Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have 8 minutes, roughly. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Virginia 4 minutes, but I might say, Mr. President, to the Senator from Arizona, we thought he might proceed first. If he doesn't use all his time, there will be more time for us.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members of the staff of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2266: Sid Ashworth, Susan Hogan, Jay Kimmitt, Gary Reese, Mary Marshall, John Young, Mazie Mattson, Michelle Randolph, Charlie Houy, Emelie East, and Mike Morris, a legislative fellow detailed to the committee from the Department of Defense.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 2269, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998, closely follows the bill passed by the Senate on July 15. The bill provides $247.5 billion in new budget authority for the Department, an amount within the levels set in the budget agreement with the White House. As in July, the conference report reflects a bipartisan effort, and I am grateful to my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, for his partnership in bringing this bill back to the Senate, and bringing it back as a very good bill. The House passed the conference report by a vote of 356 to 65, today. The full text of the conference report, and the accompanying statement of the managers was printed in yesterday's Congressional Record. The print of House Report 105-265 has been available to all Members today. The tables and descriptive text of the statement of the managers details the funding levels for all the programs considered by the conferees--I will not take the Senate's time to summarize those adjustments. I do want to highlight the toughest policy issue we faced--continued funding for operations in and around Bosnia. The House of Representatives in its original bill passed a provision which was a total prohibition on spending for any operations in Bosnia after June 30, 1998. Personally, I believe we should withdraw our forces from Bosnia. Secretary Cohen and General Ralston met with us, and urged us not to take that unilateral step, at this time. Prior to this conference, several of us traveled to the United Kingdom, for the periodic United States-United Kingdom interparliamentary meetings. In those talks some of us came to appreciate better the total dependence by our European allies on the United States forces in Bosnia. The compromise we reached retains the position of the House that we bring our forces out of Bosnia by June 30, but the President can waive that requirement if he certifies to the Congress the forces must stay in the interest of our national security. The President must also inform the Congress on seven points: First, the reasons for the deployment; second, the number of personnel to be deployed; third, the duration of the mission; fourth, the mission and objectives; fifth, the exit strategy for U.S. forces; sixth, the costs for operations past June 30; and seventh, the impact on morale and retention. This certification to Congress will constitute the first time this President has informed the Congress about Bosnia before deploying or extending our forces there. I want to recognize the leadership of my good friend from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, who contributed to our discussions in the United Kingdom following the visit he made to the continent. And it was his ideas that he passed on to me that really led to the compromise that we have reached in this conference. The Congress and the American people, Senator Roberts told me, deserve to know why our forces are in Bosnia and how long they must stay. The provision in this bill requires such a statement. The President is also expected to submit a supplemental appropriations request for additional amounts needed to maintain our forces in Bosnia if he decides to keep them there without damaging the readiness or the quality of life of our Armed Forces. Virtually every program funded in this bill when we originally passed it the House and the Senate were funded differently. And ultimately we had to find a compromise level between those two bills. We actually had to eliminate some $4.5 billion of items that were funded in one bill or the other. Let me point out just some instances. In the case of the Dual Use Applications Program, we sustained the full $125 million that was provided by the Senate. That is $25 million more than the House had provided. On ACTD's, we reached an even split with the House, which provides $81 million--nearly a 50 percent increase compared to the level appropriated for fiscal year 1997. For overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid, we again split the difference with the House providing $47 million. One program where we sustained the full administration request is in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, known as the ``Nunn-Lugar'' initiative. Secretary Cohen made the strong plea for the full $382 million sought by the President, and we have convinced the conference to accommodate that request. I again want to thank all conferees on both sides, and especially the House Chairman, Congressman Bill Young, and the ranking member, Congressman Jack Murtha. I feel very proud about the work that was done by the conference working as a team. I urge all Members of the Senate to vote in favor of approving the conference report before the Senate. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk a bill that is called the American Fisheries Act to raise the U.S. ownership standard for U.S.-flag fishing vessels operating in U.S. waters, to eliminate the exemptions and loopholes interpreted into the existing ownership and control standard, and to phase out large fishing vessels that are destructive to U.S. fishery resources because of their size and power. As I said, this bill is called the American Fisheries Act. Let me point out, these factory trawlers we are talking about make trucks look like tiny bugs. They certainly waste a tremendous amount of fish. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistics for 1995--that is the most recent year for which we have statistics-- the 55 factory trawlers in the Bering Sea off my State threw overboard 483 million pounds of groundfish, wasted and unused. That is more fish than the targeted fisheries of New England lobster, Atlantic mackerel, Gulf of Mexico shrimp, and Pacific Northwest salmon combined. It is the most horrendous waste of fishery resources in the history of man. And this bill is designed to stop that. Mr. President, as I said, the bill I am introducing today would: First, raise U.S. ownership standard for U.S.