementation of the SFA and the 
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on April 4, 2001 
(Printed Hearing 107-15); federal capacity reduction programs, 
federal investments in fisheries and how these programs relate 
to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on May 10, 
2001 (Printed Hearing 107-26); ecosystem-basedfishery 
management and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on June 
14, 2001 (Printed Hearing 107-38); Western Alaska Community Development 
Quota Programs Implementation Improvement Act on July 19, 2001 (Printed 
Hearing 107-50); Cooperative Research issues as they affect the 
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on December 6, 2001 
(Printed Hearing 107-79); Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) on February 
13, 2002 (Printed Hearing 107-84); and a legislative hearing on the 
discussion draft of H.R. 4749 on May 2, 2002 (Printed Hearing 107-111).
    On May 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Fisheries 
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans met to mark up the bill. 
Congressman Robert A. Underwood (D-GU) offered and withdrew an 
amendment relating to essential fish habitat was withdrawn. 
Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX) offered and withdrew an 
amendment to add at the end of the bill a section entitled 
``National Standard Regarding Cumulative Impacts''. Congressman 
Walter B. Jones offered and withdrew an amendment to add at the 
end of the bill a section entitled ``Ensuring Use of Best 
Scientific Information Available'' and a section entitled 
``Peer Review Stock Assessments''. Congressman Jim Saxton (R-
NJ) offered and withdrew an amendment to add at the end of the 
bill a section entitled ``Mid-Atlantic Conservation Zone for 
Highly Migratory Species''. Mr. Underwood offered and withdrew 
an amendment to strike the provision in the bill to allow 
Councils to report to the Secretary if they could not meet the 
one-year time period for establishing a standardized reporting 
methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring 
in the fishery and the requirement that the Secretary then take 
appropriate action to address the reasons stated by the Council 
for not meeting the requirement. Mr. Saxton offered and 
withdrew an amendment to add at the end of the bill a section 
entitled ``Prohibition on Use of Large Rockhopper and Roller 
Gear on Bottom Trawl Nets''. Mr. Saxton offered and withdrew an 
amendment to strike provisions of Section 16 ``Membership of 
Fishery Management Councils''. Mr. Underwood offered and 
withdrew an amendment to modify the definition of 
``overfished''. Congressman W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin offered and 
withdrew an amendment to: (1) modify the definitions of 
``overfished'' and ``overfishing''; and (2) to add definitions 
of ``carrying capacity'', ``Maximum Sustainable Yield'', and 
``surplus production''. No further amendments were offered and 
the bill was then ordered favorably reported to the Full 
Committee by voice vote.
    The Full Committee on Resources met in open markup session 
on Wednesday, June 26, 2002, to consider the bill. An amendment 
in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gilchrest included 
the following provisions: the Chesapeake Bay Oyster 
Demonstration Program; ``fishing impact statement'' for fishery 
management plans; peer review process for stock assessments; 
National Academy of Sciences contract regarding ``Best 
Scientific Information Available.''; National Academy of 
Sciences contract regarding ``maximum sustainable yield''; 
technical corrections; standardized reporting methodology for 
bycatch; ``seabirds''; minimizing adverse fishing gear impacts 
on habitat areas of particular concern; National Academy of 
Sciences review regarding Atlantic white marlin; and deletion 
of the provision which added an additional seat for the North 
Pacific Council.
    Congressman Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV) offered a substitute 
amendment to the Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which: included seabirds in the definition of 
bycatch; established a one year deadline for the establishment 
of a bycatch reporting system; required Councils to account for 
all sources of fishing mortality; required the impacts of 
fishing on ecosystems; and prohibited the introduction of any 
new gears in a fishery; required the Secretary to issue 
regulations within two years; and required implementation of a 
national observer program. The amendment was not agreed to by a 
rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 21 noes, as follows:


    Mr. Saxton offered and withdrew an amendment (Saxton 2a) to 
the Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
added at the end of the bill a new section entitled ``Highly 
Migratory Species Bycatch Mortality Reduction Research 
Program.''
    Mr. Saxton offered and withdrew an amendment (Saxton 2b) to 
the Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute to add at 
the end of the bill a new section entitled ``Highly Migratory 
Species Bycatch Mortality Reduction Research Program.''
    Mr. Saxton offered an amendment (Saxton 2c) to the 
Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute to add at the 
end of the bill a new section entitled ``Highly Migratory 
Species Bycatch Mortality Reduction Research Program.'' This 
amendment was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 24 yeas to 6 
noes, as follows:


    Congressman George Miller (D-CA) offered an amendment to 
the Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute to strike 
section 12 and insert a new section 12 entitled ``Individual 
Quota Limited Access Programs''. This amendment was pending 
before the Committee when the Committee recessed until July 10, 
2002.
    The Full Committee on Resources reconvened on July 10, 
2002, and continued consideration of the bill.
    The Miller amendment described above was not agreed to by 
voice vote.
    Congressman Miller offered an amendment to the Gilchrest 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to strike ``or 
process'' on page 24. Line 19, and to strike ``, and United 
States fish processors'' or page 26, line 21. The amendment was 
agreed to by voice vote.
    Congressman Joel Hefley (R-CO) offered an amendment to the 
Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute to insert at 
the end of the bill a new section entitled ``Prohibition on Use 
of Large Rockhopper and Roller Gear on Bottom Trawl Nets.''. 
The amendment was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 14 yeas 
to 28 noes, as follows:


    Congressman Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR) offered an amendment to 
the Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute to strike 
section 4 and insert a provision regarding fishing capacity 
reduction in U.S. groundfish fisheries. The amendment was not 
agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Saxton offered an amendment to the Gilchrest amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to correct the Highly Migratory 
Species Bycatch Mortality Reduction Research Program provision. 
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Saxton offered an amendment to the Gilchrest amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to replace a provision dealing 
with standardized bycatch reporting methodology requirement. 
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Saxton offered an amendment to the Gilchrest amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to insert a National Academy of 
Sciences definition of ``overfished''. The amendment was agreed 
to by voice vote.
    Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) offered an amendment to the 
Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute to insert the 
following: ``and United States fish processors under the 
jurisdiction of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council'' 
after the word ``Council'' and on page 24, line 20, insert ``or 
process such fish which are under the jurisdiction of the North 
Pacific Management Council'' after ``fishery''. This amendment 
was agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Inslee offered and withdrew an amendment to the 
Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute to establish 
a fishery observer program.
    Mr. Inslee offered and withdrew an amendment to the 
relating to the scientific panels which advise the regional 
fishery management councils.
    Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR) offered and withdrew an 
amendment to the Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to strike a pilot project in one fishery on the west 
coast of the United States.
    The Gilchrest amendment in the nature of a substitute as 
amended was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 19 yeas to 15 noes, 
as follows:


    The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported 
to the House of Representatives by a rollcall vote of 23 ayes 
and 17 noes, as follows:


                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title; table of contents; amendment references

    This section gives the short title of the bill as ``the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 2002'', includes a table of 
contents for the bill, and establishes that all amendments, 
unless otherwise noted, are to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act.

Section 2. Technical corrections to definitions

    This section makes technical corrections to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Section 3. Report on overcapitalization

    This section would require the Secretary of Commerce to 
report to Congress identifying and describing the 20 U.S. 
fisheries which face the worst problem with excess harvesting 
capacity. In addition, the report would include recommendations 
for reducing the excess capacity including the retirement of 
any latent capacity that might contribute to further 
overcapitalization if activated. This section was in response 
to the one issue that witnesses identified more than any other 
as the biggest problem facing sustainable fisheries: 
overcapacity. This provision would identify the most pressing 
problems facing U.S. fisheries so that funds can be better 
directed to address the most urgent needs.

Section 4. Buyout provisions

    This section would change the existing statutory 
requirements for any buyout conducted under section 312(b) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Rather than allow a buyout program to 
purchase vessels or permits, this section would require any 
program to purchase vessels and all existing permits. Vessels 
would not have to be scrapped; however, the Secretary would be 
required to ensure that the vessel could not fish in U.S. 
waters.
    In addition, this section would require the Secretary to 
ensure that any vessels purchased under this section could not 
move to any other fishery on the high seas or in foreign waters 
and contribute to overcapacity problems in other parts of the 
world.
    Past efforts using federal funding to reduce overcapacity 
have been appropriated with no national prioritization of those 
fisheries most in need of rationalization and little if any 
identification of other sources of funding that might be 
available for such buyouts. It is important for the fisheries 
managers and Congress to identify those fisheries most in need 
and to identify sources of funding that will enable fisheries 
managers to meet those needs most effectively and to reduce the 
overcapacity in the fisheries with the greatest problems.

Section 5. Data collection

    This section would require the Secretary to coordinate with 
the coastal States in developing and implementing a program to 
gather data from those in the recreational fishing sector which 
are licensed under State regulations and participating in 
federally-managed fisheries. The Secretary would be required to 
report to Congress after three years on the progress in 
developing the program and whether the program has resulted in 
significantly better data collection from the recreational 
sector.
    The Committee notes that not all States have a saltwater 
fishing license; however, the Committee believes that NMFS 
would benefit from using information gathered in coordination 
with State agencies on the habits and frequency of fishing 
trips by State license holders in addition to or in place of 
the information the agency currently gets from a random survey 
of coastal residents. The information gathered in coordination 
with State fisheries managers could augment or replace existing 
data sources and provide a more accurate assessment of the 
impact of recreational fishermen on federal fishery resources.
    This section would also require the Secretary to report to 
Congress on what types of economic data fishery managers need 
from the processing sector to comply with existing laws (such 
as the Regulatory Flexibility Act), why the information is 
necessary and not available from existing sources, and what 
steps the Secretary would take to ensure the confidentiality of 
any proprietary information once submitted.
    The Committee notes that despite a provision in the SFA 
concerning the confidentiality of federal tax information which 
was being required by some NMFS regions to show eligibility for 
fishing permits, one regional director continued to require 
such documents contrary to the provision of the SFA. There are 
continued concerns about the ability of NMFS to make protection 
of proprietary information a priority before the information is 
collected.

Section 6. Ecosystem-based management

    This section would include a new provision within the 
Policy section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act stating that it is 
one of the policies of Congress through this legislation to 
``support and encourage efforts to understand the interactions 
of species in the marine environment and the development of 
ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries conservation and 
management that will lead to better stewardship and 
sustainability of the Nation's coastal fishery resources and 
fishing communities.''
    This section would also add a new provision to the section 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describing the fisheries research 
activities of the Secretary to add a new area of research 
dealing with ecosystem-based approaches to fishery conservation 
and management (consistent with the language above).
    This section would require the Secretary, in conjunction 
with the Councils, to create a definition for ``ecosystem'' and 
``marine ecosystem'', and establish criteria for the 
development of ecosystem-based management plans by each 
regional fishery management Council based on the 
recommendations of the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel. 
This section would furtherrequire the Secretary to report to 
Congress, within two years, on the criteria and include an 
identification and description of those areas of scientific 
understanding for which sufficient data are not available. Following 
the submission of the report to Congress, the Secretary would be 
required, in conjunction with the regional science centers and the 
Councils, to identify specific marine ecosystems within each region. 
The Secretary would then be required to develop and begin to implement 
regional research plans to meet the information deficit identified in 
the report. These research plans must include suggestions for 
reasonable timelines and cost estimates for the collection of the 
required information. The Secretary would then be required to report to 
Congress annually on the progress of the regional research plans.
    This section also requires the Secretary to identify two 
fisheries--one from the east coast and one from the west 
coast--and then develop and implement, in consultation with the 
appropriate Councils, an ecosystem-based FMP for those two 
fisheries.
    It is important that the Secretary use sound judgment in 
selecting the two fisheries so that the fisheries selected for 
such an ecosystem-based FMP be unrelated fisheries and not 
fisheries whose current management is so complicated that 
further layers of management will open the fishery to extensive 
litigation or place an unacceptable burden on the fishery 
managers. It is also important that the fisheries selected by 
the Secretary not be burdened with extensive litigation at the 
time of selection for such ecosystem-based fishery management.

