Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this up.

This is not a Trump bill. This is a bill that affects one area: Alaska. This bill was asked for by the people who live in Alaska, not New Yorkers, by people who need power, that have not had power. It has been put in, in the past, they can't meet these standards imposed by the EPA. It doesn't work in the cold climate. They do not have the money to buy new generators.

Some say we have to protect their health. The gentleman from New York is going to shut down the clinics, the schools, and individual homes that cannot be heated, because there will be no electricity. There are no roads.

I am talking about small villages, 60 people, 25 people. They all have generators now that are outdated, but that is the only thing they can afford.

You know, we hear a lot from that side of the aisle, and sometimes this

side, about how we are protecting the people. Well, let's see how you are protecting them when they don't have healthcare, and they don't have schools. You really are helping them out.

As usual, the other side of this aisle, unfortunately, stands on this House floor and says what is best for people when they haven't the slightest idea.

You know, I don't wish bad luck on anybody, but maybe we want to have a blackout in New York and see how you would feel in a snowstorm. Maybe we would have some people understand that you are affecting people's lives directly by not supporting this bill.

This is a Senate bill that passed unanimously, supported by Tom Carper, supported by Ed Markey, supported by, I think, every Senator. It doesn't have opposition on the House floor.

Unfortunately, this is under suspension, and you will probably have enough votes to defeat this bill. Go home and feel good, say: I did the Lord's work. I kept the air clean. I protected the people.

And you are full of it, really full of it. You are hurting the people, hurting my Alaskans, my rural Alaskans.

I stand on this floor and watch this time and time again. Why would you oppose something that is going to help people? Impose an unfunded mandate on these villages is what, very frankly, the EPA has done.

The new ones, I might see, but the ones that are established there, I would suggest, respectfully, we ought to let them use that, so they could have heat in their houses, not air-conditioning. They can keep their food frozen. They can have their clinics take care of their people. And their schools can stay open.

These rural communities of my Alaska Natives, that is who you are hurting.

I hear it all the time: We are going to help the impoverished. We are going to help the poor.

You are not helping them. You are hurting them.

When you go to sleep tonight in your nice, warm house, and you fly in your nice plane, and you get in your nice car and feel good about helping the poor people, I say you are hurting them.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

A village has, probably, no roads, only an airport, small, fuel has to be shipped in by air or by boat.

It depends. In some areas, it is 3 hours, and you are having to fly in the fuel.

They have had this generator. They had enough money to buy it maybe 10, 15 years ago, and now they will have to put on a so-called air cleaner. They don't have the knowledge to run it, and it doesn't work.

Oh, 25, 50, 100. My village that I live in has got 550. That is all.

To give you an idea, if the gentleman would yield to me for a second: If you took Alaska, all the land east of the Mississippi River, to the Atlantic Ocean, to the tip of Maine, to the tip of Florida, that is part of Alaska. In that area that I am talking about, Maine to Florida, there are 253 Congressmen and 52 Senators. Think about that.

Think about that. Why I say that, there are no roads, and you are going to punish those people who finally got enough money to buy an older generator by the EPA, an unfunded mandate, and say you are helping them.

More than that. Usually, in that area, probably about $150,000, if.

By the way, there is no income. This is a poverty subsistence-style life.

They do have a school trying to improve their lot. They do have a clinic trying to help their health. But you are going take the power away because you want to keep the air pure?

Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the chairman very much for bringing this legislation to the floor. It is a Senate bill very much like the bill I introduced that came out of the committee.

The bill promotes energy projects critical for economic development areas around Indian Country. Native communities face a significant number of obstacles to developing and delivering energy on their land. Ultimately, the lack of affordable energy undermines efforts to promote social and economic well-being in these communities.

I have always said Alaska Natives and American Indians are the best caretakers of their lands. This is what Tribal self-determination is all about: empowering Native communities with the tools and authority to manage their resources.