-flag fishing vessels operating in U.S. waters; second, eliminate the exemptions and loopholes interpreted into the existing ownership and control standard; and third, phase out large fishing vessels that are destructive to U.S. fishery resources because of their size and power. The bill is called the American Fisheries Act. Senators Kerry, Murkowski, Breaux, and Hollings join me as original cosponsors. Last year, we enacted major revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the conservation of the fishery resources. The other primary goal of the original Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1975 was to Americanize the fisheries. We tried to complete that process through the Commercial Fishing Industry Anti-Reflagging Act--Public Law 100-239--in 1987. Due to exemptions in the act and to misinterpretations by the Coast Guard, this act has not been effective. The bill we introduce today would correct the basic controlling interest and foreign rebuilding requirements for U.S.-flag vessels that participate in our fisheries. closing the loopholes The bill would require at least 75 percent of the controlling interest of all vessels that fly the U.S. flag and engage in the fisheries in the navigable waters and exclusive economic zone to be owned by citizens of the United States. The Commercial Fishing Industry Anti-Reflagging Act--Public Law 100- 239--imposed a 50 percent controlling interest standard, which has become meaningless because of exceptions in the bill and misinterpretations by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's misinterpretation of one provision of that act allowed at least 14 massive factory trawlers to enter the fisheries off Alaska. As many here know, the House of Representatives recently passed a bill to keep one factory trawler out of the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries. Similar bills have been introduced in the Senate. In Alaska, we got stuck with at least 14 factory trawlers that should never have been allowed into our fisheries. Talk about loopholes you can drive a truck through--these factory trawlers make trucks look like tiny little bugs. And they waste fish. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistics for 1995, the most recent year for which data is available, the 55 factory trawlers in the Bering Sea threw overboard 483 million pounds of groundfish wasted, and unused. That is more fish than the target fisheries for New England lobster, Atlantic mackerel, Gulf of Mexico shrimp, and Pacific Northwest salmon combined. The bill we introduce today draws heavily from the controlling interest standard in the Jones Act for vessels operating in the coastwide trade. Under our bill, vessel owners would have 18 months from the date of enactment to comply with the new 75 percent controlling interest standard. For vessels above 100 gross registered tons--which are more likely to have multiple owners or layers of ownership--the bill would require the Maritime Administration to closely scrutinize who actually controls the vessel before the vessel receives or can renew a fishery endorsement. The Maritime Administration already reviews the controlling interest of entities applying for title XI loan guarantees and maritime security program payments. MarAd has the best expertise among Federal agencies to do the thorough job we intend. The Secretary of Transportation would be required to revoke the fishery endorsement of any vessel above 100 gross tons that MarAd determines does not meet the new standard for controlling interest. The bill gives the Secretary of Transportation flexibility in establishing the requirements for the owners of vessels equal to or less than 100 gross registered tons to show compliance with the new standard. Vessels of this size generally do not exceed 75 feet in length, are usually owner-operated, and are less likely to have multiple layers of ownership that must be scrutinized. If the Secretary decides that compliance with the new 75 percent standard can be demonstrated by vessels 100 tons or less using the existing process through the Coast Guard, the Secretary could continue to use this process for those vessels. As the findings point out, international law--including Article 62 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea--gives coastal nations the clear sovereign right to harvest and process the entire allowable catch of fishery resources in their exclusive economic zone [EEZ] if their citizens have the harvesting capacity to do so. International law requires that other nations be given access if the coastal nation cannot harvest and process the entire allowable catch in its EEZ. In the United States, we have established a framework that fulfills these two basic principles. Through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we gave U.S. fishermen first priority in the harvesting and processing of our fishery resources. Foreign fishing is allowed under that act, however, if U.S. vessels cannot harvest the entire allowable catch. For obvious reasons, the priority works only if U.S.-owned vessels can be distinguished from foreign-owned vessels in the fisheries. I am sad to report that our current law--the way it has been misinterpreted--fails to allow for this differentiation. In the Nation's largest fishery by volume (Bering Sea pollock) Norwegian and Japanese companies control the vessels that take over half the allowable catch. There is not enough fish to support the existing harvesting capacity in this and other fisheries, yet the line to differentiate true U.S.- controlled vessels from foreign-controlled vessels is not adequate to protect the first priority for U.S. citizens. The American Fisheries Act will clear up this blurred line and give U.S. fishermen the top priority to harvest fishery resources, consistent with the historical intent of our laws. phase out of large vessels When the Senate passed my bill last year to strengthen the conservation measures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I said on the Senate floor that I would seek a ban on factory trawlers if those measures did not work. It is too early to tell whether those measures will be sufficient. We propose today a phase out--not a ban--of factory trawlers and other fishing vessels that are longer than 165 feet, greater than 750 tons, or that have greater than 3,000 shaft horsepower. By fishing vessel, we mean factory trawlers and other vessels that harvest fish. Existing fishing vessels above these thresholds are grandfathered--and can stay in the fisheries for their useful lives, provided the 75 percent controlling interest standard is met, and the vessel does not surrender its fishery endorsement at any time. Gradually, the useful lives of these large fishing vessels will end, however, and a smaller