Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 200) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is our country's most important fisheries law. Magnuson is the framework for governing fishing in Federal waters, which is big business in this country: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that commercial and recreational fishing generates roughly $200 billion in economic value and supports 1.7 million jobs.

This significant economic impact depends on sustainable management of fish stocks and protecting the ocean ecosystems on which they depend. Now, the 1996 and 2006 reauthorizations of Magnuson moved us in that direction after decades of overfishing had led to the collapse of fisheries and devastation for fishing communities in many parts of the country.

Instead of building on that success, I am sad to say that H.R. 200, which many have called the empty oceans act, would roll back the important conservation and management standards that have helped us get to this point, that have helped end overfishing, and that have helped rebuild a record number of fish stocks. This attempt to return us to the bad old days of failed fishery management policy and overfishing that inevitably follows from loose standards should be seen as unacceptable to everyone who cares about sustainable fisheries.

Now, Magnuson, as has been said, has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. I have tried to work with Mr. Young in good faith to find a path towards a bipartisan compromise, and I thank him for his efforts to get there. We came close. I am disappointed that we fell short.

But we need to be very clear that Democrats are opposing H.R. 200 not for partisan reasons, but for important policy grounds that, in the past, have never been partisan and should not be partisan today.

That is also why many fishery stakeholders oppose this bill in its current form. They don't want to see Magnuson's core conservation provisions undermined. That is why letters have been pouring in in opposition to this bill, because it does undermine the very heart of our country's flagship fisheries law.

We have heard, for example, from the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Fishing Communities Coalition, Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, Seafood Harvesters of America, Maine Coast Fishermen's Association, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Northwest Guides and Anglers Association, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Gulf Restoration Network, American Fly Fishing Tackle Association, and on and on, including hundreds of chefs, scientists, and recreational anglers, among others. In fact, the stack of letters that we have received is quite voluminous, as I have them right here.

The changes my Republican colleagues are proposing to Magnuson are irresponsible. I am disappointed that they are ignoring the concerns that have been expressed from so many stakeholders who are telling them to be more careful as we reauthorize this important bill. There is an old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The bottom line with this Magnuson reauthorization is this: the law is working as intended. Reauthorization is important, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the law's core provisions that have made it so successful.

Mr. Chairman, I have offered an alternate amendment to reauthorize Magnuson. It contains constructive, bipartisan ideas on how to best manage our fisheries by allowing for flexibility and modernizing aspects of fisheries management, but doing so without undermining the core provisions of the law.

As an angler myself, who represents many commercial and recreational fishing interests in northern California, I strongly believe that there

needs to be a bipartisan path forward. I would still very much like to have meaningful discussions with my colleagues across the aisle to develop legislation in the spirit of previous bipartisan Magnuson reauthorizations, while leaving the core conservation and management provisions intact.

We can also make progress and do more to support recreational fishing interests. We should do that together, without sacrificing the science- based framework that is so important to the long-term sustainability of fisheries management.

Unfortunately, H.R. 200 falls short in this regard, and I must request that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the bill in its current form.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. Chairman, while I certainly appreciate the size of the Louisiana and Alaska fisheries--and to some extent, I am jealous of some of the fishing opportunities that exist in those places. I have fished, myself, in Alaska, but Mr. Graves has yet to invite me to Louisiana for some fishing, and we hope to fix that going forward.

I don't want to leave the impression that the fishing industry and fishing communities in other parts of the country are not just as important. I also don't want to leave the impression that there is universal support for H.R. 200 even in Alaska and Louisiana. So we are going to have a little bit of a battle of the posters, Mr. Chairman.

This is a partial listing of the groups that oppose H.R. 200 in its current form. They oppose it for the reasons that I have mentioned. They consider it irresponsible to undermine the science-based catch limits and rebuilding framework that have been so critical to the success of this bill going forward, and they don't want to see us backslide into the era of loose regulations and overfishing that will inevitably follow. They have seen this movie before, and they know what happens when we undermine core conservation provisions.

So among the many groups and organizations listed in opposition, we certainly have the Alaska Long Line Fishermen's Association, over here, the Gulf Fishermen's Association, and the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, among many, many others in opposition to H.R. 200.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to respectfully push back on the idea that you have to be a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus to have standing in this debate.

The fact is, and we have shared some of the groups opposing this legislation, the opposition includes many recreational fishing interests, and opposing legislators include many of us who actually do spend a lot of time on the water catching fish. So let's dispel that notion.

Now, there are some in the recreational fishing sector who will argue that Magnuson is broken, that it does not work for them, because, as they explain, it requires recreational fisheries, just like other fisheries, to abide by overall catch limits that are based on science. In other words, the law doesn't work because they don't want to have to stop fishing when their catch reaches unsustainable levels. That is a situation not of a law that is broken. It actually shows that we have a law that is playing a very, very important role.

Now, what would H.R. 200 do if it were enacted into law? It would enable recreational anglers to take more fish right now without regard for the future.

Proponents of the bill are advocating to increase recreational catch limits, reallocate catch away from commercial fishermen with mandated reallocation reviews, and water down the sustainable fishing mandates in current law.

That would mean taking more fish now, threatening fisheries with the risk of overfishing in the future, which we know, because we have seen this movie before, will lead to bans and closed fisheries in the future.

Managing fisheries sometimes requires tough choices. It shouldn't be about immediate gratification. And let's remember, the recreational fishermen are not disadvantaged under the current management system. In fact, in some regions, like the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishers currently take home 70 percent of the Gulf's most popular fish. Recreational anglers land an overwhelming majority of species like amberjack, cobia, red drum, king mackerel, spotted sea trout, and triggerfish. And for the Gulf red snapper, the division of quota between the recreational and seafood sectors is a more balanced situation, roughly 50/50.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, of course I have great respect for my colleague from Alaska. In fact, in many ways, he deserves credit for helping craft the original Fishery Conservation and Management Act, for bringing to the Nation what could be considered the Alaska model of fisheries management through subsequent Magnuson Act reauthorizations. So I find myself, ironically, in the position of defending the framework that he essentially created against my colleagues' attempts to make changes that I believe are fundamentally threatening to that very framework.

It is this Alaska model that we support, complete with science-based catch limits, industry accountability for sustainable harvest, and the constant march towards sustainable practices. That is what has made U.S. fisheries, under the Magnuson Act, a model for the world, and that is what we are trying to continue.

Now, it has been suggested that rebuilding timeframes are too rigid and too restrictive. We will talk more about this when we get to some of the specific debate on amendments. But it is important to know that there is flexibility on rebuilding goals in the Magnuson Act and that flexibility is being used. It is also working. And a great example of that is what has happened with sea scallops under the Magnuson Act.

Fishery managers implemented a rebuilding plan for sea scallops in 1998. Within a couple of years, the fishery had been rebuilt, and now the scallop fishery is one of the country's most valuable fisheries.

In 1998, a little over 13 million pounds of scallop were landed. By 2016, that amount had tripled to 40 million pounds, resulting in more money in fishermen's pockets.

So there is a lot at stake with these issues, and we should bear in mind not only the numbers we talked about regarding the many jobs, the billions of dollars contributed to the economy from commercial and recreational fishing, but the potential to do even more and to do even better if we manage our fisheries carefully.

NOAA has estimated that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would generate an additional $31 billion in seafood sales, support an additional 500,000 jobs, and increase the revenue that fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion. That is why we want to keep these critical provisions that have worked so well, because we can do even better if we stay the course.

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

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

Mr. Chair, we certainly support recreational fishing. I do. I have a lot of it in my district, and that is one of the reasons why, as I worked with Mr. Young to try to achieve a bipartisan reauthorization bill, we were willing to accept many of the provisions regarding recreational fishing. But you don't help recreational anglers when you go too far in relaxing annual catch limits or when you go too far in rolling back the rebuilding framework. Because when these fisheries crash, as inevitably they will, it is not just commercial fishing boats that are going to be out of the water. Everyone suffers. These fisheries will be closed.

