The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STELLER SEA LIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S11772-S11773 on Dec. 14, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STELLER SEA LIONS
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to my friend from New Mexico. I am here once again to talk about the last controversial amendment in the appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2001. We have completed all work on these bills now except for one amendment and that is the amendment that pertains to the Steller sea lions. I am here because there seems to still be a misunderstanding about what we are trying to do. The Congress has passed and the President has signed, as a matter of fact, an extension of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the act that deals with the 200-mile limit off our shores. That act in its original form created the North Pacific Fisheries Council that has jurisdiction under the law for the management plans that apply to fisheries off the shores of my State of Alaska.
In its recent action in issuing a biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act, the Department of Commerce saw fit to use the emergency portions of the Magnuson Act to issue a management plan for pollack and for cod off the State of Alaska within what they call the RPAs, the reasonable prudent alternative areas, dealing with the decline of the Steller sea lion.
There is no emergency provision in the Endangered Species Act. Under the Magnuson Act, management plans are issued by the regional councils, not by the Department of Commerce. There is an emergency clause, if the Secretary makes findings of problems with the fishery, that could justify the Secretary issuing a plan or a revision of the existing plan. That was not done. Instead, the Department of Commerce saw fit to use the emergency clause of the Magnuson Act to once again seize total control of the pollack and the cod fisheries off our shores within the so-called RPAs. They amount to an area of 20 miles around every sea lion rookery. It is an area that extends from Kodiak, all the way out along the Aleutian chain.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has told us there is no data to support the concept that there is a connection between the decline of the sea lion and the harvest of pollack. There is no cause and effect relationship scientifically that exists with regard to this decline. We are appalled by the decline of sea lions off our shores. We also know that sea otters are steadily disappearing, as are fur seals and harbor seals. We believe the reason is the tremendous increase in the killer whales. That is another subject.
Very clearly, what the Department has done now is to increase the danger for fishermen who live in Alaska and fish in the areas off our shores. That fishing currently has the highest level of deaths per capita of any industry in the United States. What this order has done, now, is it has foreclosed the fishing by these small boats in the areas where the pollack is located except during the wintertime. This is a particularly dangerous area. Winter storms increase the problems of fishing. What is more, if they follow the order and go beyond the 20 miles, the further from shore they go on these small boats, even a minor injury becomes a life threatening injury, particularly in the stormy season. I have to report to the Senate that the Coast Guard voted against following this biological opinion last Saturday, in my State, for safety reasons.
What the administration has done is they have restarted the race for the fish. They have made it almost impossible for the enforcement of this biological opinion. They have not consulted with the people who really know the industry as they have issued this opinion. This opinion will have a $500 million to $800 million impact on the industry, according to figures that came from the Department itself.
Just think of this. The largest concentration of fish processors in the United States is on Kodiak Island. I was informed yesterday that, as a result of this opinion, if it is enforced, Kodiak processors will be able to operate for 2\1/2\ days. This opinion will create ghost towns in my State along the shore from Kodiak all the way out along the Aleutian chain. Primarily those are native villages. These are not enormous factory trawlers. They fish way offshore. These are people who live in these small villages and harvest this fish--which is a unique fish, as I have told the Senate before. It is unique because it is a biomass constantly growing. Because of the management schemes we have worked out under the Magnuson Act, that biomass has increased almost five times since we started the Magnuson Act.
There is more pollack than ever before, but this is going to limit fishing for pollack in specific areas where the small boats fish.
There is just no way to justify this. Native Alaskans, as I say, are going to lose their jobs, lose their subsistence. About 1,000 boats that otherwise would have gone to sea will not fish under this order. It is just unconscionable.
I am not one who makes threats; I make statements. I have made the statement that I will not sign this conference report if it does not adequately restore this fishery. I will oppose the bill on the floor, and I am hopeful my friends on this floor will understand why.
What this means is we cannot resolve this issue. My staff will meet--
thanks to the good offices of the Democratic leader--with representatives of the administration in just a few minutes, but if we cannot resolve this, my advice is make different reservations.
Understand, I cannot as a Senator allow an action that is not following the law that I helped author put a considerable portion of the people who have year-round jobs in my State out of work, and not just temporarily. They have purported to create these areas around these rookeries forever without any consultation with the regional council that was created by the Magnuson Act, without any public hearings, based solely upon a lawsuit that was filed in a Federal court in Seattle and a friendly suit to use that as a justification for taking back into the Federal Government the management of these two magnificent fisheries--
pollack and cod--off our State.
In my opinion, it is unconstitutional, but I know one thing--it is not going to be approved by this Senate.
I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when I yielded time to my good friend from Alaska, I did not think I would be hearing what I just heard. I am pleased I was here when he discussed this issue of paramount importance to his State.
It is most interesting that a Senator can come to the floor of the Senate and tell us all something that is very important to his State, even though the State is a small State. It is great that our Constitution gives our States representation based upon statehood and not upon population of the State. I trust the administration and others will see fit to work with Senator Stevens so we will all be out of here before Christmas.
____________________
