To reauthorize the United States Grain Standards Act, to facilitate the official inspection at export port locations of grain required or authorized to be inspected under such Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. Presdient, as part of the conference report on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, which is expected to be passed by the Senate shortly, there is a provision in section 416 that amends section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)), which authorizes the Western Pacific Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program for fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BS/AI).

I am familiar with this program, which originated in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in 1992, and I support its goals of providing economic opportunities for rural coastal communities in Western Alaska. It is my understanding that section 416 ensures the CDQ groups will continue to receive the same annual percentage allocations as they do now under existing Federal law, and that it would preserve existing treatment of such allocations--consisting of a directed fishing allowance if that is the current law, i.e., the BS/AI pollock fishery, or including both directed and non-target fishing in fisheries where that is the current practice. Is that correct, Senator Stevens?

No, my concerns relate to Section 416's amendment to

MSA section 305(i)(1)(B), which would increase CDQ group allocations for certain BS/AI groundfish fisheries, including Pacific cod, mackerel, and flatfish species, from 7.5 percent to 10 percent, and treat this allocation as a directed fishing allowance, which does not include incidental catch. All allocations in these fisheries, including the CDQ allocations, are currently-managed as total quotas, not as directed fishing allowances, which obliges all participants to keep both the directed and incidenteal catch within a ``hard cap.'' Did you intend to change the current manner in which the council sets CDQ allocations in these fisheries, from a hard cap allocation to a directed fishing allowance allocation?

We are both justifiably proud of the success of the pollock cooperatives established under the American Fisheries Act, AFA, and particularly their low bycatch rates. However, it is my understanding from speaking with NOAA and council staff that making this directed fishing allowance in statute for the CDQ portion of these other BS/AI groundfish fisheries would deprive the council of its current authority to limit incidental catch associated with these allocations, although it would retain such authority for the non-CDQ allocations. I am concerned that this lack of authority could unintentionally promote increases in incidental catch for CDQ groups. In addition, any unconstrained growth in incidental catch under the legislatively directed fishing allowances could result in less available catch allowance for the non-CDQ groups subject to incidental catch controls, which seems contrary to your intent that each set of groups be subject to the same management controls.

While the pollock fishery has very low incidental catch rates, in 2005 its incidental catch was only 0.16 percent above the directed fishery allowance, the directed fisheries of the BS/AI, other than halibut, sablefish, pollock, and crab, have a relatively higher level of bycatch. The council has taken actions to limit and reduce the amount of incidental catch allowance to all directed fishery participants in order to reduce overall bycatch levels. Prohibiting the council from establishing an incidental catch allowance is antithetical to current public policy and resource management in the BS/AI. Moreover, it is not consistent with provisions included in the Senate's version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, S. 2012. I suggest Section 416 (MSA section 305(i)(1)(B), as amended) be modified to include this explicit authority.

Do you agree with me that the council should retain its ability to set incidental catch allowances for the CDQ groups in the fisheries affected by section 416's amendment to MSA section 305(i)(1)(B)?

In view of our agreement on these points, do you agree to authorize the council and the Secretary to establish incidental catch limits for these fisheries without prohibiting the council from providing the CDQ program with an incidental catch allowance.

Yes, I do agree that we must ensure fair treatment of both groups in these fisheries, and would support including such language in these changes. Do I have your commitment that you will include these changes to Section 416 in the Coast Guard Conference Report before final passage in the Senate, or, if not procedurally possible, in another bill that will be enacted this year, including the final version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization?

I fully support passage of S. 2012, your and Senator Inouye's bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly in view of your commitment to make these changes to section 416 of the Coast Guard Conference Report. Senator Inouye, are you in agreement with Senator Stevens and me on these points?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the pending measure, as passed by the Senate, may be one of the last items on our schedule this Congress, but it is certainly not the least important. The bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in order to guide the management of our marine fisheries through 2013. We would not be here today if Senator Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye had not extended an olive branch. I am extremely appreciative of the hard work that they and their staff put into this legislation. I also commend our colleague on this side of the aisle, Tom Allen from Maine, who worked tirelessly on behalf of the fishermen in his district to improve this legislation. And while the pending measure does not do everything I would have liked, it does not roll back the conservation principles in this important fisheries management law. The legislation actually strengthens the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

I support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was going to wait until the very end to respond, but I want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the House Resources Committee, that it has truly been an honor to work with him during his tenure as chairman of our committee. The gentleman has fought hard for those principles that he has believed in. He has accomplished a great deal during his tenure here. I commend him for his tenacity, and he truly has been a fighter for that which he believes. As he has said, we have not agreed on every issue, but we have had our respectful disagreements and we have worked in good faith as well. I believe we have during his tenure as chairman.