And that is why so many recreational fishing interest groups and individuals have weighed in in opposition to H.R. 200. They have concluded, as we have, that the short-term gratification for some is not worth the long-term damage to all.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, while we have some differences in the two sides, I don't believe that I have been injecting hyperpartisan rhetoric in this debate. Our differences, as I have emphasized multiple times, are about policy. This is not about which party we are on. In fact, it used to be very bipartisan, that this Congress would defend science-based catch limits and rigorous rebuilding timeframes because we all knew that those were very, very important provisions for sustainable fisheries, whether you were a Democrat or a Republican.

Now, if there is some group out there who has written a letter that refers to the wrong section, or includes inflammatory rhetoric because they feel like they were kept out of the loop as this bill developed, maybe that is an indication that they were kept out of the loop as this bill developed. And maybe that should have been considered along with the pile of letters that have come into my office and into other offices expressing fierce opposition to some of these irresponsible changes being proposed in this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization.

Rather than disparage the stakeholders who are opposing this bill, I think we should listen to them.

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

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

Mr. Chair, we have some very critical differences of opinion on whether this bill is a good idea after years of success in rebuilding depleted fish stocks, after all of the economic value that we have created by allowing commercial and recreational fishing to resume in places all over this country, where at one time it was shut down because we failed to properly manage our fisheries.

We think, fundamentally, it is a bad idea at this point to declare mission accomplished and start rolling back the very bedrock provisions that have enabled us to achieve this success. It is with that in mind that I request Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in 1996, during floor debate passage of the bipartisan Sustainable Fisheries Act that amended and reauthorized Magnuson, the gentleman from Alaska said the following:

It is crucial that the management agencies within the

Federal Government be proactive in protecting fisheries

rather than attempting to address overfished stocks after

they are in a crisis situation.

I couldn't agree more, and it is true now, more than ever. Twenty-two years ago our fisheries were in shambles. Rampant overfishing had decimated stocks to the point of collapse and Congress needed to make some tough choices to ensure that there were fish left to catch in our oceans.

We made tough choices in 1996, and we made them in 2006, putting in place requirements to end overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, and setting science-based annual catch limits. And because we did that, because we made those tough choices, the number of overfished stocks is at an all-time low. The number of rebuilt stocks is at an all-time high, and most stocks are trending in a positive direction that is benefiting fishermen in coastal communities.

I cannot support legislation that would turn our backs on what has worked so well, but H.R. 200, unfortunately, would take us in the wrong direction, back to the bad old days of fisheries management and taxpayer bailouts because we loosen the rules that prevent overfishing.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his many years of service in this Chamber, and I would note that those of us who were not here in 1996 are not so-called johnny-come-latelies, but we are simply younger than the gentleman. In fact, just about everyone in this House is younger than the gentleman, and I say that with great respect.

I have worked on fisheries issues throughout my time in this Chamber and, before that, for 6 years in the California Assembly. In my personal life, I have been fishing as long as I can remember. I have even pulled in set nets on a commercial boat in Cook Inlet in the gentleman's district. So my years of interest in these issues is largely why I am so disappointed to be standing here debating a fisheries bill that is, unfortunately, too partisan.

My staff and I worked hard and in good faith to find a bipartisan compromise, and while the manager's amendment does remove some of the most egregious language that would undermine environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the American Antiquities Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, the fact is those provisions never should have been in a Magnuson reauthorization bill in the first place. They were always nonstarters, and removing them does not fix the serious threat to fisheries posed by H.R. 200's undermining of catch limits and rebuilding timeframes.

What is more, my staff and I did offer compromise language from Senator Wicker's Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act. Even that language that every single Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee had supported in markup was rejected, unfortunately, by my colleagues across the aisle and did not find its way into the manager's amendment.

We also offered on these points of disagreement for catch limits and rebuilding timeframes to simply leave existing law in place because it has been working, and that, too, was unacceptable, unfortunately, to our colleagues across the aisle. So what is left before

us in H.R. 200 would fundamentally gut provisions that have made Magnuson so successful.

Now is not the time to move away from catch limits based on sound science and toward catch limits based on wishful thinking. It is not the time to allow rebuilding of overstocked fish to be delayed indefinitely. We have seen this movie before, and we know what happens.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment does remove some poison pill provisions that should never have been in the bill, but it does nothing to fix the wrongheaded rollbacks of catch limits and rebuilding timeframes that will inevitably lead us to overfishing. That is why this bill has been called the empty oceans act, and that is why it is opposed by so many stakeholders.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the dozens of letters we have received since the manager's amendment was introduced.

Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish

Shareholders' Alliance,

July 5, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record this column recently written by the head of the National Marine Fisheries Service and also the chief scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Bush administration.

I would like to call special attention to this statement by these experts from the Bush administration, who say: ``We believe this is an ill-conceived, dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable management that has occurred since the last reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007.''

Don't Hurt Fisheries With Dangerous Legislation

(By William Hogarth and Steven Murawski, special to the Tampa Bay

Times)

This Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives is

scheduled to vote on H.R. 200, the Strengthen Fishing

Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries

Management Act. We believe this is an ill-conceived,

dangerous piece of legislation that would undermine the

tremendous progress in fisheries rebuilding and sustainable

management that has occurred since the latest

reauthorizations of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries

Conservation and Management Act in 2007.

Since 2007, more than 40 of the most overfished and

historically important fish stocks in the nation have been

recovered. Overfishing now occurs for fewer than 10 percent

of stocks, the lowest proportion since records have been

kept. Rebuilding stocks has resulted in increases in

fisheries yields and translated into lower prices to

consumers, more business-friendly approaches to commercial

fisheries management and more healthy recreational fisheries.

The term ``flexibility'' in H.R. 200 is a code word that

would undermine timely, effective management of stocks when

downturns inevitably occur. Heavy on requirements for studies

and other administrative requirements, H.R. 200 would make

fisheries management more cumbersome. The bill as written

would delay timely, effective conservation responses and

would limit the flexibility to use innovative management

tools. Healthy fisheries without healthy stocks is a non

sequitur. We urge the House to reject this piece of

legislation that seeks to solve problems that simply do not

exist.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill argue that the requirement to rebuild overfished stocks needs more ``flexibility,'' but it is important to note that the Magnuson Act already provides a lot of flexibility.

While I am fully aware that it isn't always easy or popular to implement fishing restrictions, management tools like annual catch limits and rebuilding plans are essential to ensuring a future for our fisheries and fishing industry.

In my district, fishermen went through several tough years while groundfish stocks were depleted. Magnuson provided the scientific and regulatory framework to bring those fisheries back. We have now rebuilt half of our groundfish species, and more are on the way to recovery.

These accomplishments certainly did not come easily. Our fishermen had to make sacrifices. But the long-term health of our fisheries and communities that depend on them in making these tough decisions has benefited from it. That is why these decisions were supported by commercial and recreational fishermen. That support has been integral to sustaining the fisheries that are critical for West Coast communities. This success story, by the way, has been replicated around the country time and again.

Our success and the sustainability of the fishing industry rely on harvesting from healthy and productive fish stocks. Fishing restrictions are only put in place because they are absolutely necessary. If there aren't enough fish to support strong harvests both now and in the future, we have no choice but to cut back in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons.

It is important to note that the law allows councils to delay rebuilding when the biology of the stock, environmental conditions, or international management considerations present challenges. Because of these broad but fair exemptions, more than 50 percent of all overfished stocks today have rebuilding plans that are longer than the 10-year baseline in the act. So there is flexibility, and it is being used.

Further, current law gives councils 2 years to put a rebuilding plan in place and another year to reduce rather than end overfishing. That is 3 years of lead time before significant harvest restrictions go into effect.

My amendment requires that an exemption to strong rebuilding timelines would only be permitted if rebuilding plans have at least a 75 percent chance of success. That is contrasted with the 50 percent chance of success that ordinarily applies to rebuilding plans.

Now, I am proud that, without being required to do so, most of the West Coast groundfish fishery recovery plans have a greater than 75 percent chance of meeting their rebuilding goals, and we have seen the success of that. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all the regions.

The bottom line is that we should not be weakening standards unless we have a very robust rebuilding plan in place. That is what this amendment addresses.

I want to note that, in addition to all of that, the current Magnuson Act requires a rebuilding timeline be as short as possible. H.R. 200 would change that requirement to be as short as practicable. This is a very problematic weakening of the law, with real consequences.

