Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and would like to thank the gentleman for his kind remarks.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3445) to establish the Commission on Ocean Policy, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 3445, a bill to establish a National Ocean Commission. Considerable effort has gone into producing the bill that is agreeable to a wide variety of parties that are interested in the conservation, management, and use of our natural, our rich and varied ocean and coastal resources. The bill reflects an agreement reached before the full committee markup by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and other Members, and further amendments were included to satisfy the concerns of gulf State Members. It also reflects the willingness of the Committee on Science and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to allow us to move forward in a prompt manner and act on the measure this year, the International Year of the Ocean. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Members of the Committee on Science and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their consideration. H.R. 3445 builds upon the foundation established more than 30 years ago with the enactment of the Marine Resources, Engineering and Development Act in the early 1960s. That historic legislation established a Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering and Resources commonly referred to as the Stratton Commission, which encouraged development of a comprehensive national ocean policy. As a direct result of the Stratton Commission and their report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was formed and created, and the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed by the Congress and established. By the year 2010, it has been estimated that 127 million people or 60 percent of the American population will live along our coasts. As someone who is proud to represent a coastal district, I have dedicated myself to the health and vitality of our ocean ecosystems. H.R. 3445 will help assure that health and vitality through the work of the new ocean policy commission. This commission will inform Congress of our current ocean programs and whether or not they are on track, whether or not they need to be changed, and will presumably recommend some improvements. As a maritime nation, we have always been aware of how crucial oceans are to both our economic well-being and to the well-being of our environment. For instance, the commercial fishing industry alone contributes $111 billion per year to our national GDP. There is always a need to further invigorate our ocean and coastal programs. During the past 4 years, the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, which I chair, has invested a great deal of effort trying to improve U.S. coastal and ocean programs and dealing with persistent management problems facing our fishery resources. A formal review of all these policies by a group of independent nongovernmental experts will give us a fresh look at these problems, the problems our oceans face, and suggest the potential solutions for the 21st Century. The bill before us today establishes the National Ocean Commission consisting of 16 Members. Eight will be appointed from Republican nominations and eight from Democratic nominations, making it a true bipartisan commission. The bill requires extensive public input, including regional public hearings, public review of the draft report, and review of the draft report by the governors of coastal states. The bill also requires the commission to consider the effects of its recommendations on private property and local economies. H.R. 3445 is the product of hundreds of hours of deliberation by both Members and our fine staffs. It is an appropriate congressional initiative during 1998, the International Year of the Ocean, and I obviously hope that this bill will pass by a unanimous vote. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a special note of the fine efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who together with several other Members have partnered to create a bill and an initiative which I believe is of great significance, and has gone through, frankly, a long and difficult process. So these bills that come about as a result of a long period of consideration and conversation and dialogue and debate oftentimes produce a very, very good product. I believe that that is the case with regard to this bill, and I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for the very important and forward looking role that he played. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2863.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2863, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) to reform the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. He has been joined in this effort by a number of colleagues, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). Madam Chairman, it has been 80 years since Congress enacted this law to conserve migratory birds. It is a good law and it has worked. During this time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued many regulations dealing with the harvest of migratory birds. The vast majority of these regulations were proposed by the hunting community, and as such, they have worked. The Federal courts, however, impose a rule which is referred to as the rule of strict liability on those accused of hunting migratory birds over bait. It is this rule of strict liability that this reform act seeks to change. I would like to say at this point that the basic bill, the law itself and the provisions it imposes, are not changed at all. For example, the term ``baiting'' is defined in the current law and the definition remains the same. And just for the purpose of clarification, I would like to state what that rule is. Baiting is defined and it says, ``No person shall take migratory bird by the aid of baiting, which means the placement or scattering of corn, wheat, or other feeds so as to constitute a lure, attraction or enticement to any areas where hunters are attempting to take them,'' ``them'' referring of course to