Section 7. Observers

    This section would require the Secretary to report to 
Congress within one year on the needs for a national observer 
program including recommendations on what forms of observation 
options are available, whether the data collection needs are 
for management or enforcement purposes, what level of coverage 
is necessary in various fisheries to provide statistically 
reliable information, cost estimates for various options and 
various levels of coverage, options for funding such a program, 
what, if any, vessel sizes should be exempted for safety 
purposes, how data will be gathered, and how the proprietary 
information will be kept confidential.
    While better data collection certainly should be a priority 
for the agency, the agency has not yet been able to tell 
Congress what a comprehensive observer program should look 
like, what fisheries should have coverage, what level of 
coverage will yield statistically reliable results in different 
types of fisheries, and how much such a program will cost. 
While NMFS has been developing a National Observer Program, 
little if any information on such a plan has been shared with 
Congress. It is clear that observer coverage in some fisheries 
will provide the agency with much needed information on levels 
of harvest and levels of bycatch. The Committee notes that the 
Secretary currently has the authority to implement observer 
programs and has done so in more than 20 fisheries under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act authorities and also under the authorities 
in the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
    In addition, the Committee notes that technology has 
changed since the enactment of the SFA and advances in 
technology could reduce the need for actual on-board observers.
    Currently, NMFS appears to have certified just one type of 
Vessel Monitoring System hardware technology and has been slow 
to accept or certify new technologies that could provide the 
necessary information to fisheries managers and be obtained by 
fishermen at a lower cost. The Committee is aware of a number 
of vessel monitoring technologies which also provide additional 
benefits for the vessel owner without requiring duplicative 
systems. The Committee is aware that there are private sector 
initiatives to develop software-based solutions to the 
statutory requirement to monitor the locations of commercial 
fishing vessels in various parts of the United States. To date, 
however, only hardware-based systems are authorized under NOAA 
regulations. This has resulted in the limitation of vendors and 
systems available to carry out the mandate of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Such limitations impede competition and innovation 
and may result in less efficiency in, and higher cost to, the 
fishing industry.
    In addition, the Committee notes that a National Observer 
Program will certainly increase the amount of data being 
reported to fishery managers. The Committee hopes that the 
required report will detail how NMFS will gather, store, 
interpret and make available to appropriate institutions such 
new information.
    The Committee notes that in a few cases, an adequate number 
of qualified or certified observers have not been available to 
satisfy the demand by those fishing vessels which are required 
to carry observers. These occasional occurrences where 
qualified observers could not be hired or were unavailable when 
needed should be addressed in any National Observer Plan or the 
plan needs to include enough flexibility that fishing 
opportunities are not lost due to unavailability of qualified 
observers. This should not be used as an excuse by fishermen to 
avoid the burden of carrying observers; however, an adequate 
number of trained observers needs to be available in the 
regions where any observer requirements are put in place. 
Observers may need to be available at short notice and the 
agency may need to be aware of the costs of moving observers 
from one region to another if necessary to the conduct of a 
fishery with observer requirements.
    Finally, it has been noted that the current requirements 
for certification as an observer include the need for a four-
year college degree. With a number of fishermen displaced in a 
variety of fisheries around the country, NMFS should 
investigate whether displaced fishermen--even those without a 
college degree--could be trained and certified as observers. In 
some cases, a knowledge of fisheries and fishing practices 
could prove valuable to the observer program while providing 
jobs ``on the water'' for displaced fishermen.

Section 8. Overfishing

    This section would split the definitions of ``overfished'' 
and ``overfishing'' to clarify that these are two different 
terms and are used differently in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
These new definitions follow the existing definitions and are 
based on recommendations by the NMFS's Magnuson-Stevens Act 
Reauthorization Task Force report.
    This section would also make changes to the annual Status 
of Stocks report to Congress on overfishing, stocks that are 
overfished, and those stocks that are approaching an overfished 
condition. These changes would make it clear whether the stocks 
that are identified asoverfished or approaching an overfished 
condition are actually overfished as a result of fishing activities or 
other causes. These changes in the report would not change the 
necessity for rebuilding plans when appropriate. The report to Congress 
would also be changed so that any fishery which is identified as 
overfished or approaching an overfished condition will be clearly 
identified as to whether it is the target of a commercial fishery.
    This section also requires the Secretary to contract with 
the National Academy of Sciences (Academy) to develop a 
definition of ``overfished''. The Academy shall consider the 
definition as added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act by this 
legislation as well as the operational definition used by NMFS. 
The Academy shall consider environmental variability and other 
factors that contribute to low abundance of fish stocks in 
developing the definition. The Secretary shall publish the 
results of the Academy's work and provide an opportunity for 
public comment.

Section 9. Bycatch and seabird interactions

    This section would move the existing statutory provision 
which requires Councils to establish a standardized reporting 
methodology for bycatch for each FMP to section of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act which includes requirements for the 
Secretary. The Secretary would develop these methodologies in 
cooperation with the Councils and then be required to report to 
Congress within one year of the date of enactment on the 
progress in developing these standardized reporting 
methodologies.
    This change is necessary because it has become clear that 
the Councils are unable to comply with the current Magnuson-
Stevens Act's provision. Whether this inability is because of 
the lack of available information or because the Councils are 
currently too burdened with other statutory requirements, a 
change is necessary if the standardized bycatch methodologies 
are to be established. This legislation moves the requirement 
for developing standardized bycatch reporting methodologies 
from the Councils to the Secretary, who is currently 
responsible for data collection duties. In addition, it is 
unclear if a standardized reporting methodology is necessary 
for each individual FMP or whether the Secretary can develop 
broader methodologies that can be used for multiple fisheries.
    This section also includes a discretionary provision 
authorizing Councils to include a provision in an FMP allowing 
for the donation of bycatch that is already dead and cannot be 
avoided for charitable purposes. This allowance could not be 
used to evade vessel trip limits, total allowable catch levels, 
or other conservation and management measures. This would 
provide low cost protein for food banks as long as the 
provision was not used to evade measures designed to decrease 
bycatch and the mortality of the bycatch.
    This section includes a requirement that the Secretary 
identify the fisheries with significant bycatch problems or 
problems with seabird interactions. The Secretary would then be 
required to work with the Councils and the fishing industry to 
develop new gear or modifications to existing gear that will 
help minimize the identified bycatch or seabird interaction 
problems. The provision also includes a requirement for a new 
research grant program to fund research into gear technology 
which minimizes bycatch, minimizes seabird interactions, and 
minimizes adverse fishing gear impacts on habitat areas of 
particular concern. This grant program is authorized at $10 
million for each of five years for Fiscal Years 2003 through 
2007. The Secretary would then be required to report annually 
to Congress on the amounts expended on the grant program and 
what bycatch reductions have been identified as a result of 
this section.
    The Secretary would also be required to report within one 
year of the date of enactment on the extent of the seabird 
interaction problem in U.S. fisheries, what efforts have been 
undertaken by the U.S. fishing industry and the Councils to 
address the problem, and the extent of the seabird interaction 
problem in other fisheries outside the U.S. In preparing this 
report on fisheries with significant bycatch problems or 
seabird interactions, the Secretary shall take into 
consideration successful past efforts and on-going efforts by 
the Councils and fishing industry to minimize bycatch problems 
or seabird interactions. When reporting to Congress on seabird 
interaction with fisheries of the U.S., the Secretary shall 
acknowledge where Council and/or fishing industry initiatives 
have reduced seabird interactions to the extent practicable. 
The Committee notes that current voluntary seabird avoidance 
technologies and fishing methods have resulted in some U.S. 
fisheries reducing their seabird bycatch by up to 90 percent. 
This technology has also been shared with foreign fishermen in 
an attempt to reduce the problem in fisheries outside the U.S.
    The Secretary would also be required to take action at the 
appropriate international fisheries management bodies to reduce 
seabird interactions in those fisheries outside the United 
States.

Section 10. Fish habitat research and protection

    This section contains a number of new provisions including 
a requirement that funding for research on essential fish 
habitat (EFH) be prioritized for those fisheries which are 
overfished or approaching an overfished condition.
    The section includes a provision requiring that Councils 
take action to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse 
impacts on EFH caused by fishing for those EFH areas which were 
identified based on: information on the growth, reproduction, 
or survival rates within habitats; information on the 
production rates by habitat; or for those fisheries which the 
Secretary determines have a specific fishing activity that is 
having an adverse effect on EFH which jeopardizes the ability 
of the fishery to produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) on a 
continuing basis. In addition, the Secretary would be required 
to minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on 
habitat areas of particular concern caused by fishing.
    This section would maintain the Councils' current statutory 
discretionary authority to minimize, to the extent practicable, 
adverse effects caused by fishing on EFH regardless of the 
amount of information available.
    The implementation of the EFH provisions of the SFA has 
created controversy within the fishing industry and among those 
other industries which are affected by the provisions. Whilethe 
provisions were well intended and were meant to protect discrete areas 
of the ocean that were important to the continued production of a 
sustainable level of fisheries, the provisions as implemented by NMFS, 
have become unnecessarily onerous and unreasonable. The provisions of 
H.R. 4749 are intended to minimize potential lawsuits made possible by 
the agency's interpretation of the statutory provisions in the SFA 
without causing the agency to reconsider all of the implementing 
regulations or identification guidelines for the Councils.
    While the language that was included in the SFA in 1996 was 
supported by fishermen and the environmental community, the 
implementation of the provisions has eliminated much of the 
fishing industry support. The guidelines that the Councils 
followed in identifying EFH have led to very large areas being 
identified for some fisheries. In addition to the broad 
identifications, the Councils are required under the SFA to 
``minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such 
habitat caused by fishing.'' In cases like the North Pacific 
groundfish fishery, this would require the Council to analyze 
and minimize any adverse effects for each of six different gear 
types for 350,000 square miles. Since the habitat types will 
vary significantly in such a huge area, this current 
requirement is unreasonable. Given that there are more than 40 
FMPs in effect and multiple gear types used in each fishery, 
the burdens placed on the Councils and the potential for 
litigation are immense.
    In addition to it being unreasonable, with the existing 
areas of EFH as identified by the Councils being so broad, the 
term has become almost meaningless. One witness testified that 
if everything is essential then nothing is essential. The 
provisions in H.R. 4749 will focus the efforts on minimizing 
gear impacts where they are truly important--the habitats that 
are most productive, the habitats for fisheries that are 
overfished, and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC).
    This section also defines ``habitat areas of particular 
concern.'' Many Councils have already identified significant 
areas as HAPC and have also taken action to close significant 
areas to various fishing practices either because of bycatch 
concerns or to protect habitat. Although it has been suggested 
that a new mandate should be added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
to require that each Council amend each management plan to 
identify HAPCs, this new mandate would add to an already 
overburdened Council system and potentially add to the 
litigation burden faced by the agency.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently authorizes Councils to 
take action to protect specific habitat areas and in fact, many 
of the Councils have already taken action to protect sensitive 
habitat from the effects of bottom trawling. Where appropriate, 
Councils have taken the necessary steps to restrict damaging 
gear. In some cases, all bottom trawling is prohibited. In 
other cases, the Councils have acted to protect the habitat 
areas that need protection, but have allowed bottom trawling in 
those areas where the effects are minimal. The blanket 
restrictions on all bottom gear proposed by some sets a bad 
precedent and the results may be counter productive by actually 
increasing bycatch at the same time it is attempting to protect 
habitat. In addition, this would preempt the Councils from 
acting on a case-by-case or gear-by-gear basis.
    A recently-released report by the National Academy of 
Sciences Ocean Studies Board entitled Effects of Bottom 
Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitats was requested by 
NMFS in response to ongoing concerns about the ecological 
effects of trawling and dredging on the seafloor, and whether 
such effects may be reducing the productivity of some fish 
stocks. The Ocean Studies Board found that to assess the 
ecosystem effects of trawling and dredging three factors must 
be fully considered: gear-specific effects on different habitat 
types (obtained experimentally); frequency and geographic 
distribution of bottom tows; and physical and biological 
characteristics of seafloor habitats (seafloor mapping). The 
report summarizes the currently available data in these three 
areas and although the Board affirmed that trawling and 
dredging could be destructive in ecologically vulnerable 
habitats, it also found that some habitats are resilient to the 
effects of such activities, especially sandy habitats in areas 
that experience naturally high levels of disturbance. The 
report makes it clear that there are some habitat types that 
are more severely impacted by bottom trawling than other types, 
and that fishery managers should focus management efforts on 
those areas that are in most need of protection. The report 
also emphasizes the need for additional research into the 
impact of other gear types (besides trawls and dredges) on 
seafloor habitats and additional research and mapping to 
determine the locations and spatial extent of different types 
of habitats.
    The Committee agrees that much more information is 
necessary on the effects of all types of fishing gear on 
important and sensitive habitats. The Committee also notes that 
the Councils and the Secretary currently have the authority to 
restrict or prohibit gear types from being used in specific 
habitat areas. Using this authority, a number of Councils have 
already taken action to close areas to bottom trawling to 
protect habitat. The New England Council has prohibited the use 
of roller gear larger than 12 inches in diameter in some of the 
most sensitive habitats in the Gulf of Maine, and has closed 
almost 1200 square miles of the Gulf of Maine to most types of 
trawling gear. In addition, roughly 30 percent (6,600 square 
miles) of Georges Bank has been closed through the 
implementation of three large closed areas in which all bottom-
tending mobile fishing gear is prohibited. The South Atlantic 
Council has prohibited the use of all roller gear by bottom 
trawlers. The Gulf of Mexico Council has established a 
prohibition on all bottom trawling in near shore areas. All 
bottom trawling in the geographic area under the jurisdiction 
of the Carribean Fishery Management Council is currently 
prohibited. The North Pacific Council has closed many areas to 
protect important habitats. Over 90,000 square nautical miles 
of the Alaska EEZ is closed to bottom trawling year-round. In 
the geographic area under the jurisdiction of the Western 
Pacific Fishery Management Council all bottom trawling is 
prohibited.