Currently, the agency has to do whatever is possible, whatever is feasible. Practicable is a lower standard. It means the stocks would not be built in a reasonable timeframe, and this change could even allow the agency to do little or nothing to rebuild a stock.

History has shown us what happens if we don't do that. We need to tackle rebuilding aggressively in order to succeed. Rebuilding plans that take a weak approach to harvest or drag on rebuilding for many years inevitably fail.

So, unless the law is very clear and strong on this point, managers could choose not to deal with rebuilding situations proactively. My amendment addresses this to be sure that we continue to see fish stocks rebuild so that fishermen can ultimately reap the rewards.

Mr. Chairman, I request an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would set a bad precedent by waiving the requirements to provide compensatory mitigation for federally authorized maintenance dredging projects in inland waterways, inlets, or harbors located in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

As it should, Magnuson requires compensatory mitigation to protect essential fish habitat, including seagrass. This mitigation requires the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources to offset unavoidable adverse impacts from activities like dredging.

Many of the inland waterways in the Southeast that need maintenance dredging are actually home to seagrasses, so these States are required to mitigate the negative impacts. Compensatory mitigation is the most obvious, commonsense solution for offsetting the damage to these important habitats.

Fish depend on healthy seagrass habitats to survive and reproduce, not only in the Southeast but all across the Nation's coasts, including in my district.

Moreover, we need all the help that we can get to recover seagrasses. Globally, 30 percent of seagrass meadows have disappeared. Of the seagrasses that remain, nearly a quarter are threatened or near threatened. In fact, the only marine plant listed as endangered in the United States is a seagrass found in Florida.

Seagrasses are highly productive hotspots for biodiversity and can act as a carbon sink, making this habitat a critical component in buffering oceans against the impacts of climate change. Protecting and restoring essential fish habitat and seagrass is very important to maintain productive fisheries and healthy oceans.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by stating that I can appreciate the frustration that the gentleman may be feeling, feeling like this is a process of remitigating for the same thing over and over again.

I think it is a little more complicated than that, but if the gentleman is willing to work going forward on some ways to perhaps consolidate the regulatory burden and find something for the long term that provides a little more certainty and streamlining, I would be happy to work with him on that.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Graves. This amendment requires the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress, but it is unclear what the overall purpose of this report would be.

In fact, because of the vagueness of that purpose, there has been concern that it may be about identifying what would happen if the overall value of the red snapper fishery commercial quota was completely taken away or given to private anglers. Would this report be used to make the argument that the red snapper quota should be reallocated to recreational fishermen? I can't support either of those propositions, nor a reporting requirement with such ambiguous goals and potentially significant impacts on the fishery.

When it comes to setting these allocations, picking winners and losers from among commercial and recreational fishing interests, that should be the job of regional councils, not of Congress. In fact, the entire structure of Magnuson and the council system is designed to encourage stakeholder participation on the councils, from a regional perspective.

We need to let the fishery management councils do their job and not have Congress micromanaging these type of decisions.

It is unclear, also, why this amendment only targets limited access privilege permits. Every type of commercial or recreational fishing activity could be viewed as having a ``resource rent.'' So it is questionable that every other form of commercial and recreational activity would be excluded from this type of report. There is no reason why an analysis of the economic value commercial and recreational fishermen extract from a Federal resource would be limited to just catch share programs.

Finally, with respect to the conflict of interest provisions in this bill, I would have supported--and I have talked to the gentleman about this--this amendment, had it been a report on ways to eliminate conflicts of interest on all fishery management councils, because there are concerns, bipartisan concerns, in that regard, and it is something that should be addressed to improve fishery management in all councils.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a rather targeted and direct attack on what many view as a well-managed commercial red snapper fishery, and we should not be devoting public resources to such a report.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we are not opposed.

Mr. Chair, I do rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. This is an amendment that would lift the ban on striped bass fishing in the Block Island transit zone between Montauk, New York, and Block Island, Rhode Island.

Commercial and recreational fishing is allowed in State waters, as the gentleman said, from shore to 3 miles offshore. Striped bass is managed by the States from Maine through North Carolina through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Federal waters have been closed to striped bass fishing since 1990 when a moratorium went into effect to protect juvenile fish entering the spawning population and to help rebuild a fishery that was recovering from decades of overfishing.

There has been an ongoing effort to reopen the striped bass fishery in the transit zone, yet there is no science to justify it. In contrast, the science shows that allowing fishing in this transit zone, which encompasses about 155 square miles of habitat, could disproportionately impact spawning females and, thus, threaten the overall health of the striped bass stock.

This would be detrimental to some of biggest recreational and commercial fishing ports on the East Coast. Opening up Federal waters in one region would undermine the protections and commitment to rebuilding that others along the coast have invested in. It would set a bad precedent in managing the striped bass fishery, which still has a long way to go.

Finally, Congress should not be legislating on species-specific fishery management actions. This issue is regularly assessed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. We need to let that commission do its job and make decisions that are based on science.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, these certainly are arguments that can and should be made at the Atlantic Council. In fact, they are made regularly, and that council has representation regionally, has representation from all the key stakeholders, and has access to the best available science, the state-of-the-art science on this issue. So I think we need to let that council do its job, and, with that, I request a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in H.R. 200.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

Mr. Chairman, as one of the sponsors of the original bill way back in 1975, and I fought to secure enactment in 1976, I can say it is probably the most successful legislation that ever passed this House to create a sustainable yield of fisheries for the United States of America.

I first wrote what would become the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it hasn't been reauthorized since 2006. For 6 years, I have worked with Members of this body on both sides of the aisle to improve this legislation.

I know some of my colleagues will say that I didn't do enough to ensure the act retains the strong bipartisan nature of the original bill. It is important to remember the legislative history. While it is true that the version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that became law passed the House under suspension of the rules, the original bill passed the Natural Resources Committee after a long markup by a vote of 26-15, with only four Democrats voting in favor of the bill.

So this point that the previous reauthorizations were noncontroversial and nonpartisan is not true.

My legislation, H.R. 200, would make a number of improvements to the original act in order to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen in coastal communities.

The legislation tailors Federal fishery authorities in order to give councils the proper tools and flexibility needed to effectively manage their fisheries, and will support a more robust domestic seafood industry and greater job creation across the country.

This legislation allows added flexibility for fishery managers to rebuild depleted fisheries, more transparency for fishermen in science and management, and a requirement for NOAA to provide better accountability on how fees are collected and used. It also authorizes appropriations for the act for 5 years.

I am proud to say my bill protects our commercial and recreational fishing interests, and will allow councils to do their job in a more streamlined and effective manner.

My bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act. It allows for regional management of fisheries. The law gives guidance through its national standards and creates the process that allows the councils to develop fishery management plans.

This legislation was written for fishermen to ensure they are able to catch sustainable yields of fish for the communities. It is critical for the protection of coastal communities and for allowing the stakeholders to be part of the management of the fisheries.

To address the ever-changing needs of fisheries and fishery communities, Congress has passed various amendments to this act. Changes were based on knowledge of the times gained through experience, improvements in science, and better management techniques.

In the mid-1990s, Congress addressed overfishing, included protections of habitat, improvements for fisheries science, and reductions in bycatch. These were the issues of the time, and they were addressed as needed. One of these problems also included the lack of resources to fund stock assessments to provide needed data to the regional fishery management councils, something that continues to be an issue today.

The act was last amended in 2007. Congress included measures that set science-based annual catch limits to prevent overfishing, including a requirement to end overfishing within 2 years. Accountability measures were adopted, which meant harvest reductions if harvest levels were exceeded.

Work to develop H.R. 200 began 6 years ago. The committee held over a dozen hearings, with testimony from over 100 witnesses. As with past reauthorizations, and in line with a main purpose of the act--to balance conservation with economic use of the resource--H.R. 200 takes a middle-of-the-road approach to fisheries management.

While some today may complain the bill's flexibility rolls back scientific protections, that statement is just not accurate. The flexibility in the bill is based on science. Rebuilding of fish stocks will be based on the biology of fish stock. Harvest levels will still be based on science and set at levels where overfishing will not occur. The regional councils will continue to follow recommendations of their science and statistical committee.