S. 245 makes important progress in this effort. The bill incorporates a variety of policy changes to enhance Indian energy development. This includes expanding the ability of the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to tribes and Tribal organizations for energy projects, improving the Department of the Interior's process for approving energy resource agreements, and requiring FERC to give tribes equal footing with municipalities for hydroelectric licenses.

I am also pleased that the bill includes a Tribal biomass demonstration program that mirrors a provision in my Native American Energy Act.

I appreciate Chairman Hoeven's willingness to continue to work on Indian energy and his commitment to hold a hearing on my Native American Energy Act in 2019. My bill can serve as the foundation for the next step in promoting Indian energy. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 825) to provide for the conveyance of certain property to the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium located in Sitka, Alaska, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 825, the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium Land Transfer Act of 2017.

The consortium provides comprehensive healthcare to Native communities throughout Alaska's panhandle. It also delivers healthcare on behalf of the Federal Government through self-determination compacting.

The consortium operates Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital in Sitka, a 25-bed,

critical-access facility. The hospital was constructed towards the end of World War II. It is in dire need of updating due to its age and condition.

For the consortium to secure financing for the project to update the conditions of the facilities, they need land on the hospital campus, which is currently held by IHS, conveyed by warranty deed.

S. 825 is a companion bill to my bill, H.R. 1901. Simply, it would transfer 19 acres of Federal land to the consortium, allowing them to update and improve healthcare services for Alaska Natives.

From the 112th to the 114th Congress, three of my bills that authorized similar land transfers for different entities were signed into law. These bills were nearly identical to S. 825.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Bishop and his staff for moving this bill through committee. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Grijalva and his staff for their bipartisan work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2511) to require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to carry out a program on coordinating the assessment and acquisition by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of unmanned maritime systems, to make available to the public data collected by the Administration using such systems, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank Chairman Smith of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; Chairman Thornberry of the Armed Services Committee; and Congressman Steven Palazzo, who sponsored the House counterpart of this legislation, for their cooperation in getting S. 2511 to the floor today.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, December 10, 2018.

Hon. Mac Thornberry,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Majority Leader wishes to schedule

S. 2511, the Commercial Engagement Through Ocean Technology

Act of 2018, for consideration under suspension of the rules

this week. This bill was primarily referred to the Committee

on Natural Resources and additionally referred to the

Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Science,

Space and Technology.

I ask that the Committee on Armed Services not insist on

its referral of the bill so that it may be considered on the

Floor with an amendment requested by the Committee on

Science, Space and Technology. This concession in no way

affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have your

committee represented on the conference committee. Finally, I

would be pleased to include this letter and your response in

the Congressional Record during debate on the bill.

Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the

extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over

matters of shared jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop,

Chairman,

Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, upon the occasion of his retirement, I rise today to give special recognition to Lawrence P. ``Larry'' Cotter, a great friend and an outstanding, hardworking, and dedicated Alaskan. Larry has contributed tremendously to the positive evolution of our fisheries management in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and indeed the entire country. Larry has lived in Alaska and worked in the commerial fishing industry since 1974. He spent over four years as a seafood processing worker in Juneau, and eight years as a labor organizer and representative for seafood processing workers and longshoremen. Larry served on the Advisory Panel to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council for six years and then as a voting member of the Council for an additional six years. The time of Larry's service on the Council was during the transition years when foreign fishing was being phased out, our U.S. domestic fishing and processing capabilities were stepping up to replace the foreign fleets, and allocation issues among U.S. fisheries interests were first coming to the forefront. These were difficult, challenging, and exciting times--during which Larry was chair of several committees, including the Bycatch Committee and Crab Management Committee. Larry also served as chair of the Council's Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee and Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute's Responsible Fisheries Management Committee.

Most recently, until late this year, Larry has served as founding CEO of the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Group, known as the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, or ``APICDA.'' It is in this area of service to APICDA and his helping to develop, implement and sustain, not only APICDA, but the entire CDQ program, that Larry did perhaps his best work, accomplishing goals that will have positive impacts on Western Alaskan Communities for generations to come. Larry's work on the formation of Alaska's CDQ program has benefited all of the participating communities and his more than twenty-five years with APICDA has helped to develop the workforce, build infrastructure, and improve the economy throughout the Western Alaska Region.