Section 11. Demonstration program for oyster sanctuaries and reserves

    This section would require the Secretary to develop a 
program for the design, construction and placement of oyster 
sanctuaries or reserves in the Chesapeake Bay consistent with 
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The Secretary, through the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Chesapeake 
Bay Office, would be required to develop the program in 
conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineer, the Coast Guard, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
the Oyster Restoration Partnership, the Chesapeake Bay 
Foundation,the Oyster Heritage Foundation, local commercial and 
recreational fishing organizations, the Port of Baltimore, the Port of 
Hampton Roads, the University of Maryland, the Virginia Institute of 
Marine Sciences, and other users of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay.
    The program would include the design, construction and 
placement of structures to maximize the production of oysters 
and minimize the conflicts with existing users. The placement 
of such structures must not be hazards to navigation and must 
be adequately marked on navigational charts. The program would 
also include a research plan to include measurable goals and a 
monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of the 
structures.
    The Secretary is required to make recommendations to the 
affected States on regulations prohibiting fishing in the 
waters surrounding these structures as necessary to ensure the 
reproduction of oysters. These restrictions may be seasonal in 
nature and may not be larger than 100 meters from any 
structure.
    The Secretary is required to use only native oyster 
species.
    A specific authorization of $5 million for each of five 
Fiscal Years (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009) is provided; 
however, no more than five percent of the funds appropriated 
may be made available for administrative purposes.

Section 12. Individual quota limited access programs

    This section would remove the moratorium on the 
implementation of any Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) fishery 
management plans and replace it with specific guidelines for 
the Councils to follow in the development and implementation of 
any new IFQ FMP.
    This section would authorize the Secretary to establish an 
IFQ plan and require the Councils and the Secretary to take 
into account the need to promote conservation, the present 
participation in the fishery, the historical fishing practices 
in the fishery, the dependence on the fishery, the economics of 
the fishery, the capability of fishing vessels used in the 
fishery to engage in other fisheries, the cultural and social 
frame-work relevant to the fishery and local coastal 
communities, and any other relevant considerations when 
developing such a plan or plan amendment.
    This section provides that an FMP that establishes an 
individual quota system for a fishery shall provide for 
administration of the system by the Secretary in accordance 
with the terms of the plan, and shall include provisions that 
establish procedures and requirements for each Council having 
authority over the fishery for reviewing and revising the terms 
of the plan that establish the system and for renewing, 
reallocating, and reissuing individual quotas if determined 
appropriate by each Council. The plan is required to include 
provisions to provide for fair and equitable allocation of 
individual quotas under the system, and minimize negative 
social and economic impacts of the system on local coastal 
communities, ensure adequate enforcement of the system, 
including the use of observers where appropriate, and provide 
for monitoring the temporary or permanent transfer of 
individual quotas under the system. The plan must include 
provisions that prevent any person from acquiring an excessive 
share of individual quotas issued for a fishery and shall 
include measurable conservation goals.
    An individual quota issued under an individual quota system 
may be received, held, or transferred in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary under this legislation. 
Except as otherwise provided, any FMP that establishes an 
individual quota system for a fishery may authorize individual 
quotas to be held by or issued under the system to fishing 
vessel owners, fishermen, crew members, communities, other 
persons as specified by the Council, and United States fish 
processors under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Council. 
An individual who is not a citizen of the United States may not 
hold an individual quota issued under an FMP. A federal agency 
or official may not hold, administer, or reallocate an 
individual quota issued under an FMP, other than the Secretary 
and the Council having authority over the fishery for which the 
individual quota is issued. A community may not hold more than 
one percent of the total authorized harvest in the fishery, or 
a percentage less than one percent as determined by the 
Council.
    This section specifies that any FMP which establishes an 
individual quota system for a fishery may include provisions 
that allocate individual quotas under the system among 
categories of vessels, and provide a portion of the annual 
harvest in the fishery for entry-level fishermen, small vessel 
owners, or crew members who do not hold or qualify for 
individual quotas. An individual quota system established for a 
fishery may be limited or terminated at any time by the 
Secretary or through an FMP or amendment developed by the 
Council having authority over the fishery for which it is 
established, if necessary for the conservation and management 
of the fishery. An FMP that establishes an individual quota 
system for a fishery must include measurable conservation goals 
and to monitor achievement of such goals, may require greater 
observer coverage or electronic data collection technology on 
any vessel fishing under an individual quota issued under the 
system.
    Not later than five years after the date of the 
establishment of an individual quota system for a fishery under 
this section by a Council or the Secretary, and every five 
years thereafter, the Council or Secretary would be required to 
review the effectiveness of the system in achieving the 
conservation goals required under this paragraph.
    The Secretary or a Council would be required to hold a 
referendum of the eligible participants before proceeding with 
the development of an IFQ plan or plan amendment. This 
referendum would require a 60 percent affirmative vote for the 
Council or Secretary to proceed.
    The eligible participants would be determined by the 
Council based on criteria developed by the Secretary. In 
addition, following the development of an IFQ plan or plan 
amendment but before forwarding the plan to the Secretary for 
approval, a second referendum would be required following the 
same criteria and percentage required for action.
    As used in this subsection, the term ``individual quota 
system'' means a system that limits access to a fishery to 
achieve optimum yields through the allocation and issuance of 
individual quotas. The term ``individual quota'' means a grant 
of permission to harvest, or in the fisheries under the 
jurisdiction of the North Pacific Council to harvest or process 
a quantity of fish in afishery, during each fishing season for 
which the permission is granted, equal to a stated percentage of the 
total allowable catch for the fishery.
    The Committee notes that in IFQ fisheries currently in 
place, processors are allowed to hold harvesting quota shares. 
The legislation does nothing to change this authority and this 
legislation is not intended to give the Secretary any 
additional authority to issue processing quota shares in 
fisheries already managed through an IFQ FMP.
    This section would require that the Council review and take 
affirmative action to continue any individual quota plan once 
every ten years for any plan implemented by the Secretary after 
the enactment of this bill.
    This section also maintains the three percent cap on the 
annual fee paid by holders of individual quota, but would add a 
new one percent fee on the initial allocation of any individual 
quota issued under a new plan or plan amendment, and a one 
percent fee on the transfer of any individual quota. This 
three-tier fee system would replace the existing IFQ fee 
system. The calculation of the fees would be based on a 
percentage of the ex-vessel value of the quota shares for that 
year. The initial allocation fee would be a one-time fee based 
on a percentage of the ex-vessel value of the quota shares 
issued and the transfer fee would be charged on a one-time 
basis following each transfer of shares and would be based on a 
percentage of the ex-vessel value of the quota shares 
transferred. The Secretary would be required to determine the 
amount of these fees to ensure that the amount of the fees is 
commensurate with the cost of managing the fishery for which 
the fee is being collected. The fees would only be available to 
the Secretary for the purposes of administering and 
implementing this Act for that fishery from which the fee was 
collected.
    This section would also require the Secretary to issue 
regulations implementing these provisions and to specify 
factors that would be required to be considered by a Council in 
determining whether a fishery should be managed under an 
individual quota system. The Secretary would also be required 
to: ensure that any individual quota system be consistent with 
the requirements of sections 303(b) and 303(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act; collect fees based on the provisions above; 
provide for appropriate penalties for violations of individual 
quotas systems, including the revocation of individual quotas 
for such violations; include recommendations for potential 
management options related to individual quotas, including the 
authorization of individual quotas that may not be transferred 
by the holder, and the use of leases or auctions by the federal 
government in the establishment or allocation of individual 
quotas; and establish a central lien registry system for the 
identification, perfection, and determination of lien 
priorities, and nonjudicial foreclosure of encumbrances, on 
individual quotas.
    This section would prevent any new individual quota plan 
from being implemented before the Secretary has issued 
regulations to implement this section and prevent the 
implementation of any plan that had not been implemented by May 
1, 2002.
    This section makes it clear that nothing in these new IFQ 
provisions would require a reallocation of individual quotas 
under an FMP already implemented by the Secretary.
    This section maintains the current statutory language that 
makes it clear that an individual quota issued under an 
individual quota system shall be considered a permit for the 
purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, may be revoked or limited 
at any time in accordance with this Act, shall not confer any 
right of compensation to the holder of such individual fishing 
quota or other such limited access system authorization if it 
is revoked or limited, and shall not create, or be construed to 
create, any right, title, or interest in or to any fish before 
the fish is harvested.

Section 13. Cooperative education and research

    This section would allow Councils to include a cooperative 
research component to an FMP using commercial or charter 
vessels to gather data on stock abundance, composition, 
distribution or other relevant information for the 
implementation of the plan. This is a discretionary provision.
    This section would also require the Secretary to develop 
and implement a cooperative stock assessment program for black 
sea bass, through the New England Fisheries Science Center, 
using vessels from the commercial fishing industry, if 
appropriate and available. This cooperative program would be 
required to include research on the range of the stock, a 
determination as to whether there is more than one stock, and 
include a genetic research component to determine if there is 
more than one stock of black sea bass which would require 
different management regimes.

Section 14. Report on highly migratory species.

    The Secretary would be required, within one year, to report 
to Congress on any nation that is fishing for Atlantic highly 
migratory species (HMS) and is not in compliance with the 
conservation and management provisions or any rebuilding 
recommendations enacted by the international management body. 
The report shall also include recommendations for actions the 
U.S. to could take to ensure such compliance.
    This section also includes a requirement that the Secretary 
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to review the 
adequacy of the existing measures to protect Atlantic white 
marlin, and in particular, to examine the effects of fishing in 
the Mid-Atlantic Bight. The Academy would then report back to 
Congress within two years of the date of enactment with the 
review and making recommendations for any future conservation 
measures that might be warranted.

Section 15. Prohibited acts

    This provision would make it a violation of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to sell or buy recreationally-caught fish. All 
coastal States except one currently require a commercial permit 
to sell fish and/or prevent the sale of recreationally-caught 
fish. While the bill would prohibit the sale of recreationally-
caught fish, this provision does not change the ability of 
recreational fishermen, subject to appropriate State laws, from 
retaining and consuming their catch.

Section 16. Membership of fishery management councils

    This section adds one new seat to the New England Fishery 
Management Council for the State of New York.
    This section would also add one new voting seat to each 
Council (except the North Pacific), to be appointed by the 
Secretary and based on the existing statutory qualifications, 
and who is not directly employed or receive a majority of their 
livelihood from the commercial, charter, or recreational 
fishing industry. These new seats would be covered by all 
existing disclosure and conflict of interest provisions.
    The Committee notes that the Report to Congress on 
Apportionment of Membership on the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils prepared by NMFS in January 2002 contains the 
following recommendation for the Gulf of Mexico Council: 
``Current membership appears to include members with knowledge 
and experience for most fisheries that will be involved in the 
upcoming management actions. However, sector representation is 
not in balance this year with seven recreational fishing sector 
members, three commercial fishing sector members, and one 
`other' sector member. Of the three vacancies next year, it is 
recommended that three be appointed from the commercial fishing 
sector to bring the Council into balance.''
    Despite this recommendation, the Secretary of Commerce on 
June 17, 2002, announced that the three new appointments for 
the Gulf of Mexico Council would be two representatives of the 
recreational fishing sector and one representative of the 
shrimp aquaculture industry. The Committee notes that this 
further contributes to the lack of balance noted in the January 
report to Congress. While the Committee does not address this 
lack of balance in the legislation, the Committee suggests that 
the Secretary of Commerce refer to NMFS's report to Congress 
when making any new appointments to the Gulf of Mexico Council.