During every reauthorization cycle, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is updated to be closely in sync with current-day science, management techniques, and knowledge. As the fishermen, communities, councils, and fishery managers develop better techniques and learn lessons from implementing the law, Congress can take that knowledge to improve that law. Flexibility is a cornerstone of the law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act promotes regional flexibility that recognizes differing ocean conditions, variations in regional fisheries, different harvesting methods and management techniques, and distinct community impacts.

Again, I want to stress: this bill was written for fish and communities, not for the interest groups. I will not stand by and watch other interest groups hijack this piece of legislation, taking away the sustainable concept of our fisheries and the healthy concept of our fisheries and the healthy concept of our communities for other reasons and other causes.

While my name will be on the bill as the sponsor, we all know that bringing legislation to the floor is a group effort and we would not be here today talking about fish without the support of other members and a tremendous amount of hard work from staff. So I thank Chairman Bishop and even Congressman Huffman and his staff--I had to say that--the bill's cosponsors on both sides of the aisle; staff on the Natural Resources Committee, Lisa Pittman, Charles Park, Richie O'Connell, Bill Ball, and former staffer Dave Whaley; and members of my staff, Mike DeFilippis and Martha Newell.

Mr. Chairman, I have to remind people that when we had this bill passed originally, we were catching about, I would say, 2 percent of our fish, and after the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we are catching all but 1 percent and foreign countries are only catching 1 percent.

This is a good piece of legislation. It has worked in the past, and it will work better in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, they are promoting the opposition to this bill from interest groups that don't have any interest in commercial fishing, period. Let's be real about this.

What hurts me, I have heard them say that it removes science from fisheries. Let's explore this. No one is listening, but that is okay.

For starters, the words ``science'' and ``data'' appear 34 times throughout the bill. Section 207 directs the councils to establish a plan for cooperative research that brings together a wide variety of high-quality, non-Federal data to support existing data.

This is about States, coastal areas, villages, communities, fishermen making decisions instead of the Federal Government, and I know they don't like that.

Section 208 directs the Secretary to work with the States to find the best way to incorporate State data, just not their own data.

Section 301 directs the Secretary to develop a strategic plan for conducting stock assessments for every stock in a fishery's management plan.

Again, science.

Section 303 replaces an arbitrary 10-year rebuilding requirement. If the fish come back quicker under this bill, H.R. 200, they could be fished at a sustainable yield level. Under the present law, which I wrote, they can't do that. Otherwise, we lose years and management of the fish for a period of time. That is up to the councils under H.R. 200.

Section 306 directs the Secretary to expedite approval of high- quality State data in the Gulf of Mexico to better advantage those recreational-heavy fisheries.

Finally, everything in this bill continues to be bound by the scientific principle of the Magnuson mandate to utilize the best available science for management decisions. There is nothing in this bill that weakens it, nothing. Yet I keep hearing the constant waves of dissension on the other side because they don't want to renew and make a better bill.

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

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

I again would like to talk about this legislation, the H.R. 200 bill. I am disappointed in the other side. It is a partisan issue, and, unfortunately, it is.

I was listening to the speakers on the other side, and they really don't have a concrete reason to object to this bill other than what they are being told by those who don't want commercial fishing, and they don't want recreational fishing. They may not say that, but in reality, that is really what they are seeking.

Now, I again go back to myself and the period of time when the 200- mile limit occurred. Why did it happen?

I was in Kodiak, Alaska. None of you were even born, probably, at that time. I was in Kodiak, Alaska, looked out 12 miles off the shore of Kodiak, and there was a wall of lights. I said: What is that?

This was before I was a Congressman.

He said: That is foreign fishermen catching our fish--catching our fish, America's fish.

When I got elected to Congress, one of the first things I did was try to develop the Magnuson-Stevens Act with Gerry Studds from Massachusetts. He was in the majority; I was the minority; and I explained to him what was happening.

He went back home to a fishing district and then said: You have got a good idea. Let's develop an economic zone 200 miles out, and we will control the fisheries in that area.

So we worked together bipartisanly, wrote a bill with a concrete suggestion for sustainable yield for fish, fishermen, communities for America, and for our coastal States that are involved in commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries.

We passed that bill, yes, out of the House, I believe, pretty much unanimously. Went to the Senate side, and the Senate sided with Magnuson-Stevens and decided to do the same thing.

Out of that, after we had opposition from just about every liberal in the business--for what reason, I don't know, other than they thought it would affect the international sea--it was finally signed into law by President Ford.

From there, we have gone to the best managed fisheries in the world. From there, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have been able to achieve what we should do. But we have grown in science. We have grown in more knowledge about how and where we should fish and when.

People talk about the species that were depleted. There were no species until this bill was established. And we rebuilt them, and we are still rebuilding them under our science under this bill. But it gives that flexibility to States to help manage.

Now, I know on that side of the aisle, they believe that the Federal Government can do everything--in fact, they should do everything because we don't know what we are doing. The States aren't really States, they are part of the Federal Government, instead of the other way around.

I argue that knowledge within States with science available and science under present law under this bill, which we do not extinguish, is really the crux of this issue, that the 200-mile limit, the H.R. 200 bill, my bill today--not because of me. I did not write this bill for myself. I wrote it for the communities, for the fish, and the fishermen for America.

Those that oppose it, I said: Uh-uh. They are not listening to the communities. They believe Big Government can do best for them and States should not be involved. I argue it is the States' issue to protect their fish, yes, with supervision of the Federal Government.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the full committee who allowed me to bring this outstanding bill to the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a list of supporters of this legislation.

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Coalition (115th-H.R. 200)

Letters of Support

Organization

State of Florida; State of Mississippi; AFTCO Manufacturing

Co., Inc; Banks, Inc.; Alliance Sports Group; Bass Pro Shops;

American Fishing Wire/Hi-Seas; Beach Marine Products;

American Tackle Company; Big Rock Sports, LLC; Anglers

Journal TV; Billfish Inc.; Anglers Resource, LLC; Bluefin

USA; B.A.S.S., LLC; Bob Sands Fishing Tackle; Bonnier

Corporation; Brunswick Boat Group; Classic Fishing Products,

Inc.; Bullet Weights, Inc.

Compass 360; Cabin Creek Bait Company; Composites One;

Calderone & Associates; Crappie USA, Inc.; Capt. Harry's

Fishing Supply; Crook & Crook, Inc.; Careco Multimedia

Entertainment LLC; Dave's Bait, Tackle & Taxidermy; Catalyst

Marketing Services; DL Ventures, LLC; CB's Saltwater

Outfitters; Do-It Corporation; Chris Craft; Marine Division--

Americas Dometic Corporation; Don

Coffey Company; FLW, LLC; Eposeidon Outdoor Adventures, Inc.;

Forest River Inc.; Etic USA; Formula Boats.

F.J. Neil Company, Inc.; G-Rods International; Faria/Beede

Instruments; G5 Products LLC; FISH307, LLC; GEM Products,

Inc.; Fishidy, Inc.; Grady-White Boats; Fishunt Essentials,

LLC; Hook & Gaff Watch Company; Fluid Motion LLC; Hook &

Tackle Outfitters; iAngler Tournament Systems, LLC; Magic

Tilt Trailers, Inc.; IMTRA Corporation; Malin Company; INDMAR

Products; Marble, LLC; Jay's Sporting Goods; Marine

Accessories Corporation; Jones & Company.

Maui Jim Sunglasses; Kureha America, LLC/Seaguar; Maverick

Boat Group; L & S Bait Company; Maxima USA; Lew's Fishing

Tackle; MCBC Holding Inc.; Lucas Oil Products Inc.; Mercury

Marine; Millers Boating Center, Inc.; Pitman Creek Wholesale;

Mud Hole Custom Tackle; PRADCO-Fishing; NauticStar Boats;

Pro-Troll Fishing Products; Northland Fishing Tackle, LLC;

ProNav Marine; On The Water Media Group; Rapala; Outdoor Pro

Shop, Inc.; Realtree Active.

Outdoor.media; Red Drum Tackle Shop, Inc.; OutdoorFlics

Digital Studios + Media Lab; Robalo Boats; Pacific Catch;

Rockfish Sports; Rod-N-Bobb's, Inc.; Southeastern Fishing

Tackle Liquidators; Rogers Sports Marketing; Southwick

Associates, Inc.; Rome Specality Company, Inc.; Sport

Outdoors TV; Rudow's FishTalk Magazine; Sportco Marketing,

Inc.; Seasonal Marketing, Inc.; Sportsman Boats

Manufacturing, Inc.; SeaStar Solutions; Springfield Marine;

Shimano North American Holding, Inc; St. Croix Rods.