migratory waterfowl. That provision remains intact as it is and as it has been and as it has worked well. However, the Federal court's imposition of a rule of strict liability of those accused of hunting migratory birds under bait as defined by the words I just read has not worked well, at least in the opinion of those of us who support this bill. What this means is that if a hunter is there in a location and bait is there, the hunter is guilty. There is little opportunity for defense. The court rules the bait was there, the hunter was there. Whether or not the hunter knew the bait was there is irrelevant, and the guilty verdict applies. Further, conviction under this act is a Federal criminal offense and penalties may include a fine of up to $5,000 and 6 months in jail. This is strict liability interpretation. ``If you are there, you are guilty'' is fundamentally wrong under our American system of laws, law enforcements, and jurisprudence. It violates one of our most basic constitutional protections, that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Strict liability has a chilling effect, therefore, on thousands and thousands of law-abiding citizens. Let me just put forth a couple of examples about how unfair this rule is. Baiting is illegal. It will continue to be illegal. And unfortunately, there will be those who take part in the practice of baiting, I suppose thinking they will never be caught. So let us just assume for a moment that someone in the Midwestern part of the country decides they want to hunt for Canadian geese. As we know, Canadian geese love to eat corn. And if a flock of Canadian geese, Canada geese, become accustomed to feeding in a field every morning at 6:30 a.m., because somebody goes out and spreads corn around every afternoon at 6 p.m., the flock comes back again and again and again. And those who bait and who are illegally hunting there, I suppose, benefit from the fact that they are getting away with this baiting. Now, let us just suppose for a moment that on their way home from school some 16- or 17-year-old boys who love to hunt notice that this is a prime spot for hunting. It is so because every morning on the way to school they see this hunting activity taking place and they say to themselves, tomorrow morning, on Friday, let us go to that field because it must be a wonderful place to hunt. So the teenagers show up, they get in a blind, and along come the snow geese followed by a game warden. The teenagers are there doing their hunting which they think is totally legitimate because they had no idea that the baiting has taken place. The warden shows up, arrests the teenagers, and they go to court and they are found guilty with no reference whatsoever to whether or not they knew the baiting had occurred. They were there, the bait was there, and therefore they were guilty. There are many other examples like this that could be used, but I think that example makes the point. At the full Committee on Resources markup, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) offered an amendment that limited the scope of the bill to the two issues that can be resolved through this legislative process. The first is to replace this strict liability, if the hunter was there and the bait was there, the hunter is guilty, to replace this liability with the phrase that the person knew or should have known that the baiting had taken place. The second provision improves the current law by making it unlawful to place or direct the placement of bait. This will allow the service to cite those commercial operators who intentionally bait a field without the knowledge of the hunter. Madam Chairman, I believe that every American is innocent until proven guilty and that people should be entitled to offer evidence in their defense. I hope that others will agree with this provision. It is the right thing to do and the ``knows'' or ``reasonably should know'' standard will be effectively applied throughout this Nation. There is no justification for the strict liability doctrine in this case when it refers to these migratory birds, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree and vote ``yes'' on this measure. Madam Chairman, I submit the following for the Record: California Waterfowl Association, Sacramento, CA, July 10, 1998. Hon. Don Young, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Young: The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) is pleased to support HR 2863, your effort to obtain changes in federal migratory bird baiting regulations to provide hunters, wildlife managers, farmers, law enforcement officials, and the courts with enhanced clarity and guidance as to the restrictions on the taking of migratory birds. CWA supports the intent of regulations aimed at preventing baiting for the purpose of increasing the vulnerability of waterfowl to the gun. However, our Association has long recognized that current regulations, if actively enforced, would likely result in negative impacts to California's critical remaining managed wetland base, as well as unwarranted prosecution of law abiding sportsmen and women. Of primary concern are ambiguities in the current regulations which conflict with traditional ``moist-soil'' wetland management practices which are intended to augment habitat values for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife. Because California has lost nearly 95% of its historic waterfowl habitat, it is critical that the wetland values and functions of the habitat base which remains be maximized. Currently, however, confusion over the meaning and enforcement of these regulations is compromising the willingness of many landowners to employ preferred waterfowl habitat management practices on their lands. In an effort to address these concerns, for nearly three years, CWA and others have actively urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to consider changes in federal baiting regulations. As you are aware, this past March, the Service responded by offering for comment a variety of amendments to the existing rules. Our Association applauds the Service for this proposal which addresses many of our concerns regarding conflicts with preferred