Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 716) to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. One of the problems we have though, if we in fact fish the saber tooth flounder, or arrow tooth flounder, or whatever it is, and by the way, for the audience listening, it looks like an ordinary flounder, but it has the worst set of teeth you can imagine. You cannot catch one because it cuts the line and everything else. If we try to fish them down there would be a lawsuit contrary to saying you are doing it for economic purposes because you are saving the salmon and cod and halibut. Now, there is our catch-22. That is why when we make things mandatory, we do mess up the soup. I am very concerned about that. It is, by the way, an ecology-type question. But the gentleman sees what I am saying. If I fish down the arrow tooth flounder, supposedly to provide more halibut, cod, or whatever else is available, then I can be in fact accused, or the council can be, of fishing for economic purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am hard-pressed to compete with show-and-tell on television. That is one of the things that is wrong with our Congress today. It was well done. But there is more to legislation than a show-and-tell program for those that promote one side of the issue. This issue was voted for in committee and thoroughly defeated. No one spoke in favor of this in the committee. Every council, the North Pacific, Pacific council, mid- Atlantic council, South Atlantic council, and the gulf council spoke against this amendment, and yet this body and the audiences exposed to a very good presentation, but it is not scientific. The issuer of setting optimum yield [OY], maximum sustainable yield, [MYSY], is a complicated one that fisheries management has been arguing about for years. It is not an easy issue. It is just not a little display with red fish and green fish and little fish and big fish. If you believe in science, the scientists oppose this amendment. Yes, they do. There are some conservation groups or so-called preservation groups or antifishing groups that do support it. Unfortunately, the thing that bothers me the most is that under this legislation, this amendment, the council will now be required to address those stocks which are overfished and institute a rebuilding of those stocks, including saber tooth flounder, which kill everything else that flows and grows in the ocean. And they may be God's creatures, but there are other creatures out there that in fact are the prey of the saber tooth flounder. And yet we are in the business of saying we are going to have sustained yield for all those fish that spawn and all those fish that we consume and all those fish that support the fishermen in the communities. We are also asking the council to manage them well enough where they have a sustainable yield, but under this amendment those which prey upon that other than the fish themselves, which in reality would be devouring those little fishes at the bottom of the scale. Now, those that do not believe that man should be involved in this management program, I would vote for the amendment, too; if we want to exclude everybody out of it, including the fishermen, then I would vote for the amendment, too. But I can suggest respectfully we have made great progress with the councils today. We are managing our fish much better. By the way, this is relatively a new law in the scope of time, 1976. And why did we pass this law? Because the foreign fleets literally were raping our seas and our fish and leaving nothing back but the carnage that they created. This Congress finally decided we should Americanize our fleet. I tell you, we did make some mistakes, because we were unprepared to manage it. But every council, every region, the National Fishery Institute, and all the scientists that I know directly involved with this, oppose this amendment. Again, I cannot compete with someone that is a professor that presents a very nice and simple explanation. But if you believe in the committee process and the testimony before the committees, one of my biggest disappointments in this body has been the lack of listening to those who testify and allowing amendments to come to this floor with really no backing or justification for them, other than to be interest- special to be presented to this [[Page H 10234]] Congress, and because it has the pizazz, people vote for it. I understand that. We just went through one of those votes. It is easy. But the credibility of the legislation as we write a law is diminished when this type of event occurs. Again, let me stress, every council, the National Marines Institute, Fishery Institute, everybody involved directly oppose this amendment. Now, if the committee process means nothing, vote for the gentleman from Maryland's amendment. If you believe man should not be involved with the management of, vote for the gentleman from Maryland's amendment, and everybody will be happy. But if you believe in the process of science, the process of the councils, and the committee process, you will vote no on this amendment. The gentleman is well intended, his intentions are honorable. The gentleman made a great presentation, and I compliment him. But this is a bad amendment and it should be rejected.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We will work with the gentleman as I have always worked with the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We will continue to work with the gentleman, because that is intent of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, this goes just for not only issuing the permit but enforcing the permit and all the paperwork. Just one set of IDQ's costs the Government 3 million taxpayer dollars. I never heard anybody object to participating, we are talking about a very small fee here, participating because they have an exclusive right, and, you know, I am still a little bit befuddled here by where this pressure is coming to eliminate the Secretary's right to collect a fee.