Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, finally, Scott Pruitt is gone. After months of scandal, 19 separate investigations, countless ethical failures, abuses of his official office at taxpayer expense, finally, this corrupt, swamp creature who has been heading our Environmental Protection Agency announced his resignation last week. As welcome as this news is for many of us, let's be clear: Scott Pruitt was far from the only creature in the toxic Trump swamp. Another great example is our Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, who profited from short sales in a Russian-linked navigation company. He made those short sales only after learning that journalists with The New York Times were about to expose his conflicts of interest. And apparently, while serving as our Commerce Secretary, Ross was also partial owner of a Chinese company and a Cypriot bank that is a part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. These are scandals that, in any other previous time, would bring down a Cabinet Secretary, but in this swamp climate of the Trump administration, it is just another news cycle and is soon supplanted by the next outrage and the next scandal. Let's also not forget our Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, who faces many of his own scandals. Our Secretary of the Interior, of course, oversees oil and gas development on public lands. In this case, the Secretary stands to personally benefit from a land deal with the chairman of Halliburton, a company that has literally billions of dollars of business on the line when Secretary Zinke makes decisions about where, and how, oil drilling will be permitted in this country. That is just the tip of the iceberg with this administration. It is time for this Republican Congress to wake up and take these issues seriously. Conduct some real oversight and put a stop to this culture of corruption in the Trump administration.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is an attempt by my Republican colleagues to approve one part of President Trump's so- called infrastructure plan. H.R. 3281 would enact a proposal from the Trump infrastructure plan that approves the de facto privatization of some of the public's most important water infrastructure, without safeguards to protect the American taxpayer or our natural heritage. Now, you may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Trump infrastructure plan that was transmitted to Congress in February focuses much of its attention on giving away the public's infrastructure to private interests. For example, the Trump plan calls for privatizing Western electricity infrastructure, the Dulles International Airport, the Washington Aqueduct, the George Washington and Baltimore Washington Parkways, and much of the Tennessee Valley Authority. This Trump yard sale of critical public infrastructure would raise consumer costs and would enrich private interests, all while providing no meaningful funding for much-needed public infrastructure development. Now, when it comes to the management of our public infrastructure, it is clear that this administration and this Republican Congress would simply rather sell it off than fix it. So today, we have before us the proposal to dole out much of the public water infrastructure owned by the United States, with virtually no strings attached. Mr. Speaker, this may be how Mr. Trump liquidates real estate during one of his infamous bankruptcies, but it is no way to manage public infrastructure. Now, the Bureau of Reclamation owns some of the most important public water infrastructure in America, including hundreds of dams, canals, and other associated infrastructure. Reclamation's infrastructure helps deliver water to tens of millions of people, and it serves numerous stakeholders, including municipal and industrial water users, farmers, Tribes, fishermen, and environmental and recreational interests. H.R. 3281 irresponsibly gives the Secretary of the Interior new authority to transfer title, which is another term for relinquishing ownership, to a broad range of reclamation water projects. Now, this bill's proponents have claimed that it only expedites the relinquishment of small and easy projects that the Federal Government should no longer own. I wish that were the case. Mr. Speaker, if that were actually the case, we would have a bipartisan bill, and I would be standing here in support of it, because I have supported title transfers for select, noncontroversial projects when it made sense for taxpayers and the public. In cases of canals and waterworks that don't affect water operations and diversions, and where there is no significant opposition from Tribes or downstream users, it does make sense, to me, for Congress to give the executive branch some leeway to dispose of these facilities, as long as appropriate safeguards are in place. Unfortunately, the bill before us allows this administration to unilaterally relinquish ownership of a very broad range of public water projects without appropriate safeguards that should be there to make sure taxpayers and other stakeholders are protected. In fact, this bill is written so broadly that it would allow the Secretary of the Interior to hand over multipurpose water projects that have no business being owned by one water user. Now, the fact is, many of Reclamation's water projects need to be operated in a manner that balances difficult, conflicting interests. Giving up ownership and control of that project, handing it over to a single water user will, in some cases, result in significant harm to the many other interests who have a stake in the operation of Federal water projects. I am also sorry to say that this bill is a bad deal for taxpayers. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to hand over publicly owned infrastructure and other Federal assets to private interests without appropriate taxpayer compensation. For example, it fails to require that taxpayers be compensated for the loss of publicly owned lands and mineral interests. And whenever the Federal Government gives away Federal assets, we should ensure that taxpayers who paid for these assets are properly compensated. This bill utterly fails on that score. I must also point out that H.R. 3281 unwisely removes longstanding and necessary congressional oversight for an overly broad range of projects. Under existing law, Congress has responsibility to oversee and approve the transfer of Federal water projects to ensure that transfers are in the public interest. This bill eliminates Congress' current oversight and approval authority for a host of projects that deserve scrutiny before they are given away--not after, but before they are given away. Congress should think twice before it surrenders power and lets this administration irresponsibly give away the public's infrastructure. Before closing, I should also note that this bill is rightfully opposed by numerous conservation organizations, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and many others. Conservation-minded Americans oppose this bill because transferring ownership of Federal water projects to non-Federal operators will frequently mean less protection for the environment. That is because non-Federal water projects often don't have to be operated with the same environmental protections that apply to water projects operated, owned by Federal agencies. For example, projects operated by Federal agencies must comply with certain provisions in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Those same requirements would no longer apply if a water project was operated by a non-Federal entity. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I request a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, these certainly are arguments that can and should be made at the Atlantic Council. In fact, they are made regularly, and that council has representation regionally, has representation from all the key stakeholders, and has access to the best available science, the state-of-the-art science on this issue. So I think we need to let that council do its job, and, with that, I request a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record this column recently written by the head of the National Marine Fisheries Service and also the chief scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Bush administration. I would like to call special attention to this statement by these experts from the Bush administration, who say: ``We believe this is an ill-conceived, dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable management that has occurred since the last reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007.'' Don't Hurt Fisheries With Dangerous Legislation (By William Hogarth and Steven Murawski, special to the Tampa Bay Times) This Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on H.R. 200, the Strengthen Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. We believe this is an ill-conceived, dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable management that has occurred since the latest reauthorizations of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act in 2007. Since 2007, more than 40 of the most overfished and historically important fish stocks in the nation have been recovered. Overfishing now occurs for fewer than 10 percent of stocks, the lowest proportion since records have been kept. Rebuilding stocks has resulted in increases in fisheries yields and translated into lower prices to consumers, more business-friendly approaches to commercial fisheries management and more healthy recreational fisheries. The term ``flexibility'' in H.R. 200 is a code word that would undermine timely, effective management of stocks when downturns inevitably occur. Heavy on requirements for studies and other administrative requirements, H.R. 200 would make fisheries management more cumbersome. The bill as written would delay timely, effective conservation responses and would limit the flexibility to use innovative management tools. Healthy fisheries without healthy stocks is a non sequitur. We urge the House to reject this piece of legislation that seeks to solve problems that simply do not exist.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, in 1996, during floor debate passage of the bipartisan Sustainable Fisheries Act that amended and reauthorized Magnuson, the gentleman from Alaska said the following: It is crucial that the management agencies within the Federal Government be proactive in protecting fisheries rather than attempting to address overfished stocks after they are in a crisis situation. I couldn't agree more, and it is true now, more than ever. Twenty-two years ago our fisheries were in shambles. Rampant overfishing had decimated stocks to the point of collapse and Congress needed to make some tough choices to ensure that there were fish left to catch in our oceans. We made tough choices in 1996, and we made them in 2006, putting in place requirements to end overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, and setting science-based annual catch limits. And because we did that, because we made those tough choices, the number of overfished stocks is at an all-time low. The number of rebuilt stocks is at an all-time high, and most stocks are trending in a positive direction that is benefiting fishermen in coastal communities. I cannot support legislation that would turn our backs on what has worked so well, but H.R. 200, unfortunately, would take us in the wrong direction, back to the bad old days of fisheries management and taxpayer bailouts because we loosen the rules that prevent overfishing. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his many years of service in this Chamber, and I would note that those of us who were not here in 1996 are not so-called johnny-come-latelies, but we are simply younger than the gentleman. In fact, just about everyone in this House is younger than the gentleman, and I say that with great respect. I have worked on fisheries issues throughout my time in this Chamber and, before that, for 6 years in the California Assembly. In my personal life, I have been fishing as long as I can remember. I have even pulled in set nets on a commercial boat in Cook Inlet in the gentleman's district. So my years of interest in these issues is largely why I am so disappointed to be standing here debating a fisheries bill that is, unfortunately, too partisan. My staff and I worked hard and in good faith to find a bipartisan compromise, and while the manager's amendment does remove some of the most egregious language that would undermine environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the American Antiquities Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, the fact is those provisions never should have been in a Magnuson reauthorization bill in the first place. They were always nonstarters, and removing them does not fix the serious threat to fisheries posed by H.R. 200's undermining of catch limits and rebuilding timeframes. What is more, my staff and I did offer compromise language from Senator Wicker's Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act. Even that language that every single Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee had supported in markup was rejected, unfortunately, by my colleagues across the aisle and did not find its way into the manager's amendment. We also offered on these points of disagreement for catch limits and rebuilding timeframes to simply leave existing law in place because it has been working, and that, too, was unacceptable, unfortunately, to our colleagues across the aisle. So what is left before us in H.R. 200 would fundamentally gut provisions that have made Magnuson so successful. Now is not the time to move away from catch limits based on sound science and toward catch limits based on wishful thinking. It is not the time to allow rebuilding of overstocked fish to be delayed indefinitely. We have seen this movie before, and we know what happens. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment does remove some poison pill provisions that should never have been in the bill, but it does nothing to fix the wrongheaded rollbacks of catch limits and rebuilding timeframes that will inevitably lead us to overfishing. That is why this bill has been called the empty oceans act, and that is why it is opposed by so many stakeholders. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the dozens of letters we have received since the manager's amendment was introduced. Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance, July 5, 2018. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, we have some very critical differences of opinion on whether this bill is a good idea after years of success in rebuilding depleted fish stocks, after all of the economic value that we have created by allowing commercial and recreational fishing to resume in places all over this country, where at one time it was shut down because we failed to properly manage our fisheries. We think, fundamentally, it is a bad idea at this point to declare mission accomplished and start rolling back the very bedrock provisions that have enabled us to achieve this success. It is with that in mind that I request Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, while we have some differences in the two sides, I don't believe that I have been injecting hyperpartisan rhetoric in this debate. Our differences, as I have emphasized multiple times, are about policy. This is not about which party we are on. In fact, it used to be very bipartisan, that this Congress would defend science-based catch limits and rigorous rebuilding timeframes because we all knew that those were very, very important provisions for sustainable fisheries, whether you were a Democrat or a Republican. Now, if there is some group out there who has written a letter that refers to the wrong section, or includes inflammatory rhetoric because they feel like they were kept out of the loop as this bill developed, maybe that is an indication that they were kept out of the loop as this bill developed. And maybe that should have been considered along with the pile of letters that have come into my office and into other offices expressing fierce opposition to some of these irresponsible changes being proposed in this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. Rather than disparage the stakeholders who are opposing this bill, I think we should listen to them. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is our country's most important fisheries law. Magnuson is the framework for governing fishing in Federal waters, which is big business in this country: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that commercial and recreational fishing generates roughly $200 billion in economic value and supports 1.7 million jobs. This significant economic impact depends on sustainable management of fish stocks and protecting the ocean ecosystems on which they depend. Now, the 1996 and 2006 reauthorizations of Magnuson moved us in that direction after decades of overfishing had led to the collapse of fisheries and devastation for fishing communities in many parts of the country. Instead of building on that success, I am sad to say that H.R. 200, which many have called the empty oceans act, would roll back the important conservation and management standards that have helped us get to this point, that have helped end overfishing, and that have helped rebuild a record number of fish stocks. This attempt to return us to the bad old days of failed fishery management policy and overfishing that inevitably follows from loose standards should be seen as unacceptable to everyone who cares about sustainable fisheries. Now, Magnuson, as has been said, has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. I have tried to work with Mr. Young in good faith to find a path towards a bipartisan compromise, and I thank him for his efforts to get there. We came close. I am disappointed that we fell short. But we need to be very clear that Democrats are opposing H.R. 200 not for partisan reasons, but for important policy grounds that, in the past, have never been partisan and should not be partisan today. That is also why many fishery stakeholders oppose this bill in its current form. They don't want to see Magnuson's core conservation provisions undermined. That is why letters have been pouring in in opposition to this bill, because it does undermine the very heart of our country's flagship fisheries law. We have heard, for example, from the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Fishing Communities Coalition, Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, Seafood Harvesters of America, Maine Coast Fishermen's Association, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Northwest Guides and Anglers Association, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Gulf Restoration Network, American Fly Fishing Tackle Association, and on and on, including hundreds of chefs, scientists, and recreational anglers, among others. In fact, the stack of letters that we have received is quite voluminous, as I have them right here. The changes my Republican colleagues are proposing to Magnuson are irresponsible. I am disappointed that they are ignoring the concerns that have been expressed from so many stakeholders who are telling them to be more careful as we reauthorize this important bill. There is an old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The bottom line with this Magnuson reauthorization is