Skeeter Boats; Stealth Products, LLC; Smoker Craft, Inc.;

SteelShad Fishing Company; Strike King Lure Company; Throw

Raft LLC; Syntec Industries LLC; Tim Bailey & Associates; T-H

Marine Supplies, Inc.; Tom Posey Company; Tackle Warehouse;

Top Brass Tackle; Temple Fork Outfitters; Trik Fish LLC; The

Fisherman Magazine; TTI-Blackmore Fishing Group; The Hammond

Group; Uncle Josh Bait Company; Thomas F. Gowen & Sons; Vapor

Apparel.

Thomas Spinning Lures, Inc.; Vectorply Corporation; Water

Gremlin Company; ZEBCO Brands; Water Sports Industry

Association; Zee Bait Co.; What The Fin Apparel & Purple Tuna

Tees Inc.; White River Marine Group; Wholesale Buying Group;

Wright & McGill Co.; Yakima Bait Company; Yamaha Marine

Group; Z-Man Fishing Products, Inc.; American Scallop

Association; Atlantic Red Crab Company; Atlantic Capes

Fisheries; BASE Seafood; California Wetfish Producers

Association; Cape Seafood.

Garden State Seafood Association; Inlet Seafood; Long

Island Commercial Fishing Association; Lunds Fisheries, Inc.;

North Carolina Fishers Association; Rhode Island Commercial

Fishermen's Alliance; Seafreeze Ltd.; Town Dock; West Coast

Seafood Processors Association; Western Fishboat Owners

Association; Freezer Longline Coalition; Florida Keys

Commercial Fishing Association; Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance;

Southeastern Fisheries Association.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I have no more speakers, and I am going to close by saying this is good legislation. We may have differences of opinion. It should be done. I am quite proud of the original act. I am proud of this act, too. Because I believe in the fisheries, not only commercial, and recreational, but sustainable; sustainable for the communities, the fish, and everybody in America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a series of modifications in the underlying bill and removes specific provisions related to the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Antiquities Act, at the request of my Democrat cosponsors from Texas, Mr. Gene Green and Mr. Marc Veasey.

I introduced H.R. 200 in the early days of the 115th Congress. We have made many changes during the committee markup on H.R. 200. We adopted amendments authored by Ms. Bordallo from Guam, as well as from the Senate Modern Fish Act that passed the Senate Committee on Commerce with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

My manager's amendment eliminated some provisions in the bill that were most troublesome to Democrats, even though many outside stakeholders and Members on my side of the aisle considered those to be important components of the bill. The further spirited bipartisan compromise and willingness to support a number of Democratic amendments today--despite the rhetoric coming from the committee Democrats--our actions, our markup, and our willingness to work with House Democrats show that we have, in fact, been willing to work in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), who sponsored the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand the intent of my good friend's amendment, but I reluctantly oppose it.

The amendment would begin to unravel, I believe, this council's structure that was made in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the gold standard of global fisheries management. At best, it erodes MSA's emphasis on regional management.

Fish stocks migrate up and down the Atlantic coast frequently incorporated in a prospective of States invested in shared fishery resources, a goal we all share. That is why Congress authorized the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and why my bill before us today creates a liaison between the Mid-Atlantic Council and the New England Council and vice versa.

These two mechanisms adequately address overlapping Atlantic coast fisheries without undermining the fundamental council structure.

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would not only hamstring the flexibility of rebuilding fish stocks that this bill provides, it would add serious bureaucratic delays in the development of fishery management plans across the country.

Furthermore, according to NOAA, this amendment would eliminate some of the flexibility currently provided under the national standard, one which was updated under the Obama administration, and would cause an unnecessary reduction in the catch.

NOAA also expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on international fishing agreements that would

change how the U.S. can negotiate on rebuilding plans. According to a letter authored by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, this amendment would undermine the act, impede reforms that are desperately needed, and attack jobs in coastal communities.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter to the leadership of the House and to myself where they say such an amendment sponsored by Mr. Jared Huffman of California and Mr. Alcee Hastings of Florida will ensure it does not: ``We believe it would actually undermine the MSA, impede reforms that are desperately needed, and attack jobs in coastal communities around the country, including in California and Florida, the home States of Mr. Huffman and Mr. Hastings.''

National Coalition

for Fishing Communities,

July 10, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, United States House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting, respectfully, that this amendment is uncalled for and, frankly, will gut the bill and the MSA, period.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I am sitting here listening to this. These channels were built for navigation and commercial use by taxpayers' dollars many years ago, and the seagrass grows back. Each time, they mitigate when trying to maintain it. Where is the logic?

Where is the logic when we built those channels with American tax dollars for commerce and now, each time they dredge it--they already dredged it once--it grows back and they have to come back and file another ES statement. Why are we doing this?

Who is this helping out? Not the fish because the eelgrass grows back again, because they have to dredge it again. It costs money, slows down commerce, and that is interfering with the economy of this country.

I have been through these channels. They can't show me where the dredging hurts. In fact, it helps. It is like you said, mowing the grass. You let it grow too long, you are going to get in trouble. We let this eelgrass grow too long, you are going to hurt the channel or you are going to hurt the fish in the long run.

So I compliment the gentleman on his amendment, and I will support this amendment strongly.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for modifying this amendment. I still have concerns, as I have told the gentleman. I know the problem.

If I ever hear about a red snapper again, we change this to the Graves snapper. That is what we are going to call it. I know there is a problem, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to strengthen the language and, especially, to making sure this does not include any other areas, because I want Alaska and the Pacific Northwest left out. I will say that is being selfish, but I know what the gentleman over there said.

I understand what the gentleman is trying to do here. We have a little ways to go. We will work together and try to get something done.

Mr. Chair, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I want to compliment the gentleman on his amendment. This is long overdue.

We have the technology. The imposition of putting bodies on board ships that don't really do anything, and I don't think make a great count, can be done better through technology. So I compliment the gentleman on his amendment, and I will be supporting his amendment.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to rise in opposition until I heard about Maine and how beautiful and the free- running streams and all the tourists and the king crab and all those other things. I do admit, I have been to Maine, and I would agree with him, but his is just a little tiny one. We are a great big thing with bigger streams, bigger fish, bigger crab, but no lobsters, though.

I have no lobsters, and I am going to ask Mr. Poliquin why we haven't seen more lobsters from Maine. I am not sure why, but I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't say I wouldn't support it. I just wanted to make sure I get my licks in for Alaska.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I do not object to the amendment and will support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Keating for his amendment. This is long overdue. Collecting those fees and using them for observer coverage is something that should be done.

If I go back to his first amendment, I want to mechanize it and use technology to make sure the fishermen have an opportunity to, I believe, report better.

This is a good amendment. I will be voting for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

I withdraw the reservation of a point of order.

I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The parliamentarian, I think, made a mistake, but they have a right to do that, as others Members do, but that is the way it goes.

Mr. Speaker, let's not kid ourselves. If you listen to the presentation, it has nothing to do with a fish bill. This is a procedural trick to delay passage of this bipartisan legislation. And I keep saying this is a fish bill that has been in existence for many years, since 1976, and it has been a success, and then we come up with a recommit motion that has nothing to do with this bill.

The prize is fish communities, sustainable yields, domestic seafood industry, and a job creation bill.

With all due respect, I strongly urge a rejection of the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. It should be better called the empty oceans act.

H.R. 200 really risks rolling back science-based conservation efforts, destroying jobs, and hurting our fisheries and fish stocks. It undermines successful sustainable fishery management put in place by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is why so many fishermen, scientists, and business owners have come out in opposition to the empty oceans act. Many people whose livelihood comes from the sea have expressed reservations about the job-destroying provisions of H.R. 200 and how it poses a threat to the commercial fishing industry and their jobs, which rely on sustainable practices.

The Seafood Harvesters of America, a leading trade organization for fishermen, authored a letter expressing their concerns with the bill. More than 1,000 individuals and organizations have expressed their opposition. I had a number of fishermen come by my office today, telling me that this bill could cost them their jobs.