Section 17. Miscellaneous amendments to purposes and policy

    This section would add the phrase ``ecologically sound'' to 
modify ``development'' in the purpose that reads ``to encourage 
the development by the United States fishing industry of 
fisheries which are currently underutilized or not utilized by 
United States fishermen, including bottom fish off Alaska, and 
to that end, ensure that optimum yield determinations promote 
such development in a non-wasteful manner. * * *''
    This section also would add the word ``restore'' after the 
phrase ``to foster'' in the current policy statement that reads 
``to foster and maintain the diversity of fisheries in the 
United States. * * *''

Section 18. Foreign fishing

    This section would add the phrase ``and compliance with and 
enforcement of international fishing agreements and treaties'' 
to make it clear that when the Secretary is making allocations 
to foreign nations from the total allowable level of foreign 
fishing that the Secretary will include in his or her 
deliberations whether the nation is in compliance with or 
enforcing existing international agreements.

Section 19. Driftnets

    This section would clarify that, in addition to the 
specifically noted resolution, the United States should 
implement and comply with any action or resolution dealing with 
large-scale driftnet fishing which is adopted by the United 
Nations and to which the U.S. is a signatory nation.

Section 20. Sources for data in fisheries research

    This section would clarify that the Secretary should make 
use of both fishery dependent and fishery independent data in 
gathering information for fisheries research.

Section 21. Miscellaneous fishery protections in fishery management 
        plans

    This section would provide Councils with the authority to 
designate closed areas, seasonal closures, time/area closures, 
gear restrictions, or other methods for limiting impacts on 
habitat, limiting bycatch impacts of gear, or limiting fishing 
impact on spawning congregations in specific geographic areas.

Section 22. Cooperative marine education and research program

    This section would authorize the Secretary to enter into 
cooperative agreements with universities and institutions of 
higher learning in order to conduct research in areas that 
support conservation and management of living marine resources. 
This section also lists the types of research which may be 
conducted under this provision.

Section 23. Assessment of cumulative impacts of conservation and 
        management measures for a fishery

    This section would amend the existing requirement that 
Councils prepare a fishery impact statement for each FMP, or 
plan amendment, to add the requirement that the Councils assess 
the cumulative impacts on the participants and fishing 
communities of conservation and management measures already 
taken for that fishery.

Section 24. Regional stock assessments

    This section makes it clear that the Secretary shall 
conduct periodic stock assessments. In conducting these stock 
assessments, the Secretary must ensure that these assessments 
are independently peer reviewed, are as transparent as 
possible, do not delay the process of providing the information 
to the Councils, and allow the regulated community to provide 
input during the process.
    If the Councils are to make conservation and management 
decisions based on sound, timely science, more information is 
needed at the beginning of the process. Sources of information 
such as that acquired through cooperative research surveys, 
better data collection by the agency, and more timely surveys 
will allow the Councils and their scientific and statistical 
committees to make more informed decisions. It is believed that 
some scientific and statistical committees are making 
recommendations to the Councils in a ``data poor'' environment. 
In addition, the recommendations of the scientific and 
statistical committees should be made available to the public.

Section 25. National Academy of Sciences guidance and standards 
        regarding best scientific information available

    This section requires the Secretary to contract with the 
National Academy of Sciences to develop guidance and standards 
for determining what should be considered ``best scientific 
information available'' for fisheries management under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The guidance and standards should be 
developed taking into consideration the need for relevance and 
timeliness of information as well as recommendations on how to 
treat the use of gray literature and anecdotal information. 
This report is due to Congress no later than one year after the 
date of enactment of this legislation.

Section 26. National Academy of Sciences definition of maximum 
        sustainable yield

    This section requires the Secretary to contract with the 
National Academy of Sciences to develop a definition of maximum 
sustainable yield (MSY) that considers environmental 
variability and to examine the use of alternatives for 
calculating sustainable harvest levels in cases where MSY 
cannot be calculated or is not appropriate.

Section 27. Administration of Pacific Insular Area Fishery Agreements

    This section would direct that payments made under a 
Pacific Insular Area Fishery Agreement would go directly to the 
area for which the agreement was entered into.

Section 28. Highly migratory species bycatch mortality reduction 
        research program

    This section establishes a pelagic longline highly 
migratory species bycatch and mortality reduction research 
program to be developed by a design team also authorized under 
this section. The program must be submitted to the Secretary 
within 120 days of the date of the first meeting of the design 
team and must include a recommendation for a statistically 
significant observer program to be paid for by NMFS. The 
program shall identify and test a variety of pelagic longline 
fishing gear configurations and place an emphasis on 
determining which configurations are the most effective in 
reducing blue and white marlin mortality in the U.S. EEZ.
    This section also would require the research program to 
determine the impact of existing time and area closures and 
focus on whether the existing closures should be modified to 
reduce bycatch by longline vessels. This section provides that 
any vessel participating in the research program shall be 
provided with an observer and the cost of the observer and any 
incidental costs to the vessel incurred as a result of being a 
part of the research program shall be paid by NMFS. This 
section allows NMFS to authorize, without notice and comment, 
research permits which allow a vessel to enter and fish in any 
existing closed area in the Atlantic Ocean provided there is 
100 percent observer coverage. Access to any closed area may be 
granted only after consideration of the scientific need for 
such access.
    This section requires that the design team be made up of no 
more than nine members, appointed by the Secretary, from 
knowledgeable members of the pelagic longline fishing sector, 
the recreational billfish and tuna sector, the conservation 
community, and scientists associated with each entity.
    This section creates two Mid-Atlantic Conservation Zones 
for Highly Migratory Species. The first zone, the Lower Mid-
Atlantic Conservation Zone, shall be closed to any person 
engaged in pelagic longline fishing from August 15 through 
October 1 each year. The second zone, the Upper Mid-Atlantic 
Conservation Zone, shall be closed to any person engaged in 
pelagic longline fishing from July 15 through September 1 each 
year. The boundaries of each conservation zone are delineated 
in this section.
    This section requires that the Secretary provide an interim 
report to the House Committee on Resources and the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation within two 
years of the date of enactment and provide a final report with 
necessary regulatory documents to initiate implementation of 
any adjustments to time and area closures, gear configurations, 
or fishing techniques warranted as a result of the research 
program.
    This section authorizes an appropriation of $5 million for 
each of the Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007.
    The potential listing of white marlin as endangered under 
the Endangered Species Act concerns the Committee because 
actions within U.S. waters and by U.S. vessels on the high seas 
have a limited impact on the species. This species is harvested 
primarily as a bycatch by a number of countries. The 
international fisheries management body which oversees the 
management of marlin species is the International Commission of 
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The last stock 
assessment by ICCAT's scientific committee assessed Atlantic 
blue marlin at 40 percent of its maximum sustainable yield 
level and Atlantic white marlin at 15 percent of its maximum 
sustainable yield level. Based on these assessments, ICCAT has 
passed recommendations (which were sponsored by the U.S. 
delegation) to promote the live release of Atlantic marlin and 
a 25 percent reduction of harvested Atlantic marlin. In 
addition, at its 2001 annual meeting, ICCAT adopted an 
additional resolution requiring nations to reduce the harvested 
level of Atlantic marlin by 50 percent of 1996 or 1999 levels, 
whichever is greater.
    The U.S. recreational and commercial industries have 
adopted measures which bring the U.S. into compliance with the 
ICCAT resolutions and should be commended for their efforts; 
however, the total U.S. catches of white marlin, including 
recreational catch (both released and harvested) and commercial 
catch by longline vessels, accounts for only a small portion of 
thespecies' total mortality in the Atlantic Ocean (including 
the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean). In fact, the U.S. fleet takes a 
small portion of the Atlantic-wide harvest (5 percent). U.S. commercial 
longline vessels have been prohibited since 1988 from landing Atlantic 
marlin and have been taking measures to release alive any hooked 
Atlantic marlin. Despite U.S. efforts, white marlin population levels 
remain a concern. Unfortunately, despite the ICCAT efforts, the vast 
majority of mortality is due to foreign longline vessels, especially 
the European Union/Spanish longline fleet. The Committee notes that it 
plans further hearings on this issue and may pursue additional 
legislation to address this international problem.

Section 29. Authorization of appropriations

    This section would authorize appropriations for Fiscal 
Years 2003 through 2007 at the levels noted below:

Fiscal Year
    2003................................................    $200,500,000
    2004................................................     214,000,000
    2005................................................     222,000,000
    2006................................................     230,000,000
    2007................................................     238,000,000

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                  Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    The functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized 
in the bill are not currently being nor could they be performed 
by one or more agencies, an advisory committee already in 
existence or by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory 
committee.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. The Committee on Resources 
believes that enactment of this bill will not have a 
significant effect on the total budget of the United States. 
The bill authorizes appropriations of $1.1135 billion over five 
years.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures. The 
Committee notes that section 12 of the bill authorizes fees for 
individual quotas and that the Secretary of Commerce may retain 
and expend these fees. The Committee believes that the 
collection and expenditure of these fees will have a negligible 
impact on the federal budget.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost 
estimate for this bill from the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

              SECTION 102 OF THE SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT


SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended--
          (1) * * *
          (2) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated)--
                  (A) by striking ``[COELENTERATA] 
                Coelenterata'' from the heading of the list of 
                corals and inserting ``[CNIDARIA] Cnidaria''; 
                and
                  (B) in the list appearing under the heading 
                ``[CRUSTACEA] Crustacea'', by striking ``Deep-
                sea Red Crab--Geryon quinquedens'' and 
                inserting ``Deep-sea Red Crab--Chaceon 
                quinquedens'';

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (11) by striking ``for which a fishery management 
        plan prepared under title III or a preliminary fishery 
        management plan prepared under section 201(g) has been 
        implemented'' in paragraph [(42)] (43) (as 
        redesignated) and inserting ``regulated under this 
        Act''; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


        MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
Act may be cited as the ``Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act''.

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and policy.
     * * * * * * *