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, I do not want to hear speech A.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I do not believe it does that. What we have attempted to do, and may I stress the fact again that this person the IDQ has been given to by the council, and all of this helps pay for the cost of the administration of that program. That is all it does. And no more money goes to the general Treasury and there is no more added cost. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to balance the deficit on this. I truthfully think that if we are going to talk on this floor about mining royalties, about below-cost timber sales, about all the other good things, then we ought to be considering if we give someone an exclusive right. Now remember, I am not talking about all the fishing fleet. I am talking about the exclusive right, exclusive to catch that fish. He excludes everyone else; then he has told us that he would be willing to pay a share to manage this program. I have heard no objection from this. This is why I am surprised at the amendment, frankly. In the hearings we heard none. I can ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], which I am reluctant to ask anything, but if in reality did they hear at any time, and I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, being that I mentioned his name, I will yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in determining the amount of fee under this paragraph, the Secretary shall ensure the amount is ccommensurate with the cost of managing the fisheries with respect to the way the fee is collected, including reasonable cost for salaries and data analysis and other costs directly related to fishery management and enforcement. Mr. Chairman, I am, frankly, not a lawyer, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is, but if there was an exorbitant amount of fee and the money was given to the Treasury, the Secretary would be open to a lawsuit.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly but strongly rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. No. 1, this is relatively a new amendment. We just received it today. No. 2, the amendment would strike in this language the Secretary's ability to charge fees for the management and implementation and enforcement costs of the individual transferral quota system. And for those Members that might be watching this program in their offices, the IDQ's or IFQ's really are a license restriction, like a liquor license. Merchants cannot sell liquor within a certain area or in competition within another area. This gives an exclusive right of a public resource to a fisherman; a boat, a captain, or a fisherman. All we are asking in this is a minimal fee to help pay the costs of applying this application of IFQ's and IDQ's to these individuals. Now, as far as saying they are going to catch less, that is not necessarily true. In fact, the quota for the catch is now dispersed among those that got the IDQ's and not the overall general public. In fact, they will probably catch more fish instead of less fish. But what we are saying is if this costs the Federal Government money to give exclusive rights to that public resource, then that person who receives those exclusive rights ought to be able to, and willing to. By the way, in the committee hearings, most, I would say 99 percent of those that are affected by the IDQ's, supported the concept of paying a minimal fee to implement the act. I want to stress that. Mr. Chairman, this gives the chance for the Government to recover some of the costs of implementing the IDQ's and IFQ's. It also, in fact, is supported by those that get and have been issued these quotas. May I say it is only for the quotas that have been issued today and not retroactive and not prospectively in the future. I am going to suggest that if we were to take this away, if my colleagues believe in a free lunch, then they would vote for this amendment. If they believe, as those people receiving the IFQ's and IDQ's, that they ought to participate in the program and pay for the cost, they will defeat the amendment. Mr. FRANK Of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge the passage of the amendment. The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the two gentlemen who have been speaking previously. We have worked very hard on this legislation. Frankly, I am pleased with the efforts that have been put forth. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important to get these Pacific insular areas involved in conservation and management of the fisheries resources off of their coasts. Foreign vessels have been reported to be fishing illegally in the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of these insular areas and they are part of our great United States. Frankly, when the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] walked in a while ago, I asked the gentleman to vote with me, and forgot he had lost his vote; both of the gentlemen. This is one time that I would frankly like to have the gentlemen's votes. Mr. Chairman, I again support this amendment as it has been proposed and compliment the two gentlemen.