Since its passage, the goal of Magnuson-Stevens has never wavered: managing fisheries to ensure sustainability while, of course, realizing the potential of the resource. Magnuson-Stevens takes a bottom-up approach to resource management where stakeholders on regional fishery management councils work to meet the science-based criteria outlined by the law.

We have some success with this approach. Since the year 2000, we have seen 44 previously depleted fish stocks rebuilt. Currently, 84 percent of fish stocks are no longer overfished.

In 1976, Magnuson-Stevens was passed to end unregulated fishing predominantly by foreign fleets and to develop our own American fleets that could benefit from our abundant fisheries. The act was strengthened in 1996 and 2006 through bipartisan reauthorizations that established science-based fishery management reforms.

The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens bolstered requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. And, in 2006, a bipartisan authorization maintained the commitment to sustainable fisheries, including accountability and catch limits. These bipartisan efforts succeeded to help create the sustainable fisheries that support coastal economies throughout America and, of course, consumers both in America and worldwide.

Unfortunately, unlike past reauthorizations, H.R. 200 was crafted through a partisan committee process intent on dismantling much of the progress made by Magnuson-Stevens over the last 40 years. In fact, the bill was reported in a party-line vote--Republicans for; Democrats against--with the Republicans continuing to reject attempts to come up with a broad bipartisan approach, as this bill has traditionally been done, that supports both commercial and recreational fishing interests and, of course, maintaining science-based reforms around sustainability.

Sadly, H.R. 200 inserts politics into how we manage our fisheries in several crucial areas. The bill erodes the role that science plays in managing our fisheries.

The bill guts science-based annual catch limit requirements through the creation of many exemptions for key species. These exemptions include many smaller fish that are absolutely critical as prey for valuable commercial and recreational predator species as part of a delicately balanced ecosystem. Hundreds of other species are exempted through this bill which dramatically increases the chances that overfishing will occur, leading to the devastation, both for sportsmen and commercial fishermen.

Catch limits are important to help conserve fisheries and are among the most successful provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By eroding those provisions, this bill would allow for a long-term depletion of fish stocks. It can devastate the economies of local communities, destroy jobs, and threaten the recovery and stability of our ocean ecosystems.

This bill also weakens the data collection requirements that ensure that data-driven, science-based management is used for our fisheries. Data is currently collected through a broad range of sources, and the determination of the best available data is used by NOAA Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils. H.R. 200 would weaken data collection processes and harm the role of science in successful management of our fishery resources.

Weakening science-based provisions is only one of the ways that this bill inserts politics into what should be a scientific question, the management of our fisheries. This bill not only erodes science-based management practices, but it rolls back meaningful accountability requirements for recreational anglers. Large groups representing a few members of the fishing community and businesses that sell equipment and boats want to see that these jobs are sustained over time.

According to data from the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation released in May of 2018, participation in recreational fishing has increased for the past 2 years; 49 million Americans went fishing in 2017, an increase over the prior year. So the recreational side is strong under the current provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.

And, of course, recreational fishermen are not the only beneficiaries of the science-based approach. According to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, U.S. sales of boats and marine products increased 7 percent since the last passage in 2016.

So from 2016 to 2017, we saw a number of States: Florida, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Georgia, with double-digit increases in the sales of new boats, engines, trailers, and accessories, creating good jobs for Americans.

Recreational anglers and the businesses that rely upon their support are doing well and thriving, and this growth is a direct result of science-based fishery management practices fostered by Magnuson that this very bill would systematically dismantle, destroying good American jobs.

Instead of destroying jobs, what the Magnuson-Stevens Act does is ensure that our maritime industries will thrive now and in the future. And because of the success of Magnuson-Stevens, U.S. fisheries are stabilizing and rebounding.

With the bill working as intended, it would be absurd to pass this bill and roll back these very policies that have led to job creation and growth, increased enjoyment for recreational fishermen, and better sustainable practices of ecosystem management.

The Empty Oceans Act also inserts dangerous loopholes into Magnuson and it is including exemptions to rebuilding requirements that have helped recover successfully depleted fish stocks.

H.R. 200 potentially exempts hundreds of species from annual catch limits. That can dramatically increase overfishing, and overfishing may seem to some lucrative, or to some fun in the short-term, but of course it has devastating and nonsustainable consequences for our coastal communities that economically depend on the vital industries of recreational fishing and sports fishing.

These exemptions increase the chance of overfishing and lengthen the time it takes to rebuild depleted stocks to healthy levels, if ever.

These loopholes have a devastating effect as well on the commercial fishing industry and on consumers across the country that enjoy eating healthy fish. In 2015, commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated $208 billion in revenue, supported 1.6 million jobs, and supported the healthy dining habits of hundreds of millions of American consumers, billions worldwide.

These economic benefits not only support recreational anglers and commercial fishing interests but entire towns and cities that rely on sports fishermen, recreational and commercial, as the entire hub of their economy.

If the Empty Oceans Act were to pass, the long-term prospects of so many communities would be devastated. So I think it is important to have a thoughtful look at how we can continue the bipartisan tradition of building upon the progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, making corrections where we need to, but making sure that we put science first in our ocean stewardship, and making sure that we have a sustainable approach to recreational and commercial fishing.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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

As we approach another election cycle, it is very important for this institution to do everything we can to ensure transparency and safety in our elections and the integrity of the election system itself.

Our democracy is being threatened by corporations, by special interests, and by foreign powers who are stripping away power from our people and our voters with dark money spending.

Secret spending in our elections has exploded since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision permitting super-PACs and certain tax-exempt groups to spend unlimited sums, including, in many cases, undisclosed funds. The result is unprecedented levels of spending and a midterm election expected to be the most expensive ever.

Many of these groups don't even have to disclose their donors, allowing wealthy corporations and individuals and illicit foreign influencers to secretly spend unlimited dark money.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cicilline's legislation, H.R. 6239, the DISCLOSE Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. This bicameral bill would require organizations spending money in Federal elections to disclose their donors and guard against hidden foreign interference in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer Mr. Cicilline's amendment for the DISCLOSE Act. That is why we are talking about that bill today.

The DISCLOSE Act is an alternative to this job-destroying bill and anticonsumer bill that we have before us. So I would encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can shine a light on the dark money that continues to pervade and pollute and distort our political system. I would hope that that is something we can agree on.

I hope my Republican and Democratic friends will vote to defeat the previous question because it doesn't matter what one's ideology is. What matters is there should be transparency in money in politics, and that is a basic tenet that I hope conservatives and liberals and moderates can agree on, and we can immediately move to that. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer that amendment based on the bill by Mr. Cicilline, which I am honored to be a cosponsor of.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third attempt to undermine the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that protects jobs and uses science in decisionmaking with regard to managing our ocean resources. These attempts failed every time, and the biggest reason they failed is the framework of Magnuson is working.

We talked about the increase in boat sales. We talked about the increase in jobs. We talked about the benefit to consumers. I am sure there is some fine tuning to do, but it is not time to push the reset button and start over down a very dangerous path that would destroy jobs and the entire economies of many of our local communities.

This act has been essential, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in restoring our depleted fishing populations, helping communities devastated by overfishing, getting them back in balance. Science-based reforms over the last two decades have made our fisheries more profitable and rebuilt overfished stocks and have been of great benefit to consumers. These reforms have directly benefited recreational fishing interests, and that is reinforced by their own data of the industry.

So if we continue down the path of sustainable fisheries management, commercial and recreational fishermen will see even greater financial gains and support in the future. In fact, NOAA estimates that fully rebuilt fisheries would add $31 billion to our economy and create 500,000 new jobs.

We need a benchmark and a path to get there, not a pathway to the past of unsustainable practices and job destruction, which this bill does.

These potential jobs and revenues--$31 billion, 500,000 jobs--would support thousands of coastal communities throughout America, consumers across our country and the world, far outweighing any short-term benefit from an empty oceans act.

Only through science-based fisheries management can coastal towns and cities reap enormous environmental benefits. So, instead of throwing it away, we should build upon the proven sustainable fisheries management practices of Magnuson-Stevens in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, this bill halts decades of progress, ends the science-based approach.