this: the law is working as intended. Reauthorization is important, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the law's core provisions that have made it so successful. Mr. Chairman, I have offered an alternate amendment to reauthorize Magnuson. It contains constructive, bipartisan ideas on how to best manage our fisheries by allowing for flexibility and modernizing aspects of fisheries management, but doing so without undermining the core provisions of the law. As an angler myself, who represents many commercial and recreational fishing interests in northern California, I strongly believe that there needs to be a bipartisan path forward. I would still very much like to have meaningful discussions with my colleagues across the aisle to develop legislation in the spirit of previous bipartisan Magnuson reauthorizations, while leaving the core conservation and management provisions intact. We can also make progress and do more to support recreational fishing interests. We should do that together, without sacrificing the science- based framework that is so important to the long-term sustainability of fisheries management. Unfortunately, H.R. 200 falls short in this regard, and I must request that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the bill in its current form. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, we certainly support recreational fishing. I do. I have a lot of it in my district, and that is one of the reasons why, as I worked with Mr. Young to try to achieve a bipartisan reauthorization bill, we were willing to accept many of the provisions regarding recreational fishing. But you don't help recreational anglers when you go too far in relaxing annual catch limits or when you go too far in rolling back the rebuilding framework. Because when these fisheries crash, as inevitably they will, it is not just commercial fishing boats that are going to be out of the water. Everyone suffers. These fisheries will be closed. And that is why so many recreational fishing interest groups and individuals have weighed in in opposition to H.R. 200. They have concluded, as we have, that the short-term gratification for some is not worth the long-term damage to all. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, of course I have great respect for my colleague from Alaska. In fact, in many ways, he deserves credit for helping craft the original Fishery Conservation and Management Act, for bringing to the Nation what could be considered the Alaska model of fisheries management through subsequent Magnuson Act reauthorizations. So I find myself, ironically, in the position of defending the framework that he essentially created against my colleagues' attempts to make changes that I believe are fundamentally threatening to that very framework. It is this Alaska model that we support, complete with science-based catch limits, industry accountability for sustainable harvest, and the constant march towards sustainable practices. That is what has made U.S. fisheries, under the Magnuson Act, a model for the world, and that is what we are trying to continue. Now, it has been suggested that rebuilding timeframes are too rigid and too restrictive. We will talk more about this when we get to some of the specific debate on amendments. But it is important to know that there is flexibility on rebuilding goals in the Magnuson Act and that flexibility is being used. It is also working. And a great example of that is what has happened with sea scallops under the Magnuson Act. Fishery managers implemented a rebuilding plan for sea scallops in 1998. Within a couple of years, the fishery had been rebuilt, and now the scallop fishery is one of the country's most valuable fisheries. In 1998, a little over 13 million pounds of scallop were landed. By 2016, that amount had tripled to 40 million pounds, resulting in more money in fishermen's pockets. So there is a lot at stake with these issues, and we should bear in mind not only the numbers we talked about regarding the many jobs, the billions of dollars contributed to the economy from commercial and recreational fishing, but the potential to do even more and to do even better if we manage our fisheries carefully. NOAA has estimated that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would generate an additional $31 billion in seafood sales, support an additional 500,000 jobs, and increase the revenue that fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion. That is why we want to keep these critical provisions that have worked so well, because we can do even better if we stay the course. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to respectfully push back on the idea that you have to be a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus to have standing in this debate. The fact is, and we have shared some of the groups opposing this legislation, the opposition includes many recreational fishing interests, and opposing legislators include many of us who actually do spend a lot of time on the water catching fish. So let's dispel that notion. Now, there are some in the recreational fishing sector who will argue that Magnuson is broken, that it does not work for them, because, as they explain, it requires recreational fisheries, just like other fisheries, to abide by overall catch limits that are based on science. In other words, the law doesn't work because they don't want to have to stop fishing when their catch reaches unsustainable levels. That is a situation not of a law that is broken. It actually shows that we have a law that is playing a very, very important role. Now, what would H.R. 200 do if it were enacted into law? It would enable recreational anglers to take more fish right now without regard for the future. Proponents of the bill are advocating to increase recreational catch limits, reallocate catch away from commercial fishermen with mandated reallocation reviews, and water down the sustainable fishing mandates in current law. That would mean taking more fish now, threatening fisheries with the risk of overfishing in the future, which we know, because we have seen this movie before, will lead to bans and closed fisheries in the future. Managing fisheries sometimes requires tough choices. It shouldn't be about immediate gratification. And let's remember, the recreational fishermen are not disadvantaged under the current management system. In fact, in some regions, like the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishers currently take home 70 percent of the Gulf's most popular fish. Recreational anglers land an overwhelming majority of species like amberjack, cobia, red drum, king mackerel, spotted sea trout, and triggerfish. And for the Gulf red snapper, the division of quota between the recreational and seafood sectors is a more balanced situation, roughly 50/50. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, while I certainly appreciate the size of the Louisiana and Alaska fisheries--and to some extent, I am jealous of some of the fishing opportunities that exist in those places. I have fished, myself, in Alaska, but Mr. Graves has yet to invite me to Louisiana for some fishing, and we hope to fix that going forward. I don't want to leave the impression that the fishing industry and fishing communities in other parts of the country are not just as important. I also don't want to leave the impression that there is universal support for H.R. 200 even in Alaska and Louisiana. So we are going to have a little bit of a battle of the posters, Mr. Chairman. This is a partial listing of the groups that oppose H.R. 200 in its current form. They oppose it for the reasons that I have mentioned. They consider it irresponsible to undermine the science-based catch limits and rebuilding framework that have been so critical to the success of this bill going forward, and they don't want to see us backslide into the era of loose regulations and overfishing that will inevitably follow. They have seen this movie before, and they know what happens when we undermine core conservation provisions. So among the many groups and organizations listed in opposition, we certainly have the Alaska Long Line Fishermen's Association, over here, the Gulf Fishermen's Association, and the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, among many, many others in opposition to H.R. 200. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Graves. This amendment requires the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress, but it is unclear what the overall purpose of this report would be. In fact, because of the vagueness of that purpose, there has been concern that it may be about identifying what would happen if the overall value of the red snapper fishery commercial quota was completely taken away or given to private anglers. Would this report be used to make the argument that the red snapper quota should be reallocated to recreational fishermen? I can't support either of those propositions, nor a reporting requirement with such ambiguous goals and potentially significant impacts on the fishery. When it comes to setting these allocations, picking winners and losers from among commercial and recreational fishing interests, that should be the job of regional councils, not of Congress. In fact, the entire structure of Magnuson and the council system is designed to encourage stakeholder participation on the councils, from a regional perspective. We need to let the fishery management councils do their job and not have Congress micromanaging these type of decisions. It is unclear, also, why this amendment only targets limited access privilege permits. Every type of commercial or recreational fishing activity could be viewed as having a ``resource rent.'' So it is questionable that every other form of commercial and recreational activity would be excluded from this type of report. There is no reason why an analysis of the economic value commercial and recreational fishermen extract from a Federal resource would be limited to just catch share programs. Finally, with respect to the conflict of interest provisions in this bill, I would have supported--and I have talked to the gentleman about this--this amendment, had it been a report on ways to eliminate conflicts of interest on all fishery management councils, because there are concerns, bipartisan concerns, in that regard, and it is something that should be addressed to improve fishery management in all councils. Unfortunately, this seems to be a rather targeted and direct attack on what many view as a well-managed commercial red snapper fishery, and we should not be devoting public resources to such a report. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, we are not opposed.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I do rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. This is an amendment that would lift the ban on striped bass fishing in the Block Island transit zone between Montauk, New York, and Block Island, Rhode Island. Commercial and recreational fishing is allowed in State waters, as the gentleman said, from shore to 3 miles offshore. Striped bass is managed by the States from Maine through North Carolina through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Federal waters have been closed to striped bass fishing since 1990 when a moratorium went into effect to protect juvenile fish entering the spawning population and to help rebuild a fishery that was recovering from decades of overfishing. There has been an ongoing effort to reopen the striped bass fishery in the transit zone, yet there is no science to justify it. In contrast, the science shows that allowing fishing in this transit zone, which encompasses about 155 square miles of habitat, could disproportionately impact spawning females and, thus, threaten the overall health of the striped bass stock. This would be detrimental to some of biggest recreational and commercial fishing ports on the East Coast. Opening up Federal waters in one region would undermine the protections and commitment to rebuilding that others along the coast have invested in. It would set a bad precedent in managing the striped bass fishery, which still has a long way to go. Finally, Congress should not be legislating on species-specific fishery management actions. This issue is regularly assessed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. We need to let that commission do its job and make decisions that are based on science. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will close by stating that I can appreciate the frustration that the gentleman may be feeling, feeling like this is a process of remitigating for the same thing over and over again. I think it is a little more complicated than that, but if the gentleman is willing to work going forward on some ways to perhaps consolidate the regulatory burden and find something for the long term that provides a little more certainty and streamlining, I would be happy to work with him on that. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.