Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 34) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections to a map relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, coastal barriers are dynamic ecosystems and are prone to frequent moving and shifting as the result of storms and other natural processes. Despite their vulnerability, these areas are attractive locations to live in and are popular for vacation destinations. Congress approved the Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 to protect these areas by establishing a system of barrier units that are precluded from receiving Federal development assistance, including Federal flood insurance. The System is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Maps depicting the various units are adopted by Congress, and any changes to the boundaries of System units require legislative action. The System includes 274 otherwise protected areas. Otherwise protected areas include lands that are held for conservation purposes by the Federal, State, and local governments or private conservation groups. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34 adopts maps drawn by the Fish and Wildlife Service that correctly portray the boundaries of the Cayo Costa State Park in Florida, and this is supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Committee on Resources majority and minority. H.R. 34 passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 1431 on September 21, 1999. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 34 corrects a true mapping error, and I strongly urge the passage of this legislation. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, last month, the House passed H.R. 795, the Rocky Boys Water Rights Settlement Act. Today we have before us S. 438, a companion bill to H.R. 795. The only difference between these two bills is a small change regarding the treatment of tribal water rights off reservation. This change has been agreed upon by all the parties involved in the legislation. The Rocky Boys water right settlement process has been important for a number of reasons. Congressman Hill, the State of Montana and the Tribe have spent a good deal of time working through the issues in a constructive fashion, taking steps to minimize the impact on other affected water users. Furthermore, there has been minimal emphasis on some of the outmoded bases for calculating Federal reserved Indian water right claims. This process has allowed the parties to look to newer, more flexible negotiations that find solutions which provide tribes with real opportunities without making demands that may destroy the economic livelihood of existing water users. Additionally, this process has brought new solutions and introduced private sector expertise into the tribes efforts to utilize these water supplies once the settlement is authorized. By approaching these Indian water right settlements in more creative ways, Congress and the Federal Government can narrow the divergent expectations of the parties as they enter negotiations and attempt to correct problems that have existed for decades. It is important for Congress to modernize the process and bases for settling these claims. It is taking far too long to arrive at a settlement. Often tribes receive water and money under circumstances that do not ultimately help them realize the benefits of the broader economy. It is the intention that this settlement will help the tribe reach their goal of self- determination. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1866) to redesignate the Coastal Barrier Resources System as the ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, finally, we are considering S. 1866, the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. The late Senator John Chafee was instrumental in the creation of this program in 1982, and he remained one of the program's biggest supporters up until his untimely death earlier this year. The late Senator Chafee, in his role as ranking member and later chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was a guardian of this System's integrity, and worked tirelessly to prevent any unnecessary encroachment into the System. Senator Chafee served the people of Rhode Island with great distinction for over 20 years. It is a fitting tribute to his name to name the Coastal Barrier Resources System in his honor. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on this measure. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act. I believe this bill represents a good first step to ``Right-Size'' the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fleet. Senator Breaux is expected to also introduce a similar measure in the Senate today or later this week. Specifically, my bill would: (1) Establish three time-area closures for highly migratory species--one permanent area in the south Atlantic and two time-area closures in the Gulf of Mexico; (2) establish and authorize funding for two buyout programs for approximately 75 eligible vessels; (3) Establish a highly migratory species bycatch reduction research program within the Southeast Fisheries Service Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service to identify and test fishing gear configurations and uses to determine the most effective way to reduce billfish bycatch mortality in pelagic fisheries; and (4) attempt to address fishery related concerns in the area known as the mid Atlantic bight. The proposed closures represent historic ``Hot spots'' for bycatch of undersized swordfish and billfish by catch based on available science from the National Marine Fisheries Service. These closed areas would help to rebuild and protect swordfish propulations as well as other highly migratory species and prohibit pelagic longline fishing during these closed periods. The bill includes a compensation package that authorizes specific congressionally appropriated funds that will be combined with a direct loan to be repaid by both commerical and recreational fishermen. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long and difficult road to get this bill ready for introduction. What started as an introductory meeting just before the August recess with representatives of the pelagic longline industry and several recreational fishing organizations gradually turned into hundreds of telephone calls the next several months. Many conversations with recreational and commerical fisherman and their organizational representatives from all over the country took place which lead to concepts--then proposed legislative language--and finally a bill for introduction today. I would like to thank members of the Blue Water Fishermen's Association located in my district for their leadership on this initiative, the Billfish Foundation, the Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportsfishing Association and many other recreational fishermen in my district, in the State of New Jersey and throughout the country who have worked with me to develop this bill. While not all of these groups are entirely happy with this bill, we hope we can continue to dialog and continue to work together. I would also like to thank the National Marine Fisheries Service for starting this process by establishing a limited entry program for the pelagic longline fishery in the highly migratory species fishery management plan. Mr. Speaker, I realize that this bill is not perfect. I realize that there is much that remains unresolved, particularly in the waters of the mid Atlantic. I look forward to productive and spirited hearings over the coming months that will take place before the subcommittee in Washington, New Jersey, and perhaps