fleet--more able to avoid bycatch and waste and more likely to be owner-operated--will replace them. I reserve the option to accelerate this process through an immediate ban on factory trawlers if the management and conservation measures enacted last year in the Sustainable Fisheries Act are not effective. The phase out of large fishing vessels does not apply to vessels that fish exclusively for highly migratory fish species primarily outside U.S. navigable waters and the exclusive economic zone. Earlier this year--we enacted comprehensive legislation to achieve conservation under the International Dolphin Conservation Program--in part with the hope that some of the eastern tropical tuna fishing vessels would re-flag to the Unites States. These vessels are subject to stringent international conservation measures, and are able to harvest tuna in a way safer for the overall ecosystem than smaller vessels. These vessels were dealt with differently under the Anti-Reflagging Act as well. foreign rebuilds The bill specifically addresses the foreign rebuilding provision of the Anti-Reflagging Act that was misinterpreted by the Coast Guard and abused by speculators who did exactly what Congress tried to avoid with this act. This misinterpretation and abuse resulted in at least 14 factory trawlers entering the fisheries off Alaska that should have been prohibited by the Anti-Reflagging Act. Section 4(a)(4)(A) of the Act was meant to protect a specific group of owners who relied on pre-existing law in planning to convert U.S.- built fishing vessels abroad for use in the U.S. fisheries. This provision was not intended to protect speculators who entered contingent contracts to purchase vessels with the intent to profit by the coming change in the law. To avoid this, Congress specifically required under section 4(a)(4)(A) and section 4(b) that the owner had to: First, have purchased or contracted to purchase a vessel by July 28, 1997; second, have demonstrated his/her/its specific intent to enter the U.S. fisheries through the purchase of the contract itself or a Coast Guard letter ruling; and third, have accepted delivery of the vessel by July 28, 1990 and entered it into service. Under the Act, all three conditions had to be met by the same owner before a fishery license could be issued to the vessel. The Coast Guard erroneously allowed the vessel to be redelivered to any owner by July 28, 1990, and created freely transferable and valuable rights to enter the fishery that Congress specifically intended to avoid. The American Fisheries Act would correct this problem by putting the burden on those who benefited from the loophole to help with the reduction in the overcapacity that resulted. Specifically, from the date of the introduction of this act--September 25, 1997--if the controlling interest a vessel that used this loophole materially changes, another active vessel of equal or greater length, tonnage, and horsepower in the same region will have to permanently surrender its fishery endorsement. The capacity in the Bering Sea would be reduced on the backs of those who caused the problem and who argued for and benefited from an interpretation clearly contrary to congressional intent. federal loan guarantees The bill would permanently prohibit Federal loan guarantees for any vessel that is intended for use as a fishing vessel, and that will be greater than 165 registered feet, 750 gross registered tons, or 3,000 shaft horsepower when the construction or rebuilding is completed. We mean to prevent the Federal Government from subsidizing or assisting in any way in the: No. 1, construction of vessels above these thresholds; No. 2 extension of the useful life of vessels above these thresholds; or No. 3 expansion of vessels so that they exceed these thresholds--where the vessel will be used as a fishing vessel. For the purposes of this measure, fishing vessel has the same definition as under section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, meaning a vessel that engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish. This obviously includes factory trawlers and other fishing vessels above the thresholds listed above. summary With the American Fisheries Act, we will clean up the mess caused by the exceptions and misinterpretation of the Anti-Reflagging Act. We will also serve notice that entities that do not meet the 75 controlling interest standard will not likely receive individual fishing quota's [IFQ's] or other limited access permits under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Sustainable Fisheries Act--Public Law 104-297--requires the National Academy of Sciences to study how to prohibit entities that don't meet the standard from owning IFQ's. We will analyze the Academy's report during the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1999. I do not want any foreign-controlled entities to be surprised when that process begins. Non-U.S. citizens simply should not be given what, for all practical purposes, are permanent access privileges to U.S. marine resource when there are U.S. citizens that can harvest these fish. The Magnuson- Stevens Act allows these foreign-controlled entities to harvest the portion of the allowable catch that U.S. citizens cannot. In Alaska, some of the foreign participants are doing what they can to patch up their relationship with Alaska and Alaskans--but I question their long-term commitment. The North Pacific Council is reviewing the inshore/offshore pollock allocation right now--which will substantially impact them. They have been good partners this year in anticipation of this council debate-- but where were they last year? They were here in Washington, DC, lobbying against our bill to protect fishing communities, reduce bycatch, and prevent foreign entities from receiving a windfall giveaway through IFQ's. If Congress or the North Pacific Council gives away permanent access to our fisheries, I believe these entities will go back to their tactics of the last 10 years. Flannery O'Connor explained this well in her short story ``A Good Man Is Hard to Find.'' In that story, the ``Misfit'' says of another character that ``She would of been a good woman, if [there] had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.'' The foreign-controlled factory trawlers have the inshore/offshore gun to their head right now, and are being good. But their track record without this gun has been poor, both with respect to the conservation and to protecting fishing communities. In the Bering Sea pollock, specifically, I am concerned that a single Norwegian entity controls an excessive share of the harvest in violation of National Standard Four of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am also concerned about the expansion of the ownership of catcher vessels and factory trawlers by Japanese entities. Will we have the strength in the Congress or at the council level to prevent a giveaway of IFQ's to foreign-controlled entities in 2000 or beyond if they are the only ones left in the fishery? The time has come to put Americanization back on the track as we first envisioned when we extended U.S. jurisdiction over the fisheries out to 200 miles.