Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from Hawaii in a colloquy regarding a provision of interest to him, that would restrict cruise ships from gambling in the State of Hawaii. For the benefit of our colleagues, I would like to ask the Senator if he would explain the clear intent of this provision.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after protracted negotiations, the Administration and I have reached an agreement that provides the necessary protections for the Steller sea lion while allowing for the needs of fishermen who depend on the robust and healthy groundfish stocks off Alaska. I believe the Senate knows my personal feelings, and the feelings of practically all those who are involved in the harvesting, processing, and subsequent marketing of the millions of tons of seafood that come from the North Pacific and Bering Sea, on this matter. While we recognize that the Steller sea lion deserves protection, we are not convinced that the Commerce Department has proven, let alone adequately tested, its hypothesis that fishing contributes to the sea lions' decline. A few minutes spent skimming the biological opinion reveals the lack of science underlying the proposed actions it contains. For example, the Commerce Department states in its biological opinion that it does not know if fishing impacts sea lions, or that sea lions would likely continue to decline even if all fishing were halted. Nonetheless, the lives of our fishermen will continue to be affected by this opinion. Our agreement provides a three-step phase-in process for fishery restrictions proposed to be implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Alaska groundfish fisheries under Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. This section is intended to lessen the negative economic consequences to the fishing community caused by the restrictions and to ensure that any Steller sea lion protective measures do not create negative consequences for the conservation of the fisheries and ecosystem. This is accomplished by requiring the Secretary to rely on the fishery management provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the regional council processes, when implementing reasonable and prudent alternatives under the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, work on this provision was not completed until shortly before the conference agreement was filed on the final day of this session. I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis of this provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2001 Labor/HHS Appropriations Conference Report is now before the Senate. This conference report serves to wrap up work on all fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills, as it includes the Treasury-General Government and legislative branch bills. Those two bills were previously passed by the Congress, but were vetoed by the President. The only significant change to the bills previously passed by Congress is the deletion of the telephone tax provision in the Treasury bill. The conference report includes other appropriations matters, which emerged subsequent to the completion of the other fiscal year 2001 bills. Significant items include $150 million for repair of the U.S.S. Cole, $100 million for intelligence activities requested by the White House, $110 million for the new markets initiative, $100 million for volunteer firefighter grants sought by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, and $100 million for the Library of Congress to enhance the National Digital Library. I want to also thank all my colleagues for their patience as I worked with the White House for a compromise on the Alaskan Fishery/Sea Lion protection issue. Through the hard work of many here in Congress and at the White House, OMB and the Department of Commerce, we achieved a compromise that meets the priorities of all parties--who share the goal of protecting the sea lion population, and the economic well being and viability of the commercial fishing industry in my State. There are many specific issues that I could comment on today, but I had the opportunity to brief members of this side of the aisle at a conference this afternoon, and the bill is available in the Cloakroom for review. I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report, which completes the work of this Congress, during this Congress. Next month, when the 107th Congress convenes, and a new President is inaugurated, they will both start with no carryover from this Congress.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know others are going to take the floor. While the two leaders are here, I thank each of them for their comments. Nothing is done in the Senate without the concurrence of the leadership. I know full well the help they have given us in the past days and weeks which led to the final solution. I will be speaking about that later. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and also my friend, the Senator from South Dakota, for their help and for the sincere comments they made today. They are very welcome, as far as I am concerned, and I am humbled by them. I thank them very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of H.R. 207, which is at the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendments of the House.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 393 introduced earlier today by Senator Durbin and Senator Fitzgerald.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4907, which is at the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and, finally, any statements relating to either of these measures be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4656, which is at the desk.