wetland management practices. Although the Service proposal needs further clarification, we believe our remaining concerns in this area can be addressed administratively during the proposal's public comment process. The Service's proposal does not, however, address another area of concern to our Association--the issue of strict liability. Existing regulations are written in a ``guilty until proven innocent'' fashion which has, at times, resulted in law abiding hunters being unreasonably prosecuted for baiting. By proposing to amend the rule to install the ``knows or reasonably should know'' standard, your HR 2863 effectively addresses this concern by allowing those who believe they were unfairly cited to present their case in court. Our Association appreciates your willingness to carefully address the outstanding issue of strict liability without weakening the important intent of current restrictions, or the protection they offer the waterfowl resource. As such, we are pleased to offer this legislation our support, and we look forward to working closely with you to secure its passage. Sincerely, Bill Gaines, Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would just conclude once again by saying as directly and as forthrightly as I can that we in no way change the provisions of the basic law, the antibaiting provisions remain in effect, and that no person shall take migratory birds by the aid of baiting in any way, but that we do replace the strict liability provision with the known or should have known provision. I ask all Members on both sides of the aisle, with the exemption perhaps of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), to support the bill.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentleman, through the Chairman of course, that I think that a matter of fairness applies here and that it is crucial that the strict liability provision be replaced. I am not alone in feeling that way. As a matter of fact, I have here a letter from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources from their chief officer of law enforcement. I would just like to read a few lines from it. The letter is addressed to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). The letter reads, ``As the chief law enforcement officer of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources,'' and I point out and emphasize here that this is the chief law enforcement officer, and of course I am speaking to the objections that the gentleman from California raised relative to law enforcement. He says, ``I wish to go on record in support of the bill H.R. 2863. As a career conservation law enforcement officer, I know firsthand the strengths and weaknesses of our Federal baiting regulations. If Congress adopts the Delahoussaye standard for waterfowl baiting regulations, a serious and long-standing weakness will have been remedied.'' ``Some opponents,'' he said, ``of your bill object on the basis that law enforcement officers will have to work much harder to make good baiting cases. In my opinion, in a free society like ours, ease of enforcement should not be a standard that is applied when evaluating a law. Rather, we should seek to enact common sense laws that treat sportsmen fairly and protect our precious natural resources first and foremost.'' So this is, I think, stated very succinctly. I believe that it goes a long way to answer the gentleman's questions or objections. Secondly, the bill makes a major improvement, I believe, in terms of law enforcement, because under the current law, if one baits and is not there when the game warden shows up, he can only be brought into the case through a conspiracy theory. Under the new law, the baiter actually will assume direct responsibility for the baiting. Those provisions are written very clearly in section 3 on page 2, lines 6 through 20. So we have tried very hard to provide for the continuation of a strong antibaiting law but to put a degree of fairness in the reform bill that simply does not exist in the current statutes. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

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 S. 1883, the Senate bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great community leader and close friend, James J. Mancini of Long Beach Township. On Friday, September 11, 1998, some of us will ``roast'' Jim by poking fun at some of his more colorful characteristics. But, make no mistake, when it comes down to representing the people of Ocean County, Jim Mancini is very serious, very sincere, and very successful. First elected to the Ocean County Board of Freeholders in 1982, Jim has proved to be a strong advocate of senior citizens, veterans and the disabled, and has improved transportation programs and library services. With the largest senior population in the State, Freeholder Mancini, who also is the long-time Mayor of Long Beach Township, serves as the Chairman of the Ocean County Office of Senior Services. A veteran of World War II, Freeholder Mancini's work with the Ocean County Veterans Service Bureau has resulted in an increase in services to the more than 50,000 veterans living in the County. He has received numerous accolades from veterans service organizations for his work, and is a recipient of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Jim became Mayor of the seaside community of Long Beach Township in 1964, and continues in that capacity today. He served as a State Assemblyman in the 1970s, and was Ocean County's Freeholder-Director in 1985, 1991 and 1994. He is the Chairman of the Board of Southern Ocean County Hospital in Stafford Township, and is the Vice President of the Long Beach Island St. Francis Community Center Corporation. Jim and his wife, Madeline, have nine adult children: Susan, Joseph, Nancy, Annmarie, Jane, Joan, James, Jr., Madeline and Henry, and 12 grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, On September 11, I will share a few laughs with my good friend, Jim Mancini. But, all jokes aside, Jim Mancini is a leader for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. Our communities thank him for his commitment to improving our quality of life.