Larry's longtime leadership in the seafood industry has helped to guide and shape the policies and programs that many enjoy today. Many observers, myself included, have correctly noted that Alaska has the best managed fisheries in the country, perhaps in the world, and I know we could not have achieved that status without Larry's tireless dedication and devotion to making our seafood industry sustainable for the long haul. Thank you Larry for your tremendous contributions to sustainable fisheries and to the participation of our coastal communities in those fisheries. Enjoy your retirement, and best of luck in your continuing endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Russell and the minority member for their work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3398 is a bill that should be passed. I strongly support it. I was listening to the testimony from the chairman, and he has put it so well, I probably won't speak anymore. I do believe that what he said is all true. It is necessary. It is needed.

This is something that was an oversight, because I was here when we wrote the original bill in 2005. It was an oversight, and the gentleman did a great job explaining it.

This is needed for those citizens who we consider from Palau, Micronesia, and the other islands there, and we will do the work. I thank the gentleman again for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a person of great merit on the occasion of her 75th birthday. It is often stated that the United States is great because it is a nation of immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with this statement with the addition of the word legal in front of immigrants. Mall Chaney is an example of such a person who worked within the law to become a citizen of the United States. I understand that it is not an easy task.

Mall was born in Estonia in 1943 in the middle of World War II. At that time Estonia was in peril at the hands of Russia as well as Germany. However, it was her parents' concern about Russia that caused them to flee. Russia had seized her mother's brother and sent him to Siberia never to be heard from again. As a professional chemist, Mall's father feared being pressed into Russia's weapons development program or much worse.

When Mall was about six months old the family consisting of her mother, father, and sister fled under cover of night with basically nothing but the clothes on their backs. The family spent several years in a Swedish refugee camp and then in the general population of Sweden. In 1951 Mall and her family were sponsored by a family friend from Canada and were able to migrate to Canada.

Mall lived in Canada until she married John Chaney, a resident of Florida, in 1982. Mall became a U.S. citizen and has paid homage to the United States by respecting our laws, becoming a respected and loved member of the community, the state of Florida, and the country.

Happy Birthday Mall, and best wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6414) to amend title 23, United States Code, to extend the deadline for promulgation of regulations under the tribal transportation self-governance program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6414.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6414.

I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for including the Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program in the FAST Act.

The FAST Act requires the Department of Transportation to use a negotiated rulemaking process to establish the regulations to implement the program. It also set deadlines for the issuance of the regulations.

H.R. 6414 would extend these deadlines. This bill would ensure that there is an opportunity for a true negotiated rulemaking process that is not one-sided and that respects Tribal self-determination.

Without this extension, I am concerned that the Department will move forward with implementing the program in a way that is not helpful to the Tribes of America. This would undermine the intent of the previous FAST Act and would lead to a lack of Tribal participation in the program.

I thank the Sitka Tribe of Alaska for their leadership and work on this program and issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6414.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 756) to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Act to promote international action to reduce marine debris, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 756.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time to manage the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Garamendi and, of course, Peter DeFazio.

This is a good piece of legislation. I had a House bill similar in fact, too. This came over from the Senate side, but I am not really interested in whose bill it is but, more likely, getting things done. So this is a good bill.

And debris is what I am interested in as one of our biggest issues; it has been well explained by both speakers prior to me. It is getting bigger, like I say. What is it? Tenfold more. And the tonnage is already there.

We have to look at preventing the debris, but also what do we do once it is in the ocean. I have some ideas. And, hopefully, later on, we can explore those ideas, how we will recover and utilize that debris, because it does harm our maritime lives, and it makes the ocean really a garbage dump, and we don't want that.