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk a bill that is called the American Fisheries Act to raise the U.S. ownership standard for U.S.-flag fishing vessels operating in U.S. waters, to eliminate the exemptions and loopholes interpreted into the existing ownership and control standard, and to phase out large fishing vessels that are destructive to U.S. fishery resources because of their size and power. As I said, this bill is called the American Fisheries Act. Let me point out, these factory trawlers we are talking about make trucks look like tiny bugs. They certainly waste a tremendous amount of fish. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistics for 1995--that is the most recent year for which we have statistics-- the 55 factory trawlers in the Bering Sea off my State threw overboard 483 million pounds of groundfish, wasted and unused. That is more fish than the targeted fisheries of New England lobster, Atlantic mackerel, Gulf of Mexico shrimp, and Pacific Northwest salmon combined. It is the most horrendous waste of fishery resources in the history of man. And this bill is designed to stop that. Mr. President, as I said, the bill I am introducing today would: First, raise U.S. ownership standard for U.S.-flag fishing vessels operating in U.S. waters; second, eliminate the exemptions and loopholes interpreted into the existing ownership and control standard; and third, phase out large fishing vessels that are destructive to U.S. fishery resources because of their size and power. The bill is called the American Fisheries Act. Senators Kerry, Murkowski, Breaux, and Hollings join me as original cosponsors. Last year, we enacted major revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the conservation of the fishery resources. The other primary goal of the original Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1975 was to Americanize the fisheries. We tried to complete that process through the Commercial Fishing Industry Anti-Reflagging Act--Public Law 100-239--in 1987. Due to exemptions in the act and to misinterpretations by the Coast Guard, this act has not been effective. The bill we introduce today would correct the basic controlling interest and foreign rebuilding requirements for U.S.-flag vessels that participate in our fisheries. closing the loopholes The bill would require at least 75 percent of the controlling interest of all vessels that fly the U.S. flag and engage in the fisheries in the navigable waters and exclusive economic zone to be owned by citizens of the United States. The Commercial Fishing Industry Anti-Reflagging Act--Public Law 100- 239--imposed a 50 percent controlling interest standard, which has become meaningless because of exceptions in the bill and misinterpretations by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's misinterpretation of one provision of that act allowed at least 14 massive factory trawlers to enter the fisheries off Alaska. As many here know, the House of Representatives recently passed a bill to keep one factory trawler out of the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries. Similar bills have been introduced in the Senate. In Alaska, we got stuck with at least 14 factory trawlers that should never have been allowed into our fisheries. Talk about loopholes you can drive a truck through--these factory trawlers make trucks look like tiny little bugs. And they waste fish. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistics for 1995, the most recent year for which data is available, the 55 factory trawlers in the Bering Sea threw overboard 483 million pounds of groundfish wasted, and unused. That is more fish than the target fisheries for New England lobster, Atlantic mackerel, Gulf of Mexico shrimp, and Pacific Northwest salmon combined. The bill we introduce today draws heavily from the controlling interest standard in the Jones Act for vessels operating in the coastwide trade. Under our bill, vessel owners would have 18 months from the date of enactment to comply with the new 75 percent controlling interest standard. For vessels above 100 gross registered tons--which are more likely to have multiple owners or layers of ownership--the bill would require the Maritime Administration to closely scrutinize who actually controls the vessel before the vessel receives or can renew a fishery endorsement. The Maritime Administration already reviews the controlling interest of entities applying for title XI loan guarantees and maritime security program payments. MarAd has the best expertise among Federal agencies to do the thorough job we intend. The Secretary of Transportation would be required to revoke the fishery endorsement of any vessel above 100 gross tons that MarAd determines does not meet the new standard for controlling interest. The bill gives the Secretary of Transportation flexibility in establishing the requirements for the owners of vessels equal to or less than 100 gross registered tons to show compliance with the new standard. Vessels of this size generally do not exceed 75 feet in length, are usually owner-operated, and are less likely to have multiple layers of ownership that must be scrutinized. If the Secretary decides that compliance with the new 75 percent standard can be demonstrated by vessels 100 tons or less using the existing process through the Coast Guard, the Secretary could continue to use this process for those vessels. As the findings point out, international law--including Article 62 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea--gives coastal nations the clear sovereign right to harvest and process the entire allowable catch of fishery resources in their exclusive economic zone [EEZ] if their citizens have the harvesting capacity to do so. International law requires that other nations be given access if the coastal nation cannot harvest and process the entire allowable catch in its EEZ. In the United States, we have established a framework that fulfills these two basic principles. Through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we gave U.S. fishermen first priority in the harvesting and processing of our fishery resources. Foreign fishing is allowed under that act, however, if U.S. vessels cannot harvest the entire allowable catch. For obvious reasons, the priority works only if U.S.