                TITLE IV--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Sec. 401. Registration and information management.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 408. Gear development.
Sec. 409. Regional stock assessments.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES AND POLICY.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Purposes.--It is therefore declared to be the purposes of 
the Congress in this Act--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) to encourage the ecologically sound development 
        by the United States fishing industry of fisheries 
        which are currently underutilized or not utilized by 
        United States fishermen, including bottom fish off 
        Alaska, and to that end, to ensure that optimum yield 
        determinations promote such development in a non-
        wasteful manner; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Policy.--It is further declared to be the policy of the 
Congress in this Act--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) to foster, restore, and maintain the diversity of 
        fisheries in the United States; [and]
          (7) to ensure that the fishery resources adjacent to 
        a Pacific Insular Area, including resident or migratory 
        stocks within the exclusive economic zone adjacent to 
        such areas, be explored, developed, conserved, and 
        managed for the benefit of the people of such area and 
        of the United States[.]; and
          (8) to support and encourage efforts to understand 
        the interactions of species in the marine environment 
        and the development of ecosystem-based approaches to 
        fisheries conservation and management that will lead to 
        better stewardship and sustainability of the Nation's 
        coastal fishery resources and fishing communities.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  (a) General Definitions.--As used in this Act, unless the 
context otherwise requires--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (19) The term ``habitat area of particular concern'' 
        means a discrete habitat area that is essential fish 
        habitat and that--
                  (A) provides important ecological functions;
                  (B) is sensitive to human-induced 
                environmental degradation; or
                  (C) is a rare habitat type.
          [(19)] (20) The term ``high seas'' means all waters 
        beyond the territorial sea of the United States and 
        beyond any foreign nation's territorial sea, to the 
        extent that such sea is recognized by the United 
        States.
          [(20)] (21) The term ``highly migratory species'' 
        means tuna species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and 
        Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istiophorus 
        spp.), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius).
          [(21)] (22) The term ``individual fishing quota'' 
        means a Federal permit under a limited access system to 
        harvest a quantity of fish, expressed by a unit or 
        units representing a percentage of the total allowable 
        catch of a fishery that may be received or held for 
        exclusive use by a person. Such term does not include 
        community development quotas as described in section 
        305(i).
          [(22)] (23) The term ``international fishery 
        agreement'' means any bilateral or multilateral treaty, 
        convention, or agreement which relates to fishing and 
        to which the United States is a party.
          [(23)] (24) The term ``large-scale driftnet fishing'' 
        means a method of fishing in which a gillnet composed 
        of a panel or panels of webbing, or a series of such 
        gillnets, with a total length of two and one-half 
        kilometers or more is placed in the water and allowed 
        to drift with the currents and winds for the purpose of 
        entangling fish in the webbing.
          [(24)] (25) The term ``Marine Fisheries Commission'' 
        means the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 
        the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, or the 
        Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission.
          [(25)] (26) The term ``migratory range'' means the 
        maximum area at a given time of the year within which 
        fish of an anadromous species or stock thereof can be 
        expected to be found, as determined on the basis of 
        scale pattern analysis, tagging studies, or other 
        reliable scientific information, except that the term 
        does not include any part of such area which is in the 
        waters of a foreign nation.
          [(26)] (27) The term ``national standards'' means the 
        national standards for fishery conservation and 
        management set forth in section 301.
          [(27)] (28) The term ``observer'' means any person 
        required or authorized to be carried on a vessel for 
        conservation and management purposes by regulations or 
        permits under this Act.
          [(28)] (29) The term ``optimum'', with respect to the 
        yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(29) The terms ``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' 
        mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that 
        jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the 
        maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.]
          (30)(A) The term ``overfished'' means, with respect 
        to a stock of fish, that the stock is of a size that is 
        below the natural range of fluctuation associated with 
        the production of maximum sustainable yield.
          (B) The term ``overfishing'' means a rate or level of 
        fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a 
        fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a 
        continuing basis.
          [(30)] (31) The term ``Pacific Insular Area'' means 
        American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, 
        Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston 
        Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Wake Island, or 
        Palmyra Atoll, as applicable, and includes all islands 
        and reefs appurtenant to such island, reef, or atoll.
          [(31)] (32) The term ``person'' means any individual 
        (whether or not a citizen or national of the United 
        States), any corporation, partnership, association, or 
        other entity (whether or not organized or existing 
        under the laws of any State), and any Federal, State, 
        local, or foreign government or any entity of any such 
        government.
          [(32)] (33) The term ``recreational fishing'' means 
        fishing for sport or pleasure.
          [(33)] (34) The term ``regulatory discards'' means 
        fish harvested in a fishery which fishermen are 
        required by regulation to discard whenever caught, or 
        are required by regulation to retain but not sell.
          [(34)] (35) The term ``Secretary'' means the 
        Secretary of Commerce or his designee.
          [(35) The term ``special areas'' means the areas 
        referred to as eastern special areas in Article 3(1) of 
        the Agreement between the United States of America and 
        the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime 
        Boundary, signed June 1, 1990; in particular, the term 
        refers to those areas east of the maritime boundary, as 
        defined in that Agreement, that lie within 200 nautical 
        miles of the baselines from which the breadth of the 
        territorial sea of Russia is measured but beyond 200 
        nautical miles of the baselines from which the breadth 
        of the territorial sea of the United States is 
        measured.
          [(36) The term ``special areas'' means the areas 
        referred to as eastern special areas in Article 3(1) of 
        the Agreement between the United States of America and 
        the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime 
        Boundary, signed June 1, 1990. In particular, the term 
        refers to those areas east of the maritime boundary, as 
        defined in that Agreement, that lie within 200 nautical 
        miles of the baselines from which the breadth of the 
        territorial sea of Russia is measured but beyond 200 
        nautical miles of the baselines from which the breadth 
        of the territorial sea of the United States is 
        measured.]
          [(37)] (36) The term ``State'' means each of the 
        several States, the District of Columbia, the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin 
        Islands, Guam, and any other Commonwealth, territory, 
        or possession of the United States.
          [(38)] (37) The term ``stock of fish'' means a 
        species, subspecies, geographical grouping, or other 
        category of fish capable of management as a unit.
          [(39)] (38) The term ``treaty'' means any 
        international fishery agreement which is a treaty 
        within the meaning of section 2 of article II of the 
        Constitution.
          [(40)] (39) The term ``tuna species'' means the 
        following:
                  Albacore Tuna--Thunnus alalunga;
                  Bigeye Tuna--Thunnus obesus;
                  Bluefin Tuna--Thunnus thynnus;
                  Skipjack Tuna--Katsuwonus pelamis; and
                  Yellowfin Tuna--Thunnus albacares.
          [(41)] (40) The term ``United States'', when used in 
        a geographical context, means all the States thereof.
          [(42)] (41) The term ``United States fish 
        processors'' means facilities located within the United 
        States for, and vessels of the United States used or 
        equipped for, the processing of fish for commercial use 
        or consumption.
          [(43)] (42) The term ``United States harvested fish'' 
        means fish caught, taken, or harvested by vessels of 
        the United States within any fishery for which a 
        fishery management plan prepared under title III or a 
        preliminary fishery management plan prepared under 
        section 201(h) has been implemented.
          [(44)] (43) The term ``vessel subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the United States'' has the same 
        meaning such term has in section 3(c) of the Maritime 
        Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1903(c)).
          [(45)] (44) The term ``vessel of the United States'' 
        means--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(33)] (45) The term ``waters of a foreign nation'' 
        means any part of the territorial sea or exclusive 
        economic zone (or the equivalent) of a foreign nation, 
        to the extent such territorial sea or exclusive 
        economic zone is recognized by the United States.
  (b) Terms Relating to Agreement With the Former Soviet 
Union.--As used in this Act the term ``special areas'' means 
the areas referred to as eastern special areas in Article 3(1) 
of the Agreement between the United States of America and the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary, 
signed June 1, 1990. In particular, the term refers to those 
areas east of the maritime boundary, as defined in that 
Agreement, that lie within 200 nautical miles of the baselines 
from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Russia is 
measured but beyond 200 nautical miles of the baselines from 
which the breadth of the territorial sea of the United States 
is measured.

[SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act, not to 
exceed the following sums:
          [(1) $147,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          [(2) $151,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          [(3) $155,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
          [(4) $159,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.]

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act, not to 
exceed the following:
          (1) $200,500,000 for fiscal year 2003;
          (2) $214,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
          (3) $222,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (4) $230,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          (5) $238,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

TITLE I--UNITED STATES RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY REGARDING FISH AND FISHERY 
RESOURCES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 102. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES.

  (a) In General.--The United States shall cooperate directly 
or through appropriate international organizations with those 
nations involved in fisheries for highly migratory species with 
a view to ensuring conservation and shall promote the 
achievement of optimum yield of such species throughout their 
range, both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone.
  (b) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall, within one year 
after the date of the enactment of this subsection and annually 
thereafter, report to the Congress on--
          (1) any nation that is fishing for Atlantic highly 
        migratory species and is not in compliance with the 
        fishery conservation and management provisions or any 
        rebuilding recommendations or provisions enacted by the 
        international body charged with developing such 
        measures; and
          (2) any recommendations for addressing those nations 
        identified under paragraph (1) and actions the United 
        States might take to ensure such compliance by such 
        nations.

     TITLE II--FOREIGN FISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS

SEC. 201. FOREIGN FISHING.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Allocation of Allowable Level.--(1)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (E) The determinations required to be made under 
subparagraphs (A) and (D)(ii), and the apportionments required 
to be made under subparagraph (C), with respect to a foreign 
nation shall be based on--
          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (iii) whether, and to what extent, such nation and 
        the fishing fleets of such nation have cooperated with 
        the United States in the enforcement of United States 
        fishing regulations and compliance with and enforcement 
        of international fishing agreements and treaties;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (vii) whether, and to what extent, such nation is 
        cooperating with the United States in, and making 
        substantial contributions to, fishery research, 
        conservation, and the identification of fishery 
        resources; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 204. PERMITS FOR FOREIGN FISHING.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Pacific Insular Areas.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) Use of payments by american samoa, guam, northern 
        mariana islands.--Any payments received by the 
        Secretary under a Pacific Insular Area fishery 
        agreement for American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern 
        Mariana Islands shall be deposited into the [United 
        States Treasury and then covered over to the] Treasury 
        of the Pacific Insular Area for which those funds were 
        collected. Amounts deposited in the Treasury of a 
        Pacific Insular Area shall be available, without 
        appropriation or fiscal year limitation, to the 
        Governor of the Pacific Insular Area--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 206. LARGE-SCALE DRIFTNET FISHING.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Policy.--It is declared to be the policy of the Congress 
in this section that the United States should--
          (1) implement the moratorium called for by the United 
        Nations General Assembly in Resolution Numbered 44-225 
        and comply with any further action or resolution 
        adopted by the United Nations on large-scale driftnet 
        fishing to which the United States is a signatory;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 302. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS.

  (a) Establishment.--(1) There shall be established, within 
120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, eight 
Regional Fishery Management Councils, as follows:
          (A) New england council.--The New England Fishery 
        Management Council shall consist of the States of 
        Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode 
        Island, and Connecticut and shall have authority over 
        the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such 
        States (except as provided in paragraph (3)). The New 
        England Council shall have [18] 20 voting members, 
        including [12] 13 appointed by the Secretary in 
        accordance with subsection (b)(2) (at least one of whom 
        shall be appointed from each such State) and including 
        one appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 
        subsection (b)(6).
          (B) Mid-atlantic council.--The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
        Management Council shall consist of the States of New 
        York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
        Virginia, and North Carolina and shall have authority 
        over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of 
        such States (except North Carolina, and as provided in 
        paragraph (3)). The Mid-Atlantic Council shall have 
        [21] 22 voting members, including [13] 14 appointed by 
        the Secretary in accordance with subsection (b)(2) (at 
        lease one of whom shall be appointed from each such 
        State) and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
        accordance with subsection (b)(6).
          (C) South atlantic council.--The South Atlantic 
        Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States 
        of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida 
        and shall have authority over the fisheries in the 
        Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States (except as 
        provided in paragraph (3)). The South Atlantic Council 
        shall have [13] 14 voting members, including [8] 9 
        appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 
        subsection (b)(2) (at least one of whom shall be 
        appointed from each such State) and including one 
        appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 
        subsection (b)(6).
          (D) Caribbean council.--The Caribbean Fishery 
        Management Council shall consist of the Virgin Islands 
        and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and shall have 
        authority over the fisheries in the Caribbean Sea and 
        Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States (except as 
        provided in paragraph (3)). The Caribbean Council shall 
        have [7] 8 voting members, including [4] 5 appointed by 
        the Secretary in accordance with subsection (b)(2) (at 
        least one of whom shall be appointed from each such 
        State) and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
        accordance with subsection (b)(6).
          (E) Gulf council.--The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
        Management Council shall consist of the States of 
        Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and 
        shall have authority over the fisheries in the Gulf of 
        Mexico seaward of such States (except as provided in 
        paragraph (3)). The Gulf Council shall have [17] 18 
        voting members, including [11] 12 appointed by the 
        Secretary in accordance with subsection (b)(2) (at 
        least one of whom shall be appointed from each such 
        State) and including one appointed by the Secretary in 
        accordance with subsection (b)(6).
                  (F) Pacific council.--The Pacific Fishery 
                Management Council shall consist of the States 
                of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho 
                and shall have authority over the fisheries in 
                the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States. The 
                Pacific Council shall have [14] 15 voting 
                members, including [8] 9 appointed by the 
                Secretary in accordance with subsection (b)(2) 
                (at least one of whom shall be appointed from 
                each such State), and including one appointed 
                by the Secretary from an Indian tribe with 
                Federally recognized fishing rights from 
                California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho in 
                accordance with subsection (b)(5) and one 
                appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 
                subsection (b)(6).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (H) Western pacific council.--The Western Pacific 
        Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States 
        of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 
        Mariana Islands and shall have authority over the 
        fisheries in the Pacific Ocean seaward of such States 
        and of the Commonwealths, territories, and possessions 
        of the United States in the Pacific Ocean area. The 
        Western Pacific Council shall have [13] 14 voting 
        members, including [8] 9 appointed by the Secretary in 
        accordance with subsection (b)(2) (at least one of whom 
        shall be appointed from each of the following States: 
        Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana 
        Islands) and including one appointed by the Secretary 
        in accordance with subsection (b)(6).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Voting Members.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (6) The member of each Council who is required to be 
appointed in accordance with this paragraph--
          (A) shall not be an individual who is directly 
        employed by, or receives a majority of his or her 
        livelihood from, the commercial, charter, or 
        recreational fishing community; and
          (B) shall be appointed without regard to 
        subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2).
          [(6)] (7) The Secretary may remove for cause any 
        member of a Council required to be appointed by the 
        Secretary in accordance with [paragraphs (2) or (5)] 
        paragraph (2), (5), or (6) if--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS.