Rather than approving harmful and damaging measures to weaken our economy and harm the environment, let's start again and begin a true bipartisan reauthorization, as this Congress did in 1996, as this Congress did in 2006, to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can move forward with our discussion of requiring that donations into political campaigns and allied groups have to be disclosed and to also vote ``no'' on the rule so that we begin work on a bipartisan reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, building upon the tradition of this institution and putting science in the front.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 965 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 965 provides for consideration of H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

This structured rule makes in order 11 amendments, including 4 minority and 2 bipartisan amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in coastal Alabama, so I have spent my entire life experiencing the long-held tradition of fishing off the Gulf Coast. Some of my best memories growing up were fishing with my family, and I have carried on that same tradition with my children. I look forward to fishing with my grandchildren once they get a little older.

This isn't a tradition unique to the Gulf Coast. All along America's shores, countless families and friends have made so many memories while fishing.

No one wants to be a better steward of our Nation's fisheries than those of us who actually enjoy fishing. No one wants a healthier fish stock than those of us who have spent our lives on the water.

That is where H.R. 200 comes in. This bill includes commonsense reforms to ensure that our Nation's fisheries remain strong, while also being accessible to fishermen from every walk of life.

Now, I know this bill is about much more than just those of us who like to fish recreationally. Commercial fishing is a major economic engine in many of our coastal communities, so the bill also ensures access to our oceans and ocean resources for our commercial fishermen.

Just consider these numbers that demonstrate the overall impact of fishing on the U.S. economy:

In 2015, the fishing industry generated $208 billion in sales and supported 1.62 million American jobs.

Approximately 11 million saltwater anglers spent a total of $60.9 million on fishing trips, which generated roughly $22.7 billion in income.

And I want to make one other point. The underlying bill will also ensure that all Americans have access to fresh, sustainable seafood. That is important to our Nation's restaurants, but it is also especially important to seafood lovers like me.

If you doubt the importance of the fishing sector, let me tell you about red snapper fishing in my home State of Alabama. It is a major economic driver for our coastal communities. From restaurants, to gas stations, to bait and tackle shops, to the charter boat industry, red snapper fishing is critically important to the economy in our coastal communities and surrounding areas.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed for years to adequately count the number of red snapper in the Gulf. This has resulted in ridiculously short red snapper seasons, which hurt our fishermen and the economies in our coastal communities.

So, how bad was the Federal Government in counting red snapper? Well, they weren't even sampling for red snapper on reefs, despite the fact that red snapper are reef fish. It made absolutely no sense.

Colleges and universities, like the University of South Alabama, have been able to do a much better job of assessing the health of the red snapper stock with far fewer resources. Their data has proven to be much more accurate and up to date.

Thankfully, along with my Gulf Coast colleagues, we have been able to work with the Trump administration and the Commerce Department to ensure adequate recreational red snapper seasons over the last 2 years. But this bill includes reforms I authored to help fix the mismanagement of red snapper for all sectors, once and for all. That means allowing for greater State control, especially as it relates to stock assessments and data collection.

That is one of the best things about H.R. 200. The bill eliminates unscientific timeframes to rebuild fish stocks that unnecessarily restrict access to fisheries. Our national fishery policy should be based on sound, accurate data.

The bill goes against the Washington-knows-best approach that has failed so many times in the past. By providing greater flexibility to fishery managers, we can allow for better management strategies that reflect regional needs and demands. We should empower people who live and work in the local communities, instead of letting bureaucrats in Washington decide what works best.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill will allow more Americans to have access to fresh, sustainable seafood. Currently, around 90 percent of seafood consumed in the United States is imported. This is especially troubling when you consider that we have an abundance of fish right here in our own waters. With reforms included in this bill, we can boost access to affordable domestic fish.

Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 200, the House can support our Nation's fishermen, American consumers, our coastal communities, and the overall American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 965 and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman referenced a letter from the Seafood Harvesters of America. In their letter dated June 21 of 2018, this group claims that section 12 of the bill repeals a section of the MSA. There hasn't been a section 12 in this bill since November of 2017. There is no section 12.

The letter also claims that section 4 undermines rebuilding timelines. Section 4 of this bill simply states that all references in H.R. 200 are to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, unless otherwise stated; doesn't do anything like what is claimed.

As the most egregious example, this group is so committed to opposing this

bill, no matter what changes we make, they reference a bill that, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists.

The gentleman also said something about this bill being job- destroying.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the destruction of jobs. When the present regime was running the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper, they limited the number of days for fishing to such a small number that it destroyed hundreds, if not thousands of jobs across just my part of the Gulf Coast when people were no longer allowed to go out and go snapper fishing.

Charter boat folks lost their jobs. People that sell ice or bait lost their jobs. It was the Federal bureaucracy that was destroying jobs.

This bill will give us a commonsense regime that will restore jobs. So, far from being a job-destroying bill, this bill is going to create jobs.

The gentleman also referred to a bottoms-up approach. I have been working on this issue for over 4 years, and I can tell you, the bottom, which is us recreational fishermen, we haven't been listened to one single time by the Federal bureaucracy. They closed their doors in our face.

If you want to have a bottoms-up approach to this sort of thing, this bill supplies it. What we have got right now certainly doesn't do it.

One of the most important things that is involved here is, who does the science? Do you let a bunch of Federal scientists far away from where the fisheries are make these decisions? Or do you let scientists that are in the areas where the fisheries exist, do you let them do the science?

I am not talking about just any Tom, Dick, or Harry out there that calls himself a scientist. I am talking about Ph.D. scientists with accredited universities who know the fishery. This bill would allow that to happen, so that you could get good, accurate data, because they don't have it today.

Let me go back to what I said initially on the red snapper issue.

The Federal scientists were sampling for red snapper on sandy bottom. These are reef fish. You are not going to find reef fish on sandy bottom. You find them on reefs. And if you talk to real scientists, they will tell you there is no way you are going to get an accurate assessment of this fish stock if you are looking for them on sandy bottom. You have got to look for them on reefs.

Let me tell you, there are over 170 groups that have signed on to being supportive of this bill. I do not have time to read all the names to you, but let me just read a few. The first one is the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. I go to their events up here, like many other Members of Congress. When I was at one just recently, there were hundreds of Members of Congress there from both parties. It couldn't get to be any bigger, and it couldn't get to be any more bipartisan.

The Coastal Conservation Association, the Premier Recreational Anglers Association in America, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which the gentleman referred to as if they were opposed to it. They support the bill.

The National Coalition for Fishing Communities and the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation. This is a very broadly, deeply supported bill among people who are actually fishing.

Now, it may not be supported by people who don't fish and who don't know anything about fishing; but for those of us who do fish, whether we are commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen, we like it.

And it is time for Congress to understand that the waters of the United States of America do not belong to the Congress, and they do not belong to these Federal departments and agencies. They belong to the people of America, and the people of America have a right to fish in their waters. This bill will help restore that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I want to make sure that I can assure him and everybody in this House this bill doesn't cut funding to anything. It's an authorization bill, and it reauthorizes the Magnuson- Stevens Act with some changes, but those changes do not include a reduction in funding.

But here is the thing about fishing that people that don't fish don't understand. Those of us that fish, we care about this fishery more than anybody else because if we overfish the stock, we don't get to fish anymore. No one has a greater interest in making sure that the species in our waters are maintained than those of us that fish, whether we are commercial fishermen or recreational fishermen. So there is no interest here that is being served to try to somehow harm our fishery.

We believe, and it has actually been demonstrated to be true, that local communities, regional people, can better regulate, sample, bring science to the health of these fish stock than giving it to some bureaucrat in Washington that doesn't know one single thing about our fishery.

We care. We care deeply, because it is a way of life for us, and the last thing we want to do is do anything that would harm these fish stock out there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries of America. If the folks on the other side of the aisle want to address the issue that they just referenced, then I am sure they could foreswear taking any corporate contributions, any anonymous contributions to their accounts for themselves. So they could lead by their example, and I look forward to seeing them do that.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the fisheries of America, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. There are bipartisan cosponsors to this bill. This is a bipartisan bill.

What is this bill really about? It is about freedom. It is about the freedom of the American people to be able to use their own waters, to fish in their own waters, something the American people have done since before we were a nation.