-owned vessels can be distinguished from foreign-owned vessels in the fisheries. I am sad to report that our current law--the way it has been misinterpreted--fails to allow for this differentiation. In the Nation's largest fishery by volume (Bering Sea pollock) Norwegian and Japanese companies control the vessels that take over half the allowable catch. There is not enough fish to support the existing harvesting capacity in this and other fisheries, yet the line to differentiate true U.S.- controlled vessels from foreign-controlled vessels is not adequate to protect the first priority for U.S. citizens. The American Fisheries Act will clear up this blurred line and give U.S. fishermen the top priority to harvest fishery resources, consistent with the historical intent of our laws. phase out of large vessels When the Senate passed my bill last year to strengthen the conservation measures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I said on the Senate floor that I would seek a ban on factory trawlers if those measures did not work. It is too early to tell whether those measures will be sufficient. We propose today a phase out--not a ban--of factory trawlers and other fishing vessels that are longer than 165 feet, greater than 750 tons, or that have greater than 3,000 shaft horsepower. By fishing vessel, we mean factory trawlers and other vessels that harvest fish. Existing fishing vessels above these thresholds are grandfathered--and can stay in the fisheries for their useful lives, provided the 75 percent controlling interest standard is met, and the vessel does not surrender its fishery endorsement at any time. Gradually, the useful lives of these large fishing vessels will end, however, and a smaller fleet--more able to avoid bycatch and waste and more likely to be owner-operated--will replace them. I reserve the option to accelerate this process through an immediate ban on factory trawlers if the management and conservation measures enacted last year in the Sustainable Fisheries Act are not effective. The phase out of large fishing vessels does not apply to vessels that fish exclusively for highly migratory fish species primarily outside U.S. navigable waters and the exclusive economic zone. Earlier this year--we enacted comprehensive legislation to achieve conservation under the International Dolphin Conservation Program--in part with the hope that some of the eastern tropical tuna fishing vessels would re-flag to the Unites States. These vessels are subject to stringent international conservation measures, and are able to harvest tuna in a way safer for the overall ecosystem than smaller vessels. These vessels were dealt with differently under the Anti-Reflagging Act as well. foreign rebuilds The bill specifically addresses the foreign rebuilding provision of the Anti-Reflagging Act that was misinterpreted by the Coast Guard and abused by speculators who did exactly what Congress tried to avoid with this act. This misinterpretation and abuse resulted in at least 14 factory trawlers entering the fisheries off Alaska that should have been prohibited by the Anti-Reflagging Act. Section 4(a)(4)(A) of the Act was meant to protect a specific group of owners who relied on pre-existing law in planning to convert U.S.- built fishing vessels abroad for use in the U.S. fisheries. This provision was not intended to protect speculators who entered contingent contracts to purchase vessels with the intent to profit by the coming change in the law. To avoid this, Congress specifically required under section 4(a)(4)(A) and section 4(b) that the owner had to: First, have purchased or contracted to purchase a vessel by July 28, 1997; second, have demonstrated his/her/its specific intent to enter the U.S. fisheries through the purchase of the contract itself or a Coast Guard letter ruling; and third, have accepted delivery of the vessel by July 28, 1990 and entered it into service. Under the Act, all three conditions had to be met by the same owner before a fishery license could be issued to the vessel. The Coast Guard erroneously allowed the vessel to be redelivered to any owner by July 28, 1990, and created freely transferable and valuable rights to enter the fishery that Congress specifically intended to avoid. The American Fisheries Act would correct this problem by putting the burden on those who benefited from the loophole to help with the reduction in the overcapacity that resulted. Specifically, from the date of the introduction of this act--September 25, 1997--if the controlling interest a vessel that used this loophole materially changes, another active vessel of equal or greater length, tonnage, and horsepower in the same region will have to permanently surrender its fishery endorsement. The capacity in the Bering Sea would be reduced on the backs of those who caused the problem and who argued for and benefited from an interpretation clearly contrary to congressional intent. federal loan guarantees The bill would permanently prohibit Federal loan guarantees for any vessel that is intended for use as a fishing vessel, and that will be greater than 165 registered feet, 750 gross registered tons, or 3,000 shaft horsepower when the construction or rebuilding is completed. We mean to prevent the Federal Government from subsidizing or assisting in any way in the: No. 1, construction of vessels above these thresholds; No. 2 extension of the useful life of vessels above these thresholds; or No. 3 expansion of vessels so that they exceed these thresholds--where the vessel will be used as a fishing vessel. For the purposes of this measure, fishing vessel has the same definition as under section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, meaning a vessel that engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish. This obviously includes factory trawlers and other fishing vessels above the thresholds listed above. summary With the American Fisheries Act, we will clean up the mess caused by the exceptions and misinterpretation of the Anti-Reflagging Act. We will also serve notice that entities that do not meet the 75 controlling interest standard will not likely receive individual fishing quota's [IFQ's] or other limited access permits under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Sustainable Fisheries Act--Public Law 104-297--requires the National Academy of Sciences to study how to prohibit entities that don't meet the standard from owning IFQ's. We will analyze the Academy's report during the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1999. I do not want any foreign-controlled entities to be surprised when that process begins. Non-U.S. citizens simply should not be given what, for all practical purposes, are permanent access privileges to