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1883, a bill introduced by our colleagues from Alabama, Senators Shelby and Sessions, to transfer the Marion National Fish Hatchery and the Claude Harris National Aquacultural Research Center to the State of Alabama. This legislation, which would convey about 600 acres of Federal land, is virtually identical to a measure that the House of Representatives unanimously adopted in 1996. The Alabama Fish and Game Division has effectively operated the Marion Fish Hatchery for over 24 years. During that time it has produced thousands of bluegills, channel fish, channel catfish, large- mouthed bass, striped bass, sunfish, and hybrid striped bass fingerlings. These fish are used to stock over 500,000 acres of public waters in the State of Alabama, and they are available to over 530,000 licensed sport anglers. Furthermore, over $2 million has been spent on improvements and renovations to the Marion Fish Hatchery since the State assumed operation of the facility in 1974. By obtaining title to the hatchery, the State will be able to make additional necessary modifications for the future. The Claude Harris National Aquacultural Research Center, which is adjacent to the hatchery, was established in 1959 to conduct much of the primary research on the channel catfish. Within the past 2 years the State has assumed, under a memorandum of agreement with the Department of the Interior, the operation of the research center, and its mission will be to continue to improve the efficiency of warm water aquaculture. Under the terms of this legislation, the State of Alabama has agreed to use these two facilities exclusively for their fish culture program. S. 1883 is supported by the Clinton administration, Governor Fab James, and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1883) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Marion National Fish Hatchery and the Claude Harris National Aquacultural Research Center to the State of Alabama, and for other purposes.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the Little League World Series Champions, Toms River East Little League team. The 11 and 12 year olds from Toms River, New Jersey sailed through the Little League tournament at Williamsport, Pennsylvania undefeated and won its first Little League World Series championship. Additionally, Toms River East became the first New Jersey team to win the championship since 1975 and the first U.S. team to win since 1993. Toms River East secured the championship from the team from Japan by a score of 12-9. Chris Cardone, who was 1 for 10 coming into the final game, slugged home runs in consecutive at bats to propel Toms River East to the title. Also starring in the game was Todd Frazier who had four hits in four at bats including a home run and earned a save in the championship game. This past weekend, 40,000 fans, friends and family members gathered to welcome the champions home at a parade in their honor. After the speeches were concluded, a question was posed to team manager Mike Gaynor on his feelings about the magical run to the championship. Coach Gaynor summed up the experience ``as the time of his life.'' Mr. Speaker, I salute the Toms River East Little League team in winning the Little League World Series and to all Little Leaguers around the world who participated and upholding the Little League Pledge of ``win or lose, I will always do my best.''

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey my personal sympathies and to say that our heart goes out to the families of the Americans who were apparently killed earlier this morning in eastern Africa, yet another two terrorist attacks against Americans overseas; and to say that, apparently, there was a third one planned, which for some reason did not materialize, also in the eastern part of Africa. To say that once again, that as bad as we feel when these types of events happen and as much as we wish that we did not have to deal with them, the fact is that we do have to deal with these instances. As the chairman of a group of Republicans, I am joined here today by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) who is also a member of the group of Republicans which calls ourselves the Task Force on Terrorism and U.N. Conventional Warfare. We have studied these types of activities. We have studied the causes of them and we have, sadly, become too aware that our government as an institution is either unable or unwilling to put in place policies to deal with them. I would like to think that we have been unwilling rather than unable. Let me just recite one example of the kind of thing that leads me to that conclusion. In 1996, we passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of that year. Among other things, it provided that victims of terrorism and their families could sue States who sponsor terrorism. In the case of one individual who was killed, it happened to be in Gaza in the West Bank, a young lady by the name of Alysa Flatow, who was an American citizen studying in Israel, was killed by a car bomb. It sounds familiar. Pursuant to the act that we passed in 1996, her family had the right to sue in American courts to recover damages which they did, and they were granted a judgment by the judge in U.S. District Court here in Washington, D.C., a judgment for $247 million against the State of Iran who, through various accounts, had transferred monies to the Islamic Jihad who carried out this attack. Here on the floor this week, and 2 weeks ago, members of the Task Force on Terrorism had to fight against the State Department to pass another amendment to another law to enable the Flatow family to collect their judgment. In other words, our State Department and our Justice Department was fighting against our efforts to help the Flatow family cause a price to be paid by Iran, the sponsor of this terrorist act. In other words, our government was protecting the rights of the State of Iran rather than the rights of the Flatow family and the rights of every Member of this House who voted for the Antiterrorism Act of 1996. There has to be a price to pay. Ronald Reagan knew there had to be a price to pay. He told Qadhafi that there would be a price to pay, and there was a price to pay. The Libyans have been silent ever since on these subjects. Our State Department must take note that, in the case of Khobar Tours, there was no price to pay. In the case of these two latest explosions, we will go through the process of grieving. We will go through the process of cleaning up the embassies. We will go through the process of some kind of a cursory investigation. Unless our policies change, there will be no price to pay. Those who cause these types of actions must know that there is not only a price to pay, but that America will cause a heavy price to be paid. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just quickly make one final point, and that is that acts of terrorism, we know now, are not carried out in a vacuum. They are part of an overall plan to destabilize some kind of activity. I would suggest that, in this case, Mr. Speaker, it appears that it is an activity to destabilize our overseas international operations. I think the American people ought to be aware that it is not just an act. It is a planned covert activity that is being carried out in general against our country.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I also thank the gentleman for his great effort on behalf of our task force, overall effort to come to grips here in the House with these issues. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The subject of human intelligence is one that we have discussed at great length and, I believe, recognize today that our ability to deal through human intelligence has been greatly limited in recent years. I do not say this to be critical, but I think it is an objective fact, because the recent administration has put in place policies that have made it difficult, and more difficult as time has gone on, for us to collect data that we need. We had a discussion just the other day about a related but slightly bigger issue, and that is whether or not we can detect the emergence in certain countries of nuclear capability, which relates to human intelligence as well or the lack thereof. So certainly one of the things that we can do is to work with the CIA and other agencies to beef up our human intelligence effort, which is so necessary in being able to predict with some degree and certainty, at least in general, where these types of acts will occur.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the effective management of Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) and their fisheries is perhaps the most complex challenge facing the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) today. These species range widely throughout international waters and the jurisdictions of many coastal nations with diverse policies and perspectives on resource utilization and management. The fishing practices and marketing priorities for these species are equally diverse. Seriously compounding these challenges is that the biology of these species is not well known and remains difficult to determine. Congress has recognized the unique and difficult challenges associated with effective conservation and management of HMS and those who fish for them. Fundamental to this recognition is that effective management of these species and fisheries cannot be achieved on a unilateral basis, but instead must be pursued on a multilateral basis throughout their range. Unlike most other U.S. fisheries, effective multilateral management is the goal of U.S. HMS policy. A number of specific provisions in both the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) are intended to express this policy. For example, Congress deliberately placed Atlantic HMS management authority in the hands of the Secretary of Commerce instead of the regional Councils for the purpose of ensuring that the U.S. maintained a multilateral, Atlantic-wide perspective and vision. As U.S. policy and law dictate, the principal purpose and obligation of domestic Atlantic HMS management measures is to faithfully implement and enforce the multilateral ICCAT measures. U.S. law requires such implementation to achieve but not exceed the conservation (fishing mortality) objectives of ICCAT measures and ensure that U.S. fishermen are provided a reasonable opportunity to harvest their allocation. U.S. law and common sense also dictate that domestic HMS management should avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens that serve to increase waste in the fisheries or disadvantage U.S. fishermen relative to their foreign competitors. These are some of the more important aspects of U.S. HMS policy. As a matter of general fishery policy, section 303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the Secretary to include a limited access system in any fishery management plan for any fishery, subject to certain considerations. The establishment of a limited access system is of critical importance in effectively managing fisheries for which U.S. harvesting capacity far exceeds the available resource-- particularly if that resource requires rebuilding and is subject to quota reductions. Such is the case with our U.S. pelagic longline fisheries. A limited access system also provides the opportunity to reduce harvesting capacity in such fisheries through attrition, a buy-back program, phase-out of latent permits, or other means. Such capacity reduction measures can facilitate the establishment of other important management tools designed to protect nursery and spawning areas and reduce bycatch while minimizing the economic consequences on the fishermen. Current Federal regulations provide that virtually any U.S. citizen who can pay a small administrative fee may enter the Atlantic swordfish fishery. This practice of allowing a continuous stream of new and inexperienced fishermen into this fishery has seriously hindered progress in achieving a number of key management objectives. Although for many years the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline community has petitioned NMFS to establish a limited access system, the agency has repeatedly failed to move beyond endless deliberation and still has not put such a system into place. This delay has served to exacerbate the problems associated with this overcapitalized industry and has precluded consideration of some of the more important conservation needs facing pelagic longline fisheries. Meanwhile, NMFS has established limited access systems in other overcapitalized fisheries leaving the pelagic longline fishery open to fishermen displaced from these other closed fisheries. There are a large number of unused, latent permits in these fisheries and many new vessels have entered in recent years. The pelagic longline community and fisheries are in a state of emergency and can no longer wait for the agency to respond. There are two purposes of the legislation I am introducing today. The first is to prevent any new fishing vessels from entering the U.S. Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery by placing a moratorium on the issuance of any new fishing permits for vessels that did not hold a valid permit to fish in the U.S. Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery on August 1, 1998. I would note that although this permit moratorium provision relates specifically to the Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery, it is not intended to preclude or prejudice any possible future consideration of a similar moratorium with respect to other Atlantic swordfish fisheries including the drift gillnet and handgear fisheries. The second purpose of this legislation is to prevent those latent permits for the U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery under which no swordfish was reported to NMFS as landed after January 1, 1987, from being used to fish in the U.S. Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery. Again, I would note as before that although this latent permit provision relates specifically to the use of such permits in the Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery, this is not intended to preclude or prejudice any future consideration of a similar latent permit prohibition with respect to other Atlantic swordfish fisheries including the drift gillnet and handgear fisheries. I believe the combination of these two provisions will go a long way toward addressing the threat of further overcapitalization within the swordfish pelagic longline fisheries and begin moving the fishery in the direction of reduced capacity. However, it is my sincere hope and intent that the NMFS will respond to this wake-up call and move forward expeditiously with the timely implementation of a comprehensive system of limited access for not only the Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline fishery, but also the closely related pelagic longline fisheries for Atlantic tunas and Atlantic sharks. On a broader note, I would like to take this opportunity to express my increasing concern--and that of a number of my colleagues--over the interpretation by NMFS of U.S. HMS policies and laws relative to the setting of our multilateral objectives at ICCAT, as well as in the context of domestic implementation of our international obligations. We are equally concerned about the ability and efficiency of NMFS to put into place sensible and practicable domestic measures that are fair and equitable to all U.S. fishermen. These concerns are heightened by the impending rebuilding requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and the fact that fishermen are increasingly turning to the judicial branch for solutions. For example, it remains unclear how NMFS plans to implement the new rebuilding provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as they relate to HMS. Specifically, it is unclear how NMFS plans to coordinate the promulgation of a rebuilding plan for bluefin tuna with the results of the upcoming ICCAT meeting in November which is scheduled to focus on bluefin tuna. Perhaps even more unsettling is how the agency plans to coordinate the promulgation of a rebuilding plan for swordfish with existing ICCAT swordfish management measures, given that ICCAT will not focus on swordfish again until November, 1999. Another concern is that in 1995, ICCAT recognized the need to further protect juvenile swordfish and authorized ICCAT member nations to prohibit the sale, including importation, of small swordfish less than 33 pounds. This was done with the concurrence of the Office of U.S. Trade Representative. This initiative has been a priority of the U.S. swordfish industry for several years, and earlier this year, the President pledged to impose and fund the implementation of a ban on the importation of undersized swordfish. However, while the NMFS has succeeded in imposing and enforcing the undersize swordfish prohibition on U.S. fishermen, it has failed to impose or fund the enforcement of a equitable restriction on foreign fishermen through the import prohibition authorized by ICCAT and promised by the President. It remains unclear to this day how and when NMFS plans to implement or fund this crucial ICCAT recommendation. As one further example of concern, there is a great deal of interest in the use of gear modification such as circle hooks in Atlantic HMS fisheries as potential tools to at least partially address one of the most critical problems facing HMS fisheries today including: reducing the mortality of bycatch in commercial HMS fisheries; reducing the mortality of fish that are released in recreational HMS fisheries; and reducing the catch (and mortality) of small swordfish in the pelagic longline fisheries. Reducing bycatch and minimizing the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided is, of course, a strong statutory mandate for NMFS. But, it concerns me that the first and primary approach considered by NMFS for HMS seems to be to shut down pelagic longline fisheries during some rather uncertain times and in some rather uncertain areas based on some very uncertain scientific data. This appears to be a very disruptive approach with a very high cost relative to a very uncertain benefit. It is unclear what alternative steps NMFS plans to take to quickly and efficiently evaluate the benefits of circle hook use as a potentially more effective and certainly less disruptive measure. As we conclude our consideration of the reauthorization of the ATCA this year and begin our preparations for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the next Congress, it may be necessary for us to consider a more comprehensive package of legislative measures intended to improve the management of Atlantic HMS and their fisheries by the NMFS. The legislation I am introducing today represents a good start in that direction and, to the extent a larger package becomes necessary, I look forward to working with my colleagues, the NMFS, the U.S. ICCAT Commissioners, the commercial and recreational fishing industries and other affected parties toward achieving some of the most important goals of HMS fisheries management.