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader or Senator Abraham be authorized to sign all duly enrolled bills and resolutions following the sine die adjournment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to my friend from New Mexico. I am here once again to talk about the last controversial amendment in the appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2001. We have completed all work on these bills now except for one amendment and that is the amendment that pertains to the Steller sea lions. I am here because there seems to still be a misunderstanding about what we are trying to do. The Congress has passed and the President has signed, as a matter of fact, an extension of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the act that deals with the 200-mile limit off our shores. That act in its original form created the North Pacific Fisheries Council that has jurisdiction under the law for the management plans that apply to fisheries off the shores of my State of Alaska. In its recent action in issuing a biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act, the Department of Commerce saw fit to use the emergency portions of the Magnuson Act to issue a management plan for pollack and for cod off the State of Alaska within what they call the RPAs, the reasonable prudent alternative areas, dealing with the decline of the Steller sea lion. There is no emergency provision in the Endangered Species Act. Under the Magnuson Act, management plans are issued by the regional councils, not by the Department of Commerce. There is an emergency clause, if the Secretary makes findings of problems with the fishery, that could justify the Secretary issuing a plan or a revision of the existing plan. That was not done. Instead, the Department of Commerce saw fit to use the emergency clause of the Magnuson Act to once again seize total control of the pollack and the cod fisheries off our shores within the so-called RPAs. They amount to an area of 20 miles around every sea lion rookery. It is an area that extends from Kodiak, all the way out along the Aleutian chain. The National Marine Fisheries Service has told us there is no data to support the concept that there is a connection between the decline of the sea lion and the harvest of pollack. There is no cause and effect relationship scientifically that exists with regard to this decline. We are appalled by the decline of sea lions off our shores. We also know that sea otters are steadily disappearing, as are fur seals and harbor seals. We believe the reason is the tremendous increase in the killer whales. That is another subject. Very clearly, what the Department has done now is to increase the danger for fishermen who live in Alaska and fish in the areas off our shores. That fishing currently has the highest level of deaths per capita of any industry in the United States. What this order has done, now, is it has foreclosed the fishing by these small boats in the areas where the pollack is located except during the wintertime. This is a particularly dangerous area. Winter storms increase the problems of fishing. What is more, if they follow the order and go beyond the 20 miles, the further from shore they go on these small boats, even a minor injury becomes a life threatening injury, particularly in the stormy season. I have to report to the Senate that the Coast Guard voted against following this biological opinion last Saturday, in my State, for safety reasons. What the administration has done is they have restarted the race for the fish. They have made it almost impossible for the enforcement of this biological opinion. They have not consulted with the people who really know the industry as they have issued this opinion. This opinion will have a $500 million to $800 million impact on the industry, according to figures that came from the Department itself. Just think of this. The largest concentration of fish processors in the United States is on Kodiak Island. I was informed yesterday that, as a result of this opinion, if it is enforced, Kodiak processors will be able to operate for 2\1/2\ days. This opinion will create ghost towns in my State along the shore from Kodiak all the way out along the Aleutian chain. Primarily those are native villages. These are not enormous factory trawlers. They fish way offshore. These are people who live in these small villages and harvest this fish--which is a unique fish, as I have told the Senate before. It is unique because it is a biomass constantly growing. Because of the management schemes we have worked out under the Magnuson Act, that biomass has increased almost five times since we started the Magnuson Act. There is more pollack than ever before, but this is going to limit fishing for pollack in specific areas where the small boats fish. There is just no way to justify this. Native Alaskans, as I say, are going to lose their jobs, lose their subsistence. About 1,000 boats that otherwise would have gone to sea will not fish under this order. It is just unconscionable. I am not one who makes threats; I make statements. I have made the statement that I will not sign this conference report if it does not adequately restore this fishery. I will oppose the bill on the floor, and I am hopeful my friends on this floor will understand why. What this means is we cannot resolve this issue. My staff will meet-- thanks to the good offices of the Democratic leader--with representatives of the administration in just a few minutes, but if we cannot resolve this, my advice is make different reservations. Understand, I cannot as a Senator allow an action that is not following the law that I helped author put a considerable portion of the people who have year-round jobs in my State out of work, and not just temporarily. They have purported to create these areas around these rookeries forever without any consultation with the regional council that was created by the Magnuson Act, without any public hearings, based solely upon a lawsuit that was filed in a Federal court in Seattle and a friendly suit to use that as a justification for taking back into the Federal Government the management of these two magnificent fisheries-- pollack and cod--off our State. In my opinion, it is unconstitutional, but I know one thing--it is not going to be approved by this Senate. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor because, as we are considering the final wrapup of the appropriations bills, I face the problem of having to modify a provision that was in a bill as we were ready to send it to the President before the election dealing with Steller sea lions. It is sort of a long story, but let me start from the beginning. In 1969, as a new Senator, I flew from Kodiak to the Pribilof Islands in a Navy plane. I observed hundreds--hundreds--of foreign fishing vessels--factory trawlers--between those two islands off our coast. They were catching Alaska's seafood. As a matter of fact, they were beyond the 3-mile limit. They were in international waters at that time. Subsequently, I asked the Coast Guard, and I think the Fish and Wildlife Service then, to take some photographs of those vessels. We found, after examining photographs, that on the top of the vessels, on the decks, there were pens, literally, where they would toss a fur seal here and a harbor seal there, and a baby sea lion there. And then there was what we called a ``glory hole'' in the center, and they just shoved all of the fish into that hole. And it was ground up and sent back into the world's economy as protein. None of it came ashore in the United States or Alaska. That appalled me. I came back and we worked with people in the House. We devised a bill and introduced it to claim the 200 miles off our shore for the protection of the marine resources. That did not pass that year. The next year, I asked my good friend, Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington, and he introduced the bill as chairman of the Commerce Committee. I was cosponsor. But we worked to get that bill passed. By 1976, that bill was passed. We obtained control over the 200 miles off our shore. In that process we started the concept of Americanizing the 200 mile zone so we could get better control over the vessels that harvested our fish. The grand story of the whole continuum since 1976 is the pollock and cod of the North Pacific. Pollock and cod were at that time a fairly insignificant fishery. They were taking probably 10-20 million pounds a year--a little bit more--and would bring it ashore here into our country. But the difficulty with pollock is, it must be fleshed and boned soon after it is caught. It turns into a wonderful, white protein. The Japanese use it as surimi. We use pollock and cod as fillets and in fish sticks. If you go to Long John Silver's or McDonald's, any one of those entities today to buy a fish sandwich, there is a 9 out of 10 chance you are going to be eating Alaska pollock. But here is the beauty of the control mechanism we set up over the 200-mile limit. Pollock in the North Pacific is cannibalistic. I have said that on the floor before. As they mature, they get lazy, do not want to forage for food, and they eat their young. We found that if you harvest the mature fish--take them to market--the biomass expands. The biomass of Alaskan pollock is about five times the size it was when we created the 200-mile limit. It now sustains the most enormous fishery in the world. It is a vital necessity to the economy of the Pacific Northwest and an absolute necessity to our State. By virtue of an action taken just recently, the administration has now denied access to Alaskan pollock and cod, to the extent that about 1,000 boats will not fish in January who would otherwise go out and start fishing. The Department of Commerce released, last Friday, a biological opinion on the relationship between the Steller sea lion and the Alaskan groundfish fleet. This 588-page document contains a massive rewrite of the fishery management plan for the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries. Mind you, under the Magnuson Act--it is now called the Magnuson- Stevens Act--but under that Act that commenced in 1976, the duty to create fishery management plans for the areas off our shore lies in the regional councils. Alaska is the only State that has its own council-- because of the massive area of our State; more than half the coastline of the United States is in Alaska--we have a regional council. As I mentioned, the duty to prepare fishery management plans under Federal law is in the regional councils. This is a magnificent experiment in terms of government. The councils are created by appointments from the Secretary of Commerce from a list submitted by the Governors of the coastal States. The Federal Government and the States have each delegated some authority to those councils to manage fisheries in those areas. But this document, filed last Friday, was prepared in secrecy. No one in my State knew what was in it. It impacts areas inside Alaska state waters. It covers areas in the jurisdiction of other departments. And it was not unveiled until the very last minute. In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service had an appointment to brief me on it on Thursday, and they asked to put it off until Friday. I changed that appointment for them. The reason was, they wanted to file it in court before they met with me. They had already delivered the document to the Federal judge involved when we met Friday. They prepared this because a Federal judge in Washington had enjoined all fishing because they lacked sound science under their prior biological opinion, prepared under the Endangered Species Act. I am trying to start a line of reasoning here so people understand what has happened. The way that that biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act has been handled is a direct assault on the 1976 Magnuson Act because it has taken over the jurisdiction of the regional councils to prepare these fishery management plans. In fact, the Magnuson Act contains an emergency clause. The Secretary of Commerce is enabled, under certain circumstances, to issue emergency orders that change or even promulgate a management plan. But this management plan is promulgated in a biological opinion issued under the Endangered Species Act. There is no emergency clause in the Endangered Species Act. What we did in 1976 was to provide the tools to each region to manage the fisheries in their area. There has never been a more successful effort in terms of Federal-State cooperation, in my opinion. Now, because of a lawsuit filed by Greenpeace