  (a) Required Provisions.--Any fishery management plan which 
is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect 
to any fishery, shall--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(7) describe and identify essential fish habitat for 
        the fishery based on the guidelines established by the 
        Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to the 
        extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat 
        caused by fishing, and identify other actions to 
        encourage the conservation and enhancement of such 
        habitat;]
          (7)(A) describe and identify essential fish habitat 
        for the fishery based on the guidelines established by 
        the Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A);
          (B) minimize to the extent practicable adverse 
        effects on such habitat caused by fishing for those 
        fisheries identified by the Council as having available 
        information on the growth, reproduction, or survival 
        rates within habitats or production rates by habitat, 
        or for those fisheries that the Council determines the 
        specific fishing activity effects on the essential fish 
        habitat jeopardize the ability of the fishery to 
        produce maximum sustained yield on a continuing basis;
          (C) minimize to the extent practicable adverse 
        effects on habitat areas of particular concern caused 
        by fishing; and
          (D) identify other actions to encourage the 
        conservation and enhancement of such habitat;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (9) include a fishery impact statement for the plan 
        or amendment (in the case of a plan or amendment 
        thereto submitted to or prepared by the Secretary after 
        October 1, 1990) which shall assess, specify, and 
        describe the likely effects, if any, of the 
        conservation and management measures on--
                  (A) participants in the fisheries and fishing 
                communities affected by the plan or amendment, 
                as well as the cumulative impacts on such 
                participants and communities of conservation 
                and management measures for that fishery under 
                other fishery management plans and regulations; 
                and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (11) [establish a standardized reporting methodology 
        to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in 
        the fishery, and] include conservation and management 
        measures that, to the extent practicable and in the 
        following priority--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Discretionary Provisions.--Any fishery management plan 
which is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with 
respect to any fishery, may--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(6) establish a limited access system for the 
        fishery in order to achieve optimum yields if, in 
        developing such system, the Council and the Secretary 
        take into account--
                  [(A) present participation in the fishery,
                  [(B) historical fishing practices in, and 
                dependence on, the fishery,
                  [(C) the economics of the fishery,
                  [(D) the capability of fishing vessels used 
                in the fishery to engage in other fisheries,
                  [(E) the cultural and social framework 
                relevant to the fishery and any affected 
                fishing communities, and
                  [(F) any other relevant considerations;]
          (6) establish a limited access system for the fishery 
        in order to achieve optimum yields, if--
                  (A) in developing such system, the Councils 
                and the Secretary take into account--
                          (i) the need to promote conservation,
                          (ii) present participation in the 
                        fishery,
                          (iii) historical fishing practices 
                        in, and dependence on, the fishery,
                          (iv) the economics of the fishery,
                          (v) the capability of fishing vessels 
                        used in the fishery to engage in other 
                        fisheries,
                          (vi) the cultural and social 
                        framework relevant to the fishery and 
                        fishing communities, and
                          (vii) any other relevant 
                        considerations; and
                  (B) in the case of such a system that 
                provides for the allocation and issuance of 
                individual quotas (as that term is defined in 
                subsection (d)), the system complies with 
                subsection (d).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (11) reserve a portion of the allowable biological 
        catch of the fishery for use in scientific research; 
        [and]
          (12) prescribe such other measures, requirements, or 
        conditions and restrictions as are determined to be 
        necessary and appropriate for the conservation and 
        management of the fishery[.] or for the health or 
        stability of the marine ecosystem;
          (13) allow the retention and donation for charitable 
        purposes of all dead bycatch that cannot otherwise be 
        avoided under terms that ensure, through the use of 
        onboard fishery observers or other equally effective 
        means, that such retention and donation do not allow 
        the evasion of vessel trip limits, total allowable 
        catch levels, or other conservation and management 
        measures;
          (14) minimize to the extent practicable adverse 
        effects caused by fishing, on essential fish habitat 
        described and identified under section 303(a)(7)(A);
          (15) include provisions to create a cooperative 
        research component including the use of commercial or 
        charter vessels for the gathering of data on stock 
        abundance, composition, distribution, or other relevant 
        information important for the implementation of the 
        plan; and
          (16) designate closed areas, seasonal closures, time/
        area closures, gear restrictions, or other methods for 
        limiting impacts on habitat, limiting bycatch impacts 
        of gear, or limiting fishing impact on spawning 
        congregations in specific geographic areas.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Individual Fishing Quotas.--
          [(1)(A) A Council may not submit and the Secretary 
        may not approve or implement before October 1, 2002, 
        any fishery management plan, plan amendment, or 
        regulation under this Act which creates a new 
        individual fishing quota program.
          [(B) Any fishery management plan, plan amendment, or 
        regulation approved by the Secretary on or after 
        January 4, 1995, which creates any new individual 
        fishing quota program shall be repealed and immediately 
        returned by the Secretary to the appropriate Council 
        and shall not be resubmitted, reapproved, or 
        implemented during the moratorium set forth in 
        subparagraph (A).]
  (d) Special Provisions for Individual Quota Systems.--(1) A 
fishery management plan for a fishery that is managed under a 
limited access system authorized by subsection (b)(6) may 
establish an individual quota system for the fishery in 
accordance with this subsection.
  (2) A fishery management plan that establishes an individual 
quota system for a fishery--
          (A) shall provide for administration of the system by 
        the Secretary in accordance with the terms of the plan;
          (B) shall include provisions that establish 
        procedures and requirements for each Council having 
        authority over the fishery, for--
                  (i) reviewing and revising the terms of the 
                plan that establish the system; and
                  (ii) renewing, reallocating, and reissuing 
                individual quotas if determined appropriate by 
                each Council;
          (C) shall include provisions to--
                  (i) provide for fair and equitable allocation 
                of individual quotas under the system, and 
                minimize negative social and economic impacts 
                of the system on fishing communities;
                  (ii) ensure adequate enforcement of the 
                system, including the use of observers where 
                appropriate; and
                  (iii) provide for monitoring the temporary or 
                permanent transfer of individual quotas under 
                the system;
          (D) shall include provisions that prevent any person 
        from acquiring an excessive share of individual quotas 
        issued for a fishery; and
          (E) shall include measurable conservation goals.
  (3) An individual quota issued under an individual quota 
system established by a fishery management plan may be 
received, held, or transferred in accordance with regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary under this Act.
  (4)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, any 
fishery management plan that establishes an individual quota 
system for a fishery may authorize individual quotas to be held 
by or issued under the system to fishing vessel owners, 
fishermen, crew members, fishing communities, other persons as 
specified by the Council and United States fish processors 
under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council.
  (B) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States 
may not hold an individual quota issued under a fishery 
management plan.
  (C) A Federal agency or official may not hold, administer, or 
reallocate an individual quota issued under a fishery 
management plan, other than the Secretary and the Council 
having authority over the fishery for which the individual 
quota is issued.
  (D)(i) A fishing community may not hold individual quotas 
under an individual quota system established under this 
subsection for a fishery that authorize harvest of more than 
the lesser of--
          (I) 1 percent of the total authorized harvest in the 
        fishery; or
          (II) a percentage of such total authorized harvest 
        established by the Council having jurisdiction over the 
        fishery.
  (ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a community that is 
eligible to participate in the western Alaska community 
development program or the western Pacific community 
development program, under section 305(i).
  (5) Any fishery management plan that establishes an 
individual quota system for a fishery may include provisions 
that--
          (A) allocate individual quotas under the system among 
        categories of vessels; and
          (B) provide a portion of the annual harvest in the 
        fishery for entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners, 
        or crew members who do not hold or qualify for 
        individual quotas.
  (6) An individual quota system established for a fishery may 
be limited or terminated at any time by the Secretary or 
through a fishery management plan or amendment developed by the 
Council having authority over the fishery for which it is 
established, if necessary for the conservation and management 
of the fishery.
  (7)(A) A fishery management plan that establishes an 
individual quota system for a fishery--
          (i) must include measurable conservation goals; and
          (ii) to monitor achievement of such goals, may 
        require greater observer coverage or electronic data 
        collection technology on any vessel fishing under an 
        individual quota issued under the system.
  (B) Not later than 5 years after the date of the 
establishment of an individual quota system for a fishery under 
this section by a Council or the Secretary, and every 5 years 
thereafter, the Council or Secretary, respectively, shall 
review the effectiveness of the system in achieving the 
conservation goals required under this paragraph.
  (8)(A) The Secretary or a Council--
          (i) may not develop a proposal to establish an 
        individual quota system for a fishery, unless 
        development of the proposal has been approved by a 
        referendum conducted in accordance with this paragraph; 
        and
          (ii) may not issue a proposed fishery management plan 
        or amendment to such a plan to establish such a system 
        unless the proposed plan or amendment, respectively, 
        has been approved by a referendum conducted in 
        accordance with this paragraph.
  (B) The Secretary, at the request of a Council, shall conduct 
the referenda required by subparagraph (A). Each referendum 
with respect to a fishery shall be decided by a 60-percent 
majority of the votes cast by persons who are determined by the 
Council, based on guidelines developed by the Secretary, to be 
eligible to vote in the referendum.
  (C) The Secretary shall develop guidelines to determine 
procedures and voting eligibility requirements for referenda 
and to conduct such referenda in a fair and equitable manner.
  (9) Any individual quota system established under section 
303(b)(6) after the date of enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act Amendments of 2002, and any individual quota issued under 
such a system, shall not apply after the end of the 10-year 
period beginning on the date the system is established, or 
after the end of any 10-year period thereafter, unless the 
Council has reviewed and taken affirmative action to continue 
the system before the end of each such 10-year period.
  [(2)] (10)(A) No provision of law shall be construed to limit 
the authority of a Council to submit and the Secretary to 
approve the termination or limitation, without compensation to 
holders of any limited access system permits, of a fishery 
management plan, plan amendment, or regulation that provides 
for a limited access system, including an individual fishing 
quota program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(3)] (11) An individual fishing quota or other limited 
access system authorization--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) may be revoked or limited at any time in 
                accordance with this Act, including as a result 
                of a violation of this Act or any regulation 
                prescribed under this Act;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(4)] (12)(A) A Council may submit, and the Secretary may 
approve and implement, a program which reserves up to 25 
percent of any fees collected from a fishery under section 
304(d)(2) to be used, pursuant to section 1104A(a)(7) of the 
Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1274(a)(7)), to issue 
obligations that aid in financing the--
                  (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(5)] (13) In submitting and approving any new individual 
fishing quota program on or after October 1, 2002, the Councils 
and the Secretary shall consider the report of the National 
Academy of Sciences required under section 108(f) of the 
Sustainable Fisheries Act, and any recommendations contained in 
such report, and shall ensure that any such program--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (14) As used in this subsection:
          (A) The term ``individual quota system'' means a 
        system that limits access to a fishery in order to 
        achieve optimum yields, through the allocation and 
        issuance of individual quotas.
          (B) The term ``individual quota'' means a grant of 
        permission to harvest a quantity of fish in a fishery 
        or process such fish which are under the jurisdiction 
        of the North Pacific Management Council, during each 
        fishing season for which the permission is granted, 
        equal to a stated percentage of the total allowable 
        catch for the fishery.

SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Establishment of Fees.--(1) * * *
          (2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary 
        is authorized and shall collect a fee to recover the 
        actual costs directly related to the management and 
        enforcement of [any--
                  [(i) individual fishing quota program; and
                  [(ii)] any community development quota 
                program that allocates a percentage of the 
                total allowable catch of a fishery to such 
                program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
collect from a person that holds or transfers an individual 
quota issued under a limited access system established under 
section 303(b)(6) fees established by the Secretary in 
accordance with this section and section 9701(b) of title 31, 
United States Code.
  (B) The fees required to be established and collected by the 
Secretary under this paragraph are the following:
          (i) With respect to any initial allocation under a 
        limited access system established after the date of the 
        enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 
        2002, an initial allocation fee in an amount, 
        determined by the Secretary, equal to 1 percent of the 
        ex-vessel value of fish authorized in one year under an 
        individual quota, that shall be collected from the 
        person to whom the individual quota is first issued.
          (ii) An annual fee in an amount, determined by the 
        Secretary, not to exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel 
        value of fish authorized each year under an individual 
        quota share, that shall be collected from the holder of 
        the individual quota share.
          (iii) A transfer fee in an amount, determined by the 
        Secretary, equal to 1 percent of the ex-vessel value of 
        fish authorized each year under an individual quota 
        share, that shall be collected from a person who 
        permanently transfers the individual quota share to 
        another person.
  (C) In determining the amount of a fee under this paragraph, 
the Secretary shall ensure that the amount is commensurate with 
the cost of managing the fishery with respect to which the fee 
is collected, including reasonable costs for salaries, data 
analysis, and other costs directly related to fishery 
management and enforcement.
  (D) The Secretary, in consultation with the Councils, shall 
promulgate regulations prescribing the method of determining 
under this paragraph the ex-vessel value of fish authorized 
under an individual quota share, the amount of fees, and the 
method of collecting fees.
  (E) Fees collected under this paragraph from holders of 
individual quotas in a fishery shall be an offsetting 
collection and shall be available to the Secretary only for the 
purposes of administering and implementing this Act with 
respect to that fishery.
  (e) Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries.--
          (1) The Secretary shall report annually to the 
        Congress and the Councils on the status of fisheries 
        within each Council's geographical area of authority 
        and identify those fisheries that are overfished or are 
        approaching a condition of being overfished. For those 
        fisheries managed under a fishery management plan or 
        international agreement, the status shall be determined 
        using the criteria for overfishing specified in such 
        plan or agreement. A fishery shall be classified as 
        approaching a condition of being overfished if, based 
        on trends in fishing effort, fishery resource size, and 
        other appropriate factors, the Secretary estimates that 
        the fishery will become overfished within two years. 
        The report shall distinguish between fisheries that are 
        overfished (or approaching that condition) as a result 
        of fishing and fisheries that are overfished (or 
        approaching that condition) as a result of factors 
        other than fishing. The report shall state, for each 
        fishery identified as overfished or approaching that 
        condition, whether the fishery is the target of 
        directed fishing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Mid-atlantic conservation zone for highly 
        migratory species.--
                  (A) No person shall engage in pelagic 
                longline fishing--
                          (i) in the lower mid-Atlantic 
                        Conservation Zone in the period 
                        beginning August 15 and ending October 
                        1 each year; or
                          (ii) in the upper mid-Atlantic 
                        Conservation Zone in the period 
                        beginning July 15 and ending September 
                        1 each year.
                  (B) In this paragraph the term ``lower mid-
                Atlantic Conservation Zone'' means the area 
                that is enclosed by a series of geodesics 
                connecting in succession the points at the 
                following coordinates:
                          (i) 36 degrees 30 minutes north 
                        latitude, 75 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (ii) 37 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 75 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (iii) 38 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 74 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (iv) 38 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 73 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (v) 37 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 74 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (vi) 36 degrees 30 minutes north 
                        latitude, 75 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                  (C) In this paragraph the term ``upper mid-
                Atlantic Conservation Zone'' means the area 
                that is enclosed by a series of geodesics 
                connecting in succession the points at the 
                following coordinates:
                          (i) 38 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 74 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (ii) 40 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 72 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (iii) 39 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 72 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (iv) 38 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 73 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                          (v) 38 degrees 0 minutes north 
                        latitude, 74 degrees 0 minutes west 
                        longitude.
                  (D) This paragraph shall not apply after the 
                end of the 4-year period beginning on the date 
                of the enactment of this paragraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Development of Bycatch Reporting Methodologies.--The 
Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Councils, develop 
bycatch reporting methodologies to assess the amount and type 
of bycatch occurring in United States fisheries.
  (j) Action on Limited Access Systems.--(1) In addition to the 
other requirements of this Act, after the date of the enactment 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 2002 the Secretary 
may not approve a fishery management plan that establishes a 
limited access system that provides for the allocation of 
individual quotas (in this subsection referred to as an 
``individual quota system'') unless the plan complies with 
section 303(d).
  (2) The Secretary shall issue regulations that establish 
requirements for establishing an individual quota system. The 
regulations shall--
          (A) specify factors that shall be considered by a 
        Council in determining whether a fishery should be 
        managed under an individual quota system;
          (B) ensure that any individual quota system is 
        consistent with the requirements of sections 303(a) and 
        303(d), and require the collection of fees in 
        accordance with subsection (d)(3) of this section;
          (C) provide for appropriate penalties for violations 
        of individual quotas systems, including the suspension 
        or revocation of individual quotas for such violations;
          (D) include recommendations for potential management 
        options related to individual quotas, including the 
        authorization of individual quotas that may not be 
        transferred by the holder, and the use of leases or 
        auctions by the Federal Government in the establishment 
        or allocation of individual quotas; and
          (E) establish a central lien registry system for the 
        identification, perfection, and determination of lien 
        priorities, and nonjudicial foreclosure of 
        encumbrances, on individual quotas.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 307. PROHIBITED ACTS.

  It is unlawful--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) for any fishing vessel other than a vessel of the 
        United States to operate, and for the owner or operator 
        of a fishing vessel other than a vessel of the United 
        States to operate such vessel, in the exclusive 
        economic zone or within the boundaries of any State or 
        special areas, if--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        unless such vessel is authorized to engage in fishing 
        in the area in which the vessel is operating; [and]
          (5) for any vessel of the United States, and for the 
        owner or operator of any vessel of the United States, 
        to engage in fishing in the waters of a foreign nation 
        in a manner that violates an international fishery 
        agreement between that nation and the United States 
        that has been subject to Congressional oversight in the 
        manner described in section 203, or any regulations 
        issued to implement such an agreement; except that the 
        binding provisions of such agreement and implementing 
        regulations shall have been published in the Federal 
        Register prior to such violation[.]; and
          (6) to sell or purchase any fish caught in 
        recreational fishing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 312. TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Fishing Capacity Reduction Program.--(1) The Secretary[, 
at the request of the appropriate Council for fisheries under 
the authority of such Council, or the Governor of a State for 
fisheries under State authority,] may conduct a fishing 
capacity reduction program (referred to in this section as the 
``program'') in a fishery that is managed under a limited 
access system authorized by section 303(b)(6), if the Secretary 
determines that the program--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(2) The objective of the program shall be to obtain the 
maximum sustained reduction in fishing capacity at the least 
cost and in a minimum period of time. To achieve that 
objective, the Secretary is authorized to pay--
          [(A) the owner of a fishing vessel, if such vessel is 
        (i) scrapped, or (ii) through the Secretary of the 
        department in which the Coast Guard is operating, 
        subjected to title restrictions that permanently 
        prohibit and effectively prevent its use in fishing, 
        and if the permit authorizing the participation of the 
        vessel in the fishery is surrendered for permanent 
        revocation and the owner relinquishes any claim 
        associated with the vessel and permit that could 
        qualify such owner for any present or future limited 
        access system permit in the fishery for which the 
        program is established; or
          [(B) the holder of a permit authorizing participation 
        in the fishery, if such permit is surrendered for 
        permanent revocation, and such holder relinquishes any 
        claim associated with the permit and vessel used to 
        harvest fishery resources under the permit that could 
        qualify such holder for any present or future limited 
        access system permit in the fishery for which the 
        program was established.]
  (2)(A) The objective of the program shall be to obtain the 
maximum sustained reduction in fishing capacity at the least 
cost and in a minimum period of time.
  (B) To achieve that objective, the Secretary is authorized to 
pay an amount to the owner of a fishing vessel, if--
          (i) such vessel is scrapped, or through the Secretary 
        of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
        operating, subjected to title restrictions that 
        permanently prohibit and effectively prevent its use in 
        fishing;
          (ii) all permits authorizing the participation of the 
        vessel in any fishery under the jurisdiction of the 
        United States are surrendered for permanent revocation; 
        and
          (iii) the owner of the vessel and such permits 
        relinquishes any claim associated with the vessel and 
        such permits that could qualify such owner for any 
        present or future limited access system permit in the 
        fishery for which the program is established.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) The Council, or the Governor of a State, having authority 
over a fishery may request the Secretary to conduct a fishing 
capacity reduction program in the fishery under this 
subsection.
  [(4)] (5) The Secretary shall consult, as appropriate, with 
Councils, Federal agencies, State and regional authorities, 
affected fishing communities, participants in the fishery, 
conservation organizations, and other interested parties 
throughout the development and implementation of any program 
under this section.
  (6) The Secretary may not make a payment under paragraph (2) 
with respect to a vessel that will not be scrapped, unless the 
Secretary certifies that the vessel will not be used for any 
fishing, including fishing in the waters of a foreign nation 
and fishing on the high seas.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 402. INFORMATION COLLECTION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Collection of Recreational Catch Data.--(1) The Secretary 
shall develop and implement a program for the sharing of 
recreational catch data for all federally managed fisheries 
through the use of information gathered from State-licensed 
recreational fishermen.
  (2) The Secretary shall conduct the program in consultation 
with the principle State officials having marine fishery 
management responsibility and expertise.
  (3) The Secretary shall report to the Congress within three 
years after the effective date of this subsection, on--
          (A) the progress made in developing such a program; 
        and
          (B) whether the program has resulted in significantly 
        better data collection for the recreational fishing 
        sector.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 404. FISHERIES RESEARCH.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall initiate and maintain, 
in cooperation with the Councils, a comprehensive program of 
fishery research to carry out and further the purposes, policy, 
and provisions of this Act. Such program shall be designed to 
acquire knowledge and information, including statistics, on 
fishery conservation and management and on the economics and 
social characteristics of the fisheries. The program shall 
acquire such knowledge and data using both fishery-dependent 
and fishery-independent data sources.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Areas of Research.--Areas of research are as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The interaction of species in the marine 
        environment, and the development of ecosystem-based 
        approaches to fishery conservation and management that 
        will lead to better stewardship and sustainability of 
        coastal fishery resources.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Priority for Research Regarding Overfished Fisheries.--In 
carrying out or funding fisheries research under this and other 
laws regarding essential fish habitat, the Secretary shall give 
priority to research to identify such habitat for fisheries 
that are overfished or approaching an overfished condition.
  (f) Black Sea Bass Cooperative Research Program.--The 
Secretary, through the New England Fisheries Science Center, 
shall develop and implement a cooperative stock assessment 
program, using vessels from the commercial black sea bass 
fishing industry if appropriate and available. This cooperative 
program shall include research on the range of the stock, a 
determination as to whether there is more than one stock, and a 
black sea bass genetic study to determine whether there is more 
than one stock of such species requiring different management 
regimes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 408. GEAR DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Identification of Fisheries With Significant Bycatch and 
Seabird Interaction Problems.--(1) The Secretary, in 
conjunction with the Councils, shall identify and publish in 
the Federal Register a list of fisheries with significant 
bycatch problems or seabird interaction problems, as determined 
under criteria developed by the Secretary.
  (2) The list shall contain, for each fishery identified, 
information on--
          (A) the number of participants in the fishery;
          (B) the types of gears used in the fishery;
          (C) the bycatch species and species of seabirds that 
        interact with fishing gear;
          (D) the amount of bycatch, and the percentage of 
        total catch that is bycatch; and
          (E) any other relevant information.
  (3) The Secretary shall solicit comments on each list 
published under this subsection.
  (b) Identification of Fisheries With Most Urgent Problems.--
The Secretary shall--
          (1) identify those fisheries included in a list under 
        paragraph (1) that have the most urgent bycatch 
        problems or seabird interaction problems, based on 
        comments received regarding the list; and
          (2) work in conjunction with the Councils and fishing 
        industry participants to develop new fishing gear, or 
        modifications to existing fishing gear, that will help 
        minimize bycatch and seabird interactions to the extent 
        practicable.
  (c) Grant Authority.--The Secretary shall, subject to the 
availability of appropriations, make grants for the development 
of fishing gear and modifications to existing fishing gear that 
will help--
          (1) minimize bycatch and seabird interactions; and
          (2) minimize adverse fishing gear impacts on habitat 
        areas of particular concern.
  (d) Report.--The Secretary shall report to the Congress 
annually on--
          (1) the amount expended to implement this section in 
        the preceding year;
          (2) developments in gear technology achieved under 
        this section;
          (3) the reductions in bycatch associated with 
        implementation of this section; and
          (4) any other relevant information.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this 
section there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