U.S. marine resource when there are U.S. citizens that can harvest these fish. The Magnuson- Stevens Act allows these foreign-controlled entities to harvest the portion of the allowable catch that U.S. citizens cannot. In Alaska, some of the foreign participants are doing what they can to patch up their relationship with Alaska and Alaskans--but I question their long-term commitment. The North Pacific Council is reviewing the inshore/offshore pollock allocation right now--which will substantially impact them. They have been good partners this year in anticipation of this council debate-- but where were they last year? They were here in Washington, DC, lobbying against our bill to protect fishing communities, reduce bycatch, and prevent foreign entities from receiving a windfall giveaway through IFQ's. If Congress or the North Pacific Council gives away permanent access to our fisheries, I believe these entities will go back to their tactics of the last 10 years. Flannery O'Connor explained this well in her short story ``A Good Man Is Hard to Find.'' In that story, the ``Misfit'' says of another character that ``She would of been a good woman, if [there] had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.'' The foreign-controlled factory trawlers have the inshore/offshore gun to their head right now, and are being good. But their track record without this gun has been poor, both with respect to the conservation and to protecting fishing communities. In the Bering Sea pollock, specifically, I am concerned that a single Norwegian entity controls an excessive share of the harvest in violation of National Standard Four of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am also concerned about the expansion of the ownership of catcher vessels and factory trawlers by Japanese entities. Will we have the strength in the Congress or at the council level to prevent a giveaway of IFQ's to foreign-controlled entities in 2000 or beyond if they are the only ones left in the fishery? The time has come to put Americanization back on the track as we first envisioned when we extended U.S. jurisdiction over the fisheries out to 200 miles.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I am sure Senator Byrd and I appreciate that very much.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the pending unanimous-consent agreement would provide 8 hours on that. I hope that, too, would be subject to taking up the conference reports as they become available.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator Hollings' bill to require a wholesale review of the Nation's oceans and coastal policies to prepare for the 21st century. We have not done this since the 1960's, and the time has come. The bill has three important components: First, it calls for the development of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy; second, it establishes a 15-member commission similar to the Stratton Commission to make recommendations within 18 months on this national ocean and coastal policy; and third, it creates an interagency council of all the Federal agencies involved in oceans and coastal matters, chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, to coordinate the implementation of the national policy. I applaud Senator Hollings for developing this legislation. As has been pointed out, over half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of our shores. In my State, the oceans employ more people in the private sector than any other industry. The demands on our oceans and coastal resources continues to grow, and we must be prepared to meet these demands in the 21st century.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator Hollings' bill to require a wholesale review of the Nation's oceans and coastal policies to prepare for the 21st century. We have not done this since the 1960's, and the time has come. The bill has three important components: First, it calls for the development of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy; second, it establishes a 15-member commission similar to the Stratton Commission to make recommendations within 18 months on this national ocean and coastal policy; and third, it creates an interagency council of all the Federal agencies involved in oceans and coastal matters, chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, to coordinate the implementation of the national policy. I applaud Senator Hollings for developing this legislation. As has been pointed out, over half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of our shores. In my State, the oceans employ more people in the private sector than any other industry. The demands on our oceans and coastal resources continues to grow, and we must be prepared to meet these demands in the 21st century.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I concur with my colleagues, and I will work as chairman of the Appropriations Committee to make sure that these funds are additional, not replacement, revenues to meet park and environmental purposes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday I attended a ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the Department of Defense. It was a most impressive event to honor the men and women who serve in the defense of our Nation. Our former colleague, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, highlighted the achievements of the Department over these past 50 years. He reminded us of the Department's great legacy and challenges that lie ahead in the future. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my good friend, Gen. Joe Ralston, also spoke at this event. His remarks illustrated the significant changes that have occurred since the Department's inception and saluted our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who so honorably serve our country. Mr. President, I request that the text of the remarks of both Secretary Cohen and General Ralston be printed in the Congressional Record. The remarks follow: Remarks by William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, on the 50th Anniversary of the Department of Defense, September 17, 1997 The poet Shelly called history ``a cyclic poem written by time upon our memories.'' Let me describe a certain pivot point in history: It is a time of daunting security challenges both at home and abroad. In Europe, the United States is proposing a bold plan to advance democracy, free markets and shared security. In the Pacific, America is the dominant power, but Korea remains dangerously divided and China is in a period of profound transition, its future uncertain, its intentions unclear. Meanwhile, breathtaking advances in technology are fueling a revolution in military affairs. And America's defense establishment is reorienting