So this is a good piece of legislation. I thank each person that has been involved in it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a person of great merit on the occasion of her 75th birthday. It is often stated that the United States is great because it is a nation of immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with this statement with the addition of the word legal in front of immigrants. Mall Chaney is an example of such a person who worked within the law to become a citizen of the United States. I understand that it is not an easy task.

Mall was born in Estonia in 1943 in the middle of World War II. At that time Estonia was in peril at the hands of Russia as well as Germany. However, it was her parents' concern about Russia that caused them to flee. Russia had seized her mother's brother and sent him to Siberia never to be heard from again. As a professional chemist, Mall's father feared being pressed into Russia's weapons development program or much worse.

When Mall was about six months old the family consisting of her mother, father, and sister fled under cover of night with basically nothing but the clothes on their backs. The family spent several years in a Swedish refugee camp and then in the general population of Sweden. In 1951 Mall and her family were sponsored by a family friend from Canada and were able to migrate to Canada.

Mall lived in Canada until she married John Chaney, a resident of Florida, in 1982. Mall became a U.S. citizen and has paid homage to the United States by respecting our laws, becoming a respected and loved member of the community, the state of Florida, and the country.

Happy Birthday Mall, and best wishes.

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

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

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, Alaska has a long history of placer mining operations, beginning in the early 1800s and continuing through today. In fact, Alaska is one of the few places left, including California, that has placer mining operations.

Most placer mining operations are small, but it as a robust industry in Alaska, providing hundreds of jobs and contributing to the growth of rural Alaskan communities.

The Bureau of Land Management's Fortymile plan, finalized in the last days of the previous administration, upended decades of successful placer mining land management in the Fortymile Planning Area.

The Fortymile plan imposed an overly complex regulatory framework on small-scale placer mining operations as part of an ongoing effort to discourage mining activity in the area.

The Fortymile miners previously agreed to environmental remediation standards, and under the new plan proposed by the BLM, they are expected to reclaim land that they have not mined and mitigate in ways they did not agree to in their approved operation plans.

They are expected to remediate land that was impacted by placer mining over 100 years ago, which adds to their financial burden and makes it economically impractical for miners to continue their operations.

This language has been included in the appropriations report language by unanimous consent for the last 2 years. This is a necessary piece of legislation and amendment to this bill to make sure the BLM recognizes that miners do have obligations, they have met their obligations, and the agencies have gone against them.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments from the chairman, and especially the comments from the gentlewoman who understands and has opposition. I would like to remind everybody, again, the reclamation was taking place, the mitigation was taking place. They changed the rules after they agreed on it.

This is not a newly mined area. This has been mined before. In fact, I just came from there on the Fourth of July. Chicken, Alaska. This is where this mine is. Lots of mom-and-pop operations, retired people. Chicken, Alaska. You know why they call it ``Chicken''? They couldn't spell ``ptarmigan.'' That is why they call that small community that.

They are trying very hard, but very frankly, the BLM came in with this plan. It is not working. In fact, they are spending very large amounts of money trying to implement their reclamation concept when it doesn't work. And I will challenge anybody to show that these miners are not doing their best, but their proposal is trying to put them out of business. I just think that is wrong.

If I thought they were doing some harm, I would definitely not be for them. I have been there. I have seen it. I have watched what they are trying to do. An agency, I think, has forgotten their role, and they don't support mining. BLM is supposed to. And they have made it very nearly impossible for, very frankly, a mom-and-pop operation to do so.

So I hope the gentlewoman can see her way to allowing this amendment to this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment No. 72 to provide additional funding for the Native American CDFI Assistance Program.

This program supports critical economic development in Native communities, which face significant barriers to accessing basic financial services and capital. For example, almost all Alaska Native villages in my State do not have banks and are not connected to the road system.

The Native program provides financial assistance and technical assistance awards on a competitive basis to Native CDFIs, allowing them to effectively build wealth and further economic self-determines in Native communities.

These mission-driven Native organizations are working to finance businesses, create jobs, expand and improve affordable housing options, and much more.