I do welcome the incoming ranking member, Mr. Young. I have served on both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Resources Committee for my entire tenure in this body. Thirty years we have worked together, and now I am glad to have him as the ranking member on my committee and may he stay that way for a long, long time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a true leader on this issue and fought very hard for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a valued member of our committee.

If the gentleman would yield.

The gentleman from Oregon is entirely correct. It is my understanding that the bill would permit the Pacific Council process to continue. We recognize that the Pacific Council has made substantial progress and do not intend to disrupt their efforts to develop and implement an appropriate groundfish management program, consistent with this act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's question. I would say that he is entirely correct. In order to help ensure that affected stakeholders have the maximum degree of confidence in the management measures developed by the councils and that those measures are as effective as possible, it is vital that the Science and Statistical Committees operate in an open manner that is receptive to a full spectrum of scientific opinion. Accordingly, it is our expectation that under this legislation, the Science and Statistical Committees would gather information and prepare recommendations in a way that takes into account the research and expertise of a wide range of scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, this concludes debate on our side of the aisle. Again, commending our chairman, Mr. Pombo, wishing him the best on whatever avenue he pursues in the future. I know that he will be spending a great deal of time on the ranch with his lovely wife, Annette. I wish him Godspeed there.

I thank Mr. Gilchrest for his work on this legislation, those that have spoken on it for the help they have been, especially, as I started out my remarks, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye who truly extended the olive branch that broke the logjam on this legislation.

As Mr. Allen has already done, I also want to recognize our committee Democratic staff who helped make this bill possible. Chief among them is Lori Sonken, as well as Jeff Petrich and Charlotte Stevenson.

I thank Mr. Pombo's staff as well. His staff has put in numerous hours on this over a long, long period of time. Without their work we would not be here today celebrating the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Everybody has been thanked on the floor. I double that.

This is a good piece of legislation. It has been a long time coming. I want to thank the ranking member, of course, Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Oberstar, and the chairman. This bill will do good for our oceans and for our fisheries. Although it is far from being perfect, we expect to have this finalized tonight and, as has been mentioned before, because it originated in Alaska, the 200-mile limit, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will continue to work to improve it. Because it is very, very important that we keep our fisheries sustainable and also to make sure that our oceans are not only protected and conserved but provide the food that is necessary for this Nation of ours.

Again, a lot of work was done, but I can tell you frankly it was the staff on both sides of the aisle, especially on this side, as has already been mentioned. Dave Whaley, who actually used to have hair before he started working on this bill. He doesn't have it anymore. Bonnie Bruce. She is still, I think, relatively attractive and she has been through agony for all types of activity to get this bill done.

I again thank the people that understand the importance and the staff does the majority of work on this. We did do it. The Senate side did it. Now it is the

House side's turn to do what is right for the oceans.

Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation, there are several provisions which need further explanation.

Section 107 provides that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Regional Councils and the Council on Environmental Policy, shall revise the procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Those procedures shall integrate NEPA's environmental analytical procedures with the procedures for preparing and approving fishery management plans and amendments under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and shall conform the timelines for NEPA compliance with the timelines for the approval of fishery management plans and amendments established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The only way those requirements can be met for plans developed by a Council is to use the Council's plan development processes. That means NEPA procedures must be integrated into the Council process which will be the vehicle for identifying the problem to be addressed, identifying the reasonable alternatives to address that problem, identifying the preferred alternative, and examining the environmental consequences, positive and negative, of the preferred alternative and the reasonable alternatives. After the Council completes its processes, the Secretary will have the final responsibility for determining if NEPA has been complied with and may disapprove the plan, plan amendment, or regulation pursuant to section 304(a)(3) of this act.

In addition, there are a number of provisions in this legislation which deal with the, amount and type of information which needs to be submitted to the Secretary by a variety of entities and how that information is to be treated by the Secretary. It is important that proprietary information, confidential economic information, personal information such as tax forms, and other sensitive information be maintained in a manner which does not compromise an individual or a company's reasonable expectation for privacy. The Secretary must develop regulations for the use and the protection of such information which weighs the need for the information for management purposes with a reasonable person's expectation for privacy.

I am also concerned that the provision requiring that harvest levels be set to prevent overfishing not be interpreted to shut down entire fisheries if one stock of a multi-species complex is experiencing overfishing. The purpose of the act is to provide a healthy fishery resource, but it is also to promote commercial and recreational fishing and support communities dependent on the fishery resources. The act should not be used as a tool for stopping all fishing activities in U.S. waters. The keys to achieving these goals are balance, flexibility, and common sense by the fishery managers. The provisions dealing with ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished fisheries, and setting harvest levels to prevent overfishing all need to be taken in the context of the National Standards and need to be viewed with an eye toward balance, flexibility, and common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5946) to amend the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize activities to promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery management agreements, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5946, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their hard work in getting this authorization to the Senate and to the House. I also want to thank Chairman Richard Pombo, who has been a champion for the recreational and commercial fishermen of this Nation. We will miss his leadership greatly. And I want to thank and support all the other Members and their staff that have been involved in this process.