itself to confront the enormous security challenges of the new era. I could be talking about September, 1997, for this picture captures our world today. But as history is ``a cyclic poem,'' this picture also describes September, 1947, when the Department of Defense came into being. We have been marking many golden anniversaries of late. These are the days of remembrance, a time to recall the historic trials and triumphs of half a century. The hallowed days--D-Day, VE-Day, VJ-Day. The historic deeds--the Marshall Plan, the National Security Act. And the enduring establishments--the United Nations, the US Air Force, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense. Why do we recall these trials and triumphs? Because they can help us face the portents and possibilities of the century ahead. As we talk of tomorrow, we must be mindful to hold up the lamplight of history, so that we may walk with confidence on the footpath to the future. We are here today to celebrate not the golden anniversary of a bureaucracy, or that of a building--but rather of a bold idea. That idea was for a National Military Establishment that unified all of our military services, land, sea and air, under a single Department with a civilian chief, the whole greater than the sum of its remarkable parts. By 1947, it was an idea whose time had come. The generation that won the Second World War set out to win the peace. They understood that to win the peace, America had to be engaged in global affairs as a global leader. They had learned from personal experience--from their ``blood, toil, tears and sweat''--the central lesson of this century: That when America neglects the problems of the world, the world often brings its problems to America's doorstep. And so they created a Department of Defense that would engage the world with gathered strength and purpose. To witness the wisdom of this bold idea and its historic achievements, you only have to walk the corridors of the Pentagon. You will walk past George Marshall's desk. He was soldier who led our forces to victory against fascism; a diplomat who set forth a bold vision for a new Europe, healed, whole, free and linked to America in the spirit of help and hope; and a Secretary of Defense who helped to halt the columns of communism on the Korean peninsula. You will walk past a section of the Berlin Wall, once a symbol of tyranny and peril, now a symbol of the triumph of freedom, and a triumph of the Department of Defense that trained, equipped and maintained the US Armed Forces--forces that gave America and our allies the power and the will to stand fast and stand firm through 40 winters of the Cold War, and gave us the opportunity to secure a lasting peace in Europe and Asia. As you walk through the corridors of the Pentagon, you will see not only the artifacts of our trials and triumphs, but the individuals who endured the trials and ensured the triumphs. You will see the portraits of the military leadership, and also those who led this Department--the Secretaries of Defense--some of whom have graced this ceremony with their presence today. Secretary Cap Weinberger, Secretary Frank Carlucci, Secretary Bill Perry: Each one of you has protected and defended those who protect and defend our nation. Each one of you has left the Department in better stead than when you arrived, and with a challenge to your successor to continue the legacy. I am honored and humbled to accept--and extend--this challenge. But the legacy of leadership extends to those who were ready and willing to be led. And as you walk these corridors, you see the legacy of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines enshrined on our walls--from the Hall of Heroes that recall exceptional valor, to the exhibits that remember forgotten service--the Women's Military Corridor, the exhibits for Hispanic veterans and the Tuskegee Airmen. To walk these corridors is to learn of courage and commitment; of service and sacrifice; of grit and greatness: From the frozen hills of Korea, to the twisted jungles of Vietnam; from Beirut to Grenada; Panama to Somalia; to the searing sands of Saudi Arabia and the mud and ice of Bosnia. I dedicate our golden anniversary to their golden achievements. In so doing, let me make a point which often becomes obscured in the reports which focus on our flaws: We have the best-trained, best-equipped and best-educated military in the history of the world, and we need to remember that despite our shortcomings, which we are eager to examine and confront openly, our forces are the envy of every other nation on this planet. Finally, if you walk the corridors of the Pentagon, you will meet the backbone of this institution: The civilian employees who serve this Department and support the troops. The success of this Department is their success too. But as we recall our trials and triumphs of the past, we face a new challenge: In 1997--as in 1947--we must build a Department of Defense that can face the dangers and the daring possibilities of the future. For a brave new world stretches beyond these lawns, past those shining monuments across the river. It is a world of momentous opportunity--of flourishing markets, stunning technologies, and new democracies. But it is also a world of startling new dangers--ethnic conflict, regional aggressors, and terrorism. Fifty years hence, let those who look back on 1997 say that, we too, were not just a building or a bureaucracy, but that we too were bold. That we too were unafraid to think anew, to organize anew, to act anew. Let them say that by embracing the spirit of our era, we too were able to seize the challenges of our time: The challenge to shape the world; to respond to its threats; and to prepare for the future; to harness a Revolution in Military Affairs to give our forces the technology to dominate the battlefield; and to foment a Revolution in Business Affairs, to create a 21st Century Pentagon--a model of action, efficiency, economy and versatility. Fifty years from now, let them say that our leadership, vision and courage helped catapult America into a new century. And 50 years from now, let them say that we bequeathed to them, what our predecessors bequeathed to us: The best trained, best equipped, best prepared military in history, the pride of our nation and the envy of the world. I will close with the words from Daniel Webster, speaking at the dedication of the Bunker Hill Monument: ``And now let us indulge an honest exultation in the conviction of the benefit which the example of our country has produced and is likely to produce on human freedom and happiness. And let us endeavor to comprehend in all its magnitude and to feel in all its importance the part assigned to us in the great drama of human