Florida as well. I believe it is very important that all interested fishermen and their supportive organizations realize this is the beginning of a process, and that much lies ahead. In the end, I am confident that the final bill will include conservation measures designed to protect these important and impressive migratory marine species, will compensate the fishermen who decide to leave the fishery, will help to maintain a viable U.S. pelagic longline fishery for the future, and will send a strong message to our fellow fishing nations that greater conservation measures need to be enacted to protect and rebuild swordfish populations and reduce unnecessary billfish bycatch. H.R. , Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999 Conservation Benefits (1) Highly Migratory Species Conservation Zones: The Act creates one permanent closure and two time-area closures: Pelagic Longline fishing prohibited within zones during closed time period/season. The three zones represent ``hot spots'' for bycatch of undersized swordfish & billfish based on available science from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Atlantic swordfish conservation zone Extends from the North Carolina/South Carolina border south through to Key West, Florida, to reduce high mortality rates of juvenile swordfish and high rates of billfish bycatch. Covers 80,000 square nautical miles. Closed indefinitely year-around to pelagic longline vessels but not recreation or charter vessels. Gulf of Mexico swordfish conservation zone Extends from North Eastern Gulf of Mexico/DeSoto Canyon region (Mobile, AL to Panama City, FL), to help build swordfish stocks. Covers 5,400 square nautical miles. Time-area closure from January 1 through Memorial Day each year indefinitely to pelagic longline vessels but not recreation or charter vessels. Gulf of Mexico billfish conservation zone Extends from the Gulf of Mexico from the U.S./Mexico border to Cape San Blas, Florida, out to the 500 fathom line, to reduce billfish bycatch. Covers 82,000 square nautical miles. Time-area closure from Memorial Day to Labor Day each year for four years from date of enactment to pelagic longline vessels but not to recreation or charter vessels. (2) Establishes the Highly Migratory Species Bycatch Reduction Research Program: The Act establishes within the Southeast Fisheries Service Center (SFSC), NMFS, a three year Pelagic Longline Billfish Bycatch and Mortality Reduction Research Program to identify and test a variety of pelagic longline fishing gear configurations and uses to determine which configurations and uses are the most effective in reducing billfish bycatch mortality in pelagic longline fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the exclusive economic zone, specifically the Mid Atlantic Bight. In addition, an observer program for the Mid Atlantic Bight will be established and required for vessels operating during the period of June through September to monitor any net increase impacting billfish bycatch and bycatch mortality as well as any substantial net increase in the number of vessels or effort from the remaining pelagic longline vessels. The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress three years following the time-area closures in the Gulf of Mexico evaluating the conservation effectiveness of the closures. Within one year of enactment, all U.S. pelagic longline vessel covered under the HMS FMP shall be required to install Vessel Monitoring System equipment. (3) Establishes Restrictions on Pelagic Longline Vessels in Mid Atlantic Bight: Permitted pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Mid Atlantic Bight from June through August shall not (1) increase their total effort by more than ten percent based on their total effort in the Mid Atlantic Bight from 1992 to 1997, and (2) increase days at sea in the Mid Atlantic Bight by more than ten percent based on average days at sea from 1992 through 1997. (4) Pelagic Longline Vessel Permit Holder Compensation Program: The Act establishes voluntary pelagic longline vessel permit holder compensation program for 68 eligible vessels that fished at least 35% of their time in the Atlantic Swordfish Conservation Zone. Upon accepting the buyout, the permit holder surrenders all commercial fishing permits and licenses that apply to the eligible vessels, including any permits or licenses issued by the Federal Government or a State government or political subdivision. The bill authorizes $15 million to be covered by appropriations as the Federal share and $10 million for the direct loan program to be paid back by a 50-50 split between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors. The compensation will be a combination of a flat dollar amount plus the value of the highest landings in any one year between 1992 and 1998, defines landings, and requires documentation of landings value. The Act also establishes a second voluntary buyout program called the Mid Atlantic Buyout Program. Permitted pelagic longline vessels that have landings of at least 40 percent in the Mid Atlantic Bight from the period of 1992 through 1997 would qualify. The compensation program shall be fair and equitable and shall be based on the compensation formula for the primary buyout program. The bill authorizes $5 million for the buyout program.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are once again considering H.R. 2454, the Arctic Tundra Habitat Conservation Act. This bipartisan legislation addresses the devastating impact that an exploding population of snow geese, also known as light geese, is having on the fragile Canadian Arctic Tundra. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief. I would like to say that this bill was debated and reported from the subcommittee. It was debated and reported from the full Committee on Resources. It was debated here on the floor and passed by a voice vote. It went to the Senate, where an amendment was added to provide for some long-term strategies relative to this subject and is back here for concurrence. This is an essential stopgap measure that is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by Ducks Unlimited, by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, by the National Audubon Society, by the National Rifle Association, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund for America. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere appreciation to Senator Spencer Abraham for his assistance in moving this important proposal. I am confident that early next year we will have a full debate on the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This was an excellent measure that was introduced by Senator Abraham and the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our full committee chairman. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote and I anticipate no further speakers on our side. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2454) to assure the long-term conservation of mid-continent light geese and the biological diversity of the ecosystem upon which many North American migratory birds depend, by directing the Secretary of the Interior to implement rules to reduce the overabundant population of mid-continent light geese.