SEC. 409. REGIONAL STOCK ASSESSMENTS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct periodic 
regional assessments of stocks of fish.
  (b) Independent Review.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
periodic assessment under this section is independently 
reviewed in a manner that--
          (1) will not delay the process of providing to 
        Regional Fishery Management Councils current 
        assessments for use in managing fisheries; and
          (2) is as transparent as possible, so that the 
        regulated community can provide input during the review 
        process.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We oppose this bill not because, as its supporters claim, 
it would move fisheries conservation forward. Instead, we are 
opposed to H.R. 4749 because it actually moves conservation a 
step backward and undermines some of the historic changes to 
the law that were made in 1996.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Act) was first signed into law in 1976, with the initial 
goal of eliminating foreign fishing in U.S. waters. Over the 
past two decades the law has been amended several times with 
the goal of ensuring that the domestic fishing industry harvest 
our fishery resources in a sustainable manner. Still, it was 
not until the adoption of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 
1996, that the law mandated, for the first time, that fisheries 
managers prevent overfishing, protect essential fish habitat, 
and reduce bycatch. Unfortunately, H.R. 4749 weakens those 
important achievements in several ways.
    First, it makes the protection of Essential Fish Habitat 
(EFH) discretionary. Under current law, Councils are required 
for all fisheries to ``minimize, to the extent practicable, 
adverse effects caused by fishing * * * a essential fish 
habitat.'' Few, if any Councils, have taken significant steps 
to implement this requirement.
    Citing the threat of lawsuits result from this inaction as 
an excuse, the supporters of the bill believe that the solution 
to this inaction is to simply eliminate the requirement. 
Claiming to merely ``focus'' the efforts to protect habitat, 
the bill would limit the requirement for Councils to minimize 
the adverse effects of fishing on habitat to only those 
fisheries where very specific, scientific data is available or 
for ``habitat areas of particular concern'' (HAPCs). 
Unfortunately, because there are few fisheries for which the 
required scientific data is available, the practical effect of 
this change will be to eliminate the requirement to protect 
habitat. Furthermore, few HAPCs have been identified and the 
bill removes the incentive to identify more, as it would then 
require Council action to protect them from damaging fishing. 
Simply put, under H.R. 4749, if Councils don't identify HAPCs, 
they don't have to protect them.
    Second, the bill redefines stocks that are ``overfished'' 
in such a way that will likely result in fewer declining stocks 
receiving the protections now required under the law. 
Currently, the terms ``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' are 
defined as ``a rate or level of fishing mortality that 
jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum 
sustainable yield on a continuing basis.'' NMFS has argued that 
these two terms should be defined separately as one represents 
an action, and one represents the status of the stock. While 
this makes sense, the solution in H.R. 4749 does not, defining 
an overfished stock as one where ``the stock is of a size that 
is below the natural range of fluctuation associated with the 
production of maximum sustainable yield.'' Because the natural 
range of fluctuation for many fisheries is not known, many more 
fisheries will be classified as ``unknown,'' and Councils thus 
not required to protect them even in cases where fisheries have 
markedly declined. Further, for fisheries which are identified 
as overfished, management decisions will likely result in more 
litigation not less, when those who do not want the 
restrictions that accompany such a designation claim that stock 
declines are merely the result of natural fluctuation and not 
overfishing.
    Third, while the bill provides grants to develop new 
fishing gears to reduce bycatch, it also allows an indefinite 
delay in the implementation of the requirement to establish 
bycatch reporting systems. Councils are currently required to 
``establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the 
amount and type of bycatch occurring in a fishery, and include 
conservation and management measures that to the extent 
practicable * * * minimize bycatch; and minimize the mortality 
of bycatch that cannot be avoided.'' Despite this requirement, 
after six years Councils have been unable to taken meaningful 
steps to reduce bycatch, claiming they lack the information 
necessary to do so, and virtually none have established the 
required reporting systems that were intended to provide that 
very information.
    Again, using the threat of lawsuits that could occur due to 
inaction by the Councils, the bill proposes to turn the 
responsibility for developing reporting systems over to the 
Secretary, with a requirement to report on that status of 
developing such a system after one year. No deadline is given 
for actually completing the development of the reporting 
system, nor is there a requirement for it to be implemented. 
This weakening of current law is not offset by the requirements 
for research and new gear development.
    In addition to undermining these three fundamental 
provisions of the 1996 law, the bill has several other 
troubling provisions that represent bad policy or delay needed 
conservation measures. For instance, under the guise of 
ensuring better science is used in management decisions, the 
bill required that ``independent review'' of stock assessments 
allow input from the regulated community--the fishing industry. 
Not only does the industry lack the expertise needed to 
participate in scientific reviews, allowing them to provide 
input is contradictory to the stated goal of reviews that are 
truly independent. The fishing industry is already in the 
unique position of being the only industry that harvests a 
public resource that gets to write its own management plans. To 
allow them to provide input into the review of scientific stock 
assessments that are used to develop those management plans is 
inappropriate and illogical.
    Also, while the bill requires the Secretary to submit a 
report, within one year, recommending options for a national 
observer program, it does not require any action to be taken in 
response to this report. As a result, the implementation of a 
program that would put observers on fishing vessels to collect 
accurate and timely data that could greatly improve fisheries 
management, could be delayed until the next reauthorization of 
the law.
    Finally, while the bill establishes criteria for Individual 
Fishing Quotas, which remain the topic of much debate within 
the fishing industry, it does not ensure the adequate recovery 
of a resource rent or a substantial conservation benefit for 
the exclusive allocation of a public resource. It also 
authorizes the establishment of a highly controversial 
processor share quota system for all fisheries managed by the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
    In conclusion, H.R. 4749 weakens many of the historic 
conservation measures that the Sustainable Fisheries Act added 
to the Magnuson Stevens Act in 1996. The purpose of 1996 
amendments were to strengthen the law and ensure that the 
decline of many fisheries around he country would not continue. 
While it has not been easy, it is clear the law is having the 
intended affect. This year, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service reported that the number of stocks determined to be 
overfished has declined slightly for the first time since 1997. 
Still, there are more than 80 stocks that have been identified 
as overfished. While the Sustainable Fisheries Act has begun to 
restore our fisheries, now is not the time to roll back the law 
and undermine the achievements we have made.

                                   Nick Rahall.
                                   George Miller.
                                   Anibal Acevedo-Vila.
                                   Dale E. Kildee.
                                   Mark Udall.

           DISSENTING VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE WALTER B. JONES

    I want to applaud Mr. Hansen and Mr. Gilchrest for creating 
legislation that on balance is better than current law. It is 
with a great deal of reservation and concern that I have had to 
cast my vote in opposition to this legislation and it is my 
sincere hope that something can be worked out before the 
legislation comes to the Floor that will address my concerns.
    I want to thank Mr. Gilchrest and his staff for working 
with me in securing language in the bill requiring independent 
peer reviews of all stock assessments. In addition, the 
Committee included language asking the National Academy of 
Sciences to establish standards for determining ``best 
available science.'' This provision is necessary because 
recreational and commercial fishermen in North Carolina and 
elsewhere are in serious financial distress. Closures based on 
flawed, substandard, limited or inaccurate data are putting 
innocent American taxpayers out of work and prohibiting access 
to a public resource. This language clearly defines what ``best 
scientific information available'' means to Magnuson-Stevens. 
Congress needs to ensure that fisheries data is timely, 
consistent, independently reviewed, and empirical. This 
language I think accomplishes that. As everyone already knows, 
there is no definition of best scientific information available 
in the Act. In addition, this provision will allow the councils 
to incorporate scientific review committees to conduct peer 
reviews of all stock assessments. I believe these two 
requirements will go a long way in promoting confidence in our 
nation's fisheries policy and will bring a halt to managing our 
fisheries through litigation.
    The Committee also included innovative language 
establishing a system for Individual Fishing Quotas. The double 
referendum proposed by Chairman Gilchrest will ensure fishermen 
have a voice throughout the process and provide for the fairest 
allocation of the resource. Also, the bill contains language 
requiring the National Marine Fisheries Service to include the 
cumulative impacts on stakeholders when making management 
decisions. Lastly, I was pleased to see the Committee included 
language authorizing appropriations for new gear research and 
development.
    While these changes move current law in a favorable 
direction, I have some grave concerns over Section 28 of the 
legislation. In my opinion, Section 28 will do nothing to stop 
the over-capitalization of white marlin, and in fact, will lead 
to an increased depletion of the resource.
    As the National Marine Fisheries Service debated listing 
white marlin under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, 
the Committee took steps to impact the issue by supporting an 
amendment to close the Mid-Atlantic Bight to commercial 
longline vessels. While this amendment was the least onerous of 
the those proposed by a Member of the Committee, it did nothing 
to impact the listing decision, nor will it save a single white 
marlin. In fact, while causing a further depletion in white 
marlin stocks, Section 28 will immediately put thousands of 
Americans out of work. 99 percent of white marlin mortality is 
caused by foreign vessels with little or no conservation ethic. 
Rather than targeting US fishermen, Congress should instead 
focus its efforts the actual source of the problem, foreign 
fishing fleets.
    White marlin is regulated by an international treaty 
organization, the International Commission for the Conservation 
of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The 40+ member nation organization 
has a ``use it or lose it'' policy regarding quota allocation. 
ICCAT has already taken steps to reduce white marlin harvest. 
The annual amount of white marlin that can be landed in years 
2001 and 2002 by pelagic longline vessels can be no more than 
33 percent of the 1999 landing levels. In 1997, member nations 
were required to reduce white marlin landings by 25 percent 
from 1996. Consequently, landings declined by 40 percent of the 
1996 levels.
    The U.S. has forced conservation issues at ICCAT, 
especially for billfish. To take actions against our own 
commercial and recreational fleet will have no impact on white 
marlin stocks. In fact, unilateral disarmament will undermine 
U.S. strength before ICCAT. Complete unilateral withdrawal from 
a fishery will remove us from the negotiating table and 
management will be left to the worst offenders. Should Congress 
statutorily close areas within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the 
U.S. will not meet its quota, not only for white marlin but 
other stocks as well. This quota will then be reallocated 
amongst the other member nations, all with conservation 
practices that fall short of the U.S. model.
    The U.S. pelagic longline fleet is responsible for only 3 
percent of white marlin mortality. If one were serious about 
white marlin conservation, one would examine the remaining 97 
percent of white marlin mortality. In an effort to foster 
international white marlin conservation and avoid a listing 
under the Endangered Species Act, I along with three of my 
colleagues have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 427. 
Under our proposal, countries that do not comply with ICCAT 
management guidelines and therefore that are threatening the 
continued viability of United States commercial and 
recreational fisheries would face the imposition of trade 
sanctions by our nation.
    Fewer than 100 vessels remain active in the U.S. pelagic 
longline fleet today. More than 20 of those vessels are based 
in my Congressional District. In fact, more than half of the 
Atlantic pelagic longline fleet packs their stores in Eastern 
North Carolina. A statutory closure of the Mid-Atlantic Bight 
will have horrific consequences to my constituents. According 
to the North Carolina Fisheries Association, more than 300 jobs 
in my Congressional district will be immediately lost. These 
vessels account for $6 million to $8 million a year, which 
translates into a total of $40 to $60 million per year in total 
economic impact to the rural coastal communities of North 
Carolina.
    Congress should not be in the business of gear restrictions 
or fishery closures. Section 28 circumvents an established 
process of allowing the eight individual Fishery Management 
Councils make the appropriate management decisions. The 
Councils, not the Congress, are the recognized experts on the 
nation's fisheries.
    Lastly, on September 3, 2002, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service ruled that white marlin is not a candidate for listing 
under the Endangered Species Act. The ESA defines anendangered 
species ``as any species which is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' A ``threatened species'' 
is defined as ``any species which is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the review, the agency determined that white marlin 
is not currently at a level that warrants listing under the ESA. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service went on to say, ``The U.S. fishery 
accounts for approximately five percent of the total mortality of white 
marlin, which is mostly caught as bycatch in international longline 
fisheries. The International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is responsible for the international management 
of white marlin. By consensus of participating nations, ICCAT adopts 
binding recommendations to manage for maximum sustainable catch of fish 
stocks. The U.S. participates in ICCAT-supported stock assessments of 
white marlin based on data from ICCAT member fishing nations. ICCAT 
implemented binding measures in 2000 to reduce mortality of white 
marlin, but these measures have not been in place long enough to fully 
evaluate their effectiveness. Current U.S. measures include time/area 
closures, gear and bait restrictions, and a ban on possession of 
Atlantic white marlins on board commercial vessels.''
    Clearly, white marlin stocks will be based on international 
efforts, not unilateral sanctions on U.S. fishermen. Section 28 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments of 2002 is the wrong 
tool for conservation. On the other hand, H. Con. Res. 247 will 
empower the U.S. Commissioners when they go before ICCAT in the 
Fall of 2002 and ensure that white marlin and other highly 
migratory species are at the forefront of international 
conservation efforts.
    Included in my dissenting view are three items. One is a 
letter from the North Carolina Fisheries Association, an 
organization older than the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
explaining the devastating impacts of Section 28. Second is a 
letter from the Blue Water Fishermen's Association that also 
explains the impacts of the Mid-Atlantic Bight closure. Last is 
the text of a letter from John Graves, a renowned scientist in 
the field of highly migratory species such as white marlin.
    I want to thank the Members of the Committee on Resources 
and staff for their work on passing a comprehensive rewrite of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and look forward to supporting the 
proposal once a compromise is reached on Section 28.

                                                   Walter B. Jones.