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is known as the International Terrorist Must Pay amendment. In 1996, the Congress passed and the President signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This Act allowed victims of State-sponsored terrorism to sue foreign governments in Federal court for damages arising from terrorism. In 1995, a young New Jersey woman named Alysa Flatow was killed in Israel by a suicide bomber from the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist operation financed by and sponsored by Iran. Her family sued under the aforementioned statutes and proved that Iran had financed the activities of the Islamic Jihad, and received a judgment of $247 million in damages. Needless to say, Iran did not voluntarily step forward to pay the judgment. As a result, the Flatows sought to locate Iranian-owned property in the United States. Recently they located three properties in Washington, D.C. owned by the Iranian government. They proceeded to go to court to have the court attach the properties for subsequent sale. The court issued the writs of attachment, and the Federal Marshals were ordered to serve Iran with the papers. The State Department at that time stepped in and raised objections to the sale, in effect taking the side of Iran, and asked the Justice Department to intervene on the side of Iran. The Justice Department subsequently made an appearance in the trial and argued that the property should not be seized, their argument being that it would allow the seizure of Iranian assets. Of course, if their argument holds, this would defeat the purpose of the bill that Members on both sides of the aisle voted in favor of in 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Iran therefore would be allowed to continue to finance terrorist activity without a price to pay. This amendment finalizes the process and creates a price for international terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the chairman and the ranking member and all those who have spoken in favor of this amendment tonight. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Callahan amendment. It is my opinion that this amendment would have a devastating effect on many Gulf of Mexico fisheries. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I have the utmost regard for the gentleman from Alabama and for his constituents. I would like to point out that we have heard from some of them who oppose the gentleman's amendment. For example, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council voted 9 to 2 to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I also have a communication here from the Clark Seafood Company from Pascagoula, Mississippi. Let me quote from their letter: ``I think Congressman Callahan was probably trying to do something helpful for commercial and recreational fishing when he wrote'' his proposal, ``but his proposal, a rider on the appropriations bill, leaves an awful lot of questions unanswered and could cause some big problems for Gulf fishermen.'' I also have a letter from the Orange County Fishing Association from Orange County, Alabama: ``We fully support the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's position'' in opposition to the Callahan amendment, they say. ``The National Marine Fisheries Service states that if they lose the valuable miles for bycatch reduction, their only alternative would be to lower the allowable catch for red snapper and thereby extend the closure considerably.'' We have a letter from the Destin Charter Boats Association to the same effect. We have a letter from the Galveston Party Boats, Inc. to the same effect. We have a letter from the Panama Boatman Association and they say, ``This rider will be devastating to the hook and line fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.'' Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following correspondence: Clark Seafood Company, Inc., Pascagoula, MS, July 29, 1998. Hon. Trent Lott, Russell Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Lott: I apologize for waiting this late to contact your office about Sonny Callahan's bill to extend the state waters of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana out to nine miles. I think Congressman Callahan was probably trying to do something helpful for commercial and recreational fishing when he wrote his proposed law extending the fisheries jurisdiction in the Gulf out to nine miles. But his proposal, a rider on the appropriations bill, leaves an awful lot of questions unanswered and could cause some big problems for Gulf fishermen and for people like me in the commercial fishing business. I don't think a law that makes such big changes in the way we operate and that could cost a lot of fishermen a large amount of money should be passed without giving all of us a chance to ask questions about it and at least try to make changes where we see problems. Congressman Goss has tried to make changes to minimize the problems but his efforts raise other questions for us. I would appreciate it if you would ask Congressman Callahan to remove his rider on the appropriations bill and bring his proposal back to Congress next year as a regular bill. That way we in the fishing industry can study and comment on the bill. If he is unwilling to do that, I would ask you to vote against Congressman Callahan's rider on the appropriations bill. Thank you for your consideration of my comments on this issue and for your work supporting our seafood businesses. Sincerely, Phil Horn.