in a Federal court, the National Marine Fisheries Service is trying to change the total management of the North Pacific as far as the Steller sea lion and Alaska groundfish are concerned. This is the real emergency here for us, but it is something every coastal State should look at. Because by using the authority of the Magnuson Act emergency clause and taking it into a process under the Endangered Species Act and issuing a management plan that is only outlined by the Magnuson Act, but by issuing it in a biological opinion, what they have done is they have seized from the States, they have seized from the regional councils any management authority over the areas off our shores that the Magnuson Act covered. I cannot stand by and see this happen. In the first place, as I said, this is a terrible blow to the people of my State who work hard harvesting and processing this fish. The value of the lost harvest alone will be at least $191 million under the biological opinion. But if you look at that stream of economic activity it creates in the national economy, there is over $1 billion a year that comes from groundfish. It is turned into a marketable, salable product and develops these retail entities that are world renowned in terms of providing quality fish and fish products for consumption by our consumers. The opinion that was filed is an interesting thing. The first five times the National Marine Fisheries Service explored the relationship between pollock and the decline of the Steller sea lion, the opinion said there was no relationship. Dissatisfied with that, the administration dismissed from the area of research the people who had written those first opinions and turned to a new researcher who had done some research off Atka Island, which is about 1,500 miles west of Anchorage, on the relationship of mackerel out there to the fishing efforts. One man developed what is known as a localized depletion theory. He opined that the reason there was a decline around Atka Island was that factory trawlers were coming and fishing. In the period after they were fishing, there was a localized depletion of the fishery resource. That is not a scientific conclusion. That is a theory. But they brought him in to write the biological opinion on Steller sea lions in relationship to pollock and cod, and he used his new concept of localized depletion. He has now brought forward in this biological opinion, through the Department of Commerce--I wish I had the map to show the Senate--a process which denies access to the groundfish fleet to areas within a 20-mile radius of most Steller sea lion rookeries. The concept of the connection between those rookeries and the pollock is localized depletion. It is not science. It is an assumption. And it has not been accepted by the scientific community. Their own scientists admit they have no data to support this theory, and that is a direct violation of both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Endangered Species Act, which require a sound scientific basis. The difficulty is that the biological opinion, if it becomes operative, will limit the areas and limit the seasons in which fishermen can fish for pollock and cod. That is a limitation that is only authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it cannot be promulgated except in response to a plan presented by the regional council. Our regional council denounces this current biological opinion. Our State opposes it violently. As I said, no one knew anything that was in it. It was totally in camera. Nobody had access to it, unless it was the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Greenpeace. The Commerce Department denied me access to it and demanded I wait 12 hours. And in that 12 hours, they filed it in opinion in court without giving us a chance to examine it. The Magnuson Act was designed to promote safety at sea. I don't know how many people know about it, but the worst death ratio in any industry in our country is in commercial fishing off our State. As the father of a son who has been out there fishing for 10, 12, 15 years, I can tell the Senate, there is no greater worry for a father than to have a son on one of those boats because the death toll is horrendous. It will be worse because of Government regulations that require closures and require actions that aren't based on common sense. In this biological opinion, they are now going to force our small boats to fish in the dangerous offshore areas in the winter storm season. They say: Fish in the winter storm season. We passed the act so we could enact regulations so we could get out of the winter storm season. I can't understand why they would do that. It is a direct violation of Federal law to do that. They should have at least consulted the regional council and allowed the regional council to have hearings. They have not done so. Yesterday in Anchorage the advisory panel to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council voted unanimously to reject this biological opinion. They want to restore the regulations that were in effect prior to its issuance until we can have public hearings and public review and we get the National Academy of Sciences and other qualified scientists to review this theory that has been presented by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the cloak of sound science. I do have a provision I am going to offer to this bill again. It is a modification of the amendment that is already there. It would allow the fishery to go forward under both the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations that were in place before this opinion was issued. People are saying we are emasculating the Endangered Species Act. Nothing is further from the truth. The Endangered Species Act was part of the plan that was followed and was in effect before this new plan was filed in the lawsuit in Seattle. Earlier this year, the Department of Commerce argued in court that these regulations were sufficient under the Endangered Species Act. Again, I am here to ask the Senators from New England, from the Atlantic area, from the South Atlantic area, from the Gulf coast, from the Pacific council area, to look at what has happened. This is a federalization of fisheries off our shores under the guise of the Endangered Species Act based upon a theory that has not been tested anywhere. In my opinion, the current act that is before us to close out the Government should not pass and will not have my signature on the final conference report unless something is in there that deals with this very odd biological opinion and restores the capability of our people to continue to fish in a safe and sound way off our shores. Mr. President, I was given a CD-ROM of this document, the biological opinion. I think it would be nice reading for some people over the weekend. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary be printed in the Record following my remarks. The entire document is available on the National Marine Fisheries Service website. There being no ojbection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was in a meeting with the joint leadership discussing the current problems regarding the last appropriations bills and was not able to be here during the time set for comments about our good friend and my southern neighbor, Senator Gorton. It is with deep sadness that I come to join in the comments concerning Senator Slade Gorton. I think he has been an exemplary Member of our Senate and has provided enormous contributions to the well-being of the country in his efforts as a Senator. It is and has been a matter of great pride for me to call Slade and Sally Gorton personal friends. I have visited with them. We have traveled together to other places in the world. It is highly necessary for Members of the Senate to travel and try to learn firsthand the problems of other continents, such as Antarctica, Australia. I remember we went to eastern Russia, and we have traveled many times into the NATO countries together. It is on those trips that we really get to know one another even better than we do in the Senate in Washington. Of course, my friend and I have been able to meet as I have gone through his State. Alaskans go through either Utah, Illinois, or Washington to get home from Washington, D.C. Quite often, I have spent time in Washington State and have visited with Slade Gorton and Sally about the problems of our area. He has been a fierce protector of the interests of the State of Washington in the Senate. As a westerner, he and I have shared many issues and faced the problem of finding solutions to some of these difficulties that we face in the Pacific Northwest together. We have worked with our friend, Senator Murray, on these issues. I think we have had a good working team together. We have often, as members of the Pacific Northwest group in the Senate, had to go head to head with almost every Member of the Senate and the administration to try to protect the interests of the Pacific Northwest. We are an area that many people do not understand. It is an area that requires an enormous amount of personal contact with our constituents in order to make certain we are on the right track. Senator Gorton has been to my State quite often, along with me and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, to try and make certain we are reflecting the concerns of our people as we address the concerns of the people of the State of Washington at the same time. When I came to the Senate, an elderly Senator told me that there were two types of Senators: the workhorses and the show horses. You have to decide which one you are going to be. It is obvious that an Alaskan has only one choice. We are one-fifth the size of the United States. We have more than half the coastline in the United States. And we have about the same number of people as the smaller States in the lower 48, in terms of geography, that are much tinier compared to our State. Senator Gorton, with his background, as we heard, coming from the east coast originally, very well educated, very well read, and probably one of the most well-read younger Senators in the Senate, has had the problem of trying to decide what to do. He, too, decided to become a Senator and is one whom I would call a workhorse. He has worked doggedly on issues pertaining to his State. His staff is probably one of the best staffs I have seen work on issues pertaining to the Pacific Northwest. When we look at the problems of America from the point of view of the Senate, we would have to really take into account the people Senators represent. The State of Washington has given its Senators great flexibility in terms of addressing issues that deal with the Pacific Northwest and our Nation. There is no question that in his three terms in the Senate, Senator Gorton has been one of the pivotal votes in determining the policies of that area. I know they will be going back to Washington. And I think we will hear a great deal of Slade Gorton and Sally. They have concerns about the country and concerns about our area that are unique. I believe they are going to continue to contribute to the solutions to the problems that I mentioned before. I am really here to thank him for his friendship and for the dignity he has brought to the office of United States Senator. I really believe he showed great compassion as he spent 2 years out of the Senate when he was not elected after a second term, and he came back again after 2 years and became even a greater Senator because of that. He has been a strong Senator, a thoughtful Senator, a hard-working Senator, and a great personal friend. I don't look forward to making statements such as this. I certainly don't look forward to losing the partnership I have had with the Senator from Washington, Slade Gorton, in dealing with the problems of the Pacific Northwest. I thank the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS. I temporarily object.

Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my good friend from Wyoming is here and has consented that I might take up to 5 minutes of his time at this time. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized for that purpose.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.