The Native program accounts for a small portion of the fund's overall budget but has a significant positive impact, which includes empowering Alaska Natives to improve their economic well-being in my home State.

Without my amendment, a cut to the Native program in FY 2019 would be especially devastating to our Nation's impoverished and underserved Native communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial bipartisan amendment to restore funding for the Native program.

My amendment, when considered with Representative Steven Palazzo's CDFI amendment, would restore the program to the current enacted level of $16 million so the Native organizations may continue growing small businesses, create jobs, and promote vital economic development in Native communities.

I would like to thank the Native CDFI Network and the amendment's cosponsors, Representative Gwen Moore, Colleen Hanabusa, and Tulsi Gabbard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. This is a good amendment to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness in recognizing me, but also for bringing up this bill. I also thank Mr. Kennedy for his support. This is Senator Sullivan's bill, although I had a companion bill on the House side.

What has been said here prior to me is really what we are addressing. Domestic violence is a terror on our society. No one is immune to it, be they rich or poor, whatever race or ethnic group you may belong to. It cuts across the aisle.

Unfortunately, far too many Alaskans have firsthand experience in this reality. In 2015, a survey of Alaskan victims found that, out of every 100 adult women, 40 experienced intimate partner violence, 33 experienced sexual violence, and one in three adult women in Alaska have been a victim of stalking in their lifetime.

Not only must we do more to prevent this epidemic from growing, we must also do more to help the survivors, and that is what the POWER Act does. It allows the victims to have pro bono

legal representation from the legal profession to take and present their cases.

I believe this bill is well and long overdue.

If I can refer to what Mr. Kennedy said, I have a little experience myself. A dear friend of mine, who was a friend of my late wife, used to get beat up by her husband because he was drinking all the time. My wife asked: Why don't you just hit him?

She said: Well, I couldn't do that. Violence begets violence.

Well, my wife at that time was very young, and she said: Well, I wouldn't put up with it.

About 2 weeks later, there was a knock on our door and my wife answered. She opened the door and our friend said: I did it.

She said: What did you do?

The woman said: My husband beat me up. He passed out, and I hit him with a frying pan when he was asleep.

I wouldn't suggest that solution, but she had no other recourse, no way to be represented legally to go to the courts.

I am saying this should be passed. To have representation in the courtroom is a good piece of legislation.

Again, I thank Mr. Goodlatte for bringing this bill to the floor, Mr. Sullivan, and all those people involved with it. It is long overdue.

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 ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 200, the

Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill, including the change I have placed on the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 221) to reauthorize the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 221, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Amendments Act.

I was an original cosponsor and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee when Representative Jim Saxton of New Jersey introduced the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998. My legislation will reauthorize the act through 2022 and will allow NOAA to conduct and contract for hydrographic surveys around the U.S., with specific focus on the Arctic.

Alaska is what makes the United States an Arctic Nation. My State has more coastline than any other State in this country, and we don't know what is under the surface. We are seeing a significant increase in vessel traffic, exploration, and resource development in our Arctic waters.

While hydrographic surveys are a critical part of the maritime safety, economic, and environmental efforts nationwide, they are especially important in the Arctic.

Mr. Speaker, there are more than 550,000 square nautical miles in the U.S. Arctic exclusive economic zone, otherwise a 200-mile limit. It would take decades to survey even half of that space.

NOAA has designated 38,000 miles as survey priority areas, and estimates a range up to 25 years to survey just those priority areas, if resources remain at their current level.

Alaskan waters are incredibly under-surveyed. Before this year, the last time the entrances and mouth to the Yukon River were surveyed was 1899. The river is the most effective route to deliver food and goods to coastal and inland villages in western Alaska, and the last on-the- ground surveys were completed the same year that gold was discovered in Nome.

Mr. Speaker, there are other areas around the Nation that have the same problem. This is a very important piece of legislation. If we are to continue to utilize the ocean onshore and offshore, I urge the passage of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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