There is a really great book that just came out that won the Pulitzer Prize called ``The Gulf,'' about the Gulf of Mexico. It recounts the history of our area and how long we have been fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and what it has meant for generations upon generations of both commercial and recreational fishermen.

I have commercial fisherpeople in my family, and they are wonderful people, have a great business. It is important to them and it is their way of life. We need to make sure we do everything to preserve that way of life.

I am a recreational fisherman, and we have been doing it in my family for generations, and I want to preserve that as well.

My grandfather was one of the founders of the Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo, one of the oldest and largest fishing tournaments in the United States of America. It is really great to see, summer after summer, generations of people who have been fishing in that tournament, literally for three or four or five generations, come down there on Dauphin Island and bring the fish that they catch, so proud of what they have done.

And what have they just done? They have gone out in their own boat at their own expense, spent a day in the open air on a beautiful summer day, or maybe 2 or 3 days, and got some time to spend time together as a family, with friends, and do something Americans have been able to do without the Federal Government trying to tell them how to do it for a couple, 300 years.

It is time for us to restore back to the American people the control of their waters. That is what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 965 and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Young for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, it has been said during this debate that recreational fishermen aren't being disadvantaged under the current system. Our fishermen, both commercial and recreational, are absolutely being disadvantaged, and that is exactly why we must pass this bill. I will give you one example.

If you are a commercial fisherman in New York, you could catch 50 pounds of fluke once per day for 7 days. You have to go out. You can catch 50 pounds. That is 350 pounds for the week.

Now, it would make more sense if we were able to have a system in place where they were catching 350 pounds maybe in 1 day, like maybe New Jersey, where you could do 500 pounds for 3 days.

Or if we want to talk about the science where you have black sea bass, 240 percent over the target biomass, yet we are seeing a quota reduction, compared to other States, in New York. Our fishermen are getting disadvantaged under the current system.

Or the NOAA observer program, where you have a fisherman who is taking someone out to go to an area where they know there is not going to be any fish and they end up collecting flawed data that is sitting on a shelf and not even ending up getting used.

The reality right now is that we have fishermen in my district who are desperate to survive 365 days of the year, from early in the morning until late at night, barely making ends meet, on a boat that barely works, with overhead where they are having trouble being able to pay their own bills to get by. They are looking for people to fight for them in this Chamber, to fight for that business owner, to fight for them so that they can make ends meet.

It is about protecting the fishery as those very fishermen care so much about. But they know that the system could get better, and that is why we are here, fighting for them. That is why I thank Don Young for his leadership, because they are watching right now on C-SPAN.

In my district, those fishermen are watching on the internet, they are watching on TV, and they are looking for people to fight for them because they have been struggling for years and decades, and they are desperate to get this passed so that they can afford to pay their bills, so that when they are going out at 3 a.m. tomorrow and they are going to come back late at night, that they know that things are going in the right direction, that their government is going to start working for them at the Federal level, the State level, the regional level, we are doing our part.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, Joe Courtney from Connecticut, for his bipartisan cooperation on this and so many other issues that are important to the hardworking men and women who make their living on the Long Island Sound, a precious waterway we are both so fortunate to represent.

This amendment creates an industry-based trawl survey program for the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. Improving survey data so that the quotas and regulations imposed on our fishermen are transparent, equitable, and fair is a critical goal of the underlying bill, and it is the purpose of this important bipartisan amendment.

Increasing industry buy-in and cooperation with the NOAA survey program is essential for improving data collection. Without the right data, fishermen in our region will continue to be shortchanged while their counterparts in the Pacific Northwest are already benefiting from increased cooperation between NOAA and the private sector.

What we have right now in our region is a massive failure on behalf of NOAA because their vessel has fudged trawl after trawl. The people who work on the water every day have the equipment, the vessels, and the expertise to get this important data collection done, and done right.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and I commend my friend from Connecticut for his hard work on this issue. I look forward to continuing to work together with him and others on bipartisan solutions to help our hardworking commercial fishermen, charter boat captains, and all the small businesses that are a part of the coastal economy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 200 will provide needed regulatory relief for fishermen from the east end of Long Island and the entire region who are struggling under confusing and arbitrary Federal restrictions on striped bass fishing in the Block Island Sound.

The unique maritime geography of our region means that making the 15- mile journey by boat from Montauk Point, New York, to Block Island, Rhode Island, requires passing through a segment of waters considered to be part of the EEZ, known as the Block Island transit zone.

For recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial fishermen, this shift in jurisdiction can mean the difference between a nice day on the water and committing a Federal offense. My amendment would permanently restore the right to fish for striped bass in this waterway, ending decades of confusion and arbitrary punishment for local fishermen.

These are hardworking men and women who run small businesses either on the commercial, charter, or recreational side, and in my district, they are the backbone of our coastal economy and part of our island's way of life. No other species of fish, besides striped bass, are subject to this confusing ban, which was meant to impact the high seas of the EEZ, not a small segment of local waters situated between two State boundaries. Fishermen should be able to legally fish for striped bass in this limited area just as they currently can in adjacent State waters.

We also must lift this unfair ban so that the resources of the U.S. Coast Guard can be focused on their important national security and safety mission, not waste it on the enforcement of an arbitrary ban in a small waterway.

A recreational angler or boat captain on the water off of Montauk Point can easily go from fishing legally and responsibly in State waters to violating Federal law once they pass over the 3-mile limit where New York State waters end and the transit zone begins. Many of these individuals lack the expensive GPS technology to know if and when they have crossed the boundary, and there are no buoys to warn them.

These are responsible men and women who have the greatest vested interest in preserving the striped bass fishery, but they also desperately need relief from confusing government regulations that are hurting their livelihoods and access to local fisheries.

Last Congress, my stand-alone bill to address this issue, H.R. 3070, the EEZ Clarification Act, passed this House with a unanimous vote. I also passed two similar amendments on this topic through the House last September, again, with unanimous support.

This amendment is supported by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Montauk Boatman & Captains Association, and the newly formed New York Recreational & For-Hire Fishing Alliance.

On behalf of the hardworking men and women of Long Island who rely on fishing as a way of life, I ask for all my colleagues' support on this commonsense amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this should not be treated as Federal waterways. It should be treated as a small local waterway in between two State boundaries. It shouldn't have been designated EEZ in the first place.

This amendment doesn't declare open season on striped bass fishing. It is still going to be subject to the same management that currently exists for surrounding waterways where striped bass fishing is currently acceptable.

The science shows biomass for the striped bass fisheries strong in our area, and, also, a science that is not discussed enough in this debate is the science of my fishermen and those small-business owners who are struggling to make ends meet.

So you have the science of the biomass being where it needs to be, plus we have the science that we are not speaking about enough where people right now are desperate for this kind of relief. They want people in Congress representing them in Washington who get it, who are going to fight for them.

We can't be lost in this beltway argument where, here, I am a Representative from the east end of Long Island, the First Congressional District of New York, and we have people who represent the other end of the United States of America telling us what is best for us.

We are here pleading for people to listen to us, to hear us, to hear from these fishermen, the commercial fishermen, the recreational fishermen, and to fight for them as well, especially when biomass backs it up.

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

Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. Chair, I would say that every level of government needs to get it better than the way that we have the current laws, current rules, current regulations, whether it is the Federal Government, whether it is the regional councils, whether it is the State governments.

Earlier on, when we were having a debate on the underlying bill and I was talking about the fluke fishery for commercial fishermen, 50 pounds a day for 7 days, 350 pounds, you are not going to let them catch 350 pounds in 1 day. You will make them catch 50 pounds a day for 7 days, while the neighboring State of New Jersey could do 500 pounds a day for 3 days.

Well, guess what happened today. Talk about not getting it at other levels of government. Our Governor in New York State, out of no notice, cuts off the commercial food fishery. These people are struggling to make ends meet.

So instead of pointing fingers at other levels of government and regional councils where everyone is making mistakes and no one gets it, how about we do our part? How about we get it? How about we listen to them? we hear from them? we make a difference?

We are leaders. We are elected to represent our people. I am elected to represent my people, and I would respectfully urge my colleagues, especially those who are from faraway places several hundred miles away, to do a better job listening and allowing me to represent my folks and stop trying to undercut people who are hardworking business owners struggling to make ends meet, especially when science is on our side.

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