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1444, as amended by the Committee on Resources, will authorize the Secretary of Interior, working through the Fish and Wildlife Service and in consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation, to implement projects to construct fish screens, fish passage devices and other related measures to mitigate the effects of water diversions caused by irrigation systems. The bill was introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), both of whom are going to speak and explain the legislation. But I would like to commend them both for the hard work that they have put into this effort. Without them, surely the bill would not be here on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, State and Federal law currently require the installation of fish screens on many irrigation diversions for agriculture to protect migrating juvenile salmon. While the Federal and State agencies responsible for managing the Columbia River system have worked diligently to install fish screens and fish passage devices, more work is urgently needed. H.R. 1444 would allow State and Federal agencies to continue installing fish screens and fish passage devices. Furthermore, the Secretary will be required to consult with other Federal, State, and local agencies to make maximum use of data and studies in existence on the date of enactment of this act. I believe this bill will help protect the salmon resources of the Pacific Northwest while allowing the agriculture industry to continue its operations. This is a noncontroversial bill and I hope everyone will support it. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve the balance of my time, let me just make note that Marcia Stewart, who is here with us today, legislative assistant to the chief counsel, has done yeoman's work on this bill and has been a great help to all of us over the last several years since she has been with us. She came to us 6 years ago in 1993, and has been extremely successful. As a matter of fact, the last bill that she staffed for us here on the floor passed 412 to 0. So, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that she has been with us and such a productive member of our staff and we will certainly miss her. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1444, and to include extraneous material.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1444) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to develop and implement projects for fish screens, fish passage devices, and other similar measures to mitigate adverse impacts associated with irrigation system water diversions by local governmental entities in the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 189.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 189) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice known as shark finning, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 189, authored by my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), expresses the sense of Congress that the practice of shark finning is wasteful and unsportsmanlike. In addition, it calls on the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the State Department to take action to ban the practice in U.S. waters and to work for a global ban on the practice. The issue that we are talking about here, shark finning, may not be one that is familiar to all Members. I would just like to say a word about what this is, because, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) so well points out in H. Con. Res. 189, it is a practice which I believe would be tasteless, at best, and perhaps many other things at worst. It is very simply this: Catching, through the process that we generally refer to as long lining, sharks, in this case in the western Pacific Ocean, bringing them alongside the boat and removing with a knife their fins, and then turning them loose to die. That is shark finning. Members of this House will remember that in the last reauthorization of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we added a new standard with the goal of reducing bycatch; that is, catching fish other than the targeted species in a fishery. In the meantime, shark finning has been discouraged and made illegal in the Atlantic Ocean, in the Caribbean and in the Gulf of Mexico, leaving only the American waters in the Pacific Northwest in our country where shark finning is permitted. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Fishery Management Councils to develop fishery management plans which are consistent with national standards, and I believe that a national standard has been set by outlawing this practice in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. The new national standard requires Councils to develop fishery management plans which minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, and to the extent that bycatch cannot be reduced, the mortality of such bycatch should be reduced. The practice of shark finning appears not only to encourage the retention of bycatch, but also encourages the mortality of the bycatch. In fact, information from the National Marine Fisheries Service suggests that while in 1991 only 3 percent of the sharks were retained, that is right, 3 percent of the sharks were retained, by 1998 60 percent of the sharks brought to the boat were killed for their fins rather than being released. The only portion of the shark that is retained are the fins, which obviously are kept for economic reasons. This is a wasteful practice and should not be allowed. In addition, it is inconsistent with the rules governing the harvest of sharks on the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and, as I pointed out, in the Caribbean. Some have complained that this resolution undermines the authority of the regional fisheries councils. This is not true, at least in my opinion. This does nothing more than send a signal to the Western Pacific Council, a shot across the bow, if you will, as well as to others, that Congress does not like the practice of shark finning and that those management bodies that manage sharks should take action to prohibit it. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held a hearing on this resolution on October 21, 1999, and heard testimony from a number of interested parties, including the Western Pacific Regional Fish Management Council. While the council did take action at their last meeting to reduce the overall retention of sharks in the longline fisheries, they took no action to reduce or eliminate the practice of shark finning. The full Committee on Resources passed this resolution with an amendment by voice vote on October 27 of this year. I believe Congress should continue to express our strong opposition to this practice and should pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who brought this issue to our attention and who told us inasmuch as shark finning had already been outlawed, if you will, in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, it made no sense to permit the practice to continue in the western Pacific. I thank the gentleman for his great effort in bringing this to our attention and making sure that we address the problem.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2970) to prescribe certain terms for the resettlement of the people of Rongelap Atoll due to conditions created at Rongelap during United States administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and for other purposes.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2970.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take one moment to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for his great effort in bringing this bill to the floor and for making it possible for us to reauthorize this program. It is certainly, as I said before, a very worthwhile program, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas for his forethought in bringing it to us. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2496) to reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2496.