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman has been working very diligently and hard with me to try to resolve our differences. It was never my intention that the new individual quota system guidelines developed and incorporated in this bill cause a major disruption to already existing ITQ's. I mentioned that to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] a moment ago. The gentleman is well aware of my general opposition to ITQ's, but I also stated I do not want Congress to overturn any plans implemented already or taken advantage of by those people that follow the present law. This amendment clarifies the authority of the Secretary of Commerce in regard to amending or limiting fishery management plans. It also clarifies that this legislation will not cause a reallocation of already issued quota shares. It does, however, allow the Councils to make revisions to existing ITQ plans, which is consistent with the Council's current authority. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the difference is the councils in many cases have already acted. With the language that is in the bill now, it is really an awakening call for the councils. We will be revisiting this if they do not. Mr. Chairman, I believe that they do see the importance of this and we do have the backing of the councils. But we have to allow the councils the discretion or we end up being the total managers of the fisheries and that would be a disaster for the fisheries. The fisheries are very competitive and very monetarily important for certain interest groups and we do not want this Congress to be involved, but should allow the councils to be the ones with the discretion. Mr. Chairman, I do urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman, I put it in the bill understanding what he was trying to do, but removed it after hearing from the councils. That is why we have the hearing process and the input from the general public. That is why there was no outcry for this amendment at any time during the hearings. Mr. Chairman, we had a broad spectrum of people interested in this legislation. This has been on the burner for 4 years. I am going to suggest respectfully that I followed the train of thought of the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] when I introduced the bill originally. But after hearing the councils and other members of the public say this would be detrimental and driving us apart, I made it discretionary and not mandatory. That is the reason.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, once again, my friend from Massachusetts has the foresight to be proactive instead of reactive. It is my understanding that the National Marine Fisheries Service has indicated that the current Fishery Management Plan for lobster may be withdrawn. If this does occur, it would mean that the current restrictions on the sale and transportation of undersized lobster would no longer be in effect. Current law prohibits the sale, shipment, and transport of American lobsters smaller than the minimum size established in the Federal American Lobster Fishery Management Plan. The gentleman's amendment provides the necessary measures to ensure that the current restrictions are not removed, by allowing the minimum size established by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to serve as a baseline in the absence of a Federal Fishery Management Plan. I support the gentleman's amendment and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, when this legislation passes the House, the Senate has not passed theirs. You will be on the conference, sitting beside me as we have done all these years, and I will continue to work with the gentleman, because you do raise a valid point. The attempt here is to allow what is already being done in other areas where we are being told that they do not think they have the authority. This is really a request by the National Marine Fisheries Institute.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, during the full committee markup of this bill, we added a provision which will allow the Councils to set aside a portion of the allowable biological catch to be used for research purposes. This is clearly a discretionary provision and not mandatory. For the Pacific region, we have also allowed the Secretary to contract with private vessels to conduct research and stock assessment work using the portion of the harvest set aside for research purposes. The vessels would then be able to sell the catch to offset the cost of doing the research. [[Page H 10222]] My amendment takes this one step further. It allows the Secretary to contract with private vessels to perform research functions, now carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], in areas other than just the Pacific region. It will provide more up-to-date research and stock assessment data by contracting vessels to do the work on a yearly basis. At this time, stock assessment work is done approximately every 3 years by NOAA research vessels. Currently, the National Marine Fisheries Service uses this exact arrangement in the Gulf of Alaska. Survey work is presently being done for black cod stocks and the survey vessels lands their catch to offset the cost of doing the research. For some reason, the National Marine Fisheries Service feels that it does not have the authority to allow this type of arrangement to take place in other areas. I believe this amendment will give us better stock assessment data, will provide fisheries managers with more up-to-date information, will allow private vessels to bid on doing the research work and will allow the catch to be landed to offset the cost of doing the research, thereby reducing the cost to the Federal Government of doing the research. This language includes several suggestions made by National Marine Fisheries Service and is a discretionary provision. I think this is a good step in better fisheries management and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.