At this point I will insert in the Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Pombo and Chairman Boehlert regarding this bill and between Chairman Pombo and Chairman Thomas regarding the polar bear provisions

contained in title IX, originally part of H.R. 4075.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2006.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I ask your cooperation to help schedule

consideration by the House of Representatives of H.R. 4075,

the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 2006, during

the week of July 17-21, 2006. I have proposed an amendment to

this bill which includes text from S. 2013, the United

States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of

2005. The Committee on Ways and Means has a jurisdictional

interest in this Senate bill because of its inclusion of

trade measures.

My staff has worked with yours to develop a mutually-agreed

on text for this amendment, and I have enclosed this

amendment for your review. I ask that you not seek a referral

of H.R. 4075 based on the inclusion of this language to

expedite Floor scheduling. Of course, this action would not

be considered as waiving or affecting your jurisdiction over

the subject matter of the amendment, nor as precedent for any

future referrals of similar measures. Moreover, if the bill

is conferenced with the Senate, I would support naming Ways

and Means Committee members to the conference committee for

the trade provisions. I would also be pleased to include this

letter and your response in the Congressional Record during

consideration of the bill on the Floor.

Mr. Chairman, I have been very pleased with the tremendous

degree of cooperation between our two Committees. Your staff,

especially Angela Ellard and Steven Schrage, has been

responsive and thoughtful, and my staff very much appreciates

their support and teamwork. I hope that you will give my

request serious consideration and I look forward to your

response.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Jim Saxton from New Jersey for his work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo.

Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

I want to yield now to the part of the country that has the largest fishery, to Congressman Don Young.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I want to thank Mr. Rahall and his staff and the Members on that side of the aisle, and Mr. Pombo for his effort, Mr. Young, and Mr. Jim Saxton, and certainly the staff behind me for all their work.

This is not a perfect bill. There is no utopia in the legislative process. Through consensus and dialogue, we have tried to integrate the ideas of the Members, and we feel very strongly that we have come up with a bill that will improve, sustain and restore the ecology of the Nation's oceans.

I urge my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for all his contributions in getting this to the floor this evening. I know it was not easy to get us here to achieve the consensus that we have tonight. I would also like to thank on the other side of the aisle obviously our chairman, Mr. Pombo, and Mr. Young as well. I know this will be the last day, I guess, that we have this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say that throughout your tenure as the chairman of the Resources Committee, I could always count on you to be honest and forthright about everything. And even though oftentimes we did disagree, there were many times when we agreed on different matters. So I want to thank you for your tenure and obviously look forward also to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) as our ranking member. He is another person who speaks his mind and certainly manages to get things done.

I want to support this legislation. I think that it is a very important and comprehensive bill that updates our Nation's fisheries management laws, but I want to mention two provisions that are critically important to my constituents in New Jersey at the Jersey shore. First, it includes legislative discretion allowing the Secretary of Commerce to extend the rebuilding time frame for summer flounder. I, along with many of my colleagues from New Jersey, particularly Mr. Saxton, strongly believe that existing law gives NMFS the administrative flexibility to avoid making drastic cuts in next year's summer flounder quota, but the service consistently refused to use that flexibility. We are thus granting a legislative extension of the rebuilding time frame to force the administration to take action and avert drastically low quotas for this important fishery. While the resulting quotas will still be the lowest ever, this language will avoid a dramatically low quota that could have resulted in a virtual shutdown of the entire fishery.

I am also glad to see that this bill contains a provision intended to improve data collection from the recreational sector. Anglers in my district have long known that the MRFSS system is widely inaccurate in estimating recreational landings and is completely inappropriate for use in stock allocation decisions. The language in this bill will help by requiring the secretary to improve the program to ensure accurate data collection and incorporate the results of a recent National Research Council report. I am also glad that the provision prevents a fee from being imposed until at least 2011, preempting an administration proposal to implement a license that could have cost up to $35 annually for the right to fish.

I will acknowledge that the overall bill is far from perfect. There are provisions in here that I am not completely happy with. And there are other items I would have liked to include. But I know that neither the fishing nor the environmental community are completely happy with every single word, and probably that means it is a very good bill.

This bill does represent an overall improvement in the management of our Nation's fisheries and strikes a balance between conserving stocks and ensuring productive fisheries. It is my fervent hope that this bill will bring some greater sense into a fisheries management system that to the average angler seems confusing at best and completely irrational at worst. We here in Congress have a duty to closely examine the outcomes of this law and closely oversee its implementation by the administration.

Again, I thank all my colleagues and particularly our chairman and ranking member.

I forgot to mention the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and I apologize, for all your work in putting this together. Thanks again, too, Wayne.