affairs.'' Remarks by Gen. Joseph Ralston, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 50th Anniversary of the Department of Defense, September 17, 1997 Secretary Cohen, Former Secretaries Weinberger, Carlucci, and Perry, Members of Congress, Gen. Jones, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I am very proud to be here as the representative of the more than 3 million people currently serving in the defense of our nation as soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen--active duty, National Guard, Reserve, and civilians. It is an honor to be a part of this splendid anniversary; a celebration to commemorate fifty years of unwavering leadership to our armed forces. Take a moment and put yourself back in time. Fifty years ago we had just won a world war and the country was still celebrating its victory. The might of the military machine was not broken, at least the American public didn't think so. But we learned many lessons the hard way during that war and the leaders who fought that war knew we could and should do better. These visionaries understood that to stand still would put the United States back where we were before the war . . . as isolationists. Imagine if you can, the resistance these men faced as they attempted to reorganize our armed forces . . . a force that only a year prior had defeated a deranged dictator and an imperial army and navy. These leaders, both civilian and military, realized the daunting task before them, but charged forward, amid intense debate, and agreed upon a ``unification'' course. Although the reforms in 1947 were immense, ten years later the leaders of our country recognized the requirement for a course correction. The Act of 1958, spearheaded by President Eisenhower, provided that course correction and called for the organization of all combat forces into unified commands and as he stated, ``singly led and prepared to fight as one, regardless of Service.'' With this new guidance our armed forces marched on for over 25 years. However, in 1986 a significant change occurred with the enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. It not only reinforced our joint warfighting doctrine, but it also strengthened the civilian authority in the Department and increased the responsibility and authority of the Chairman. Today we have an armed force that is the envy of every nation on this Earth--and the pride of Americans. Make no mistake . . . it is the magnificent men and women in uniform who make the sacrifices, who walk the jungles, fly over the deserts, sail on and under the seas, that provide the peace, freedom, and stability we enjoy as a Nation today. But we must resist the temptation to relax and believe we have it just right. We must fight the complacency. We have much left to do as we revolutionize the way we do business, as we make the hard choices that will always put the needs of America's sons and daughters first. Today I proudly salute the men and women of the Department of Defense.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. I would defer to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and agree that it would make sense to look at other potential technologies as well.

Mr. STEVENS. That is also correct.

Mr. STEVENS. I would.

Mr. STEVENS. I would.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1235 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress a report on properties proposed to be acquired or exchanged with funds appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.)

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Department of the Interior has interpreted a provision I sponsored in the 1996 lands bill. This interpretation reduces monies intended to go to Alaska's unorganized borough as a payment in lieu of taxes [PILT] by over $950,000. I offer an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to correct this. After many years of working on this issue, the Congress last year enacted my proposal to qualify the unorganized borough in the State of Alaska for PILT. This provision of law--section 1033 of P.L. 104-333-- made clear that ``any area in Alaska that is within the boundaries of a census area used by the Secretary of Commerce in the decenniel census,'' and which did not qualify for PILT under the existing clause, would qualify for a PILT. The only entity in Alaska that would qualify under this provision is Alaska's unorganized borough. The Department-- through the Solicitor--has correctly interpreted that the unorganized borough qualifies, but has incorrectly calculated the amount the unorganized borough should receive under the 1996 amendment. PILT payments are generally calculated based on population and land acreage. The 1996 amendment specified that the unorganized borough's entire population and entire acreage would be used in the calculation. The Secretary has not counted the entire population in the unorganized borough in calculating the borough's PILT allocation. Specifically, the Department has not counted the population of certain cities which have federal lands within the unorganized borough. According to the Regional Solicitor's May 30, 1997 opinion, if the population of each city within the unorganized borough were counted as intended by the 1996 provision, the State would be entitled to $3,362,339. If in Alaska the cities within the unorganized borough are calculated separately, according to the opinion, the payments to the cities would be $78,557 and the payment for the unorganized borough would be $2,333,764. These two payments total $2,412,321, $950,018 less than the $3,362,339 the unorganized borough should be receiving. The amendment today would clarify that the population of the cities within the unorganized borough in Alaska should be counted in calculating the PILT allocation for the unorganized borough, and not separately, as intended by the provision in the 1996 lands bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I offer this as chairman of the Appropriations Committee with the hope that the Senate will agree that this matter should now go to the authorization committee, and that the extent of the problem be reviewed with appropriate hearings. This is a commitment that the Senate will consider legislation in this Congress to deal with what future mechanism, if any, should be used to carry out the Federal role as it may be defined in support of the arts. I am pleased my friend from Connecticut has cosponsored this. I am hopeful the Senate will agree to it.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have at the desk amendment No. 1219 for myself and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. I would like to present it at this time.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.